Consultancy Report

Study on Conservation of Subsoil Water in Shivalik Hills of Punjab

Funded by

Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation

Government of Punjab

Submitted by

ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation

Research Center, Sector 27 A, Chandigarh

1

Citation: Panwar Pankaj, P.K. Mishra, A.K. Tiwari, V.K. Bhatt and Sharmistha Pal (2017). Study on Conservation of subsoil water in Shivalik Hills of Punjab. Consultancy Funded by Department of Forest and Wildlife, Government of Punjab. Printed by ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Center, Chandigarh : .

TO OBTAIN COPY AND FURTHER INFORMATION: Please write to:

The Director ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation 218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehra Dun – 248 115 (Uttrakhand) Phone: 0135-2758564; 2757214

Email: [email protected]

The Head ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation Research Center, Sector 27A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160 019 (U.T- Chandigarh) Phone : 0172-2659365 Telefax: 0172-2650783

Email: [email protected]

Publication Year : 2017

Cover Photo: Pinus roxburghii forest , sub surface water , over flowing water in May month, discussion with farmers on water status

Back cover photo: Diverse forest in PLPA areas , agroforestry in PLPA villages, straight cliffs : abode to bird’s diversity, savior of Shivaliks: trees having root anchoring capacity

Disclaimer: The report is a rapid reconnaissance study of Shivalik area . This report cannot be used for legal purposes / disputes and arbitrations etc related to boundaries of forest, encroachments etc.

2

Consultancy Report on

Study on Conservation of subsoil water in Shivalik Hills of Punjab

Funded by

Department of Forestry and Wildlife

Government of Punjab

Submitted by

ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation

Research Center, Sector 27 A, Chandigarh

3

Team of Consultants

Name Designation

Scientific Staff

Dr. Pankaj Panwar Principal Scientist (Forestry) Principal Investigator (PI)

Dr. P.K. Mishra Director Co- PI

Dr. A.K. Tiwari Head of the Center Co- PI

Dr. V.K. Bhatt Principal Scientist (SWE) Co- PI

Dr. Sharmistha Pal Scientist (Soil Science) Co- PI

Technical Staff

Sh. Surender Singh Chief Technical Officer Member

Sh Basudeo Technical Officer Member

4

Acknowledgements

The consultants sincerely place on record the financial support received from Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation ,Government of Punjab for proving this opportunity to work on the consultancy “Study on Conservation of Subsoil Water in Shivalik Hills of Punjab”. The authors are grateful to the Director , ICAR- Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun and Head of ICAR- IISWC, RC, Chandigarh for allowing the consultants to carry out the work and providing facilities, support and encouragement during entire course of study. The consultants are thankful to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Punjab, Divisional Forest Officers, Range Forest Officers and Field Staffs of Punjab Forest Department for their significant support and providing logistics during the consultancy. The ground water data provided by Central Ground Water Board, Regional Centre, Chandigarh is also acknowledged. The technical hand provided by the Universal Satellite Mapping Consultants Pvt. Ltd. , Sector 17, Chandigarh for preparation of maps are duly acknowledged.

The whole hearted support and active participation of the stakeholders of areas under PLPA villages surveyed during the study is also duly acknowledged. The consultants also express their gratitude to the staffs of ICAR- Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun and ICAR- IISWC, RC, Chandigarh for their direct and indirect help and support provided during the study.

AUTHORS

5

Contents

Chapter Content 1. Introduction 1.1 Shivalik at a glance 1.2 Hydrology and ground water 1.3 Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources 1.4 Soil and water erosion 2. Materials and 2.1 Selection of watersheds methods 2.2. Selection of sites for detailed survey 2.3 Vegetation survey 2.4. Ground water status 2.5. Sub soil moisture and texture 2.6. Hydrology and PLPA – villagers perception 2.7. Forest status in PLPA areas 2.8. Potential soil erosion and PLPA 3. Results 3.1. Status of sub soil water in a time series 3.2. Impact of closure under PLPA and various works undertaken for conservation of sub soil moisture. 3.3. Determination of areas in different sub watersheds/ micro water sheds for closure under PLPA in future for conserving sub soil moisture. 3.4. Site specific measures/treatments in different sub watersheds/ micro watersheds for enhanced conservation of sub soil water. 4. Salient findings and Recommendation

6

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Shivaliks at a glance

Shivalik hills are one of the youngest mountain ranges running parallel to the Himalayan ranges. These are spelled differently as Siwalik, Sivalik, Sewalik, Shiwalik 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 a part of Outer or Lower Hiamalyas. Shivalik region is commonly referred as kandi region/belt in these north Indian states (Mittal et al., 2000). Technically speaking kandi region has bouldery soil frequently dissected by overland flow from hills through networks of small streams, choes, gullies etc. North-western Shivalik region (lower Himalayas) is generally up to 1000 m elevation and it covers an area of 3.33 million ha.

In Punjab it extends from 300 25’ 54” to 320 32’ 00” N latitudes and 750 19’ 36” to 760 55’ 13” E longitudes. Total area covered is 5470 sq km including 110 sq km of entire union territory area. Punjab Shivalik covers entire district of Pathankot and part of Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawansahar), Rupnagar, Fatehgarh Sahib (Sirhind) and S.A.S Nagar (Fig. 1.1). It also includes negligible parts of Kapurthala, Gurdaspur and Patiala districts (Yadav et al., 2015). Average slope of Shivalik hills vary from 25 to 60% (Singh et al., 2010) and most of the hill area is covered with subtropical forest. The piedmont plain covers a large area with slope between 1 to 6% which is frequently intercepted by choes.

7

Source: Yadav et al., 2014

Fig. 1.1. Map showing Shivalik hills (piedmont and hill region) of Punjab.

