Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab State

Assessment of Soil Erosion Status in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab State

PUNJAB

नोएडा कᴂद्र/Noida Centre

भारतीय मृदा एवं भू-उपयोग सवेक्षण Soil and Land Use Survey of India कृषि, सहकाररता एवं ककसान क쥍याण षवभाग

Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare

कृषि एवं ककसान क쥍याण मंत्रालय भारत सरकार Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Government of India 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. C.L. Meena Asstt. Field Officer Sh. Ravi Gautam Asstt. Field Officer Dr. Ravi Ex. Field Officer

Team Members :- Dr. Sonam Binjola Chamoli Asstt. Field Officer Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh Asstt. Field Officer Dr. Subodh Panwar Asstt. Field Officer 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 4-6 2.1 Location and Extent 4 2.2 Geology 4 2.3 River and Drainage system 5 2.4 Physiography and Relief 5 2.5 Climate 5 2.6 Flora and Fauna 5 2.7 Land Use and Agriculture 6 3 METHODOLOGY 8-12 3.1 Use of High Resolution Satellite Image 8 3.2 Onscreen Pre-Field Image Interpretation at Cadastral Scale & preparation 9 of Image Analysis Map (IAM) 3.3 Ground Truth Verification and Quality Assessment (QA)/Quality Check 9 (QC) 3.4 Correlation of Image Analysis Map with Integrated Soil Legend, Onscreen 10 Transformation 3.5 Delineation and Codification of Micro watersheds 11 3.6 Lab Data Analysis 11 3.7 Digital Maps Generation and Reports Preparation 12 3.8 Report Submission to User Department 12 4 DEVELOPMENT OF RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAPPING UNIT 14 (RPMU) LEGEND 5 SOILS OF THE AREA 22-23 5.1 Morphology 22 6 ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING OF THE SURVEYED AREA 24-37 6.1 Physiography Classes 24 6.2 Slope Classes 25 6.3 Surface Texture 27 6.4 Depth Classes 27 6.5 Land Capability Classification 31 6.6 Analysis of Soil Erosion Status 37 7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND PRIORITY 39-43 CATEGORIZATION 7.1 Soil Erosion Risk Categories in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur 42 District, Punjab 7.2 Priority Categorization of Villages in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, 43 Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 8 SALIENT FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48-50 Tables 1 Legend Description Punjab Shivalik Hills, Hoshiarpur Forest Division, 14 Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 2 Areal Extent of Different Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMUs) 20

S. No. Particulars Page No. 3 (a) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Physiography Class in 24 Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 3 (b) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Slope Class in 25 Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 3 (c) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Surface Textural Class 27 in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 3 (d) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Depth Class in 28 Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 3 (e) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Erosion Class in 37 Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab 4 (a) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Slope Factor 39 4 (b) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Land Cover Factor 40 4 (c) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Soil Depth Factor 41 4 (d) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Soil Texture Factor 41 4 (e) Weightage Runoff Potential value for Erosion Factor 41 4 (f) Weightage, Delivery Ratio and RP values for Erosion Factor 42 4 (g) Weightage RP values for Management 42 5 Areal extent of area under different Soil Erosion Risk categories 43 6 Village Wise Priority Categorization 43 7 Distribution of Villages of Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur Forest 46 Division, Hoshiarpur District under different Priority Categories Figures 1 Flow Chart of Remote Sensing based Methodology for Erosion 13 Assessment in Shivalik Hills of Punjab State Thematic Maps Location Map of Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur Forest Division, 7 Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Spatial Distribution of Area under Slope Classes in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, 26 Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Textural Classes in Hoshiarpur Forest 29 Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Depth Classes in Hoshiarpur Forest 30 Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Spatial Distribution of Area under Land Capability Classes (LCC) in Hoshiarpur 36 Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Erosion Classes in Hoshiarpur Forest 38 Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Erosion-Risk Category in Hoshiarpur 44 Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab Priority Categorization of Villages in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur 45 District, Punjab Annexure I Village-wise Distribution of Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMU), 51-100 Risk Category, Runoff Potential Index (RPI) and Erosion class in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab PHOTOGRAPHS VILLAGE WISE MAPS

ABSTRACT 1. Surveyed Area : Soil Erosion Mapping in Sub-mountain of Shivalik Hills in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab State for identification and mapping of area under different erosion risk categories and prioritization of villages based on Runoff Potential Index.

2. Location : 31o52'15'' to 31o18'00'' to North Latitudes 76o53'04'' to 75o48'30'' East Longitudes

3. Total Area Surveyed : 57,558 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) 12579 21.85 2. Slight to moderate erosion (e1-e2) 787 1.37 3. Moderate erosion (e2) 33894 58.89 4. Moderate to severe erosion (e2-e3) 3165 5.50 5. Severe erosion (e3) 3545 6.16 6. Severe to very severe erosion (e3-e4) 260 0.45 7. Very severe erosion (e4) 682 1.18 8. Landslide 2 0.003 9. Brick Kiln 15 0.03 10. Canal 9 0.02 11. Dam 8 0.01 12. Factory 72 0.13 13. Habitation 804 1.40 14. River 1325 2.30 15. Water bodies 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

9. Priority Categorization

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

1. Very High (above 70) 3 2517 4.37 2. High (66-70) 16 23290 40.46 3. Medium (61-65) 26 24237 42.11 4. Low (56-60) 30 6823 11.85 5. Very Low (55 & below) 4 691 1.20 GRAND TOTAL 79 57,558 100.00

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

Runoff Potential S. RPMU Mapping Unit Risk Category Area (ha) Area (%) No. Weightage Alluvio-Colluvium Landscape 1 AC08 67 High 30 0.05 2 AC02 63 Medium 804 1.40 3 AC04 63 Medium 509 0.88 4 AC05 62 Medium 381 0.66 5 AC01 57 Low 8075 14.03 6 AC06 57 Low 1106 1.92 7 AC07 57 Low 2390 4.15 8 AC03 55 Very Low 2482 4.31 Alluvium Landscape 9 AL05 57 Low 155 0.27 10 AL06 56 Low 673 1.17 11 AL08 59 Low 371 0.64 12 AL09 57 Low 121 0.21 13 AL02 55 Very Low 1517 2.64 14 AL03 54 Very Low 114 0.20 15 AL04 53 Very Low 102 0.18 Sandstone Landscape 16 SD13 79 Very High 127 0.22 17 SD14 74 Very High 293 0.51 18 SD15 71 Very High 1503 2.61 19 SD20 83 Very High 417 0.72 20 SD21 79 Very High 1876 3.26 21 SD24 74 Very High 1193 2.07 22 SD25 87 Very High 88 0.15 23 SD26 72 Very High 3823 6.64 24 SD27 83 Very High 1134 1.97 25 SD28 88 Very High 87 0.15 26 SD29 87 Very High 125 0.22 27 SD30 72 Very High 873 1.52 28 SD31 92 Very High 50 0.09 29 SD46 73 Very High 260 0.45 30 SD16 66 High 3297 5.73

31 SD18 66 High 6409 11.13 32 SD19 70 High 3235 5.62 33 SD35 66 High 131 0.23 34 SD11 61 Medium 686 1.19 35 SD17 64 Medium 5433 9.44 36 SD18.1 65 Medium 636 1.10 37 SD36 61 Medium 7 0.01 38 SD37 63 Medium 51 0.09 39 SD41 65 Medium 832 1.45 40 SD42 61 Medium 148 0.26 41 SD44 65 Medium 1022 1.78 42 SD45 61 Medium 959 1.67 43 SD07 60 Low 5 0.01 44 SD08 58 Low 3 0.01 45 SD10 58 Low 117 0.20 46 SD33 59 Low 334 0.58 47 SD34 58 Low 21 0.04 48 SD43 58 Low 62 0.11 49 SD47 60 Low 340 0.59 50 SD32 55 Very Low 505 0.88 51 Landslide - - 2 0.003 52 Brick Kiln - - 15 0.03 53 Canal - - 9 0.02 54 Dam - - 8 0.01 55 Factory - - 72 0.13 56 Habitation - - 804 1.40 57 River - - 1325 2.30 58 Water bodies - - 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

iii

HOW TO USE SOIL SURVEY REPORT

This report embodies the findings of Detailed Soil erosion mapping in the area of Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab covering an area of 57,558 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 the surveyed area. 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 Hoshiarpur 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. 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 hill-

side 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 river-bed 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”.

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 seventy nine villages of Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab covering an area of 57,558 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 also 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 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 Hoshiarpur. This data base 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 Hoshiarpur Forest Division 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.

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA

2.1 Location and Extent

Hoshiarpur district is in Punjab state of northern India. It is one of the oldest districts of the state, which is located in the North-east part of the Punjab state. It is located in the North- east part of the Punjab state and shares common boundaries with Gurdaspur district in the northwest, Jalandhar and Kapurthala districts in south-west, Kangra and Una districts of Himachal Pradesh in the north-east. The district has an area of 3365 km2 and a population of 15,86,625 persons as per census (2011). The area along with the Shivalik foothills in Hoshiarpur is sub mountainous and this part of the district is also known as Kandi area. The two rivers, Sutlej and Beas along with two other seasonal streams provide drainage to the region. Besides these, the Kandi region is full of seasonal streams.

Present study is carried out in an area of 57,558 ha lies between 31o52'15'' to 31o18'00'' to North Latitudes and 76o53'04'' to 75o48'30'' East Longitudes in eastern and north-eastern part of district forms the part of Shivalik region. The area is covered by the Survey of India on 1:50K scale namely, 44 M/13, 44 M/14, 44 M/15, 53 A/02 and 53 A/03 Toposheets.

2.2 Geology

The Upper Shivaliks and the Quaternary deposits constitute the main geological formations of the area. The Upper Shivaliks comprise conglomerate beds, friable sandstone, and siltstone and clay beds. Sand stones are soft and friable. Lumps of clay and pellets are also met within the sandstone. At places sand stones show well developed cross-bedding and suggest the possibility of aeolian origin. The sand stones contain a large portion of the mica flakes and concretions of clay. They are susceptible to weathering as a result of which there is a considerable collection of sand as talus cones.

