Part 4: Watershed Management

Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

THE STUDY ON INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION OF THE ANZALI WETLAND

FINAL REPORT Volume III Supporting Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 General...... 1-1 1.2 Scope of the Study...... 1-1 1.2.1 Study Area...... 1-1 1.2.2 Coverage of the Study...... 1-1 1.3 Composition of the Study Report...... 1-2

CHAPTER 2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE WATERSHED...... 2-1 2.1 Natural Conditions of the Watershed...... 2-1 2.1.1 Topography ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Major Rivers and Sub-watersheds ...... 2-1 2.1.3 Geology and Soil ...... 2-3 2.1.4 Vegetation ...... 2-9 2.1.5 Land Use...... 2-10 2.2 Socio-economic Conditions of the Watershed...... 2-13 2.2.1 Administration and Demography ...... 2-13 2.2.2 Household Income ...... 2-14 2.2.3 Job Opportunities in the Study Area ...... 2-14 2.2.4 Ethnicity ...... 2-14 2.3 Major Environmental Issues related to the Wetland...... 2-15 2.3.1 General ...... 2-15 2.3.2 Situation of Soil Erosion...... 2-15 2.3.3 Rangeland and Forest Degradation...... 2-20

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland i Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

CHAPTER 3 PRESENT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ...... 3-1 3.1 Institutional Framework...... 3-1 3.1.1 Laws and Regulations ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Organizations ...... 3-1 3.2 Current Soil Erosion Control...... 3-4 3.2.1 Direct Measures for Soil Erosion Control ...... 3-4 3.2.2 Prevention of Landslides and Slope Collapse...... 3-7 3.3 Present Forest and Rangeland Management...... 3-7 3.3.1 Jurisdiction of NRGO...... 3-7 3.3.2 Forest Management...... 3-9 3.3.3 Rangeland Management ...... 3-18 3.4 Plain Area Management...... 3-20 3.5 Major Management Issues and Possible Prospects under the Present Systems...... 3-21 3.5.1 Soil Erosion Control and Prevention of Land Slides ...... 3-21 3.5.2 Forest and Rangeland Management...... 3-22 3.5.3 Livestock Resettlement Program...... 3-24

CHAPTER 4 PROPOSED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 4-1 4.1 General...... 4-1 4.1.1 Objectives ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Strategies...... 4-1 4.1.3 Precondition/External Condition ...... 4-5 4.1.4 Components of the Watershed Management Plan ...... 4-6 4.2 Soil Erosion Control...... 4-6 4.2.1 Erosion Control ...... 4-6 4.2.2 Measures to Prevent Landslides and Slope Collapse...... 4-19 4.2.3 Effects of Soil Erosion Control Works ...... 4-20 4.3 Forest and Rangeland Management ...... 4-23 4.3.1 General ...... 4-23 4.3.2 Conduct of a Pilot Activity of Participatory Resource Management .. 4-23 4.3.3 Reforestation of Degraded Forests (70 km2)...... 4-27 4.3.4 Reforestation in the Margin Areas (112 km2)...... 4-30 4.3.5 Forest Management under the Forestry Plans ...... 4-32 4.3.6 Conservation of Protected Forests ...... 4-33 4.3.7 Rangeland Management by Graziers ...... 4-33 4.3.8 Preparation of Regulations Necessary for Participatory Resource Management ...... 4-38 4.3.9 Improvement of the Livestock Resettlement Program...... 4-38

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland ii Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

4.4 Plain Area Management (Countermeasures for Sediment Runoff)...... 4-40 4.4.1 Source-level Control of Sediment Runoff in the Plain Areas ...... 4-40 4.4.2 Measures to Control Inflow of Sediment into the Wetland...... 4-41 4.3.3 River Management for Extreme Conditions ...... 4-42 4.5 Livelihood Development ...... 4-42 4.5.1 Participatory Study on Livelihood Improvement of Graziers ...... 4-43 4.5.2 Capacity Development of NRGO Provincial and Local Offices...... 4-44 4.5.3 Livelihood Improvement of Local People in Forest and Rangeland Management...... 4-47 4.6 Environmental Monitoring ...... 4-51 4.6.1 General ...... 4-51 4.6.2 Monitoring of Soil Erosion Effect ...... 4-51 4.6.3 Monitoring of Land Use/Vegetation Cover...... 4-52 4.6.4 Monitoring of Rangeland Management...... 4-53 4.6.5 Monitoring of Forest Management ...... 4-54 4.6.6 Monitoring of the Livestock Resettlement Program...... 4-55 4.7 Institutional Arrangement ...... 4-56 4.7.1 Coordination among the Relevant Organizations ...... 4-56 4.7.2 Capacity Development for Sustainable Watershed Management...... 4-57

CHAPTER 5 COST ESTIMATE...... 5-1 5.1 Basic Conditions of Cost Estimate...... 5-1 5.1.1 Conditions and Assumptions...... 5-1 5.1.2 Cost Components...... 5-1 5.2 Cost Estimate...... 5-1 5.2.1 Project Cost...... 5-1 5.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost...... 5-11 5.2.3 Annual Cost Disbursement Schedule...... 5-11

CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM...... 6-1 6.1 General...... 6-1 6.2 Implementation Agencies...... 6-3 6.3 Evaluation of the Proposed Projects...... 6-3 6.3.1 Evaluation Criteria...... 6-3 6.3.2 Evaluation...... 6-4 6.3.3 Implementation Schedule ...... 6-5

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland iii Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

CHAPTER 7 PRIORITY PROJECTS...... 7-1 7.1 Priority Projects ...... 7-1 7.2 Outlines of the Priority Projects...... 7-1

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 RESULTS OF LANDSAT ANALYSIS...... A1-1 APPENDIX 2 MEASURES FOR LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE COLLAPSE...... A2-1

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland iv Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

List of Tables

Page Table 2.1.1 Sub-watersheds in the Study Area...... 2-3 Table 2.1.2 Land Use based on LANDSAT Images...... 2-10 Table 2.2.1 Population and Households in the Watershed ...... 2-13 Table 2.2.2 Job Opportunities created by Major Sectors...... 2-14 Table 2.3.1 Estimate of Annual Sediment Yield from Mountains ...... 2-18 Table 2.3.2 Estimate of Annual Sediment Yield from Plain Area...... 2-18 Table 2.3.3 Number of Affected Graziers...... 2-20 Table 2.3.4 Estimated Stocking Density of Livestock...... 2-21 Table 2.3.5 Degraded Area in Rangelands and Forests ...... 2-23 Table 2.3.6 Converted Area from Forests to Rangelands ...... 2-24