The watershed approach is a system-based approach that facilitates the holistic development of agriculture, forestry and allied activities in the watershed. Sustainable watershed development planning requires high resolution and accurate spatial data, and knowledge of the ecology and socio-economy. Remote Sensing (RS) provides effective support in terms of relevant, reliable and timely information. A number

8 of studies, carried out worldwide, demonstrate the capability of remote sensing and Geographical Information System (GIS) in development planning. By interfacing remote sensing with GIS, different management scenarios could be generated, which could help the planners in assessing the feasibility of various alternatives before selecting the one that would be most suitable. Several workers have demonstrated the method for integrated sustainable rural development planning using remotely sensed data and GIS (Kushwaha et al., 2010; Martin and Saha, 2009).

Modern technology like remote sensing and GIS have been providing newer dimension for effecting monitoring and managing the natural resources (Martin et al., 2007). It is well documented that the RS & GIS have great role to play in the preparation of resource map accurately in less time and cost. The assessment of Land Use & Land Cover changes can be effectively and accurately detected with the help of two data set of different period. On the other hand, GIS technology can integrate large number of data sets. The technology is mainly used to perform spatial analysis of point database and is effectively used to solve various environmental problems like quantitative assessment of soil erosion.

1.2 . Hydrology and ground water

Due to peculiar geological formations, Shiwalik hills represent most fragile eco- system of Himalayan mountain ranges. The steep slopes and undulating terrain gives rise to more runoff and accelerated soil erosion during the monsoon season. Various streams locally known as choes and khads which emerge from Shivalik hills are ephemeral and dry up after each monsoon. These choes don’t continue long and disappears in alluvium after covering a distance of 10-15 km. The piedmont regions (lower shivalik region) restricts the infiltration of water and promotes surface runoff. Due to its sandy and gravelly nature the region serves as a potential ground water recharge zone.

Water table of the region varies from 5 to 25 m (Mahajan et al., 2000) in unconfined aquifers. Due to shortage of water the success of plantations mainly depends on timely planting during the monsoon period and soil and water conservation

9 measures taken up in their vicinity. Many earth fill dams, ponds and stone masonry check dams have also been constructed in past for containing soil loss, reducing runoff and recharging ground water and providing supplemental irrigation to crops of region.

1.3. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources

To control surface runoff and soil erosion, attempts have been made in the past under various schemes like Integrated Watershed Development Project I & II and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (1996-2007) to rehabilitate the degraded hills through extensive afforestation and soil conservation measures. The measures included construction of brush wood check dams, dry stone masonry check dams, continuous live hedges, crate wire structures in streams/choes, silt detention dams and cement masonry structures. Ponds are also maintained in the forest areas for the benefit of wild animals. Silt observation posts in representative watersheds were established to measure run-off and soil loss. Observations were recorded twice a year in June (before monsoon) and October (after monsoon) in existing open wells to see the effect of soil and water conservation measures on groundwater recharge.

A study carried out in four watersheds of Punjab Shivalik, covering the region of Ropar, Dasuya , Garhshankar and Hoshiarpur showed that the runoff from the sub watersheds before treatments varied from 40.3 % to 50.4 % of rainfall. The imposition of treatment viz tress, grasses, loose stone check dams, drop structures and community imposed controlled grazing led to drastic reduction of runoff varying from 0.4 to 5.8 %, over a period of four years. Similarly, the digging of staggered contour trenches, (750 running meter per hectare) , soil loss declined from 163.5 – 419 tonnes per hectare per year during 1994 to 3.0 – 19.7 tonnes per hectare per year in 1998 (Grewal et. al., 1999).

10

In areas closed under Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, to efficiently utilize the water for irrigation purposes, Makkowal type tanks were constructed to give life saving irrigation to crops. Many earth fill dams like Dholbaha, Janauri, Maili,Damsal (in Mahangrowal watershed), Chohal, Seleran, Patiari, Thana are contributing to ground water recharge, enhance sub-surface flow and for irrigation to crops.

1.4. Biodiversity of Punjab Shivaliks

Amongst the angiosperms, 355 herbs, 70 trees, 70 shrubs or undershrubs, 19 climbers and 21 twinners were recorded from the study area. Families like Poaceae, Papilionaceae, Asteraceae and Cyperaceae are the dominant families. Out of a total number of 562 angiospermic species of plants recorded from the study area, two species (Hibiscus hoshiarpurensis Paul & Nayar and Argyrolobium album Bhattacharya) are found endemic to Punjab Shivaliks. Eleven species are new reports from Punjab, 44 species are found to occur very rarely (only 1-2 specimens were observed from the study area) and about 145 species occur rarely (occasionally seen) in the area. Punjab Shivalik has dominant presence of a single species of Gymnosperm (Pinus roxburghii Sarg.) (Jerath et al., 2006).

Preservation of Shivaliks also owes its importance as these have been declared as an IBA (Important Bird Area) site by Bombay Natural History Society in view of the large bird population recorded from the area.

1.5. Soil and water erosion

The Shivaliks have been identified as one of the eight most degraded rain-fed agro ecosystems of the country (Agrawal et al., 2002). The Punjab Shivaliks, because of their peculiar geological formations and exposure to greater biometrical treatment due to proximity to plains, represent the most fragile ecosystem of Himalayan mountainous range (Sud et al., 2000).

Prior to the middle of 18th century, the Shivalik hills in Punjab were strictly preserved for hunting and no cultivation, grazing or exploitation of timber was permitted.

11

At that time the hills were covered with thick lush Acacia, Shisham and Pine forests with a profuse undercover of shrubs and grasses replete with wild life. However, after the Sikh Wars (1845-49) the Sardars and Rajas who owned the hunting lands were evicted and the forests were handed over to the villagers in addition to their village common lands. In less than two generations unrestricted tree felling and overgrazing have played havoc with the vegetation (Jerath and Puja, 2006).

The Shivalik region is very prone to soil erosion due to loose boulders and light soils. Singh et al., (1992) reported soil erosion varying from 5 Mg ha-1 yr-1 to over 80 Mg ha-1 yr-1 in Shivalik hills. Pal et al, 2016 reported very slight (5 Mg ha-1 yr-1) to Severe erosion (40 Mg ha-1 yr-1 ). Yadav and Sidhu (2010) reported erosion rates from 0.08 to 683.10 Mg ha-1 yr-1 in Himachal Pradesh. It was because of very high soil erosion and reduced recharge of sub soil water, more than a century ago in the year 1900, Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA) was enacted for the Shivalik hills in these region of Punjab.