Quaternary deposits constitute gravel beds, alluvial fans and river terraces. They contain sand and clay in varying proportions. River terraces are seen flanking the present day streams and at some places they occupy the ridges. Gravel beds constitute an important source of white quartzite fragments. It is located in Indo-Gangetic plains and Sutlej sub-basin. Topography of Hoshiarpur is divided into three main regions. The first region is the fertile region that comes under flood plains. The second topographical region is Kandi belt and the third region of this district comprises of Garhshankar as one of the main area.

2.3 River and Drainage System

Though the district of Hoshiarpur lacks a perennial river, it has tributaries of Beas and Sutlej inundating its land towards North Western and Southern directions. Beas River enters this

district at Talwara and after travelling few kilometers, forms the boundary between Hoshiarpur and Gurdaspur districts.

The district is drained by the river Beas in the north and northwest and Satluj in the south. The two rivers, Sutlej and Beas along with two other seasonal streams provide drainage to the region. Besides these, the Kandi region is full of seasonal streams. Other main water bodies found in this district are the seasonal streams called choes. In the rainy season, these choes get flooded with water and then this water shrinks away fast leaving the thick deposits of sand and silt behind. There are more than 100 choes flowing in this district though their channelization has been done to avoid any disaster caused by over flooding. Apart from these, there are many dams and canals present in the district.

2.4 Physiography and Relief

The study area in Hoshiarpur Forest Division is physiographically divided into different physiographic units namely:

 Alluvial plains  Foot hill slopes  Hill side slopes  Hill tops  Narrow hill valleys  Piedmont plain

2.5 Climate

The climate is classified as tropical steppe, hot and semi-arid which is mainly dry with very hot summer and cold winter except during monsoon season. There are four seasons in a year. The hot season starts from mid March to last week of the June followed by the south west monsoon which lasts upto September. The transition period from September to November forms the post monsoon season. The winter season starts late in November and remains upto first week of March. The south west monsoon, sets in from first week of July and withdraws in end of September, July and August are the wettest months.

The average annual rainfall in the district is 833.5 mm. About 77 per cent of the annual rainfall in the district is received during the short monsoon season-July to September. Rainfall amounting to about 17 per cent of the normal is received during the cold season in association with passing western disturbances. On an average there are 41 rainy days (i.e. days with rainfall of 2.5 mm ormore) in a year in the district. The heaviest rainfall in 24 hours recorded at any station in the district was 360.7 mm at Hoshiarpur on August 19, 1878.

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 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).

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.

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 aids 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 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 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 types 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.

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 the surveyed area. 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 of the 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.

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:

The RPI is calculated using the empirical formula given below-

i = n (Ai x Wi) RPI =  X 100 (Aw) i = 1

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.

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.

3.8 Report Submission to User Department:

Figure 1: Flow Chart of Remote Sensing based Methodology for Erosion Assessment in Shivalik Hills of Punjab State

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, three landscapes namely Alluvio-colluvial, Alluvium 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, Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab

Soil Runoff Erosion RPMU Description Potential Risk Weightage Category Alluvio-Colluvium Landscape Piedmont plain; moderate (5-10%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; AC08 yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface 67 High colour; coarse loamy surface and subsurface texture; well drained; severe erosion; unmanaged 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% AC02 canopy cover); moderately deep; yellowish brown to 63 Medium dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; calcareous, moderately well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; dark AC04 yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy surface 63 Medium texture; calcareous, well drained; moderate to severe erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed Piedmont plain; moderate (5-10%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2(10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown AC05 surface colour; fine to fine loamy surface texture; 62 Medium calcareous, moderately well to well drained; moderate erosion; poorly to moderately well managed Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; dark yellowish AC01 brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; 57 Low calcareous, moderately well to well drained; slight erosion; well managed Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands AC06 (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; brown to 57 Low

strong brown surface colour; coarse loamy to sandy surface texture; calcareous, well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; Plantation; very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown

surface colour; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface 57 Low AC07 texture; calcareous, moderately well to well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed Piedmont plain; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish AC03 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 55 Very Low loamy to fine loamy surface texture; calcareous, well drained; slight erosion; well managed Alluvium Landscape Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; light AL05 yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface 57 Low colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed Alluvial plains; gentle (3-5%) slope; multiple crop cultivation(ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish brown AL06 to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy 56 Low surface texture; well drained; slight to moderate erosion; well managed Alluvial plains; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; dark AL08 yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to coarse 59 Low loamy surface texture; poorly to imperfectly drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; Plantation; very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown AL09 surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; moderately 57 Low well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well to well managed Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish AL02 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 55 Very Low loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well drained; slight erosion; well managed Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish AL03 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 54 Very Low loamy to sandy surface texture; well drained; slight to moderate erosion; well managed Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; Plantation; very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown AL04 surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well 53 Very Low drained; moderate erosion; well managed. Sandstone Landscape

Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); shallow SD13 followed by weathered parent material; yellowish 79 Very High brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse

loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; very severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); shallow followed by weathered parent material; yellowish SD14 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 74 Very High loamy surface texture; well drained; severe erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; 50% area is under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover) and 50% area is under open scrub lands (when canopy SD15 cover is <10 %); moderately deep; yellowish brown to 71 Very High dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate to severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; moderately steep (15-25%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); shallow followed by weathered parent material; brown SD20 to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy 83 Very High surface texture; excessively drained; very severe erosion; unmanaged. 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 %); shallow followed by sandy SD21 79 Very High weathered parent material; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; excessively drained; severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); shallow followed by sandy weathered parent material; light yellowish SD24 brown to yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 74 Very High loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); shallow sandy followed by weathered parent material; yellowish SD25 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 87 Very High loamy surface texture; excessively drained; very severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; 50% area is under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover) and 50% area is under deciduous forest (single story veg) SD26 F2 (10-20% canopy cover); moderately deep; light 72 Very High yellowish brown to yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed. 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 SD27 cover is <10 %); shallow depth followed by sandy 83 Very High weathered parent material; light yellowish brown to yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; excessively drained; severe

erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; very steep (33-50%) slope; degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); shallow depth followed by sandy weathered parent material; SD28 yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface 88 Very High colour; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface texture; excessively drained; severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; very steep (33-50%) slope, degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); shallow; yellowish SD29 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse 87 Very High loamy to loamy skeletal surface texture; excessively drained; severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; very steep (33-50%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark SD30 yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to 72 Very High sandy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed. 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 CM31 70 High loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed. Foot hill slopes; moderate (5-10%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); deep; grayish SD46 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine 73 Very High loamy surface texture moderately well to well drained; severe to very severe erosion; unmanaged. Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); moderately deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface SD16 colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; 66 High well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Hills side slopes; moderately steep (15-25%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark SD18 yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to coarse 66 High loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed. Hills side slopes; moderately steep (15-25%) slope; degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); moderately deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown SD19 surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface 70 High texture; well excessively drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged. Hill tops; moderate (5-10%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); deep; yellowish brown SD35 to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy 66 High to fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate to severe erosion; unmanaged Hill tops; moderate (5-10%) slope; deciduous forest SD11 (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); 61 Medium moderately deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish

brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown SD17 surface colour; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface 64 Medium texture; well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Hills side slopes; moderately steep (15-25%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark SD18.1 yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to coarse 65 Medium loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed. Hill tops; moderate (5-10%) slope; terraced cultivation (1-3 %) (rf/multiple crop); very deep; yellowish SD36 brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine 61 Medium loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; poorly to moderately well managed. Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; terraced cultivation (1-3 %) (rf/multiple crop); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse SD37 loamy to fine loamy surface texture; moderately well 63 Medium to well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed. Hill tops; 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 %); shallow followed by sandy weathered parent SD41 material; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown 65 Medium surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed. Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; 50% area is under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover) and 50% area is under open scrub lands (when canopy SD42 cover is <10 %); deep; yellowish brown to dark 61 Medium yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged. 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 SD44 cover is <10 %); deep; yellowish brown to dark 65 Medium yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; moderately well to well drained; moderate to severe erosion; poorly managed. Foot hill slopes; moderate (5-10%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); SD45 deep; yellowish brown to brown surface colour; coarse 61 Medium loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed. Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; deciduous SD07 forest (single story veg) F2-F3 (10-40% canopy 60 Medium

cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; poorly to moderately well managed. Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown SD08 surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well 58 Medium drained; moderate erosion; poorly to moderately well managed. Hill tops; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); deep; yellowish brown to SD10 dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to 58 Low coarse loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed. Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface SD33 colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; 59 Low well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown SD34 surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well 58 Low drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed. Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; Plantation; deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown SD43 surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; moderately 60 Low well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well to well managed. Foot hill slopes; very gentle to gentle (1-5%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); deep; SD47 yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface 60 Low colour; fine loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed. Narrow hill valleys; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface SD32 colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; 55 Very Low moderately well to well drained; slight erosion; moderately well to well managed. Landslide Landslide - - Misc. Brick Kiln - - Area Canal - - Dam - - Factory - - Habitation - - River - - Water bodies - -

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

42 SD45 61 Medium 959 1.67 43 SD07 60 Low 5 0.01 44 SD08 58 Low 3 0.01 45 SD10 58 Low 117 0.20 46 SD33 59 Low 334 0.58 47 SD34 58 Low 21 0.04 48 SD43 58 Low 62 0.11 49 SD47 60 Low 340 0.59 50 SD32 55 Very Low 505 0.88 51 Landslide - - 15 0.03 52 Brick Kiln - - 9 0.02 53 Canal - - 8 0.01 54 Dam - - 72 0.13 55 Factory - - 804 1.40 56 Habitation - - 2 0.00 57 River - - 1325 2.30 58 Water bodies - - 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