Table 3.2.1 Erosion Control Works implemented by MOJA Guilan...... 3-5 Table 3.2.2 Occurrence of Floods in the Study Area...... 3-6 Table 3.3.1 Areas managed by NRGO ...... 3-7 Table 3.3.2 Number of Employees in Local NRGO Offices...... 3-9 Table 3.3.3 Numbers and Types of Affected Graziers...... 3-12 Table 3.3.4 Accomplishment and Target for the Next 6-Year...... 3-12 Table 3.3.5 Implementation Schedule of the Resettlement Program ...... 3-13 Table 3.3.6 Outlines of Forestry Activities in the Four Sub-Watersheds...... 3-14 Table 3.3.7 Reforested Areas between 1981 and 2002...... 3-17 Table 3.3.8 Reforestation Areas by Sub-Watershed for the Last Five Years...... 3-17 Table 3.3.9 Eco-tourism Development Plan...... 3-18

Table 4.1.1 Components of the Proposed Plans and Their Responsible Organizations 4-6 Table 4.2.1 Details of Proposed Countermeasures per Unit Area...... 4-9 Table 4.2.2 Total Numbers of Measures in the Whole Watershed...... 4-10 Table 4.2.3 Unit Costs of Erosion Control Works ...... 4-11 Table 4.2.4 Suggested Countermeasures against Landslides ...... 4-20 Table 4.2.5 Estimates of Effect of the Erosion Control Works...... 4-21 Table 4.2.6 Summary of Effect of the Countermeasures...... 4-22 Table 4.3.1 Roles of NRGO and Outsourced Expertise ...... 4-25 Table 4.3.2 Recommended Silvicultural Practices...... 4-28 Table 4.3.3 Proposed Reforestation Schedules by Sub-watershed ...... 4-28

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland v Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

Table 4.3.4 Summary of Reforestation Plan for the Degraded Forests ...... 4-29 Table 4.3.5 Unit Costs of Reforestation Works ...... 4-29 Table 4.3.6 Potential for Grazing and Estimated Number of Livestock...... 4-30 Table 4.3.7 Outline of Reforestation Plan for the Margin Areas ...... 4-31 Table 4.3.8 Proposed Reforestation Schedules in the Margin Areas of each Sub- watershed...... 4-31 Table 4.3.9 Summary of Reforestation Plan for the Margin Area ...... 4-32 Table 4.3.10 Protected Areas in the Watershed ...... 4-33 Table 4.3.11 Estimated Remaining Graziers...... 4-34 Table 4.3.12 Study on Balance of Remaining Livestock and Stocking Capacity...... 4-34 Table 4.3.13 Proposed Activities for Empowerment of Graziers ...... 4-36 Table 4.3.14 Management Activities to be carried out by Graziers...... 4-36 Table 4.3.15 Total Volume of Works for Rangeland Management...... 4-37 Table 4.3.16 Organizations involved in the Resettlement Program...... 4-39 Table 4.4.1 Basic Plan of Construction of Sediment Traps...... 4-41 Table 4.5.1 Target Local People for Livelihood Development ...... 4-43 Table 4.5.2 Outline of the Participatory Study on Livelihood Improvement of Graziers ...... 4-43 Table 4.5.3 Results of the Participatory Study on Livelihood Improvement of Graziers ...... 4-44 Table 4.5.4 Total Costs of Works for Reforestation in the Margin Areas...... 4-48 Table 4.5.5 Estimated Annual Cash Income per Grazier from Forest Management in the Margin Areas ...... 4-48 Table 4.5.6 Costs of Works for Rangeland Management ...... 4-49 Table 4.5.7 Estimated Annual Cash Income from Rangeland Management...... 4-49 Table 4.6.1 Proposed Monitoring Plan on Erosion Control Work ...... 4-52 Table 4.6.2 Proposed Monitoring Plan on Present Land Use...... 4-53 Table 4.6.3 Present Activity of Agricultural and Natural Research Center of MOJA... 4-53 Table 4.6.4 Proposed Monitoring Plan on Rangeland Management...... 4-54 Table 4.6.5 Proposed Monitoring Plan for Forest Management...... 4-55 Table 4.6.6 Proposed Monitoring Plan on the Resettlement Program ...... 4-56

Table 5.1.1 Cost Components of the Project Costs...... 5-1 Table 5.2.1 Total Project Cost of the Watershed Management Plan ...... 5-2 Table 5.2.2 Cost Breakdown of the Project Cost...... 5-3

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland vi Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

Table 5.2.3 Total Operation and Maintenance Cost of the Watershed Management Plan ...... 5-11 Table 5.2.4 Summary of Annual Disbursement Schedule ...... 5-11 Table 5.2.5 Disbursement of the Project Cost for the 15 years ...... 5-12 Table 5.2.6 Disbursement of O&M Cost for the 15 Years...... 5-14

Table 6.1.1 Summary of Proposed Watershed Management Plan ...... 6-1 Table 6.3.1 Evaluation of Proposed Activities ...... 6-4 Table 6.3.2 Evaluation of the Sub-watersheds ...... 6-5 Table 6.3.3 Grade of Degradation by Sub-watershed ...... 6-5 Table 6.3.4 Proposed Implementation Schedule of the Watershed Management Plan.. 6-7

Table 7.1.1 Implementation Schedule of High Ranked Projects ...... 7-1 Table 7.2.1 Outlines of the Priority Projects ...... 7-2

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland vii Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

List of Figures

Page Figure 2.1.1 Typical Profile of the Anzali Watershed...... 2-1 Figure 2.1.2 Location of Major Rivers and Basin Boundaries in the Anzali Wetland Watershed ...... 2-2 Figure 2.1.3 Geological Map of the Anzali Wetland Watershed...... 2-5 Figure 2.1.4 Soil Map of the Anzali Wetland Watershed ...... 2-8 Figure 2.1.5 Land Use Map of the Anzali Wetland Watershed (MOJA 1993) ...... 2-11 Figure 2.1.6 Latest Land Use of the Anzali Wetland Watershed (August 2002) ...... 2-12 Figure 2.3.1 Major Environmental Issues ...... 2-15 Figure 2.3.2 Example of Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh) ...... 2-15 Figure 2.3.3 Example of Sheet Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh) ...... 2-16 Figure 2.3.4 Example of Sheet Erosion (Upper Reach of Khalkai) ...... 2-16 Figure 2.3.5 Example of Rill Erosion and Gully Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh) ... 2-16 Figure 2.3.6 Example of Gully Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh) ...... 2-17 Figure 2.3.7 Example of Erodable Valley (Upper Reach of Masuleh) ...... 2-17 Figure 2.3.8 Sediment Budget in the Watershed...... 2-18 Figure 2.3.9 Distribution Map of Landslide...... 2-19 Figure 2.3.10 A Vicious Cycle of Overgrazing and Land Degradation...... 2-20 Figure 2.3.11 Causes of Forest Degradation ...... 2-22 Figure 2.3.12 Degraded Rangelands and Forests based on Satellite Image Analysis ...... 2-23