The Shivalik hills are formed of easily erodible and weakly cemented sand stones and inter-bedded clay and silt strata. Even with good vegetative cover, the heavy storms of the monsoon season cause significant erosion and peaky flash flows (Jerath and Puja, 2006).

1.6. PLPA - origin and present status

Mr. Ribbentrop, The conservator of Forest while reviewing Forest Report of 1881-82 wrote “The lower hills (between Peshawar to Kaleshar doon) are most important forest areas in the province due to their influence on the agricultural wealth of the underlying country” (Quoted in Holland, 1928).

Holland, 1928 expressed 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 (earst while) 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 PLPA in 1900.

12

The PLP Act received the assent of the Lieutient Governer of the Punjab on 28.08.1900 and the Governer General on 10th October of 1900 and was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 15.11.1900 with the aim:

“An Act to provide for the better preservation and protection of certain portions of the territories of Punjab”

PLP Act 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 area of 502 villages has been notified under PLPA in Punjab. The areas under PLPA are delineated through notifications from time to time. In the past, sustained efforts have been done by Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation to rehabilitate the degraded lands falling under PLPA areas by implementing special projects like “Kandi Watershed Area Development Project” , “Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills) – I and II” Punjab Afforestration Project – I and II” with the financial assistance from external agencies.

The present study was commissioned to this organization by the Punjab Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation with the following objectives:

Objectives of the Study 1. Status of sub soil water in a time series. 2. Impact of closure under PLPA and various works undertaken for conservation of sub soil moisture. 3. Determination of areas in different sub watersheds/ micro water sheds for closure under PLPA in future for conserving sub soil moisture. 4. Site specific measures/treatments in different sub watersheds/ micro watersheds for enhanced conservation of sub soil water.

13

CHAPTER 2

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Vegetation, soil moisture, soil erosion and other related parameters do not follow any manmade or administrative boundaries, such as District, Forest Division or other administrative boundaries. Therefore, watershed approach was utilized for selection of areas for detailed survey.

2.1. Selection of watersheds

Watershed boundaries and their nomenclature were adopted from the Atlas “Delineation and codification of subwatersheds in Kandi Area of Punjab” by Singh et al., undated Published by Punjab Remote Sensing Center, Ludhiana. As per the atlas, kandi area of Punjab falls under four river basins (Ravi, Beas, Satlej and Ghagger) four catchments, 7 sub catchments, 15 watersheds and 104 subwatersheds.

Since areas notified under PLPA are distributed throughout the Punjab Shivaliks and are administered by Divisional level officers (DFO’s), hence to have equal representation from each division three watersheds/subwatersheds were randomly selected from each division in consultation with the respective DFO’s (Photo 2.1). Thus total subwatersheds selected were 18, which is 17% of the total sub watersheds in Shivaliks. The detail of selected watersheds are given in Table 2.1. Lower regions of many selected sub-watersheds were plain areas and hence these plain areas were not taken for detailed study.

Photo 2.1. Consultants discussing with DFO Hoshiarpur

14

Table 2.1 Selected watersheds in Punjab Shivaliks

Name of Name of Watershed/ Symbol Area in Hactare* the subwatershed Division SAS Nagar, - Patiala Ki Rao B5a 5045 S.A.S.Nagar - Siswan Nadi B6a 21056 - Budhki Nadi B6b 12014 Ropar - Sugahrao B6d 5580 - Kotla khad D2f 3499 - Batlour Khad D2t 3068 Garshankar - Baluwal-Ratewal C5g 4863 - Singhpur choe C3b 1531 - Balachaur C5h 3792 Hoshiarpur - Chagran C2d 5355 - Nara-Manji C2f 3048 - Bhanowal- A2c 6981 Masthwal Dasuya - Sansarpur-Munak A2d 9234 - Bhatoli-Banial A2e 11510 - Nangal-Amroh A8b 1750 Pathankot - Areli-Matti-Dung B3b 3678 - Putoli Nadi B3e 2791 - Dalor-Mangini A7h 2851 *Source: Delineation and codification of subwatersheds in Kandi Area of Punjab by Singh et al., undated Published by Punjab Remote Sensing Center, Ludhiana.

15

2.2. Selection of sites for detailed survey (within selected sub watersheds)

While selecting sites within the selected sub watershed, care was taken to get over all representation of the watershed with respect to vegetation and associated soil moisture. To achieve this each watershed was divided into three parts viz. inner, middle and outer. Vegetation survey and soil sample collection was carried out in inner, middle and outer parts, at three different locations in each part of the watershed. Since vegetation and soil moisture differs with aspect and slope, hence care was taken to take sample from different aspect and slope.

2.3. Vegetation Survey

Vegetation survey was carried out using quadrate method. Quadrate is a square of varying size, which is laid out in forest and observations related to vegetation survey is restricted to this square. The observations recorded in the quadrate represent the condition of whole forest area. 10 x 10 m sized quadrate were used to study trees, 5 x 5 m quadrate for shrubs and 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrate for grasses. In each quadrate number of species was identified. Girth at Breast Height (GBH) for trees and collar diameter for Shrubs and grasses were measured. These field data were then analysed for to calculate the following diversity indices:

A) Importance Value Index (IVI) = Relative density + Relative dominance + Relative frequency

Where:

Relative density = Number of individuals of the species x 100 Total number of individuals of all the species

Relative dominance(RD) = Total basal area of a species x 100 Total basal area of all the species

Relative frequency (RF) = Number of occurrence** of species x 100

16

Number of occurrence of all the species

** Frequency = Number of quadrate in which species occurred x 100 Total number of quadrate studied

B) Species richness = (S – 1) Where S= total number of species Log N N = total number of individual of all species

2.4. Ground water status

Ground water is a function of land use, geology, the extent of exploitation etc. The ground water data was procured from Central Ground Water Board, Regional Office, Chandigarh for the period 1990, 2000 and 2016. The point data were placed on the map of Punjab Shivalik area along with their latitude and longitude and extrapolation was done in spatial analyst tool of Arc GIS. While visiting the selected watersheds, the water depths in open wells were also measured using measuring tapes.

