J02_Beny_India Nawagaon Erosi SES Dan MMF

8/14/2019 J02_Beny_India Nawagaon Erosi SES Dan MMF

1/39

TERRAIN CHARACTERIZATION AND SOIL EROSION RISK

ASSESSMENT FOR WATERSHED PRIORITIZATIONUSING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS

SupervisorDr. Suresh Kumar

Agriculture & Soils Division

Indian Institute of Remote Sensing

By

Beny Harjadi


2/39

9: NW

10: MR

11: CH

5: GR

2: KH

3: BR

1: TF

4: SB

6: SH

7: ST

8: KR

Study Area ; Nawagaon Maskara Rao watershed covering 205.93 sq kmThe district of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (Northern India)

Av. Rainfall : 1162.9 mm/year, Av. Rainy days : 72 days

Temperature : min 15.1oC, max 29.4oC

Climate : Sub tropical semi arid

Geology : Shiwalik Hilly, Colluvial, Alluvial

Land use : Sal forest, crop land (wheat, maize, sugar cane, mango orchard)

0 10 km

N

Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed, Saharanpur


3/39

OBJECTIVES

- To characterize terrain

- morphometric terrain parameters

- soil hydrological characteristics

- to prepare land use/land cover map

- To prioritize sub watershed for conservation planning

based on

- Morphometric Indices (MI)

- Soil Erosion Status (SES),

- Morgan, Morgan & Finney (MMF) model


4/39


5/39

A. PREFIELD INTERPRETATION :A. PREFIELD INTERPRETATION :

- interpretation of satellite data for physiographic soil units- interpretation of satellite data for physiographic soil units

- to prepare drainage network map of the study area.- to prepare drainage network map of the study area.

B. FIELD WORK :B. FIELD WORK :

- training sets selection for land use/land cover- training sets selection for land use/land cover

- to observe of infiltration rate, soil sample collection for bulk- to observe of infiltration rate, soil sample collection for bulk

density and soil texture from the physiographic units.density and soil texture from the physiographic units.

- to observe and to characterize erosion features- to observe and to characterize erosion features

C. POST FIELD WORK :C. POST FIELD WORK :

- to analyse soil samples for sand, silt, and clay and for bulk density- to analyse soil samples for sand, silt, and clay and for bulk density

of each physiographic unitof each physiographic unit..

- Spatial data analysis for soil erosion assessment- Spatial data analysis for soil erosion assessment

DATA USED AND METHODOLGY


6/39


7/39

LISS IV, 28 Jan 2005

N

0 10 km

Standard False Colour Composite (Std. FCC) of the watershed


8/39

Physiographic soil map of the watershed

N

Source : IRS LISS IV Digital , Jan. 2005

0 10 km

S11S12S21S22S23S31S32P11P12P13

P21P22P23A11A12A13A2FPSTL

LEGEND


9/39

Table 1. Soil characteristics of various physiographicsoil map units

MU PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS SOIL ASSOCIATION

S11 Hilly Very Steep Dense/Mod. Forest Loamy Skeletal Typic Ustrochrepts

S12 Hilly Very Steep Open Forest Loamy Skeletal Typic Ustrochrpets

S21 Hilly Steep Dense/Mod. Forest Loamy Skeletal Typic Ustrochrpets

S22 Hilly Steep Open Forest Loamy Skeletal Typic Ustrohcrepts

S23 Hilly Steep Barren/Scrub Loamy Skeletal Typic Usthrochrpets

S31 Hilly Moderately Steep Dense Forest Coarse Loamy Usthrochrpets

S32 Hilly Moderately Steep Open Forest Loamy Skeletal Typic Ustrochrepts

P11 Upper Piedmont Gently Sloping Forest Coarse Loamy Typic Eutrochrepts

P12 Up Pied Gently Sloping Cultivated L.S. Typic Eutrochrepts, C.L. Typic Eutrochrepts

P13 U. P. Gently Sloping Partly Cultivated L.S. Typic Eutrochrepts, C. L. Typic Udorthents

P21 L.P. Very Gently Sloping Cultivated C.L. Typic Eutrochrepts

P22 L.P.Gently Sloping, Partly Cultivated C.L. Typic Eutrochrepts, C.L. Typic Udorthents