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 different physiographies, slopes, land use. Major part of the surveyed area falls under hill side slopes showing slope ranging from strong slope (10-15 %) to very steep slope (33-50 %). Under strong slope (terraced) having deep soil depth, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture with moderate erosion which mainly attributed to terraced cultivation. Whereas, area under strong slope mapped in moderately dense forest are having deep soil depth with moderate erosion and that under thin/ bushy forest vegetation, open scrub vegetation are reduced to moderately deep to shallow depth an account severe to very severe erosion. In steep and very steep sloping lands under thin forest vegetative cover, open scrub and moderately dense forest soils of shallow to moderately deep depth since these lands are susceptibility to moderate, severe and very severe erosion. The study area has been marked by presence of spikes/pinnacle’s like features, forms as results of very severe erosion in past which has washed away all the soft non aggregated sandy soils material leaving behind the more aggregated soil mass gives rise to these landforms which is uniquely observed here in this area. However, soils

of deep depth are noticed on very steep slope in moderately dense to dense forest cover, as these areas suffers only with moderate erosion and are less prone to soil erosion which might be due to more vegetative cover which is responsible for less run-off generation. Whereas, the areas both in scrub lands and thin vegetative cover are having shallow soil depth as the area prone to severe to very severe erosion and has higher potential risk for soil erosion. The piedmont plain landforms, which forms a transitional zone between the Shivalik hills and alluvial plains showing varied slope ranging from very gentle to moderate (1-10 %). Very gently and gently sloping land form in agricultural lands are having very deep soil depth with none to slight erosion whereas, the gently sloping area in open scrub are also having very deep depth but prone to moderate to severe erosion and on gently to moderately sloping lands both in areas under open scrub and thin vegetative cover are having moderately deep to deep and very deep depth in different positions mainly attributed to the presence of rolling topography and susceptibility of area to moderate to severe soil erosion. These lands are having medium to high risk for potential soil erosion. The alluvial plain landscape, comprises mainly of recent and the old flood plains of the rivers showing two slope ranges, i.e. very gentle slope (1-3 %) and gentle slope (3-5 %). The landforms under the slope ranges in agricultural land, soils of g very deep depth prone to none- slight to moderate erosion are noticed. Whereas, under plantation and open scrub land use also soils of very deep soil depth are observed but these soils are prone to moderate erosion. Soils of alluvial plains are of vital economic value as it supports the dense population having moderate to high water and nutrient holding capacity. The foot hill slopes landforms responsible for gradual increase of elevation at the base of a mountain range, are having very gentle to genlte slope (1-5 %) land units under agricultural use; wherein, soils of deep depth, fine loamy surface texture and suffers from moderate erosion have been noticed. Under moderately sloping (5-10 %) in open scrub and thin vegetative cover (<10 % canopy) lands, soils of deep depth, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture, prone to moderate to very severe erosion are noticed. However, under moderately dense forest cover (10-20 % canopy) soils of deep depth, prone to moderate erosion has been observed. The hill tops physiography, having lands of slope ranges varies from very gentle slope (1- 3 %) to moderately sloping (5-10%) and strong slope (10-15 %). The very gently sloping hill tops under agricultural use are having deep soil depth, prone to moderate erosion with fine loamy to coarse loamy surface texture. Similarly, in moderately sloping lands terraced of gentle (1-3 %) slopes under cultivation having very deep depth, suffers with moderate erosion are observed. Whereas, unprotected (non-terraced) lands of moderate to strong slopes under open scrub having moderately deep soil depth, prone to moderate to severe erosion, the lands under thin vegetative cover and moderately dense forest are having soils of deep depth and are prone to moderate erosion have been identified and mapped. Lowest area mapped under soils of narrow hill valley. Slope class, i.e. very gentle slope (1-3 %) in agriculture land use are having very deep soil depth, mostly coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture with slight to moderate erosion. Gentle slope (3-5 %) in forest land cover, open scrub lands and thin vegetative cover are having deep soil depth with moderate erosion and in plantation land use are having very deep soil depth with moderate erosion.

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, surface texture, 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 Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab S. No. PHYSIOGRAPHY AREA (ha) AREA (%) 1. Alluvial plains 3053 5.30 2. Foot hill slopes 2581 4.48 3. Hill side slopes 30650 53.25 4. Hill tops 1773 3.08 5. Narrow hill valleys 1078 1.87 6. Piedmont plain 15777 27.41 7. Landslide 2 0.003 8. Brick Kiln 15 0.03 9. Canal 9 0.02 10. Dam 8 0.01 11. Factory 72 0.13 12. Habitation 804 1.40 13. River 1325 2.30 14. Water bodies 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

Areal distribution of the surveyed area under different physiography showed that major part of the area is under Hill side slopes (53.25 %) followed by Piedmont plain (27.41 %), Alluvial plains (5.30 %), Foot hill slopes (4.48 %) and Hill tops (3.08 %). Minimum area of 1.87 % mapped as Narrow hill valleys.

6.2 Slope Classes

The distribution of area under different hill slope classes show that major part of the area in studied area covered under >10 % sloping lands where moderately steep sloping showing maximum area of 12573 ha (21.84 %) followed by strong sloping 10653 ha (18.51 %) and steep sloping 6238 ha (10.84 %). Minimum area of 1.97 % and 0.09 % reported as very steep slope and terraced strong slope, respectively. For the areas covered under <10 % sloping lands, maximum area of about 25.19 % mapped as gentle slope followed by very gentle slope accounting to 8.88 % and moderate slope accounting to 7.47 %. Minimum area of about 0.59 % and 0.01 % reported as very gentle to gentle slope and terraced moderate slope, respectively.

Table 3(b): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Slope Class in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab

S. No. DESCRIPTION (PERCENT SLOPE) AREA (ha) AREA (%) 1. Very gentle slope (1-3%) 5113 8.88 2. Very gentle to Gentle slope (1-5 %) 340 0.59 3. Gentle slope (3-5%) 14501 25.19 4. Moderate slope (5-10%) 4301 7.47 5. Moderate slope (5-10%) terraced upto 1-3 % 7 0.01 6. Strong slope (10-15%) 10653 18.51 7. Strong slope (10-15%) terraced upto 1-3 % 51 0.09 8. Moderately steep slope (15-25%) 12573 21.84 9. Steep slope (25-33%) 6238 10.84 10. Very steep slope (33-50 %) 1135 1.97 11. Landslide 2 0.003 12. Brick Kiln 15 0.03 13. Canal 9 0.02 14. Dam 8 0.01 15. Factory 72 0.13 16. Habitation 804 1.40 17. River 1325 2.30 18. Water bodies 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

6.1 Surface Texture

Areal distribution of the surveyed area under different surface textural class showed that major part of the area is under coarse loamy to fine loamy textural class with 17002 ha (29.54 %) area. Second highest area is under fine loamy to coarse loamy textural class covering about 15443 ha (26.83 %) followed by fine loamy textural class (19.14 %), coarse loamy (15.29 %), coarse loamy to sandy (3.64 %). Lowest area of less than 1 % of area covered under fine to fine loamy textural class and coarse loamy to loamy skeletal textural class.

Table 3(c): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Surface Textural Class in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab

S. No. LAND USE AREA (ha) AREA (%) 1. Coarse loamy 8801 15.29 2. Coarse loamy to Fine loamy 17002 29.54 3. Coarse loamy to Loamy skeletal 175 0.30 4. Coarse loamy to Sandy 2093 3.64 5. Fine loamy 11017 19.14 6. Fine loamy to Coarse loamy 15443 26.83 7. Fine to Fine loamy 381 0.66 8. Landslide 2 0.003 9. Brick Kiln 15 0.03 10. Canal 9 0.02 11. Dam 8 0.01 12. Factory 72 0.13 13. Habitation 804 1.40 14. River 1325 2.30 15. Water bodies 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

6.2 Depth Classes

Depth wise distribution of the surveyed area shows that very deep and deep depth covered more than 60 % of the area where 32.23 % mapped as very deep and 29.17 % as deep depth. Moderately deep depth class covered an area of about 23.19 % and shallow depth class covered least area of about 10.81 %. Landslide mapped in about 0.003 % area accounting to 2 ha area whereas miscellaneous area like brick kiln, canal, dam, factory, habitation, river and water bodies covered about 2644 ha area.

Table 3(d): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Depth Class in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab

S. No. DEPTH AREA (ha) AREA (%) 1. Very deep 18553 32.23 2. Deep 16789 29.17 3. Moderately deep 13348 23.19 4. Shallow 6222 10.81 5. Landslide 2 0.003 6. Brick Kiln 15 0.03 7. Canal 9 0.02 8. Dam 8 0.01 9. Factory 72 0.13 10. Habitation 804 1.40 11. River 1325 2.30 12. Water bodies 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100

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, well drained soils 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:

S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AC03 2482 TOTAL 2482

6.5.4.2 Land capability sub class IIs: This unit consists of very deep, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture, occurring on very gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight erosion. The following mapping unit is placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. SD32 505 TOTAL 505

6.5.4.3 Land capability sub class IIe: This unit consists of very deep, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture, occurring on very gentle to gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight erosion. The following mapping unit is placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AC01 8075 2. AL02 1517 3. AL09 121 TOTAL 9713

6.5.4.4 Land capability sub class IIes: This unit consists of very deep soils, fine loamy and coarse loamy to sandy surface texture, occurring on very gentle to gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight to moderate erosion hazards. The following mapping units are placed under this capability unit: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AL03 114 2. AL04 102 3. AL06 673 4. SD47 340 TOTAL 1229

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 gentle sloping and moderate sloping terraced upto 1-3 %. They are susceptible to moderate erosion hazards.