2.5. Sub-soil moisture & texture Soil samples for sub soil moisture content determination were collected from individual sampling points, up to the depth of 60 cm, wherever possible, at intervals of 0-15, 15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 cm, respectively. Soil moisture was determined by gravimetric method. Soil texture was determined using hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1962). The results are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.

2.6. Hydrology and PLPA – villager’s perception The free flowing water in the streams were measured on the basis of depth of flowing water, width of the area in which it was flowing and the velocity of water. Questionnaire was developed for getting response of the land owners, farmers living in the villages surrounding or in the PLPA area on water regime vis-à-vis PLPA (Annexure - I).

17

2.7. Forest status in PLPA areas To assess forest cover status in PLPA areas, LANDSAT 1990 imagery with 30 m resolution was used. The current status of forest was determined using IRS 1 C LISS IV imageries of 2015 with resolution of 5.6 m . The Arc GIS 10.3 , ERDAS imagine 204 were used for interpreting the imageries and change detection over 25 years. The steps followed for preparation of map is shown in figure 2.1. The survey of India topo sheet of 1: 50000 scale was used for digitizing drainage maps of the PLPA areas.

METHODOLOGY

SOI TOPOSHEET SATELLITE DATA SATELLITE DATA

LANDSAT 4 & 5, 1990 IRS 1 C, LISS-IV, 2015

GEO REFERENCING GEO REFERENCING DIGITIZATION,

CONTOUR MAP

SUBSET OF AREA OF INTEREST SUBSET OF AREA OF INTEREST DEM

UNSUPERVISED / SUPERVISED UNSUPERVISED / SUPERVISED CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION SLOPE MAP

LU / LC DIGITIZED

MERGING OF DATA AND PREPARATION OF CHANGE DETECTION MAP

Figure 2.1 . Details of the experimental methodology for preparation of map

18

Generation of data base

The area of interest with respect to PLPA areas was delineated using IRS 1C, LISS IV and LANDSAT 1990 and also with the help of SOI Toposheet of the study area.

Preparation of forest cover map

Digital satellite data was imported and georeferencing was performed in UTM coordinate system. Forest cover map was prepared by adopting unsupervised classification system.

Generation of DEM and slope map

The ASTER DEM (30m) map was processed to derive the slope map. Dx, Dy map was prepared using linear filter DFDX, DFDY. Dx, Dy represent the variation in elevation in X & Y direction respectively. Slope map was classified into various classes using slicing operation of image processing.

2.8. Potential soil erosion and PLPA Punjab soil erosion map (Pal et al, 2016) was overlaid over the area of interest of each division to ascertain areas which are more prone to soil erosion, if not protected.

19

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

This chapter provides details of the work carried out and the results obtained. Both primary and secondary data had been collected and are presented. The results obtained/compiled are presented on the basis of the objectives of the study.

3.1. OBJECTIVE 1. STATUS OF SUB SOIL WATER IN A TIME SERIES

3.1.1 Rainfall pattern of the region

Analysis of long term annual rainfall of Shivalik region indicates that in general there is decrease in rainfall after 1998 in all the forest divisions (Fig. 3.1). If average rain fall is compared up to 1998 and thereafter it is seen that there is reduction in rainfall by 12.7%, 56.6%,40.7% and 14.4% respectively of Gurdaspur / Pathankot, Nawan Shahar / Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur and Roopnagar respectively. Thus reduced pattern of rainfall also necessitates more plantation and enhanced water conservation measures in PLPA areas for checking degradation of area and increase in sub soil water.

3.1.2 Surface flow of water

On the basis of 18 selected sample watersheds only in four surface flow of water was not observed during filed survey. Other 14 sub-watersheds are having sub soil water either at inner, middle or at outer portion of watershed. Average details of water flow and open well water level is given in Table 3.1. The detailed point wise data of surface water flow as measured in May 2017 during field survey is appended in Annexure II. The point wise open well data is given in Annexure III. In some cases sub soil water appears at 60 to 100 cm soil depth. All the sub-watersheds are having some or other soil and water conservation structures but most of them were found to be filled with silt. As such new measures need to be adopted in all PLPA areas particularly Gairmumkin pahar, upper catchment areas and areas notified under section 5.

20

2500 Gurdaspur Nawan Shehar Hoshiarpur Rupnagar 2000 Mohali mean

1500

1000 Rainfall, Rainfall, mm

500

0

1985 1997 2002 2007 1970 1980 1990 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2013 2014 1966 Years

Fig. 3.1 Rainfall pattern of last 5 decades in Shivalik region of Punjab

Source for rainfall data

i. Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Punjab ii. ENVIS Centre: Punjab iii. www.indiaagristat.com

21

Table 3.1. Sub soil water status in selected sub-watersheds in different forest divisions

Name Name of Availability of Discharge of sub Depth of Remarks of the Watershed/ sub soil water soil water ground water, Divisio subwatershed Yes / No Lit/min m (bgl) n SAS Nagar, Patiala Ki Rao Traces Not Available Not Available* Area needs plantation work and soil and water S.A.S.Nagar conservation measures Siswan Nadi Traces Not Available Not Available -do -

Budhki Nadi Yes Saturated soil at 2.0 to 20.0 If more plantation is done and conservation 1 m depth structures are constructed this sub watershed may change to perennial type Ropar Sugahrao Traces Not Available 2.5 – 15 Area needs plantation work and soil and water conservation measures Kotla khad Yes 10 – 300 Not available If more plantation is done and conservation structures are constructed this sub watershed may change to perennial type Batlour Khad Yes 1386.0 2.25 – 8.0 -do -

Garshankar Baluwal-Ratewal Yes 1.3 -1.8 -do - 1.5 to 2.0 Singhpur choe Traces Not Available Not Available Area needs plantation work and soil and water conservation measures Balachaur Yes 18.3 -129.6 2.5 -4.6 Hoshia Chagran ephemeral 14.6 4.0 to 8.0 If more plantation is done and conservation r structures are constructed this sub watershed pur may change to perennial type