P23 L.P. Plain G. Sloping Barren Sc/Oc C.L. Typic Udorthents

A11 Allv Very Gently Sloping Cultivated F.L. Typic Eutrochrepts, C.L. Typic Eutrochrepts

A12 Allv Nearly Level Cultivated C.L. Fluventic Eutrochrepts, F.L.Fluv Eutrochrepts

A13 All Gently Sloping, Open Sc/Cultivated Coarse Loamy Typic Dutrochrepts

A2 Alluvial Nearly Level Fine Loamy Typic Eutrochrepts, F.L.T.Hapludalfs

FP Flood Plain, Cultivated/Open Scrub Coarse Loamy Typic Udifluvents


10/39

Land use / Land Cover map of the watershed

N

Source : IRS LISS IV Digital , Jan. 2005

0 10 km

WHV:Wheat (High vig)

WLV: Wheat (Low vig)OC: Orchard

DF: Mod. Dense Forest

OF: Open Forest

DS: Dense Scrub

BS: Barren/Scrub

CF: Current Fallow

ST: Settlement

RB: River bed

RV: River

LEGEND


11/39

SRTM Digital Elevation Model of the Watershed

Source : Internet EOS (Earth Observation Satellite)

N

319

417

515

614

712

810

0 10 km

LEGEND


12/39

Slope Classes in Percent (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978)

A: Nearly LevelB: Undulating

C: Rolling

D: Hilly

E: Steep

F: Very SteepG: Extremely Steep

Settlement

river

N

0 10 km

A : 0-2 %

B : 2-6%

C : 6-16%

D : 16-25%

E : 25-40%

F : 40-60%

G : > 60%

LEGEND


13/39

Drainage network in the sub-watershedN

0 10 km

1: Order 1

2: Order 2

3: Order 3

4: Order 45: Order 5

10: RiverSource : SOI Toposheet scale 1:50.000, 53 F (11, 12, 15 & 16)

LEGEND


14/39

Perimeter (k

P

C irculation R at

C R

Elongation R atMorphometric Indices Based on Drainage Network


15/39

NO SUB W. BR RR DD DF ER FF CR CP PRI

1Track Fallows 0.53 0.046 3.398 7.11 0.078 0.231 0.05 5.0 9

2Kharonwala R. 0.33 0.051 2.544 8.06 0.090 0.311 0.46 6.0 4

3Barkala Rao 0.40 0.059 3.236 9.81 0.092 0.328 0.54 5.6 7

4Sarbar Rao 0.24 0.033 2.810 8.78 0.082 0.261 0.07 5.9 5

5Galr Rao 0.29 0.047 2.781 7.01 0.071 0.194 0.41 4.9 11

6Shakumbari R 0.45 0.056 3.566 8.56 0.075 0.216 0.83 5.7 6

7Sahansra Th. 0.28 0.058 3.978 10.2 0.093 0.333 0.29 6.4 3

8Kahan Rao 0.26 0.058 3.464 10.9 0.086 0.287 0.33 5.6 8

9Nawagaon Rao 0.50 0.027 0.913 1.52 0.098 0.371 2.76 8.0 1

10Maskara Rao 0.62 0.017 1.599 1.41 0.096 0.354 2.94 8.0 2

11Chamarla Rao 0.21 0.062 3.239 8.92 0.072 0.197 0.66 5.0 10

Table 2. Priority of SW based on morphometric indices

BR :Bifurcation Ratio

RR :Relief Ratio

DD :Drainage Density

CR : Circulatory Ratio

CP : Compound Parameter

PRI :Priority

DF :Drainage Frequency

ER :Elongation Ratio

FF : Form Factor


16/39

9: NW

10: MR

11: CH

5: GR2: KH

3: BR

1: TF

4: SB

6: SH

7: ST

8: KRN

Source : Drainage Map from SOI Toposheet scale 1:50.000, 53 F

0 10 km

Morphometric Index Value for Priority of SW

8.0

7.4

6.8

6.1

5.5

4.9

LEGEND


17/39

Contour SRTM

Inter olation

DEM

Slope

Dx D

A Qualitative Method to compute SES (Soil Erosion Status)


18/39


19/39

Land Use S

LISS IV

SOI

Toposhe

A Quantitative Method of Soil Erosion Assessment based on MMF Model


20/39

Fig 14.