The following mapping units are placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AC07 2390 2. AL05 155 3. SD36 7 TOTAL 2552

6.5.4.6 Land capability sub class IIIes: This unit consists of very deep to deep; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface texture, occurring on very gentle to gentle sloping. They are susceptible to moderate erosion. The following mapping units are placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. SD10 117 2. SD37 51 3. SD43 62 TOTAL 230

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, occurring on gentle to moderate sloping. They are susceptible to moderate to severe erosion hazards. The following mapping units are placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AC04 509 2. AL08 371 TOTAL 880

6.5.4.10 Land capability sub class IVes: This unit consists of very deep; mostly coarse loamy and sandy texture at some places, occurring on gentle to moderate sloping. They are susceptible moderate to severe erosion hazards. The following mapping units are placed in this class:

S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AC06 1106 2. AC08 30 3. SD31 50 TOTAL 1186

6.5.4.11 Land capability sub class VIes: This unit consists of very deep to deep; coarse loamy to fine loamy, occurring on gentle to moderate sloping. They are susceptible to moderate to very severe erosion hazards. The following mapping units are placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. SD33 334 2. SD46 260 TOTAL 594

6.5.4.12 Land capability sub class VIIes: This unit consists of deep to shallow; coarse loamy to fine loamy, occurring on moderate to steep sloping. They are susceptible to moderate to very severe erosion hazards. The following mapping units are placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. SD13 127 2. SD14 293 3. SD20 417 4. SD25 88 5. SD35 131 TOTAL 1056

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. The following mapping units are placed in this class: S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha) 1. AC02 804 2. AC05 381 3. SD07 5 4. SD08 3 5. SD11 686 6. SD15 1503 7. SD16 3297 8. SD17 5433 9. SD18 6409 10. SD18.1 636 11. SD19 3235 12. SD21 1876 13. SD24 1193 14. SD26 3823

15. SD27 1134 16. SD28 87 17. SD29 125 18. SD30 873 19. SD34 21 20. SD41 832 21. SD42 148 22. SD44 1022 23. SD45 959 TOTAL 34485

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 deposition 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 studied area. 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 and during ground truthing.

The areas suffer from all four types of erosions that have been correlated with image signatures for accurately mapping remotely located in-accessible eroded areas of the area. Soil erosion in respect of sheet mapped as slight erosion covered about 21.85 % of area in studied area. Similarly area which gives rise to rills and mapped as moderate soil erosion covered maximum area of 58.89 % in the area. About 6.16 % is covered under the land that suffers from gully erosion and mapped as severe erosion. Similarly, area under medium deep ravines mapped as very severe erosion covered 1.18 % area.

Table: 3(e) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Erosion Class in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab S. No. EROSION CLASS / DESCRIPTION Area (ha) Area (%) 1. Slight erosion (e1) 12579 21.85 2. Slight to moderate erosion (e1-e2) 787 1.37 3. Moderate erosion (e2) 33894 58.89 4. Moderate to severe erosion (e2-e3) 3165 5.50 5. Severe erosion (e3) 3545 6.16 6. Severe to very severe erosion (e3-e4) 260 0.45 7. Very severe erosion (e4) 682 1.18 8. Landslide 2 0.003 9. Brick Kiln 15 0.03 10. Canal 9 0.02 11. Dam 8 0.01 12. Factory 72 0.13 13. Habitation 804 1.40 14. River 1325 2.30 15. Water bodies 411 0.71 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

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 0.75 Sloping) 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

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 7 Deciduous forest (Single Story Veg) F3 (20-40%) 0.78 8 Deciduous forest (Single Story Veg) F4 (40-60%) 0.63 9 Deciduous forest (Single Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.48 10 Deciduous forest (Double Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.87 11 Deciduous forest (Double Story Veg) F3 (20-40%) 0.73 12 Deciduous forest (Double Story Veg) F4 (40-60%) 0.55 13 Deciduous forest (Double Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.36 14 Evergreen forest (Single Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.91 15 Evergreen forest (Single Story Veg) F3 (20-40%) 0.8 16 Evergreen forest (Single Story Veg) F4 (40-60%) 0.65 17 Evergreen forest (Single Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.5 18 Evergreen forest (Double Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.89 19 Evergreen forest (Double Story Veg) F3 (20-40%) 0.78 20 Evergreen forest (Double Story Veg) F4 (40-60%) 0.63 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 0.87 28 Orchards(Coconut,>10% canopy Citrus, Mango, Arecanut) with 0.96 29 Estates(Tea,<10% canopy Co ffee, Rubber, Cashew) 0.7 30 Built-up lands 0 31 River/Stream 0 32 Lakes/Tanks/Ponds 0 33 Reservoirs 0

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

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. Management Description RP Value No. 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 Hoshiarpur Forest Division, 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 area of about 20.59 % and 22.76 % 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. Area under medium risk covered about 19.92 % and low risk about 24.81 % area. Both the categorized areas are mainly poorly managed undulating uplands under forest and plain agricultural lands, well bunded and conserved. Minimum area of about 7.32 % covered under very low risk having well to moderately conserve and less conserved lands on plain and hills having different conservation needs. Landslide covered an area of about 2 ha whereas miscellaneous area of about 2644 ha.

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 11849 20.59 High 13102 22.76 Medium 11468 19.92 Low 14278 24.81 Very Low 4215 7.32 Landslide 2 0.003 Misc. Land 2644 4.59 GRAND TOTAL 57,558 100.00

7.2 Priority Categorization of Villages in Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Punjab

The priority categorization of studied area was carried out to identify the priority areas under 79 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. Out of the total 79 villages, about 3 covered in very high priority, 16 covered in high priority, 26 in medium priority, 30 in low priority and 4 in very low priority. Out of the total surveyed area, i.e 57,558 ha covered under 79 villages, very high priority category covered about 4.37 %, high priority covered about 40.46 % and medium priority category covered about 42.11 % area. About 11.85 % and 1.20 % falls under low and very low priority category, respectively.

Table 6: Village Wise Priority Categorization

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

1. Very High (above 70) 3 2517 4.37 2. High (66-70) 16 23290 40.46 3. Medium (61-65) 26 24237 42.11 4. Low (56-60) 30 6823 11.85 5. Very Low (55 & below) 4 691 1.20 GRAND TOTAL 79 57,558 100.00

Table: 7 Distribution of Villages of Hoshiarpur Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District under different Priority Categories

S. No. Village Name Area (ha) Runoff Potential Relative Index Priority 1 Very High (above 70) 1 BAHERA 893 71 1 2 KOTHI 470 71 2 3 NARI 1154 71 3 Total 2517 4.37% 2 High (66-70) 1 THANAA 834 70 4 2 MALOTE 1338 69 5 3 BARI KHAD 1188 68 6 4 DALEWALI 947 68 7 5 DADA 2081 67 8 6 DERIAN 926 67 9 7 KORATE 542 67 10 8 KUKANETA 1976 67 11 9 MAHNGARWAL 2707 67 12 10 SALERAN 1435 67 13 11 BACHHOHI 3328 66 14 12 BHAROOM 105 66 15 13 LALWAN 1294 66 16 14 MANJHI 1223 66 17 15 NARA 1118 66 18 16 PATIAL-PATIARIA 2248 66 19 Total 23290 40.46% 3 Medium (61-65) 1 CHAK SADHU 1272 65 20 2 DANDOH 604 65 21 3 KHARKAN 1109 65 22 4 MAILI 2896 65 23 5 PATIARIAN 1152 65 24 6 SUNA 817 65 25 7 AITBARAPUR 633 64 26 8 ARNIALA SHAHPUR 642 64 27 9 JANAURI 2156 64 28 10 KANGWARI 1591 64 29 11 KAPAHAT 906 64 30 12 KATOHARL 486 64 31 13 RAHMANPUR 375 64 32 14 THAROLLI 766 64 33 15 BAROTI 837 63 34 16 CHAUHAL 872 63 35 17 NARURE 525 63 36 18 RAMTATWALI 1274 63 37 19 CHAK NARIAL 374 62 38 20 DHOLBAHA 2221 62 39 21 KANGAR 533 62 40 22 KUHI 926 62 41 23 PHAPHIAL 114 62 42 46 S. No. Village Name Area (ha) Runoff Potential Relative Index Priority 24 BARUHI 504 61 43 25 MUSTAPUR 183 61 44 26 RAGHOWAL 469 61 45 Total 24237 42.11% 4 Low (56-60) 1 FATEHPUR 232 60 46 2 MANHOTAL 359 60 47 3 GANGUWAL 182 59 48 4 HUSAINPUR 210 59 49 5 TAKHNI 916 59 50 6 *KAHARPUR 316 200 58 51 7 HALOWAL 244 58 52 8 HAVELI 232 58 53 9 RAMPUR 444 58 54 10 ALAMWALA 63 57 55 11 BADHNA 56 57 56 12 BAHOWAL 416 57 57 13 BASI JAMAL KHAN 22 57 58 14 BHOLEWAL GUJRAN 151 57 59 15 JANDIALA 387 57 60 16 JHANJOWAL 209 57 61 17 MUGOWAL 669 57 62 18 SARANGWAL 118 57 63 19 TAJEWALA 203 57 64 20 BOORA_BARI 74 56 65 21 DASOWAL 57 56 66 22 DHAKON 66 56 67 23 HANDOWAL 222 56 68 24 JANGLIANA 209 56 69 25 LEHLI KALAN 200 56 70 26 LEHLI KHURD 103 56 71 27 MANOLIAN 252 56 72 28 NAUNITPUR 87 56 73 29 SATIAL 139 56 74 30 SHERPUR 101 56 75 Total 6823 11.85% 5 Very Low (55 & below) 1 BASI MUSTAFA 127 55 76 2 CHAMBAL KALAN 96 55 77 3 PHALAHI 355 55 78 4 SURAPUR 113 55 79 Total 691 1.20%

Grand Total 57558 100.00%

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 57,558 ha, 2517 ha area having RPI above 70 was accorded Very high priority category, 23290 ha area having RPI between 66 to 70 was accorded High priority category and about 24237 ha having RPI between 61 to 65 was categorized as Medium priority category. Total area of about 7514 ha categorized under low to very low priority.