22

Nara-Manji Yes 228 2.0 to 6.0 If more plantation is done and conservation structures are constructed this sub watershed may change to perennial type Bhanowal- Yes 71.4 -734.6 1 to 1.5 Due to good vegetation and soil and water Masthwal conservation measures there is good availability of soil water. This condition need to be maintained Dasuya Sansarpur-Munak Yes 300 -480 1.9 -4.6 If more plantation is done and conservation structures are constructed this sub watershed may change to perennial type Bhatoli-Banial Yes 348 - 996 0.5 to 10.7 -do- Nangal-Amroh Traces Not Available 5.0 Top soil is bouldry as such good area for recharge of sub soil water Pathan Areli-Matti-Dung Yes 202.5 2-3.6 If more plantation is done and conservation kot structures are constructed this sub watershed may change to perennial type Putoli Nadi Yes 108.0 4.6 -do- Dalor-Mangini yes Nala bed is 0.8 Due to good vegetation and soil and water saturated with conservation measures there is good availability water of soil water. This condition need to be maintained. * Not Available indicates that data could not be measured

23

Bioengineering measures adopted in Shivalik region during execution of integrated watershed development programme between 1990 to 1999 in shivalik region of Punjab resulted in reduction of runoff from treated watersheds, and moderation of flood peaks. The catchment storage improved substantially and the runoff was slowly released more gradually in form of base flow over a prolonged period of time. This change from seasonality to perenniality in the base flow characteristics of torrents was evident from the increased number, length, duration and discharge of base flow after project interventions as shown in Table 3.2 (Dogra , 2000).

The benefits of perennial flow over flash flow are manifold e,g. more recharge of ground water as was reflected in the rise of water table in the wells, prolonged soil moisture availability, protection of land against stream bank erosion and more availability of perennial flows for supplemental irrigation. The average rise in ground water table observed regularly in selected wells located in the project area varying from 0.7 to 7.7 m over a period of 7 years. The improvement in moisture regime was also indicated by the appearance of moisture loving vegetation (mesophytic) such as algae, mosses, Typha, Vitex and Eugenia. Table 3.2. Improvement in sub surface of watersheds before and after treatment (Dogra, 2000)

Description of base flow characteristics Pre-project status Status after project

Number of perennial torrents 27 39

Length of base flow in torrents, km 58 198

Duration of base flow, months 0-3 11 3 4-6 4 4

7-9 3 4 10-12 9 28 Discharge of base flow, liters

Poor (< 7) 14 0

Moderate (7-21) 10 17 High (21- 42) 3 15

Very high (> 42) 3 7

24

3.1.3. Changes in ground water level Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) has studied changes in water level since last one decade using decadal mean data. Water level mean of past one decade (2005-2014) for each ground water observation well is computed and compared with the respective water level data of January 2015. The behavioral pattern of decadal mean fluctuations is shown in Fig. 3.2. Rise in water level has also been observed in 25% of wells and 19% of area in Pathankot, Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, Gadshankar, Ropar and SAS Nagar divisions in north and north eastern parts. Water level rise in the range of 0-2 m is observed in 21% of wells and 17% of the area (Source : Central Ground Water Board).

The data of ground water was also collected from Central Ground Water Board for the period November 1995 – 2000 , November 2000- 2016 and May 2000-2016. The data is appended at Annexure IV. These data points were plotted on maps and through extrapolation variation in ground water level is observed for Shivalik region (Figure 3.3 to 3.5).

25

Figure 3.2 : Water level fluctuation in Punjab (Source: Central Ground Water Board)

26

Figure 3.3 : Fluctuation in water table during November 1995 – 2000 in Shivalik region of

Punjab

27

Figure 3.4 : Fluctuation in water table during November 2000-2016 in Shivalik region of Punjab

28

Figure 3.5 : Fluctuation in water table during May 200-2016 in Shivalik region of Punjab

29

4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Batlor ki khad Kotla khad Sugarao

inner middle outer

Figure 3.6 : Soil moisture (%) in Rupnagar Forest Division of Punjab

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 BudkiRao PatialakiRao SiswanNadi

inner middle outer

Figure 3.7 : Soil moisture (%) in S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division of Punjab

30

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Balachaur Singpura Balwal Ratiwal

inner middle outer

Figure 3.8 : Soil moisture (%) in Garshankar Forest Division of Punjab

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Batoli Banyal Namgal Amroh Sansarpur Munak

inner middle outer

Figure 3.9 : Soil moisture (%) in Dasuya Forest Division of Punjab

31

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00 Arelli Matti Dung Dalor-Mangini Patoli Nadi

inner middle outer

Figure 3.10 : Soil moisture (%) in Gurdaspur Forest Division of Punjab

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 Ballowal Mastiwal Chakran NaraDadaManjhi

inner midle outer

Figure 3.11 : Soil moisture (%) in Hoshiarpur Forest Division of Punjab

32

3.1.4. Soil moisture status

The soil samples were collected from representative sites of each watershed, from every division. The samples have been collected upto 60 cm depth with an interval of 15 cm (Figure

3.6 to 3.11). The soil moisture have been measured gravimetrically on oven dry basis and expressed in percentage. The percentage soil moisture have been found to be significantly correlated with the presence of vegetation in watershed. A higher species diversity coupled with good canopy cover led to higher percentage soil moisture. So, for better conservation of soil moisture, more forest tree cover should be maintained.