Figure 3.1.1 Organization Structure of MOJA Headquarter...... 3-2 Figure 3.1.2 Organization Structure of NRGO Headquarter ...... 3-2 Figure 3.1.3 Organization Structure of MOJA Guilan...... 3-3 Figure 3.1.4 Organization Structure of NRGO Guilan ...... 3-3 Figure 3.2.1 Existing Execution and Preliminary Studies on Watershed Management.. 3-5 Figure 3.2.2 Erosion Control Works in Masuleh...... 3-6 Figure 3.3.1 Forests, Rangelands and Farmlands Managed by NRGO ...... 3-8 Figure 3.3.2 Organization Structure of the Conservation Committee in NRGO Guilan 3-10 Figure 3.3.3 Existing Protected Areas, Forestry Areas and Proposed Ecotourism Development Sites...... 3-15 Figure 3.5.1 Prospective Situation of Soil Erosion and Landslides ...... 3-22 Figure 3.5.2 Prospective Situation of Forests and Rangelands...... 3-24 Figure 3.5.3 Prospective Situation of the Resettlement Program...... 3-27

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland viii Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

Figure 4.1.1 Situation of Watershed and Management Issues ...... 4-1 Figure 4.2.1 Erosion Stages and Appropriate Countermeasures...... 4-7 Figure 4.2.2 View of the Model Area (Upper Reach of Masuleh) ...... 4-9 Figure 4.2.3 Proposed Erosion Control Works in the Upper Masulehroudkhan Sub- watershed...... 4-9 Figure 4.2.4 Proposed Sites of Erosion Control Works (Chafroud and Bahabar Sub- watershed)...... 4-12 Figure 4.2.5 Proposed Sites of Erosion Control Works (Morghak Sub-watershed)...... 4-13 Figure 4.2.6 Proposed Sites of Erosion Control Works (Khalkai and Plangvar Sub- watershed)...... 4-14 Figure 4.2.7 Proposed Sites of Erosion Control Works (Masulehroudkhan Sub- watershed)...... 4-15 Figure 4.2.8 Proposed Sites of Erosion Control Works (Shakhraz Sub-watershed)...... 4-16 Figure 4.2.9 Proposed Sites of Erosion Control Works (Pasikhan Sub-watershed) ...... 4-17 Figure 4.2.10 Condition of Existing Gabion Check Dams...... 4-18 Figure 4.2.11 Countermeasures against Landslides ...... 4-19 Figure 4.3.1 Tentative Work Schedule of the Pilot Activity...... 4-26 Figure 4.3.2 Tentative Work Schedule of Rangeland Management ...... 4-37 Figure 4.3.3 Proposed Organization Structure of the Conservation Committee of NRGO ...... 4-40 Figure 4.5.1 Tentative Work Schedule of the Pilot Activity...... 4-47

Figure 6.1.1 Watershed Management Plan...... 6-2

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland ix Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Table of Contents

List of Boxes

Page Box 3.3.1 Outline of the Livestock Resettlement Program ...... 3-10 Box 4.1.1 Paradigm Shifting in Resource Management in Other Developing Countries ...... 4-3

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland x Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General The watershed management plan is one of the components of the Master Plan Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been carried out by the JICA Study Team since February 2003. The Study itself aims to formulate an integrated master plan for conservation of the Anzali Wetland and develop the capacity of the organizations concerned through the course of the Study. The Anzali Wetland has a total catchment area of 3,610 km2. Needless to say, the sound management of the watershed is indispensable for the sustainable management of the Anzali Wetland. In general, the watershed has the following functions for the wetland. - Securing the quantity of water of major rivers entering the wetland - Supporting the bio-diversity of the wetland by provision of habitats of wildlife - Maintaining the quality of water of major rivers through reduction of sediment In case the watershed is not properly managed, it would lose the functions listed and cause the deterioration of wetland environment. Hence, this study report put its focus on identifying issues/limitations related to the watershed management and coming up with requisite countermeasures for maximizing the watershed’s functions to maintain the environment of the Anzali Wetland.

1.2 Scope of the Study 1.2.1 Study Area The study area is the entire watershed of the Anzali wetland. Administratively, the study area is under the jurisdictions of six (6) township offices, namely, Shaft, Fuman, Somehsara, Masal, Anzali and Rezvanshahr. On the other hand, the study area is topographically divided into the following land types: a) Plain and orchard area (25 m - 500 m) b) Forest area (500 m - 1,500/2,000m) c) Rangeland (1,500/2,000m - 3,000m)

1.2.2 Coverage of the Study The watershed ranges from plain areas to mountain peaks. In particular, the focus of the Study is put on: i) soil erosion control and prevention of land slides in the upper watershed; ii) forest and rangeland management; and iii) sediment control in the plain areas, and iv)

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 1 - 1 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 1

livelihood development of local people who reside in the mountains. These aspects of watershed management are significantly related to the environmental condition of the Anzali Wetland. Other aspects related to the wetland environment, such as Hydrology, Wetland Ecological Management, Urbanization, Wastewater Management and Solid Waste Management are discussed in other supporting reports.