Soil Erosion Risk Assessment based on MMF Model

LEGEND

N

Source : Computed with formula MMF Model

0 10 km

VL: Very Low (0- 5 t/ha/yr)

L: Low (5-10 t/ha/yr)

M: Moderate (10-25 t/ha/yr)

H: High (25 -50 t/ha/yr)

VH: Very High (>50 t/ha/yr)

Settlement

River


21/39

Soil Erosion Risk Assessment Area (ha) IndexValue

Sub Watershed Code VL L M H VH Total Prior

Barkala Rao BR 2.63 14.55 95.8 225.46 13.26 393.21 32.7 5

Chamarla Rao CH 27.75 36.46 177.72 196.9 16.64 470.57 32.0 8

Galr Rao GR 26.81 56.18 281.04 483.27 84.87 997.32 33.5 1

Kahan Rao KR 50.06 80.95 246.42 632.49 73.49 1149.4 33.5 2Kharonwala R. KH 26.75 51.56 219.28 376.01 74.41 834.43 31.9 9

Maskara Rao MR 841.95 113.09 2556.4 524.64 0.34 5316.4 20.4 10

Nawagaon Rao NW 1181.7 618.25 2296.5 1089.3 45.77 7646.8 18.2 11

Sahansra Th. ST 16.67 53.51 259.99 527.19 82.32 1029.9 33.2 3

Sarbar Rao SB 33.12 52.64 239.85 499.99 116.84 1059.8 32.5 6

Shakumbari R. SH 59.85 83.17 386.16 602.19 76.51 1291.2 32.3 7

Track Fallows TF 5.13 19.23 100.59 180.42 14.84 343.94 33.2 4

2272.4 1179.6 6859.7 5337.9 599.29 20533

IV MMF = (VL*10+L*20+M*30+H*40+VH*50)/Total Area

Priority of Sub Watershed based on Index Value MMF


22/39

NO CD SUB WATERSHED MMF(Index values)

SES(Index values)

MORPHO(Index values)

1BR Barkala Rao 5 (32.73) 3 (25.17) 7 (5.57)

2CH Chamarla Rao 8 (31.97) 9 (20.11) 10 (5.00)

3GR Galr Rao 1 (33.49) 7 (21.59) 11 (4.85)

4KH Kharonwala R 9 (31.92) 8 (21.17) 4 (6.00)

5KR Kahan Rao 2 (33.49) 4 (25.16) 8 (5.57)

6MR Maskara Rao 10 (20.38) 11 (10.06) 2 (8.00)7NW Nawagaon Rao 11 (18.17) 10 (11.64) 1 (8.00)

8SB Sarbar Rao 6 (32.47) 6 (22.61) 5 (5.85)

9SH Shakumbari R 7 (32.34) 2 (25.31) 6 (5.71)

10ST Sahansra Th. 3 (33.24) 1 (25.56) 3 (6.43)

11TF Track Fallows 4 (33.18) 5 (24.29) 9 (5.00)

INDEX VALUE (IV) :

IV MMF = (VL*10 + L*20 + M*30 + H*40 + VH*50)/Total Area

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

CI = MI = Score (BR+RR+DD+DF+ER+FF+CR)/7

Table 4. Index values computed for the Prioritization of the sub-watershed

P i it f S b W t h d


23/39

9: NW

10: MR

11: CH

5: GR2: KH

3: BR

1: TF

4: SB

6: SH

7: ST

8: KR

GR: 1

KR: 2

ST: 3TF: 4

BR: 5

SB: 6

SH: 7

CH: 8

KH: 9

MR: 10NW: 11

9: NW

10: MR

11: CH

5: GR2: KH

3: BR1: TF

4: SB

6: SH

7: ST8: KR

ST

SH

BRKR

TF

SB

GR

KH

CH

NWMR

9: NW

10: MR

11: CH

5: GR2: KH

3: BR1: TF

4: SB

6: SH

7: ST8: KRNW

MR

STKHSBSHBRKRTF

CHGR

MMF SES MI

Priority of Sub Watershed

based on SES, MMF and MIMMF : Morgan,Morgan,Finney (Quantitative)