This study confirms the village wise priority categorization of vulnerable areas (RPI) in study area, about only 4.37 percent of area categories under very high priority as attributed mainly to normal runoff generating potential of sandy soil identified and mapped in the division. At the same time, the study also confirms about 20.59 percent of land area characterized as very high potential risk for soil erosion. The very high risk for soil erosion takes in to account the additional runoff generated from 13.29 percent of area under gullies and ravines mapped under moderate to severe, severe to very severe erosion in division. About 40.46 per cent of study area categorized as High priority based on RPI which includes 22.76 per cent area of high potential risk and remaining area of Very high potential risk of soil erosion, which takes into consideration additional runoff generation potential of those areas having >10 % slope under rills and gully erosion mapped as moderate erosion class apart from above mentioned lands mapped as moderate to severe and very severe erosion.

The model successfully provided the location wise distribution of these areas of high runoff generating potential based on Runoff potential Index and Runoff potential weightage for the estimation of soil erosion risk respectively.

The study recommends that the areas of very high, 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 require more substantive measures to prevent and control soil erosion and enhance vegetative cover.

2. In the present study, run off potential was estimated for every village falling in the studied 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 the very high and high priority category, marked with different shades of red colour in the maps, 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 shallow depth soils were as a result of severe to very severe gully erosion. Similarly, moderate soil depth owing to moderate soil erosion. The study confirms that shallow depth of soil at higher slope mainly due to removal or absence of vegetation.

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 12579 ha found under slight erosion class, about 787 ha found under slight to moderate erosion and about 33894 ha under moderate erosion. The areas, i.e. 7652 ha mapped as moderate to severe, severe, severe to very severe and very severe erosion hazards require immediate soil conservation measures of various types based on the intensity and nature of soil erosion. Whereas, 2644 ha area are mapped under miscellaneous uses. 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).

The areas are covered in nearly level to very gently sloping plains under cultivation require improved agricultural practices like minimum tillage, crop rotation, crop diversification, vegetative mulching etc. for ensuring optimal use of soil, water and land resource for sustainable development.

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 11849 ha, 13102 ha and 11468 ha area of the surveyed area found under very high, high and medium risk of soil erosion respectively and constitute about 63.27 % 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 18493 ha area was found prone to low and very low risk of runoff. About 2 ha mapped as landslide and about 2644 ha mapped under miscellaneous areas.

6. The lands under capability classification of the study area shows that about 594 ha falls under land capability class VI, 1056 ha placed under land capability class VII having major soil and land limitations 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 4848 ha land placed in land capability class III and IV and 13929 ha area placed under land capability class II which also needs to be taken up for agroforestry and agri-horti- 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 34485 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.

ANNEXURE-I

Village-wise Distribution of Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMU), Risk Category, Runoff Potential Index (RPI) and Erosion class

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class 1 *KAHARPUR AC01 129 57 7353.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) 316 AC02 28 63 1764.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 17 55 935.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC06 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 10 57 570.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Brick Kiln 1 0 0.00 Nil Brick Kiln Canal 1 0 0.00 Nil Canal Habitation 10 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 2 0 0.00 Nil River Total 200 10736.00 58 51 L 2 AITBARAPUR AC01 78 57 4446.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 4 63 252.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 9 55 495.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 43 57 2451.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 4 58 232.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 2 74 148.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 8 71 568.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 53 66 3498.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 196 64 12544.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 79 66 5214.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 22 70 1540.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 28 79 2212.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 15 74 1110.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 18 72 1296.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 9 83 747.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 7 56 392.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 16 59 944.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 1 66 66.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 9 65 585.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 9 65 585.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 4 73 292.00 Very High (e3-e4) Habitation 6 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 8 0 0.00 Nil River Total 633 39918.00 64 26 M 3 ALAMWALA AC01 44 57 2508.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 4 63 252.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 7 55 385.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC06 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 5 57 285.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 1 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 63 3544.00 57 55 L 4 ARNIALA AC01 148 57 8436.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SHAHPUR AC03 19 55 1045.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 3 63 189.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 4 57 228.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 17 57 969.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 1 79 79.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 11 74 814.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 55 71 3905.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 102 66 6732.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 103 64 6592.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 53 66 3498.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 17 70 1190.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 24 79 1896.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 5 72 360.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 3 56 168.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD33 7 59 413.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 1 66 66.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 3 65 195.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 5 58 290.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 11 65 715.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 7 61 427.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 9 73 657.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 2 60 120.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 19 0 0.00 Nil River Total 642 39346.00 64 27 M 5 BACHHOHI AC01 457 57 26049.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 121 63 7623.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 104 55 5720.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 18 63 1134.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 10 62 620.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 117 57 6669.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 125 57 7125.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC08 7 67 469.00 High Severe erosion (e3) SD11 46 61 2806.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 14 71 994.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 121 66 7986.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 316 64 20224.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 438 66 28908.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 201 70 14070.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 23 79 1817.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 169 74 12506.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 399 72 28728.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 135 83 11205.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD30 129 72 9288.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD33 6 59 354.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 48 65 3120.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 6 61 366.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 125 65 8125.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 76 61 4636.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 24 73 1752.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 21 60 1260.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 23 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 45 0 0.00 Nil River Total 3328 213802.00 66 14 H 6 BADHNA AC01 43 57 2451.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 3 63 189.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 7 57 399.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 3 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 56 3039.00 57 56 L 7 BAHERA SD10 5 58 290.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 6 61 366.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 13 79 1027.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 16 74 1184.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 38 71 2698.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 47 66 3102.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 76 64 4864.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 220 66 14520.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 55 70 3850.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 73 83 6059.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 86 79 6794.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 5 74 370.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 64 72 4608.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD27 34 83 2822.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 14 72 1008.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD31 26 92 2392.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD32 38 56 2128.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 12 59 708.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 1 66 66.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 10 65 650.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 8 65 520.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 6 73 438.00 Very High (e3-e4) Habitation 4 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 32 0 0.00 Nil River Total 893 60705.00 71 1 VH 8 BAHOWAL Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 41 63 2583.00 Medium (e2-e3) AL02 19 55 1045.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 13 53 689.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL05 14 57 798.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 292 56 16352.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 13 59 767.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 18 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 6 0 0.00 Nil River Total 416 22234.00 57 57 L 9 BARI KHAD SD10 4 58 232.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 23 61 1403.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 1 79 79.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 5 74 370.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 84 71 5964.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 25 66 1650.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD17 211 64 13504.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 146 66 9636.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD18.1 210 65 13650.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 93 70 6510.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 111 79 8769.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 7 74 518.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 74 72 5328.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 51 83 4233.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 25 56 1400.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 33 59 1947.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 5 66 330.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 4 63 252.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 4 65 260.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 7 58 406.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 8 65 520.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 2 73 146.00 Very High (e3-e4) Habitation 10 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 40 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1188 77412.00 68 6 H 10 BAROTI AC01 85 57 4845.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 7 63 441.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 239 55 13145.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 15 63 945.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 1 62 62.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 22 57 1254.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 6 57 342.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 7 79 553.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 11 74 814.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 65 71 4615.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 58 66 3828.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 93 64 5952.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 58 66 3828.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 23 70 1610.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 2 83 166.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 29 79 2291.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 16 72 1152.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 7 83 581.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD33 1 59 59.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 9 66 594.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 17 65 1105.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 18 65 1170.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 23 61 1403.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 4 73 292.00 Very High (e3-e4) Habitation 6 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 10 0 0.00 Nil River Total 837 51352.00 63 34 M 11 BARUHI AC01 229 57 13053.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 30 63 1890.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 18 55 990.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 16 63 1008.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC07 19 57 1083.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD16 15 66 990.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 13 64 832.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 14 66 924.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 28 70 1960.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 11 79 869.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 24 74 1776.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 4 72 288.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD32 23 56 1288.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 6 59 354.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 20 65 1300.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 6 73 438.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 6 60 360.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 11 0 0.00 Nil River Total 504 29652.00 61 43 M 12 BASI JAMAL AC01 20 57 1140.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) KHAN AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 1 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 22 1197.00 57 58 L 13 BASI AL02 89 55 4895.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) MUSTAFA AL04 7 53 371.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL05 8 57 456.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 14 59 826.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 2 0 0.00 Nil River Total 127 6548.00 55 76 VL 14 BHAROOM SD11 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD16 12 66 792.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 25 64 1600.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 16 66 1056.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 16 70 1120.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 1 83 83.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD27 4 83 332.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD33 11 59 649.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 3 65 195.00 Medium (e2-e3) River 8 0 0.00 Nil River Total 105 6381.00 66 15 H 15 BHOLEWAL AC01 108 57 6156.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) GUJRAN AC02 8 63 504.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 11 55 605.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC05 5 62 310.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 14 57 798.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Canal 1 0 0.00 Nil Canal Habitation 2 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 151 8487.00 57 59 L 16 BOORA_BARI Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AL04 4 53 212.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 62 56 3472.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 3 59 177.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 2 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 2 0 0.00 Nil River Total 74 3924.00 56 65 L 17 CHAK NARIAL AC01 67 57 3819.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 2 63 126.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 36 55 1980.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 10 63 630.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 1 62 62.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 15 57 855.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 37 57 2109.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD16 36 66 2376.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 56 64 3584.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 23 66 1518.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 18 70 1260.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD21 1 79 79.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 21 72 1512.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 1 65 65.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 10 65 650.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 17 61 1037.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 1 73 73.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 9 60 540.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 4 0 0.00 Nil River Total 374 22397.00 62 38 M 18 CHAK SADHU AC01 107 57 6099.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 27 63 1701.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 116 55 6380.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 47 62 2914.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 28 57 1596.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 69 57 3933.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 17 61 1037.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 5 71 355.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 24 66 1584.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 110 64 7040.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 83 66 5478.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 34 70 2380.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 3 79 237.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 104 74 7696.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 261 72 18792.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 37 83 3071.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD41 12 65 780.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 70 65 4550.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 59 61 3599.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 3 73 219.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 6 60 360.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 13 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 34 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1272 79986.00 65 20 M 19 CHAMBAL AL02 79 55 4345.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) KALAN AL08 9 59 531.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 1 0 0.00 Nil River Total 96 4876.00 55 77 VL 20 CHAUHAL AC01 10 57 570.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 25 63 1575.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 221 55 12155.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 7 63 441.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 6 62 372.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 3 57 171.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 14 57 798.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 18 79 1422.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 19 74 1406.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 26 71 1846.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 61 66 4026.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 78 64 4992.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 53 66 3498.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 50 70 3500.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 17 79 1343.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 23 72 1656.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 1 83 83.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 1 56 56.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 6 59 354.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 6 66 396.00 High (e2-e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD41 15 65 975.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 8 65 520.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 10 61 610.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 7 73 511.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 2 60 120.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Dam 2 0 0.00 Nil Dam Factory 69 0 0.00 Nil Factory Habitation 36 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Landslide 1 0 0.00 Nil Landslide River 15 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 57 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 872 43701.00 63 35 M 21 DADA AC01 77 57 4389.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 27 63 1701.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 53 55 2915.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 101 63 6363.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 42 62 2604.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 28 57 1596.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 148 57 8436.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC08 1 67 67.00 High Severe erosion (e3) None-slight to Moderate AL03 51 54 2754.00 Very Low erosion (e1-e2) AL05 10 57 570.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 36 59 2124.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL09 4 57 228.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 4 79 316.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 1 74 74.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 54 71 3834.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 86 66 5676.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 146 64 9344.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD18 150 66 9900.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 81 70 5670.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 5 83 415.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 23 79 1817.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 146 74 10804.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 193 72 13896.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 80 83 6640.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD29 42 87 3654.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 199 72 14328.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD33 4 59 236.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 4 66 264.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 16 65 1040.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 65 65 4225.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 72 61 4392.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 43 73 3139.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 18 60 1080.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 11 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 54 0 0.00 Nil River Total 2081 134851.00 67 8 H 22 DALEWALI AC01 1 57 57.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC03 38 55 2090.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 4 63 252.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 3 57 171.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 8 61 488.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 4 71 284.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 93 66 6138.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 102 64 6528.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 230 66 15180.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 90 70 6300.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 49 79 3871.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD24 37 74 2738.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 111 72 7992.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 56 83 4648.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 29 72 2088.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD33 3 59 177.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 1 66 66.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 31 65 2015.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 12 65 780.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 4 73 292.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 8 60 480.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 19 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 3 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 947 62879.00 68 7 H 23 DANDOH AC01 191 57 10887.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 22 63 1386.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 2 63 126.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 23 57 1311.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 4 57 228.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 7 71 497.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 38 66 2508.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 50 64 3200.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 26 66 1716.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 15 70 1050.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 26 79 2054.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 43 72 3096.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 59 83 4897.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 42 65 2730.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 11 61 671.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 1 73 73.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 26 60 1560.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 14 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 604 38236.00 65 21 M 24 DASOWAL AL02 1 55 55.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 13 53 689.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL05 8 57 456.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 31 56 1736.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 4 59 236.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Total 57 3172.00 56 66 L 25 DERIAN SD11 33 61 2013.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 2 74 148.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 88 71 6248.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 82 66 5412.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 107 64 6848.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 172 66 11352.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD18.1 41 65 2665.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 101 70 7070.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 43 79 3397.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD25 3 87 261.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 129 72 9288.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 39 56 2184.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 7 59 413.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD37 10 63 630.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 12 61 732.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 11 65 715.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 6 61 366.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 2 73 146.00 Very High (e3-e4) Habitation 3 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 35 0 0.00 Nil River Total 926 59888.00 67 9 H 26 DHAKON None-slight to Moderate AL06 61 56 3416.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 1 59 59.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 4 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 66 3475.00 56 67 L 27 DHOLBAHA AC01 823 57 46911.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 55 55 3025.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 8 63 504.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 17 57 969.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 274 57 15618.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 4 58 232.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 11 61 671.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 12 74 888.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 75 71 5325.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 106 66 6996.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 69 64 4416.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 153 66 10098.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 83 70 5810.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 3 83 249.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 68 79 5372.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 27 74 1998.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 95 72 6840.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 45 83 3735.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 3 56 168.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 4 59 236.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 16 66 1056.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 3 63 189.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD41 22 65 1430.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 8 65 520.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 44 61 2684.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 6 73 438.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 20 60 1200.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 44 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 17 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 100 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 2221 127946.00 62 39 M 28 FATEHPUR AC01 121 57 6897.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 4 63 252.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC05 1 62 62.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 6 57 342.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 2 71 142.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 33 66 2178.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 26 64 1664.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 1 66 66.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 4 70 280.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 9 65 585.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 11 61 671.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 2 60 120.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 1 0 0.00 Nil River Total 232 13446.00 60 46 L 29 GANGUWAL AC01 62 57 3534.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 12 63 756.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 25 55 1375.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC05 2 62 124.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AC06 15 57 855.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 37 57 2109.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD16 6 66 396.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 14 64 896.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 5 72 360.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 2 65 130.00 Medium (e2-e3) Habitation 1 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 1 0 0.00 Nil River Total 182 10535.00 59 48 L 30 HALOWAL AC01 186 57 10602.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 23 63 1449.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 15 57 855.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Brick Kiln 3 0 0.00 Nil Brick Kiln Canal 2 0 0.00 Nil Canal Habitation 12 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 1 0 0.00 Nil River Total 244 13026.00 58 52 L 31 HANDOWAL AL02 127 55 6985.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 4 53 212.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL05 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 50 56 2800.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 16 59 944.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 14 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 10 0 0.00 Nil River Total 222 10998.00 56 68 L 32 HAVELI AC01 169 57 9633.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 25 63 1575.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 1 55 55.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC05 3 62 186.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 17 57 969.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Habitation 11 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 6 0 0.00 Nil River Total 232 12418.00 58 53 L 33 HUSAINPUR AC01 103 57 5871.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 21 57 1197.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 40 57 2280.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD16 7 66 462.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 14 64 896.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 15 66 990.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 4 70 280.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) River 5 0 0.00 Nil River Total 210 12039.00 59 49 L 34 JANAURI AC01 694 57 39558.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 25 63 1575.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 10 55 550.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 12 63 756.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 39 57 2223.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 135 57 7695.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 5 58 290.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 7 61 427.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 4 74 296.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 47 71 3337.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 147 66 9702.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 151 64 9664.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 179 66 11814.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 98 70 6860.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 7 83 581.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 75 79 5925.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 64 74 4736.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 108 72 7776.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 114 83 9462.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD32 3 56 168.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 8 66 528.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 2 63 126.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 39 65 2535.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 75 65 4875.00 Medium (e2-e3) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 1 73 73.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 7 60 420.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Dam 1 0 0.00 Nil Dam Habitation 55 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 22 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 20 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 2156 132074.00 64 28 M 35 JANDIALA AC01 246 57 14022.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 8 63 504.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 25 55 1375.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 1 62 62.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 27 57 1539.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 63 57 3591.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Canal 3 0 0.00 Nil Canal Habitation 9 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 2 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 2 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 387 21156.00 57 60 L 36 JANGLIANA AL02 161 55 8855.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL05 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 24 59 1416.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 15 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 7 0 0.00 Nil River