1.3 Composition of the Study Report This report is composed of seven (7) chapters. In Chapter 1, the general background and coverage of the study are described. Chapter 2 shows the present condition of the watershed and issues related to the wetland environment. Chapter 3 clarifies the present management activities and the management issues/limitations. In Chapter 4, a watershed management plan containing necessary activities to improve the environmental situation of the watershed as well as the wetland is proposed. Chapter 5 gives the estimated costs of the proposed activities. An implementation schedule of the proposed watershed management plan is presented in Chapter 6. The last chapter, Chapter 7, introduces priority projects.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 1 - 2 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE WATERSHED

2.1 Natural Conditions of the Watershed 2.1.1 Topography The Anzali Wetland watershed is located approximately between N36 º 55’ to 37 º 32’ and E48º45’ to 49º42’ in the northern part of the country and along the coast of the Caspian Sea. The watershed ranges from about EL.-25 m at the Caspian Sea coast to about EL. 3,105 m in the mountains. The watershed of the Anzali Wetland is bordered by the fan of the Sefiroud River in the east, the Alborz Mountain chain to the south and west, and the Caspian Sea to the north. The watershed is geomorphologically divided into two (2) types of landforms, that is, i) lower plain flat land in the north and ii) mountainous area in the south. The lower plain flat land, the so called Anzali Plain, is approximately 60 km long and 20 to 40 km wide, and the mountainous area is approximately 70 km wide and 25 km long. The relation between the topography and land uses in the Anzali Wetland watershed is shown in Figure 2.2.1.

Figure 2.1.1 Typical Profile of the Anzali Watershed

2.1.2 Major Rivers and Sub-watersheds There are 10 major river systems entering the wetland. Nine (9) of them originate in the mountains in the study area, while the other, the Khomamroud River, runs westward from outside of the study area. The catchment area of the Anzali Wetland is about 3,610 km2 in total. Figure 2.1.2 presents the locations of the major rivers with their basin boundaries and Table 2.1.1 shows the areas of each basin, respectively.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 1 E 49o 00' E 49o 30' To Astra N CASPIAN SEA Rezvan Shahr

River N 37o 30' oud Chafr Anzali

Bahmbar River

ver To Kiyashahr Bargam Ri Morghak River r iver e man R r kai Riv Khomam sh River a Shande Khal ver rk Ri r Go ar

Rive rbazer alangv an P Pi r kh Rive River ud Zamzameh Masal od o r rru hr ive To Khoshkebijar

Manba er az R v Masule i

River Somehsara R

an

iyan Shakhr h

k

Ten i

m m River e Rasht

at as

nb Marjaghal P

Ma

hmoall

a

Khoni River Sh

er r

roud River v

ve

eh River i To Bahijan

Jird R

iava

S d u

oud Ri

Fuman ro

h

a n Si

a temaleh River r oharr osh G P kh Sangar ar Rive d odb u zru ro Shaft e Ga l a

h

G ruod gi

ahmaz Masuleh Si han eroudk Gasht ver Ri

bar ver r Ri e ho at iv C al R zar t Na la A r To Tehran yda H Siyah Mazgi

N 37o 00'

Legend Watershed Anzali Wetland Anzali Lagoon River City / Town Provincial Capital Road Scale 5 0 5 10 15 km

The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland Figure 2.1.2 in the Islamic Republic of Iran Location of Major Rivers and Basin Boundaries in the Anzali Wetland Watershed JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

2 - 2 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Table 2.1.1 Sub-watersheds in the Study Area

Sub-watershed River (Tributaries) Area (km2) Chafroud Chafroud 123.6 Bahmbar Bahmbar 141.4 Morghak Morghak (Shandarman, Gorkash, Zamzameh) 529.5 Khalkai Khalkai (Khoni, Shahmoallem) 494.4 Palangvar Plangvar (Manbarruod, Siavaroud) 213.1 Masulehroudkhan Masulehroudkhan 591.8 Pishroudbar Pishroudbar (Gazruodbar, Gashteroudkhan, Ghaleroudkhan) 467.4 Pasikhan Pasikhan (Siahmazgiruod, Chobar) 810.4 Pirbazer/Khomamroud Pirbazer (Siahroud, Gohrroud), Khomamroud 251.0 Total - 3,606.8 Source: JICA Study Team (2003)

2.1.3 Geology and Soil (1) Geology According to the Geological Map of Guilan Province shown in Figure 2.1.3 (published by Guilan Geological Project at the scale of 1: 250,000 in 1991 and modified after Quadrangle Maps (D2, D3, D4 and E3-4) published by the Geological Survey of the Iran), the geology of the watershed is roughly classified into two geological zones. The plain area in the northern part of the watershed is widely covered by the Quaternary geology, Pleistocene to recent sediments, whereas the mountainous area in the southern part is underlain by Pre-Tertiary geology, Lower Paleozoic to Neogene Formations and some intrusive rocks. The oldest bedrock in the watershed is the Pre-Paleozoic formation. It consists of green schist, gneiss biotite schist, schistose phyllite and mica schist, and outcrops mainly along the upstream of the Shiamazgiroud River, the Gashutroudkhan River, the east bank of the Masulehroudkhan River and the Morghak River. These rocks are well fractured and easily weathered and collapsed Above the Pre-Paleozoic formation is Paleozoic Formation, which is subdivided into two formations, namely the Lower Paleozoic formation and the Upper Paleozoic formation. The Lower Paleozoic formation, consisting of reddish arenaceous rock (sandstone), basaltic and andesitic rocks, red limestone, calcareous sandstone and marly limestone, is of limited occurrence in the watershed. The Upper Paleozoic formation, consisting of slaty to phillytic sediments, basic to andesitic volcanics and limestones, is widely developed along the upstream of the Khalkaii River, the Shahmoalem River and the Teniyan River. Among these formations, slaty to phillytic sediments are fractured and easily weathered and collapsed. Triassic-Jurassic, lower and upper Cretaceous formations are scattered around the eastern and western parts of the mountainous area, upstream of Masulehroud River and the south part of

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 3 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

the Rasht. The Quaternary zone is represented by marine and alluvial deposits that unconformably overlie the older formations. These deposits are distributed along the foot of the mountainous area and in the plain area and are unconsolidated and easily eroded and scoured. Along the foot of the mountainous area, recent deluvial and fluvial deposits are developed in the form of a narrow bank from east to northwest. In the plain area of the watershed, the underlying geology is older in the southern part than in the northern part and is subdivided into 1) lower alluvial, flood-plain and deltaic deposits (Q1al) distributed only along some rivers, specially in the eastern part of the watershed; 2) Pleistocene marine deposits (Q1m) distributed widely in the plain; 3) beach deposits (Q1b, Q2b) overlying Q1m in a narrow strip; 4) upper alluvium and flood plain deposits (Qal, Qle) distributed along the rivers; recent deposits (Qtv, Q2m, Qd) distributed along the Caspian Sea; and most recent deposits (Qdg), deposits of the Sefiroud River’s fan, distributed south-east of Rasht. Surface soils of the Plain are mainly formed from the marine deposits (Q1m, Q2m) and alluvium and flood plain deposits (Qal), (see Figure. 2.1.3).