SES : Soil Erosion Status (Qualitative)

MI : Morphometric Indices

LEGEND

0 10 kmN

MMF

SES

MI


24/39

Methodology to suggest conservation measures

Field DataSoil Erosion

Class

LCC ErosionLCC Slope

Max (LCC Soil, LCC Slope, LCC Erosion)

Suggested conservation measures

Slope Class

Map

Physiographic

soil map

Soil Characteristics :

Texture, Drainage, Soil

Depth, Stoniness

RS DATA SRTM Soil Erosion based on

MMF model

Land use/

Land cover mapLand Capability Class

LCC Soil

Slope Map


25/39

Source : Soil, Slope, and Erosion Map

Calculated LCC with 3 factors :

Soil, Slope, & Erosion MMF

1

2

4

5

7

8 1

2

3

4

5

6

LCC_EROS

LCC_SOIL

LCC_SLOPE1

2

3

4

5

6

N

0 10 km


26/39

IIIIIIVV

VIVIIVIIISettlementRIVER

N

Source : Computed LCC based on Soil, Slope, and Erosion MMF Model

Land Capability Classification (LCC)

LEGEND

0 10 km

Kno ledge base matri to S ggest Conser ation Meas res


27/39

LU II III IV VI VII VIII ST River

1 WHV CB GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT - - - GB/CB/CT GB/CT

2 WLV CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT - - - GB/CB/CT GB/CT

3 OC CB GB/CT GB/CB/CT - - - GB/CB/CT CT

4 DF - CT GCD/CT GCD GCD GCD - GCD

5 OF - CT/P GCD/CT/ PTG GCD/PTG

GCD/PTG GCD/PTG SBP/PTG GCD/CT/PTG

6 DS-

SCT/PTG GCD/CT/ PTG GCD/PTG

GCD/GS/PTG

GCD/PTG

- GCD/CT/PTG

7 BS - SCT/PTG GCD/CT/ PTG GCD/PTG

GCD/PTG

GCD/PTG

- GCD/CT/PTG

8 CF CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT - - - GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT

9 ST ST ST - - - - ST ST

10 RB - - SBP/PTG - - - SBP/PTG SBP/PTG

11 RV RV RV RV RV - - ST RV

CT: Contour Trenching

CB : Contour BundingP : Plantation

GB : Grass Bunding

GCD : Gabbion Check DamGD : Grade Stabilizer

SBP: Stream Bank Protection

SCT: Staggered Contour TrenchesPTG: Plantation of Trenches & Grasses

Knowledge base matrix to Suggest Conservation Measures

S il C i M B d L d C bili & P L d U


28/39

CB

CB/CT

CT

CT/P

GB/CB/CT

GCD

GCD/CTGCD/CT/PTG

GCD/PTG

SBP/PTG

SCT/PTG

Settlement

River

Soil Conservation Measures Based on Land Capability & Present Land Use

N

0 10 km

CT : Contour Trenching

CB : Contour Bunding

P : Plantation

SCT : Staggered Contour Trenches

PTG : Plantation of Trenches & Grasses

SBP : Stream Bank Protection

GB : Grass Bunding

GCD : Gabbion Check Dam

GD : Grade Stabilizer

LEGEND


29/39

CONCLUSION

-

-The watershed divided into 11 sub watershed for soil conservation planning.

- Land cover map revealed that 37.28 % of area is under cropland whereas

moderate dense, degraded forest and barren/scrub comprises of 19.31, 16.46 and

3.27 per cent area, respectively in the watershed.

-

- The annual rate of soil loss based on MMF model reveals that

11.07 % area lies in very low risk of erosion (0 5 t/h/yr),

5.75 % under low risk of erosion (5 10 t/h/yr),

33.41 % under moderate risk of erosion (10 25 t/h/yr),

26.0 % under high risk of erosion (25 - 50 t/h/yr),

2.92 % under very high risk of erosion (>50 t/h/yr).

-

-

Sub-watersheds were prioritized based on the area falls under various erosionrisk classes for conservation planning.

-

-The study demonstrated the use ofRS and GIS in soil erosion risk assessment

by deriving soil and vegetation parameters required in the erosion models.