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Total 209 10385.00 56 69 L 37 JHANJOWAL AC01 122 57 6954.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 6 63 378.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 21 55 1155.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 51 57 2907.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 209 11451.00 57 61 L 38 KANGAR AC01 88 57 5016.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 2 63 126.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 46 55 2530.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC05 2 62 124.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 5 57 285.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 11 57 627.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 7 71 497.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 26 66 1716.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 103 64 6592.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 56 66 3696.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 28 70 1960.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 13 79 1027.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 11 72 792.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 1 66 66.00 High (e2-e3) SD42 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 2 65 130.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 89 61 5429.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 6 73 438.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 25 60 1500.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 4 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Landslide 1 0 0.00 Nil Landslide Water bodies 2 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Total 533 32856.00 62 40 M 39 KANGWARI AC01 363 57 20691.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 11 63 693.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 2 55 110.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 20 63 1260.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 27 57 1539.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 82 57 4674.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL03 14 54 756.00 Very Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 7 59 413.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD08 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 6 58 348.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 20 61 1220.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 2 74 148.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 11 71 781.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 44 66 2904.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 144 64 9216.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 253 66 16698.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 226 70 15820.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 4 83 332.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 91 79 7189.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 16 74 1184.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD25 7 87 609.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 18 72 1296.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 14 83 1162.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 8 56 448.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 5 59 295.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 5 66 330.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 51 65 3315.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 9 61 549.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 43 65 2795.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 5 73 365.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 4 60 240.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 18 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 53 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 2 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 1591 97740.00 64 29 M 40 KAPAHAT AC01 231 57 13167.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 2 63 126.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 44 55 2420.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 4 63 252.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 13 57 741.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 82 57 4674.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 3 79 237.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 13 74 962.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 62 71 4402.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 29 66 1914.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 85 64 5440.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 78 66 5148.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 50 70 3500.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 4 83 332.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 76 79 6004.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 5 74 370.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 37 72 2664.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD33 1 59 59.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 5 66 330.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 22 65 1430.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 11 65 715.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 12 61 732.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 3 73 219.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 9 60 540.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 14 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 7 0 0.00 Nil River Total 906 56622.00 64 30 M 41 KATOHARL AC01 34 57 1938.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 7 63 441.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 35 55 1925.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC05 97 62 6014.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 3 57 171.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 59 57 3363.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 1 74 74.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 23 71 1633.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 26 66 1716.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 18 64 1152.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 94 66 6204.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 13 70 910.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 4 83 332.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 17 79 1343.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 38 72 2736.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 1 56 56.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 3 59 177.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 1 66 66.00 High (e2-e3) SD45 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 3 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 6 0 0.00 Nil River Total 486 30434.00 64 31 M 42 KHARKAN AC01 38 57 2166.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 7 63 441.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 168 55 9240.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 3 63 189.00 Medium (e2-e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AC05 44 62 2728.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 18 57 1026.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 104 57 5928.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 26 71 1846.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 71 66 4686.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 72 64 4608.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 104 66 6864.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 81 70 5670.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 5 79 395.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 39 74 2886.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 148 72 10656.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 45 83 3735.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD41 14 65 910.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 22 65 1430.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 7 61 427.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 2 73 146.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 1 60 60.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Factory 3 0 0.00 Nil Factory Habitation 50 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 17 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 18 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 1109 66159.00 65 22 M 43 KORATE SD10 9 58 522.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 13 61 793.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 12 74 888.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 70 71 4970.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 159 66 10494.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 105 64 6720.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 65 66 4290.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 6 70 420.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD20 5 83 415.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 42 79 3318.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 1 72 72.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 3 56 168.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 2 59 118.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 3 66 198.00 High (e2-e3) SD36 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD37 7 63 441.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 8 65 520.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 14 65 910.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 2 60 120.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 3 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 7 0 0.00 Nil River Total 542 35743.00 67 10 H 44 KOTHI Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 12 71 852.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 12 66 792.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 58 64 3712.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 66 66 4356.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 74 70 5180.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 8 83 664.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 30 79 2370.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 3 74 222.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 87 72 6264.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 25 83 2075.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD28 9 88 792.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 20 72 1440.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD31 20 92 1840.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 7 66 462.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 1 65 65.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 13 65 845.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 10 60 600.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 3 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 8 0 0.00 Nil River Total 470 32775.00 71 2 VH 45 KUHI AC01 30 57 1710.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 5 63 315.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 151 55 8305.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 92 63 5796.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 125 57 7125.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 35 57 1995.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 5 71 355.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 67 66 4422.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 73 64 4672.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 57 66 3762.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 94 70 6580.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD24 29 74 2146.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 29 72 2088.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 35 56 1960.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 1 59 59.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD37 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 9 65 585.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 37 65 2405.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 2 60 120.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 15 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 31 0 0.00 Nil River Total 926 54640.00 62 41 M