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 4

The Study on Integrated Management for Figure 2.1.3 (1/2) Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland Geological Map of the Anzali Wetland in the Islamic Republic of Iran Watershed (Ministry of Interior Governorship of Guilan) JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

2 - 5

(Ministry of Interior Governorship of Guilan)

The Study on Integrated Management for Figure 2.1.3 (2/2) Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland Geological Map of the Anzali Wetland in the Islamic Republic of Iran Watershed (Legend)

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

2 - 6 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

(2) Soil According to the soil map of Guilan published by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1992, the surface condition of soils is grouped into two types, namely mountainous soils and plain soils. The mountainous soils, which are Lithic Leptosols, Dystric Cambisols, Humic Cambisols, Mollic Leptosols, Calcaric Regosols, Haplic Alisols, Gleyic Cambisols and Calcaric Cambisols, are distributed in the upper watershed. Lithic Leptosols and Mollic Leptosols are shallow soils (less than 30 cm soil over hard rock) or those with a high gravel content. Dystric Cambisols, Humic Cambisols, Gleyic Cambisols and Calcaric Cambisols are moderately developed soils characterized by slight or moderate weathering of the parent material and by the absence of appreciable quantities of accumulated clay, organic matter, aluminum or iron compounds. Calcaric Regosols are determined by the type of parent calcareous materials, and the subsoil generally reflects the weathered rocks on which the Regosols developed. Haplic Alisols are the product of intense weathering and generally have a high exchangeable aluminum content. Clay migration takes place and a dense clay accumulation layer occurs in the subsoil. In the plateau area, south and east part of Rasht, Haplic Alisols, Gleyic Luvisols, Dystric Cambisols and Gleyic Cambisols are distributed. In the plain areas, Eutric Cambisols, Eutric Gleysols, Eutric Fluvisols, Gleyic Cambisols Molilic Gleysols and Cacalic Regsols are distributed. These soils are formed by fluvial and Caspian Sea deposits. The soil map of the study area is presented in Figure 2.1.4.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 7

The Study on Integrated Management for Figure 2.1.4 Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland Soil Map of the Anzali Wetland Watershed in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Water and Soil Research Institute 1992) JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

2 - 8 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

2.1.4 Vegetation The vegetation in the watershed can be roughly divided, based on the present vegetation and topographic features, into five zones, namely (1) High mountain bare area, (2) High land grass area, (3) Forest area, (4) Plain area and (5) Wetland. (1) High Mountain Bare Area High mountain bare area, generally above the elevation of 2500 meters, is distributed along mountain ridges in the southern part of the watershed with little or no vegetation cover because of severe climatic conditions.

(2) High Land Grass Area High land grass areas are located along some mountain ranges and isolated hills between about 1,500 m and 2,500 m above sea level, where trees have difficulty in growing because of the unfavorable weather. (3) Forest Area Approximately 42% of the study area is covered by broad leaf forests, known as the Hyrcanian Forest, in a narrow band along the Caspian Sea. The area extends between elevation 2100 m and 200 m in general. The forests in the watershed can be divided into three types of forests depending on the elevation, namely, lower elevation forests; intermediate forests; and higher elevation forests. The higher elevation forests (EL. 800-2,100 m) consist of two associations of Fagetum hyrcanum, namely, Rusco-Fagetum on calcareous soil and Arctostaphylo-Fagetum on silt soil with acidic pH. In both associations Beech (Fagus orientalis) and Banyan-tree are the dominant tree species. Other important tree species are Carpinus betulus, Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus coriarifolia, Acer insign, and Quercus mucranthera, Carpinus betulus as well as Ulmus glabra on southern slopes. The intermediate forests (EL. 200-800 m) consist of Querco-Carpinetum and Parrotio-Carpinetum associations. The main species are Carpinus betulus, Quercus castaneifolia, Zelkowa carpinifolia, Acer insign, Alnus subcordata, Diospyrus lotus and Fraxinus coriarifolia. Lower elevation forests (below EL. 200 m) in the Querco-Buxetum association are composed of Alnus subcordata, Quercus castaneifolia, Gleditsia caspica, Carpinus betulus, Tilia begonifolia, Buxus sempervirens, Diospyrus lotus and Parotia persica. Among others, two species, Quercus castaneifolia and Buxus sempervirens, are scarce due to intensive cutting.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 9 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

(4) Plain Area The plain areas, generally below 100 meters, are used for farming of crops such as paddy, other horticulture crops, tea, and orchard, and for poplar plantation.

2.1.5 Land Use (1) Land Use and Vegetation in 1993 (based on the data of MOJA) Figure 2.1.5 shows the land use map of the Anzali Wetland watershed prepared by MOJA in 1993. Land uses are divided into 7 categories: farm land, rangeland, forest and savanna, uncultivated, damp land, surface water, urban and infrastructure. Furthermore, the farm lands are divided into eight farming types. Of these eight categories, three, such as low or no limitation farm land, mixed cultivation, and orchard farm land, are dominant in the study area. Almost all forests are dense and mainly located in the upper watershed, but some semi-dense forests are also found at high altitude.

(2) Changes of Land Uses between 1987 and 2002 The Study Team analyzed LANDSAT satellite images to grasp the present land use in the study area as well as changes during the last decade. Satellite images captured in different years, namely, July 1987; June 1991; and August 2002, were used for analysis. As a result of the satellite image analysis, the present land uses of the study area were classified into eight (8) categories as shown below. The land use of the watershed in August 2002 is presented in Figure 2.1.6.