30/39


31/39

Table 1. Soil characteristics of various physiographicsoil map units

MU PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS MS BD K Area (ha)

S11 Hilly Very Steep Dense/Mod. Forest 0.15 1.6 0.47 143.27

S12 Hilly Very Steep Open Forest 0.15 1.55 0.46 2184.11

S21 Hilly Steep Dense/Mod. Forest 0.2 1.5 0.46 1855.77

S22 Hilly Steep Open Forest 0.2 1.5 0.45 992.44

S23 Hilly Steep Barren/Scrub 0.2 1.55 0.44 1431.08

S31 Hilly Moderately Steep Dense Forest 0.25 1.55 0.43 288.73

S32 Hilly Moderately Steep Open Forest 0.25 1.55 0.43 1162.05

P11 Upper Piedmont Gently Sloping Forest 0.25 1.45 0.4 338.76

P12 Upper Piedmont Gently Sloping Cultivated 0.25 1.45 0.35 2610.7

P13 Upper Pied Gently Sloping Partly Cultivated 0.15 1.45 0.38 244.71

P21 Lower Pied Very Gently Sloping Cultivated 0.28 1.3 0.37 102.1

P22 Lower Pied Gently Sloping, Partly Cultivated 0.28 1.3 0.37 1497.38

P23 Lower Pied Plain G. Sloping Barren Sc/Oc 0.28 1.35 0.35 1473.8

A11 Alluvial Very Gently Sloping Cultivated 0.2 1.2 0.32 442.18

A12 Alluvuial Nearly Level Cultivated 0.25 1.2 0.31 1665.32

A13 Alluvial Gently Sloping, Open Sc/Cultivated 0.25 1.3 0.32 220.6

A2 Alluvial Nearly Level 0.25 1.2 0.3 90.61

FP Flood Plain, Cultivated 0.28 1.25 0.29 252.81

STL Settlement/Habitation 322.11


32/39

3930.5

168.6

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

Area(ha)

WHV WLV OC DF OF DS BS CF ST RB RV

Land Use/Land Cove

Fig 5. Area of Land Use/Land Cover.


33/39

A : 0-1 %B : 1-3 %C : 3-5 %D : 5-10 %E : 1015 %F : 15-25%

G : 25-33 %H : 33-50 %I : > 50%SettlementRiver

N

Source : SRTM and Satellite Data Digital Liss IV

0 10 km

Fig 7. Slope Classes of Watershed based on SRTM & LISS IV

LEGEND


34/39

8 6 7 8 .

3 4 5 .0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

Area(ha)

A B C D E F G

S lo p e Cl a s


35/39

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100%

SESinvariousL,M,H

BR CH GR KH KR M R NW SB SH ST TF

Sub Watersh

High

Medium

Low


36/39

BR CH GR KH KR MRNW SB

SH STTF

SES

MMF

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

IndexValue

Sub Watershed

Method

Fig 17. Soil Loss of Quantitative MMF & Qualitative SES


37/39

63.1

5203.

0

1000

2000

3000

400

0

5000

6000

Area(h

a)

CB

CB/CT

CT

CT/P

G

B/CB/CT

G

CD

G

CD/CT

G

CD/CT/PTG

GCD/PTG

SBP/PTG

SCT/PTG

Settlement

River

Soil Conservation M easure


38/39

N

0 10 km

SLOPE CLASSES IN PERCENT (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978)

A : 0-2 %

B : 2-6%

C : 6-16%

D : 16-25%

E : 25-40%

F : 40-60%

G : > 60%

A: Nearly Level

B: Undulating

C: Rolling

D: Hilly

E: Steep

F: Very Steep

G: Extremely Steep

Settlement

river


39/39

There are 9 types suggested soil conservation

measurement in varous LCC and Land Use , viz :

- Contour Trenching (CT),

- Contour Bunding (CB),

- Plantation (P),

- Staggered Contour Trenches (SCT),- Plantation of Trenches & Grasses (PTG),

- Grass Bunding (GB),

- Gabbion Chek Dam (GCD),

- Graded Stabilizer (GS),- Stream Bank Protection (SBP)

J02_Beny_India Nawagaon Erosi SES Dan MMF

Documents

Transcript of J02_Beny_India Nawagaon Erosi SES Dan MMF