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class 46 KUKANETA SD10 4 58 232.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 42 61 2562.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 6 74 444.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 78 71 5538.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 203 66 13398.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 307 64 19648.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 322 66 21252.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD18.1 385 65 25025.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 116 70 8120.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 15 83 1245.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 28 79 2212.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 57 74 4218.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD25 1 87 87.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 105 72 7560.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 54 83 4482.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 86 56 4816.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 12 59 708.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 6 63 378.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 13 65 845.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 11 61 671.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 11 58 638.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 13 65 845.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 7 73 511.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 6 60 360.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 65 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 11 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 1976 126049.00 67 11 H 47 LALWAN AC01 121 57 6897.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AC02 17 63 1071.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 82 55 4510.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 3 63 189.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 12 57 684.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 23 57 1311.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 48 61 2928.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 1 74 74.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 1 71 71.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 34 66 2244.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 173 64 11072.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 130 66 8580.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 73 70 5110.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 1 83 83.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 18 79 1422.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 55 74 4070.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 293 72 21096.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 50 83 4150.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 26 72 1872.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD31 4 92 368.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD32 1 56 56.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 20 59 1180.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 4 58 232.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 26 65 1690.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 5 65 325.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 24 61 1464.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 8 60 480.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 9 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 30 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1294 83361.00 66 16 H 48 LEHLI KALAN AL02 136 55 7480.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AL04 8 53 424.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 40 59 2360.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 12 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 4 0 0.00 Nil River Total 200 10264.00 56 70 L 49 LEHLI KHURD AL02 1 55 55.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) None-slight to Moderate AL06 79 56 4424.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 8 59 472.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Canal 1 0 0.00 Nil Canal Habitation 9 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 5 0 0.00 Nil River Total 103 4951.00 56 71 L 50 MAHNGARWAL AC01 79 57 4503.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC03 53 55 2915.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC06 24 57 1368.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 33 57 1881.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 1 59 59.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 3 58 174.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 22 61 1342.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 1 79 79.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 10 74 740.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 193 71 13703.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 344 66 22704.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 288 64 18432.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 422 66 27852.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 234 70 16380.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 77 83 6391.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 157 79 12403.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 54 74 3996.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD25 12 87 1044.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 162 72 11664.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 27 83 2241.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD32 31 56 1736.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 51 59 3009.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 3 58 174.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 9 66 594.00 High (e2-e3) SD36 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD37 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 116 65 7540.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 18 61 1098.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 6 58 348.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 71 65 4615.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 16 61 976.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 9 73 657.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 25 60 1500.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Dam 1 0 0.00 Nil Dam Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 88 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 53 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 2707 172486.00 67 12 H 51 MAILI AC01 454 57 25878.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 73 63 4599.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 97 55 5335.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 24 63 1512.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 2 62 124.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 28 57 1596.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 65 57 3705.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 157 61 9577.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 3 71 213.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 72 66 4752.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 419 64 26816.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 333 66 21978.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD19 93 70 6510.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 20 79 1580.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 69 74 5106.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 486 72 34992.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD28 6 88 528.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD29 44 87 3828.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 159 72 11448.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 22 56 1232.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 20 59 1180.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 8 65 520.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 30 61 1830.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 36 65 2340.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 33 61 2013.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 14 73 1022.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 9 60 540.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Dam 1 0 0.00 Nil Dam Habitation 26 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 38 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 51 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 2896 181002.00 65 23 M 52 MALOTE SD10 12 58 696.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 60 61 3660.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 2 79 158.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 31 74 2294.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 28 71 1988.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 92 66 6072.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 126 64 8064.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 280 66 18480.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 125 70 8750.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD20 52 83 4316.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 166 79 13114.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 2 74 148.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD25 28 87 2436.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 95 72 6840.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 24 83 1992.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 38 56 2128.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 19 59 1121.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 3 66 198.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 68 65 4420.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 7 61 427.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 6 58 348.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 15 65 975.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 12 61 732.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 1 73 73.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 7 60 420.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 1 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 37 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1338 89908.00 69 5 H 53 MANHOTAL AC01 32 57 1824.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC03 53 55 2915.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 2 63 126.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 48 57 2736.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 62 57 3534.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL02 2 55 110.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) None-slight to Moderate AL03 6 54 324.00 Very Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 11 59 649.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 10 71 710.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 7 66 462.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD17 15 64 960.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 45 66 2970.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 19 70 1330.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 2 79 158.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 12 56 672.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 6 59 354.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD37 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 1 65 65.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 2 58 116.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 1 65 65.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 4 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 12 0 0.00 Nil River Total 359 20506.00 60 47 L 54 MANJHI AC01 4 57 228.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC03 15 55 825.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 3 63 189.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 63 62 3906.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 83 57 4731.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL02 99 55 5445.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) None-slight to Moderate AL03 43 54 2322.00 Very Low erosion (e1-e2) AL05 16 57 912.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 37 56 2072.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL09 5 57 285.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 16 71 1136.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 81 66 5346.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD17 68 64 4352.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 108 66 7128.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 54 70 3780.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 4 83 332.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 23 79 1817.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 78 74 5772.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 118 72 8496.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 22 83 1826.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD29 10 87 870.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 85 72 6120.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 18 65 1170.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 25 65 1625.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 23 61 1403.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 11 73 803.00 Very High (e3-e4) Habitation 9 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 93 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1223 73439.00 66 17 H 55 MANOLIAN AL02 196 55 10780.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 1 53 53.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 36 59 2124.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 10 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 9 0 0.00 Nil River Total 252 12957.00 56 72 L 56 MUGOWAL AC01 504 57 28728.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 11 63 693.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 4 63 252.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 36 57 2052.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 93 57 5301.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Canal 1 0 0.00 Nil Canal Habitation 20 0 0.00 Nil Habitation