Table 2.1.2 Land Use based on LANDSAT Images July 1987 June 1991 August 2002 Category km2 % km2 % km2 % Lagoon/Pond 57.5 1.6 57.7 1.6 45.5 1.3 Wetland 72.0 2.0 61.0 1.7 118.0 3.3 Orchard 460.2 12.8 467.7 13.0 311.2 8.6 Paddy/Farmland 1,073.6 29.8 1,062.6 29.5 962.5 26.7 Forest 1,331.6 36.9 1,401.3 38.9 1,513.5 42.0 Rangeland (Mountain Grass) 73.6 2.0 211.2 5.9 107.7 3.0 Bare land 356.8 9.9 145.1 3.9 255.9 7.1 Urban area (Include Road) 181.4 5.0 200.2 5.6 292.4 8.0 Total 3,606.8 100.0 3,606.8 100.0 3,606.8 100.0 Source: JICA Study Team (2003)

Results of the satellite image analysis are compiled in Attachment-1. Some findings in the land use analysis are highlighted as below.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 10

The Study on Integrated Management for Figure 2.1.5 Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland Land Use Map of the Anzali Wetland Watershed in the Islamic Republic of Iran (MOJA 1993) JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

2 - 11

The Study on Integrated Management for Figure 2.1.6 Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland Latest Land Use of the Anzali Wetland Watershed in the Islamic Republic of Iran (August 2002) JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

2 - 12 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

a. There was no change in the area of lagoon/pond between 1987 and 1991, while the area decreased for the decade (1991-2002) by 12.2 km2. The decrease of lagoon/pond was caused by the reclamation of ponds. b. The wetland increased from 61 km2 to 118 km2 between 1991 and 2002. It was caused by the expansion of the same vegetation as that in the wetland. c. Paddy/farmland reduced by about 100 km2 from 1991 to 2002. It is probably attributed to the increase of tree plantations (poplar plantation) in the plain area. d. Consequently, it is assumed that the expansion of forests from 1,401 km2 to 1,513 km2 between 1991 and 2002 were owing to the conversion of farmlands to tree plantations. e. The areas of rangeland (mountain grasses) and bare land have fluctuated year by year. This is mainly because: - the bare land in 1987 might include opened forests since clear cutting was the main practice of forest exploitation in the 1980’s; and - the weather conditions in the respective years might affect the growth of grasses in the rangeland. d. The sum of rangeland and bare land has not changed since 1991 (356 km2 in 1991 and 363 km2 in 2002), though the areas of rangeland and bare land have fluctuated in the same period. It is, therefore, speculated that the total of rangeland and bare land would be approximately 360 km2.

2.2 Socio-economic Conditions of the Watershed 2.2.1 Administration and Demography The entire watershed covers six (6) townships or 38 Shahrs/Dehestans in Guilan province. Based on the 1996/97 census, a total of 512,000 families live in Guilan province and more than 50% of them reside in the study area. Demographic data of the study area are summarized as follows: Table 2.2.1 Population and Households in the Watershed

Township No. of Shahrs/Dehestans Total Families Total Population Rasht 9 169,126 713,913 Anzali 3 29,180 120,471 Somehsara 8 30,789 136,710 Shaft 6 14,392 70,292 Fuman 7 22,635 103,192 Masal 5 9,713 46,572 Subtotal 38 275,754 1,191,150 Provincial total - 512,007 2,241,896 Source: Statistical Year Book of Guilan 2002/2003, Guilan Statistical Yearbook 1381

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 13 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

2.2.2 Household Income According to the Provincial Statistical Yearbook of Guilan (1381), the average annual net incomes of households in urban and rural areas in Guilan province are 20.6 and 16.0 million Rials/annum/family, respectively. The Statistical Yearbook also shows the major sources of income in the study area, which are: - Agricultural sector (Rice farming, Livestock grazing, Industrial cattle raising, Poultry raising, Sericulture, Fish culture, and Horticulture); - Industry sector (Food, Non-metal minerals, Textile, Chemicals, Metal industries and Handicrafts); and - Service sector (Public service, Transportation and storage, Hotel and restaurant and Trading).

2.2.3 Job Opportunities in the Study Area The agriculture sector creates jobs for about 35% of the workforce in the study area, while the service sector also absorbs about 41% of the workforce. About 23% of the workforce in the study area engage in the industry sector. Table 2.2.2 shows the job opportunities created by each sector in the study area.

Table 2.2.2 Job Opportunities Created by Major Sectors Township Agriculture Industry Services No. Share (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (%) Rasht 48,220 24 53,760 27 95,140 48 Somehsara 23,410 57 4,630 11 13,360 32 Shaft 12,490 61 2,990 15 5,070 25 Fuman 19,170 53 7,080 20 9,460 27 Masal 7,730 58 1,560 12 4,030 30 In the Study area 111,020 35 70,020 23 127,060 41 Provincial total 249,200 40 129,330 21 243,180 39 Source: Statistical Year Book of Guilan 2002 2.2.4 Ethnicity A variety of ethnic groups reside in the study area without any social conflicts. The main ethnic groups are Talesh, Gilak and Azari (Turk). Among others, Taleshs constitute the majority in the study area. They can be divided into two (2) groups by location, that is, plains and mountains. People in the mountains rear sheep and lead a semi-nomadic lifestyle, while those on the plains engage in rice farming. Taleshs can be recognized by their language, clothing, housing, culture, and way of livestock farming, although their style has been changing rapidly. The livestock farming methods that Taleshs used to operate, which is close to a nomadic life-style, have undergone major changes and presently are on the verge of disappearing as a result of government policies and programs. Due to changes in the animal

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 14 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

husbandry methods and restrictions on the uses of forests and rangelands, their housing style has also changed from the traditional type (tents and wooden huts) to a modern one (wooden cottages with mud, stone, cement, bricks, etc.).

2.3 Major Environmental Issues related to the Wetland 2.3.1 General The most critical issue in relation to the environment of the Anzali wetland is the inflow of sediment Forest & Rangeland Degradation from the watershed. All soil Soil Erosion and Land Slides erosion processes from sheet erosion Forests / Rangeland Inflow of Sediment to gully erosion are found in the upper watershed, especially the rangelands. Soil erosion is caused mainly by rangeland degradation. Plain area In addition to rangeland degradation, Wetland forests in the area have also been Figure 2.3.1 Major Environmental Issues degraded, which has drawn the government’s attention recently.

2.3.2 Situation of Soil Erosion The rangelands in the upper part of the watershed, the area from EL. 1,500 m to 2,500 m in general, have been used for grazing. Overgrazing has been the principal cause of rangeland degradation. (1) Erosion Process Overgrazing spurs erosion Figure 2.3.2 Example of Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh) processes in the rangelands of the watershed. The initial stage of the erosion is generally known as sheet erosion (see Figures 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4). At this stage, surface soils are thinly eroded with roots of grass, and grass lands change to bare land.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 15 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Figure 2.3.3 Example of Sheet Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh)

Figure 2.3.4 Example of Sheet Erosion (Upper Reach of Khalkai)

The next stage of erosion is called rill erosion. Rill erosion occurs as small channels develop over the soil surface (Figure 2.3.5). After this, rill erosion develops into gully erosion with wider and deeper channels and a large amount of debris flowing down with water into rivers (Figures 2.3.5 and 2.3.6).