3.1.5. Hydrology and PLPA : People’s perception

During the study 390 farmers were randomly selected in 48 villages (No. of villages surveyed in given in (Table 3.3).These farmers were interviewed by the team of consultants in connection with availability of water in the form of soil water/subsurface water etc for irrigation and other purposes. Interview schedule included a two pages performa prepared by experts on various aspects showing status of irrigation, water harvesting, soil and water conservation and water resource agriculture and others socio economic conditions. All the information from field was compiled. From master sheet small tables were extracted as per the requirement and defined parameters

33

Table 3.3. Division wise villages surveyed under PLPA Name of the Name of Watershed/ sub Name of villages No. of land Division watershed surveyed owner / villagers/ farmers interviewed SAS Nagar, iv. Patiala Ki Rao Mansul 9 S.A.S.Nagar v. Siswan Nadi Chhoti nadi 8 vi. Budhki Nadi Karor 9 Mirzapur 9 Gochar 8 Siswan 7 Tapri Sultanpur 3 Ropar vii. Sugahrao Pahadpur 10 viii. Kotla khad Mehaundi 4 ix. Batlour Khad Raipurshani 7 Batlor 6 Khad Battor 5 Khad batlor 8 Majri 5 Kakat 7 Jhagia 5 Garshankar x. Baluwal-Ratewal Tibba 16 xi. Singhpur choe Bhaddi 15 xii. Balachaur Ballowal Soukhri 7 Kallar 10 Singh pur 10 Hoshiarpur xiii. Chagran Nara 6 xiv. Nara-Manji Dada 4 xv. Bhanowal-Masthwal Manjhi 10 Chaksadhu 5 Dalawal 5 Thana 11 Khanwari 9 Manlrata 10 Narur 7

34

Dasuya xvi. Sansarpur-Munak Rampur 9 xvii. Bhatoli-Banial Dadiyal 12 xviii. Nangal-Amroh Neaknama 10 Chattarpur 4 Labber 11 Koi 10 Dharampur 9 Alera 8 Amraha 9 Pathan xix. Areli-Matti-Dung Kui 10 kot xx. Putoli Nadi Jallar 8 xxi. Dalor-Mangini Chindola 6 Maror 6 Mansul 4 Salari 6 Dukh nariyali 10 Barsudal 10 Matti 12

On the basis of sample watersheds maximum cultivated area (71%) is irrigated by tubewells in Hoshiarpur followed by Garhshankar and S.A.S.Nagar. Only 0.30% area is irrigated by tubewells in Pathankot. Most of the area i.e. 33% is irrigated by springs in Pathankot followed by Ropar. It indicates that Pathankot division is having plenty of soil water. In Dasuya forest division 13% area is irrigated by tubewell and 7.4 % is irrigated by open wells. Details of sampled area irrigated by different sources is shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.5 shows availability of soil water /ground water and number of soil and water conservation measures in sampled sub watersheds /villages. It was found that the ground water level in wells varied from 3 to 50 m. The depth was more in S.A.S.Nagar and least in Pathankot, Dasuya and Hoshiarpur Divisions. The depth of tube well was lower in S.A.S.Nagar and shallow in Pathankot.

35

Table 3.4: Total surveyed/sampled agricultural area being irrigated by different sources Name of the Total surveyed Agril area, ha % area under Irrigation through Division Tube well Open well WHS Springs S.A.S.Nagar 74 61 Not found* Not found Not found Ropar 115 40 1.1 Not found 7.4 Garshankar 110 69 Not found 5 1 Hoshiar pur 254 71 Not found 5 2.5 Dasuya 393 13 7.4 0.2 0.3 Pathan kot 272 0.3 3 6 33 Table 3.5: Availability of soil water /ground water and number of soil and water conservation measures**

Name of the Variation in ground No. of No. of mechanical structures Division water level,m WHS# Dry stone Brick/stone Well T. well and crate masonry check wire dams S.A.S.Nagar 3-50 130-300 21 235 38 Ropar 7-30 80-150 26 156 65 Garshankar 10-13 130-200 19 497 22 Hoshiar pur 3-7 80-130 25 523 36 Dasuya 3-10 130-200 20 627 58 Pathan kot 3-10 30-65 14 82 41

** Numbers are on the basis of farmers’ interview and information obtained from accompanying forest officials # WHS : Water harvesting Structures xxii. Not found in sampled area

36

Sub watershed wise status of soil water and ground water S.A.S.NAGAR Patiala ki Rao subwatershed: No water is available for irrigation as there is no subsoil water. Ground water is very deep beyond 400 m. In lower middle region ground water is at 300 m. As such this sub watershed needs construction of contour trenches, plantation of trees in catchment area and construction of dry stone/pakka check dams at appropriate locations in the drainage line. Mirzapur: A large earth fill dam was constructed during 1994-95, 50% of total agricultural area is irrigated through dam and nearby tubewells. Due to water harvesting structure, soil and water conservation works in the catchment area and due to good forest cover ground water level is about 70 m as indicated by the depth of tube wells. This resulted in improvement of crop production. Due to various soil and water conservation measures and construction of a large dam resulted in good soil water in Siswan area. At present depth of water in open wells is 4-5m and in tube well it is 100 to 150 m. ROPAR Kotlakhad watershed: Due to dense forest, earlier (about 15 years ago) there was sufficient water for irrigation but presently water volume has reduced. Water yield may be increased with afforestation and by construction of small soil and water conservation measures at upper reach. In the lower reach also flow of water in stream has reduced but still many farmers are irrigating their fields by harvesting flowing water. As regards depth of water in tube wells in concerned it varies from 110 m to 130m. Soil water is available in the area. Batlour Khad: Earlier up to 1990 lot of water was available in the form of springs for irrigation but now it has drastically reduced. Presently ground water is available at a depth from 80 to 90 m. Farmers suggested that area under section 4 should be brought under more intense plantation so that more water is conserved in upper reaches, resulting into better water flow for longer duration. GARSHANKAR Ballowal soukhri: This area is at lower reach of watershed. During 1980-90, several soil and water conservation structures were constructed. In order to harvest soil water /subsurface

37 flow several makkowal type structures were also constructed and 70-80% agricultural area was being irrigated. Presently ground water is in the range of 30-50 m bgl. Farmers of village including, Forest protection chairman, Dr. Jaspal Sharma suggested that area should remain in section 4 and 5 and farmers should be encouraged to plant more trees in the area. Still there are 2-3 springs which can give sufficient water to area if managed properly. Presence of springs clearly indicates that subsoil water is in abundance. In Kallar village which falls in middle range of watershed water depth of tube well is 280 m and soil water is not available except during monsoon season. Singhpura : Tibba village is located at upper reach at the ridge of watershed. There are only few soil and water conservation structures and vegetation density is also poor. Being bouldery soil, soil water can be improved and ground water can be recharged in this area if sufficient soil and water conservations measures including afforestation works are undertaken. These measures would improve soil water and ground water status at middle and lower reaches. Ground water is very deep at 300-400 m deep. However at middle region near Singhpura ground water status is better as it is available at 100 m depth.