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Total 669 37026.00 57 62 L 57 MUSTAPUR AC01 80 57 4560.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 9 55 495.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 11 63 693.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 10 57 570.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 9 57 513.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 3 71 213.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 12 66 792.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 5 64 320.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 19 66 1254.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 7 70 490.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 5 79 395.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 3 0 0.00 Nil River Total 183 10488.00 61 44 M 58 NARA AC01 19 57 1083.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 4 63 252.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 5 55 275.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 4 63 252.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 24 62 1488.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 14 57 798.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 45 57 2565.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL02 139 55 7645.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 13 53 689.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 2 56 112.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL09 29 57 1653.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 9 61 549.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 19 71 1349.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 48 66 3168.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD17 118 64 7552.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 141 66 9306.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 75 70 5250.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 10 79 790.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 55 74 4070.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 101 72 7272.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 61 83 5063.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD29 26 87 2262.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 24 72 1728.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 7 65 455.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 3 65 195.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 68 61 4148.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 9 73 657.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 9 60 540.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Brick Kiln 6 0 0.00 Nil Brick Kiln Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 21 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1118 71298.00 66 18 H 59 NARI SD10 15 58 870.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 15 61 915.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 14 79 1106.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 52 74 3848.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 94 71 6674.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 37 66 2442.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 126 64 8064.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 185 66 12210.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 104 70 7280.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 80 83 6640.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 124 79 9796.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 14 72 1008.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD27 69 83 5727.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD28 44 88 3872.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 7 72 504.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 13 56 728.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 7 59 413.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 6 66 396.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 2 63 126.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 69 65 4485.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 20 65 1300.00 Medium (e2-e3) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 10 73 730.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 7 60 420.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 32 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1154 79612.00 71 3 VH 60 NARURE AC01 194 57 11058.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 19 63 1197.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 10 63 630.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 48 57 2736.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 5 58 290.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 2 71 142.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 9 66 594.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 10 64 640.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 78 66 5148.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 20 70 1400.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 2 83 166.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 41 79 3239.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 23 74 1702.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 5 83 415.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD32 9 56 504.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 6 59 354.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 2 63 126.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 12 65 780.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 2 73 146.00 Very High (e3-e4) River 16 0 0.00 Nil River Total 525 32010.00 63 36 M 61 NAUNITPUR AL02 63 55 3465.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL05 5 57 285.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 11 59 649.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 5 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 3 0 0.00 Nil River Total 87 4399.00 56 73 L 62 PATIAL- AC01 130 57 7410.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) PATIARIA AC03 1 55 55.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 6 63 378.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 25 57 1425.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 75 57 4275.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC08 2 67 134.00 High Severe erosion (e3) AL04 1 53 53.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 5 59 295.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD08 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD10 34 58 1972.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 64 61 3904.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 6 74 444.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 52 71 3692.00 Very High (e2-e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD16 236 66 15576.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 484 64 30976.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 360 66 23760.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 245 70 17150.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 32 83 2656.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 175 79 13825.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD26 19 72 1368.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 4 83 332.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD29 1 87 87.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 33 56 1848.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 22 59 1298.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 3 58 174.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 6 66 396.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 5 63 315.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 80 65 5200.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 14 61 854.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 10 58 580.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 23 65 1495.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 11 61 671.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 9 73 657.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 9 60 540.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 11 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 54 0 0.00 Nil River Total 2248 143853.00 66 19 H 63 PATIARIAN AC01 48 57 2736.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 5 63 315.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 68 55 3740.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 1 62 62.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 79 57 4503.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 113 57 6441.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AC08 11 67 737.00 High Severe erosion (e3) SD11 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 1 79 79.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 13 71 923.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 70 66 4620.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 95 64 6080.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 203 66 13398.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 115 70 8050.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 1 83 83.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 26 79 2054.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 28 74 2072.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 84 72 6048.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 32 83 2656.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD41 32 65 2080.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 21 65 1365.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 16 61 976.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 3 60 180.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 27 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 34 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 20 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 1152 69566.00 65 24 M 64 PHALAHI AL02 245 55 13475.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 29 53 1537.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL05 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 53 59 3127.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 17 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 9 0 0.00 Nil River Total 355 18253.00 55 78 VL 65 PHAPHIAL AC01 32 57 1824.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC07 8 57 456.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 7 71 497.00 Very High (e2-e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD16 8 66 528.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 46 64 2944.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD45 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 9 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 114 6493.00 62 42 M 66 RAGHOWAL AC01 171 57 9747.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 17 63 1071.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 49 55 2695.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC06 6 57 342.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 27 57 1539.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 2 74 148.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 10 71 710.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 39 66 2574.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 59 64 3776.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 30 66 1980.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 10 70 700.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 2 79 158.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 3 66 198.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 6 65 390.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 11 61 671.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 5 73 365.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 3 60 180.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 7 0 0.00 Nil River Total 469 27496.00 61 45 M 67 RAHMANPUR AC01 59 57 3363.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC07 8 57 456.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 1 71 71.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 35 66 2310.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 17 64 1088.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 144 66 9504.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 50 70 3500.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 1 79 79.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD33 6 59 354.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 9 65 585.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 15 60 900.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 4 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 15 0 0.00 Nil River Total 375 22891.00 64 32 M 68 RAMPUR AC01 226 57 12882.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 103 63 6489.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 61 55 3355.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 4 63 252.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 4 62 248.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 4 57 228.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 20 57 1140.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 19 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 3 0 0.00 Nil River Total 444 24594.00 58 54 L 69 RAMTATWALI AC01 290 57 16530.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 61 63 3843.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 124 55 6820.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 13 63 819.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC05 2 62 124.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 68 57 3876.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AC07 44 57 2508.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 12 61 732.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 13 74 962.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 27 71 1917.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 86 66 5676.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 88 64 5632.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 141 66 9306.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 42 70 2940.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 6 83 498.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 72 79 5688.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD25 4 87 348.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 79 72 5688.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 10 56 560.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 7 59 413.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD34 1 58 58.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 7 66 462.00 High (e2-e3) SD37 6 63 378.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 14 65 910.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 9 65 585.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 17 61 1037.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 6 73 438.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 4 60 240.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 8 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 13 0 0.00 Nil River Total 1274 78988.00 63 37 M 70 SALERAN AC01 2 57 114.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 1 63 63.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 189 55 10395.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 20 63 1260.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 22 57 1254.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 5 57 285.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD07 5 60 300.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 12 61 732.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 11 79 869.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 14 74 1036.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 72 71 5112.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 134 66 8844.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 161 64 10304.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 163 66 10758.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 74 70 5180.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 9 83 747.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 78 79 6162.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 18 74 1332.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 127 72 9144.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 18 83 1494.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD28 28 88 2464.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 65 72 4680.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 5 56 280.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 10 59 590.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 7 66 462.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 15 65 975.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 47 65 3055.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 5 61 305.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 20 73 1460.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 3 60 180.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Brick Kiln 5 0 0.00 Nil Brick Kiln Habitation 14 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 33 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 41 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 1435 89958.00 67 13 H 71 SARANGWAL AC01 80 57 4560.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class AC02 5 63 315.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 19 57 1083.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 12 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 118 6078.00 57 63 L 72 SATIAL Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 1 63 63.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC07 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL02 47 55 2585.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL09 81 57 4617.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 3 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 5 0 0.00 Nil River Total 139 7379.00 56 74 L 73 SHERPUR Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 2 63 126.00 Medium (e2-e3) AL02 13 55 715.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 3 53 159.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL05 5 57 285.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) None-slight to Moderate AL06 59 56 3304.00 Low erosion (e1-e2) AL08 8 59 472.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 5 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 6 0 0.00 Nil River Total 101 5061.00 56 75 L 74 SUNA AC01 132 57 7524.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 8 63 504.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 13 55 715.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 4 63 252.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 10 57 570.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 4 57 228.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD11 9 61 549.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD14 1 74 74.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 4 71 284.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 26 66 1716.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 104 64 6656.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 94 66 6204.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 76 70 5320.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 4 79 316.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 13 74 962.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 143 72 10296.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 4 83 332.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 48 72 3456.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD41 2 65 130.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 2 61 122.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 10 65 650.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 70 61 4270.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 6 73 438.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 20 60 1200.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 7 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 3 0 0.00 Nil River Total 817 52768.00 65 25 M 75 SURAPUR AL02 100 55 5500.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AL04 6 53 318.00 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 3 59 177.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 4 0 0.00 Nil Habitation Total 113 5995.00 55 79 VL 76 TAJEWALA AC01 97 57 5529.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 12 63 756.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 18 55 990.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 3 63 189.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 29 57 1653.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 34 57 1938.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 5 0 0.00 Nil Habitation

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class River 5 0 0.00 Nil River Total 203 11055.00 57 64 L 77 TAKHNI AC01 194 57 11058.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC03 69 55 3795.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) Moderate to Severe erosion AC04 31 63 1953.00 Medium (e2-e3) AC06 117 57 6669.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 13 57 741.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC08 3 67 201.00 High Severe erosion (e3) AL05 84 57 4788.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL08 68 59 4012.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AL09 2 57 114.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD16 5 66 330.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 9 64 576.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 126 66 8316.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 19 70 1330.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD32 19 56 1064.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 9 59 531.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 1 61 61.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 5 58 290.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 24 65 1560.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 3 61 183.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 3 73 219.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 25 60 1500.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 6 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 81 0 0.00 Nil River Total 916 49291.00 59 50 L 78 THANAA SD11 8 61 488.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD13 51 79 4029.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD14 46 74 3404.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 63 71 4473.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 23 66 1518.00 High Moderate erosion (e2)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD17 63 64 4032.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 159 66 10494.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 62 70 4340.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD20 22 83 1826.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD21 31 79 2449.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 1 74 74.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD25 33 87 2871.00 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) SD26 46 72 3312.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 41 83 3403.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD32 37 56 2072.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) SD33 11 59 649.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD35 2 66 132.00 High (e2-e3) SD41 15 65 975.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD42 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD43 7 58 406.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD44 16 65 1040.00 Medium (e2-e3) SD45 7 61 427.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Severe to Very severe erosion SD46 9 73 657.00 Very High (e3-e4) SD47 2 60 120.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Dam 3 0 0.00 Nil Dam Habitation 1 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 41 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 30 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 834 53435.00 70 4 H 79 THAROLLI AC01 23 57 1311.00 Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC02 21 63 1323.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC03 105 55 5775.00 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) AC05 23 62 1426.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) AC06 1 57 57.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC07 33 57 1881.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) AC08 6 67 402.00 High Severe erosion (e3)

S. Area Runoff Potential Relative Risk Relative Priority Village Name RPMU Erosion RPI No. (ha) Value RPI Category Priority Class SD11 4 61 244.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) Moderate to Severe erosion SD15 19 71 1349.00 Very High (e2-e3) SD16 110 66 7260.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD17 38 64 2432.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD18 44 66 2904.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD19 17 70 1190.00 High Moderate erosion (e2) SD21 2 79 158.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD24 50 74 3700.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD26 14 72 1008.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD27 7 83 581.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD29 2 87 174.00 Very High Severe erosion (e3) SD30 67 72 4824.00 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) SD45 157 61 9577.00 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) SD47 5 60 300.00 Low Moderate erosion (e2) Habitation 5 0 0.00 Nil Habitation River 12 0 0.00 Nil River Water bodies 1 0 0.00 Nil Water bodies Total 766 47876.00 64 33 M GRAND TOTAL 57,558/54912

100

Long Range View of Undifferentiated Hill Slopes with Severe Gully Erosion

Hill Tops with Gully Heads under Strong Gully Erosion

Severe Sheet Erosion in Valley

Strong Sheet Erosion

मु奍य मृदा सर्वेक्षण अधिकारी, Chief Soil Survey Officer, भारतीय मृदा एर्वं भू-उपयोग सर्वेक्षण Soil and Land Use Survey of India कृधि, सहकाररता एर्वं ककसान क쥍याण धर्वभाग, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare भारतीय कृधि अनुसंिान संथान पररसर (पूसा), नई कद쥍ली - ११००१२ IARI Campus (PUSA), New Delhi - 110012 ई-मेल पता : [email protected], Phone : 011-25841263, Fax: 25843811 (E-Mail ): [email protected], Phone : 011-25841263, Fax: 25843811