Figure 2.3.5 Example of Rill Erosion and Gully Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh)

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 16 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Figure 2.3.6 Example of Gully Erosion (Upper Reach of Masuleh)

Flowing water from a rill/gully channel erodes river beds and river side walls (Figure 2.3.7), and causes landslides and slope failures. Landslides and slope failures release enormous amount of sediments into a river, and creates debris flow and floods. At this stage, it is necessary to construct a check dam, such as a gabion check dam, stone masonry check dam, concrete check dam and/or some kinds of channel works that decrease riverbed gradient.

Figure 2.3.7 Example of Erodible Valley (Upper Reach of Masuleh)

(2) Estimated Release of Sediment from the Watershed To grasp the effect of sediment from the watershed on the wetland, the Study Team estimated the sediment yields from the upper watershed by using two (2) empirical models, namely, Erosion Potential Method (EPM) and Pacific Southwest Inter-agency Committee Method (PSIAC). Details of the models used were explained in the Supporting Report Part 2 “Hydrology”. The estimation reveals that a total of 326,000 tons/year of sediment are released from the upper watershed.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 17 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Table 2.3.1 Estimate of Annual Sediment Yield from Mountains (Unit: m3/year) Sub-watershed Forest Grassland Bare land Total Chafroud 5,000 1,500 6,000 12,500 Bahmbar 2,000 0 0 2,000 Morghak 11,000 3,500 29,000 43,500 Khalkai 12,000 3,000 26,500 41,500 Palangvar 6,500 0 0 6,500 Masulehroudkhan 18,000 5,000 33,000 56,000 Pishroudbar 16,000 1,000 8,000 25,000 Pasikhan 22,000 2,000 34,000 59,500 Pirbazer 4,000 0 0 4,000 Total (m3/yr) 96,500 16,000 136,500 250,000 Total (ton/yr) *1 125,500 20,800 177,500 326,000 Note: *1: Assuming soil bulk density of 1.3 ton/m3 Source: JICA Study Team (2003)

Sediment is also released from the plain areas, such as paddy fields, other farms and pasture lands, river-bank erosion and urban areas. In total, the sediment release from the plain area is estimated at 74,000 ton/year. Detailed estimation is presented in the Supporting Report Part 2.

Table 2.3.2 Estimate of Annual Sediment Yield from the Plain Areas

Source Quantity Sediment Rate Total (ton/km2/yr) (ton/yr) (%) Rice paddy 1,280 km2 21 26,900 47 Farm and pasture land 240 km2 100 24,000 32 River bank 111,300 m 0.05 5,600 10 Urban runoff 60 km2 100 6,000 10 Total (ton/yr) *1 - - 74,000 100 Note: *1: Assuming soil bulk density of 1.3 ton/m Source: JICA Study Team (2003) (3) Sediment Transport and Deposition Mechanism The amount of sediment reaching the wetland Mountain Area Sediment Yield; 326 was estimated using the HEC-6 computer (280 to 372) Deposition in Plain Area Anzali software, which has the capability to simulate Sediment Yield ; Wetland; 110 74 Discharge transport and deposition of sediment along to Caspian Sea; 290 rivers. Figure 2.3.8 summarizes the quantity of the mountain-derived sediment, plain-derived sediment, and sediment mountain plain wetland Measurement Measurement transport in the watershed. The resulting (MOE); 158 (MOE); 394 inflow of the sediment to the wetland is (Unit: 1,000 ton/yr) approximately 400,000 tons/year. Figure 2.3.8 Sediment Budget in the Watershed

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 18 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

(4) Landslide A number of roads have been constructed in the forestland for timber transport and regional development. Unfortunately, these roads were constructed based on the standard cross-section designed for an area with stable geology, and no slope protection was installed. For this reason, slope collapse and landslides are common in geologically unstable areas. In the sections where a slope collapse or landslides have occurred, no countermeasure is taken due to lack of technique and finance. This leads to secondary slope collapse and landslides when in heavily rains and/or snow melts. According to the GIS Center of MOJA Guilan, there are 20 landslides in the Anzali Wetland Watershed.

Source: MOJA Guilan Watershed Management Office GIS Center

Figure 2.3.9 Distribution Map of Landslide

Among 20 landslides, 5 landslides are located near Masuleh town, and others are in Morghac Watershed (2), Khalkai Watershed (3), Palangvar Watershed (3) and Shakhraz Watershed (7), and all landslides are in the upper watershed.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 19 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

2.3.3 Rangeland and Forest Degradation (1) Causes of Rangeland Degradation

As described in the Limited Livelihood Overgrazing Ineffective land management aforementioned section,

Increase of overgrazing is considered a Land degradation livestock density direct cause of the degradation of rangelands in Reduction of Decrease of no. rangelands Soil erosion the upper watershed. This of livestock issue is closely related to the Increase of Increase of socio-economic situation of poverty sediment inflow graziers (who operate grazing activities in the upper Figure 2.3.10 A Vicious Cycle of Overgrazing and Land Degradation watershed). Since they are economically-disadvantaged and less educated people, their sources of income are very limited and livestock grazing is a sole livelihood in many cases. A vicious cycle shown in Figure 2.3.10 has already been constructed in the upper watershed. An inventory survey conducted by Natural Resources General Office (NRGO) in 1984 revealed about 3,900 families of graziers and 430,930 units1 of livestock residing in the forests and using the rangelands for grazing. No inventory survey about the number of graziers and livestock in the area has been carried out since then. According to the staff of NRGO Guilan, graziers, who reside in forests, make up 80~90 % of the total registered graziers in the watershed. Consequently, the total numbers of graziers and livestock in the upper watershed are estimated to be about 4,600 and 507,000, respectively (see Table 2.3.3).