HOSHIARPUR Dada, Nara and Manjhi: This watershed seems to be saturated with soil and water conservation measures and with good vegetationdensity. This has resulted in number of springs and sufficient soil water in the area. Due to good quantity of soil water and ground water depth is 80 to 110 m. Farmers have also suggested if water harvesting structures are constructed in the catchment area the condition of soil water can be further improved. In Chaksadhu village also soil water is available in good quantity that is why makkowal type structures have been successful. 70-80% area is irrigated. Dallewal village: There is water harvesting structure which has resulted irrigation to about 50% area. Ground water is at 100 to 125 m depth. Bhanewal Mastiwal: Earlier there was a perennial stream in Thana village and farmers were irrigating their fields with kuhls but after construction of a large earthfill dam, flow through stream has stopped. Here soil water /ground water is at a depth of 30-40 m

38

DASUYA Batouli Baniyal watershed: Several soil and water conservation structures have been constructed in the area. Soil water is shallow and ground water depth is 40-60 m. In miidle reach at Dadiyal village ground water is at a deoth of 60 to 80m. Earlier there was a spring up to 2006-07 but now that has vanished. As such there is need of more soil and water conservation measures in the catchment and at naalas. Sansarpur moriake: There was good soil water about 20 years back but now no water . Catchment area is also not well treated. Ground water is at 40 m depth. Koi: It is at lower reach of watershed. Here also due to construction of dam at upper reach in Thana village no water is available for irrigation. However depth of soil water and ground water has improved. Nangal Amroh watershed: In this watershed most of the soil is bouldry and no water for irrigation. Daily need of water is catered from open well where depth of water is 9m. At lower reach in Amroh area water is available at 180 m in tubewells.

PATHANKOT In almost all sub watersheds soil water is in abundance. Soil water is available in small streams even during summer. But farmers are not able to irrigate their field due to problem of lifting water from tributaries. The water can be made available to farmers for lifting if more check dams are constructed. Dunera range: In the middle reach of watershed iat Jallar village, there is perennial stream and farmers are using the water through kuhl. Water level in the wells is also at 1-1.5 depth in nearby Bodia village. One farmer has developed makkowal type structure and irrigates his land throughout year. In Marror village soil water is available but not available to farmers for irrigation due to absence of check dam in the area. In Mansul village there is sufficient soil water and farmers are getting water throughout year through Makkowal type structures. In Salary village also soil water is available and in wells it is at 8-10 m depth. Makkowal type structures have also been constructed and farmers are getting water through out the year.

39

In Dukhnaryali village; Soil water is available and farmers are able to irrigate their fields also. In Barsudal and Matti village soil water is available and some farmers are using water from nalla through lift system.

3.2. OBJECTIVE 2: IMPACT OF CLOSURE UNDER PLPA AND VARIOUS WORKS UNDERTAKEN

FOR CONSERVATION OF SUB SOIL MOISTURE

Through closures restrictions were imposed on cutting of trees, grazing etc. The diversity and extent of vegetation have been safeguarded leading to high level of sub soil water through closure.

3.2.1. Vegetation diversity

Vegetation analysis was done in all the eighteen randomly selected sub-watershed falling in six forest divisions of Shivalik hills. It was observed that the Pathankot forest are much diverse than those of other division (Fig 3.12). The least diversity index was found in Singhpura choe watershed. Separately trees and shrub diversity was also worked out for the selected watersheds (Fig 3.13). In general the forests of the region are diverse and land owners and forest department re able to protect/maintain the species of this transitional zone between hills and plains.

40

25

20

15

10

Species Diversity SpeciesDiversity Index 5

0

Chagran

Suga rao

Balachour

Bud-ki-rao

Kotla khad

PatoliNadi

Siswa-Nadi

Patiala-ki-Rao

Dolar-Mangini

Nangal-Amroh

Batoli- Baniyal

Batlour ki khad

Singhpurachoe

Areli-mati-dung

Nara-Dada-Majhi

Ballowal-Rattiwal

Sansarpur-munak Ballowal-Mastiwal Ropar Pathankot Mohali Hoshiarpur Gadshankar Dasuya

Fig.3.12 : Species Diversity Index of selected watersheds in Shivalik Hills of Punjab.

20 Tree SDI Shrub SDI 15

10

5 Species diversity index

0

Chagran

Suga rao

Balachour

Bud-ki-rao

Kotla khad

PatoliNadi

Siswa-Nadi

Patiala-ki-Rao

Dolar-Mangini

Nangal-Amroh

Batoli- Baniyal

Batlour ki khad

Singhpurachoe

Areli-mati-dung

Nara-Dada-Majhi

Ballowal-Rattiwal

Sansarpur-munak Ballowal-Mastiwal Ropar Pathankot Mohali Hoshiarpur Gadshankar Dasuya

Fig. 3.13 : Trees and shrub diversity Index in selected watersheds of forest divisions

41

Importance Value index (IVI) of trees and shrubs for each selected watershed was worked out. Top five dominant trees and shrubs, as found through the sample survey, are provided in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6. Five dominant tree species in selected watershed