1 NRGO uses the unit to estimate the livestock intensity in the rangeland and forest, in which one head of goat/sheep is counted as one unit while one head of cattle is regarded as 5 units. Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 20 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Table 2.3.3 Number of Affected Graziers

Graziers in Livestock in Estimated Estimated Sub-watershed Forests Forests Grazier s*1 Livestock *1 (families) (units) (families) (units) No. 10 (Chafroud) 344 24,398 405 28,704 No. 11 (Morghak) 610 59,059 718 69,481 No. 12 (Khalkai) 373 70,647 439 83,114 No. 13 (Palangvar) 438 44,322 515 52,144 No. 14 (Masulehroudkhan) 495 75,190 582 88,459 No. 15 (Ghalaroudkhan) 432 41,024 508 48,264 No. 16 (Siahmazgiroud) 317 22,806 373 26,831 No. 17 (Pasikhan) 681 70,708 801 83,186 No. 18 (Siahroud) 238 13,541 280 15,931 Total of Anzali watershed 3,928 430,930 4,621 506,976 Note: *1: No. of livestock units is estimated assuming 85 % of graziers and livestock stay in forests. Source: NRGO Chalues

According to the Rangeland Management Department of NRGO, the total number of permitted livestock in the watershed is 162,152 units, which is far below the estimated number (506,980 units). Assuming the number of livestock has not changed since 1984, the stocking density of livestock in the study area is estimated at 11.5 units/ha, while that of the permitted is estimated at 3.7 units/ha. The data support the observation of overgrazing issue in the rangeland.

Table 2.3.4 Estimated Stocking Density of Livestock

Grassland (ha) Estimated Livestock Permitted Livestock Stocking Density (units/ha) *1, *2 (unit) (unit) <1 Actual Permitted 44,126 506,976 162,152 11.5 3.7 Note: *1 – Data are obtained from the Rangeland Management Department of NRGO, Guilan. *2 – Grassland consists of the rangeland and grasslands in the forest. Source: NRGO, Guilan and Estimation of JICA Study Team

(2) Causes of Forest Degradation As a whole, the condition of forests in the upper watershed is relatively good. However, parts of the forests have been degraded since 1963, although the total area of forests in the Study area has increased for the last decade. Considerable causes of forest degradation are enumerated in Figure 2.3.11.

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 21 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Commercial timber exploitation in 1962: When the ownership of forests was transferred to the Commercial timber present Government, many forests were exploited by exploitation commercial cutting. in 1962 Collection of Fuel wood Disturbance Forest dwellers (graziers or others) have cut trees for Collection of by existing fuel wood / charcoal making. Fuel wood livestock Tree cutting for other domestic uses Trees have also been cut by forest dwellers (graziers ForestForest or others) for domestic uses, such as housing DegradationDegradation materials, etc. Illegal cutting by outsiders Tree cutting Expansion of Forests have been damaged by illegal cutting By graziers for Grazing area activities by outsiders (persons who stay outside the Domestic uses forest). Expansion of grazing area Illegal cutting by outsiders When the forest gets sparse, graziers have opened the forest for grazing. Disturbance by existing livestock Regeneration capacity of the forest has declined Causes of Forest Degradation because livestock cause damage to saplings by eating / trampling.

Figure 2.3.11 Causes of Forest Degradation

One of the major causes of deforestation in the upper watershed is overexploitation around the time the ownership of royal forests was transferred to the Government in 19632. Traditional exploitation for domestic uses (fuel, charcoal making, housing materials, etc.) by forest dwellers as well as outsiders (who live in the plain area) has also caused forest degradation. Many NRGO workers also pointed out that grazing activities in forests have caused damage to forests and eventually changed the vegetative composition, and if anything, degraded forests were converted to grasslands for grazing. For instance, the area above EL. 1,500 m in the upper reaches of the Morgahk River, Masulehroudkhan River and Khalkaii River were originally forest areas, but are presently used for grazing as rangelands.

(3) Identified Degraded Areas The Study team identified degraded areas of both rangelands and forests using the latest LANDSAT images (2002) and employing the following assumptions. a. Forests fully extended in the areas below 1,500 m above see level in 1963. b. The areas between 1,500 m and 2,000 m were covered by either forests or grasses in 1963. c. Very poor vegetated lands or bare lands dominantly extended in the areas above 2,500 m in 1963.

2 Law of Land Reform, which enacts that all the natural lands shall be owned by the Government, was declared in 1962. Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 22 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

In short, poor vegetated areas or bare lands between 1,500 m and 2,000 m are considered as degraded rangelands, while grasslands located below 1,500 m are regarded as degraded forests. The analysis shows that about 77 km2 of rangelands and about 70 km2 of forests are in degraded condition. Table 2.3.5 shows the degraded areas by sub-watershed and Figure 2.3.12 presents the location of the degraded areas.

Table 2.3.5 Degraded Area in Rangelands and Forests

Sub-watershed Area (ha) Rangelands Forests Area (ha) Share (%) Area (ha) Share (%) 1)Chafroud 12,020 324 3 1,443 12 2)Bahambar 2,950 0 0 0 0 3)Morghak 24,810 2,017 8 1,094 4 4)Khalkai 23,870 1,566 7 1,268 5 5)Plangvar 11,620 0 0 194 2 6)Masulehroudkhan 33,240 1,328 4 1,664 5 7)Shakhraz 24,200 196 1 46 0 8)Pasikhan 39,010 2,235 6 932 2 9)Siahroud 8,020 0 0 337 4 Total area 184,290 7,666 4 6,969 4 Source: JICA Study Team

Legend

Bahambar Morghak Watershed Degraded Forest Watershed

Degraded Rangeland

Khalkai Watershed

Palangvar Watershed Masulehroudkha Watershed n Siahroud Shakhraz Watershed Watershed

Pasikhan Watershed

Figure 2.3.12 Degraded Rangelands and Forests based on Satellite Image Analysis

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 23 Final Report, Volume III Part 4: Watershed Management Supporting Report Chapter 2

Another comparative study3of present land use with that in the 1960s showed that about 112 km2 of grasslands along the boundaries between rangelands and forests have been converted from forests to grasslands since the 1960s. The breakdown of the converted areas is tabulated below.

Table 2.3.6 Converted Area from Forests to Rangelands

Sub-watershed Area (ha) Rangelands Area (ha) Share (%) 1)Chafroud 12,020 1,650 14 2)Bahambar 2,950 0 0 3)Morghak 24,810 2,510 10 4)Khalkai 23,870 2,900 12 5)Plangvar 11,620 210 2 6)Masulehroudkhan 33,240 1,040 3 7)Shakhraz 24,200 1,950 8 8)Pasikhan 39,010 970 2 9)Siahroud 8,020 0 4 Total area 184,290 11,230 6 Source: JICA Study Team

3 The study was undertaken by JICA Study Team together with NRGO in 2004. Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. The Study on Integrated Management for Ecosystem Conservation of the Anzali Wetland 2 - 24