Name of the Name of Watershed/ subwatershed Division SAS Nagar, Patiala Ki Rao Siswan Nadi Budhki Nadi S.A.S.Nagar Leucaena leucocephala Acacia catechu Leucaena leucocephala Acacia catechu Butea frondosa Diospyros Montana Acacia nilotica Anogeissus latifolia Falahi Falahi Terminalia bellirica Acacia catechu Diospyros Montana Reru Ailathus excelsa Ropar Sugahrao Kotla khad Batlour Khad Acacia catechu Dalbergia sissoo Acacia catechu Rorhi Acacia catechu Diospyros Montana Dalbergia sissoo Kagoo Reru Diospyros Montana Pisticia integremia Phlahi Melia azedarach Bombax ceiba Rorhi Garshankar Baluwal-Ratewal Singhpur choe Balachaur Pisticia integremia Dalbergia sissoo Diospyros Montana Dalbergia sissoo Acacia catechu Phoenix spp. Annogeisus latifolia Leucaena leucocephala Phlahi Bombax ceiba Zizyphus spp. Pisticia integremia Acacia catechu Acacia nilotica Acacia catechu Hoshiarpur Chagran Nara-Manji Bhanowal-Masthwal Acacia catechu Kaigu Mallotus philippensis Kaigu Acacia catechu Acacia catechu Grewia optiva Zizyphus spp. Caesearia tomentosa Leucaena leucocephala Terminalia bellirica Rehan Cordia dichotoma Grewia optiva Zizyphus spp. Dasuya Sansarpur-Munak Bhatoli-Banial Nangal-Amroh Rejain Rijain Mallotus philipinensis Dendrocalamus Acacia catechu strictus Acacia catechu Mallotus philippensis Eucalyptus spp Cassia spp. Leucaena leucocephala Phoenix spp. Chirh

42

Dalbergia sissoo Zizyphus spp. Kangoo Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung Putoli Nadi Dalor-Mangini Mallotus philippensis Mallotus philippensis Mallotus philippensis Acacia catechu Chreeh Acacia catechu Albizia lebbek Leucaena leucocephala Pyrus pasia Dalbergia sissoo Phoenix spp. Toona ciliata Ficus spp. Kakuia Cirindi

Table 3.7. Five dominant shrub species in selected watershed

Name of the Name of Watershed/ subwatershed Division SAS Nagar, Patiala Ki Rao Siswan Nadi Budhki Nadi S.A.S.Nagar Kana Justicia adhatoda Murraya koenigii Lantana camara Lantana camara Lantana camara Carissa congesta Kandai Carissa congesta Justicia adhatoda Murraya koenigii Rorhi Rorhi Kana Bansi Ropar Sugahrao Kotla khad Batlour Khad Murraya koenigii Kana Murraya koenigii Kana Lantana camara Lantana camara Lantana camara Murraya koenigii Carissa congesta Justicia adhatoda Carissa congesta Zizyphus spp. Bansi Patiyarhi Heesh Garshankar Baluwal-Ratewal Singhpur choe Balachaur Murraya koenigii Murraya koenigii Murraya koenigii Lantana camara Lantana camara Lantana camara Carissa congesta Justicia adhatoda Vitex negundo Zizyphus spp. Carissa congesta Carissa congesta Mandhana Zizyphus spp. Narha Hoshiarpur Chagran Nara-Manji Bhanowal-Masthwal Carissa congesta Lantana camara Murraya koenigii Lantana camara Justicia adhatoda Carissa congesta Justicia adhatoda Arundo dunox Bagrh bel Murraya koenigii Carissa congesta Lantana camara Zizyphus spp. Murraya koenigii Chilla Dasuya Sansarpur-Munak Bhatoli-Banial Nangal-Amroh

43

Murraya koenigii Murraya koenigii Murraya koenigii Lantana camara Justicia adhatoda Lantana camara Vitex negundo Lantana camara Carissa congesta Carissa congesta Vitex negundo Mis, Justicia adhatoda Carissa congesta Asparagus spp Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung Putoli Nadi Dalor-Mangini Murraya koenigii Murraya koenigii Lantana camara Lantana camara Lantana camara Carissa congesta Justicia adhatoda Carissa congesta Murraya koenigii Carissa congesta Justicia adhatoda Justicia adhatoda Salad Dush Vitex negundo

Table 3.6. and 3.7. reveals that among five dominant species of trees and shrubs in this region, tree species were 26 and shrub species was 11 reflecting that trees are more diverse then shrubs.

3.2.2. Mechanical and vegetative measures

Many mechanical measures like check dams, crate walls , structures and other soil and water conservation measures have been applied in these regions to arrest soil erosion and conserve water. Few photos of the structures established in the PLPA ares are given in Photo 3.1 and Annexure V. The surface and sub surface water measurements have been carried out in PLPA areas during field survey (Photo 3.2). Annual plantation of species are also carried out. These efforts of forest department and others have shown fruitful results as many structures have been filled up and thus have saved tones of soils being eroded.

44

3.3. OBJECTIVE 3: DETERMINATION OF AREAS IN DIFFERENT SUB WATERSHEDS/ MICRO WATER SHEDS FOR CLOSURE UNDER PLPA IN FUTURE FOR CONSERVING SUB SOIL MOISTURE

The Shivaliks is one of the most degraded ecosystem of the country and characterized by steep slopes, undulating topography, coarse textured gravelly soil, leading to high soil erosion. To identify the most vulnerable area for soil erosion, Bhattacharya et al (2011) has determined the Soil loss tolerance limit (SLTL) for Punjab. The SLTL is is defined as the maximum rate of annual soil erosion that will permit a high level of crop productivity to be obtained economically and indefinitely. The areas of highest concern delineated by an SLTL of less than 10 t ha−1yr−1 are Shivalik and Piedmont plains, which include parts of Hoshiapur, Roopnagar and Gurdaspur districts. In the present study, SLTL of 10 t ha−1yr−1 was used as a base for determining the critical areas to be kept under continuous protection measure through PLPA. Spatial distribution of tolerance limits in the Punjab state is presented in Figure 3.14. Soil erosion is a factor of several geogenic and anthropogenic factors, of which the vegetation cover is the most important factor which can be managed to reduce soil erosion and improve sub soil water.

Fig. 3.14: Map showing soil loss tolerance limits for Punjab.

45

3.3.1. Forest cover status and soil erosion

Forest cover map of 1990 and 2015 were prepared for PLPA areas for each forest division. The list of villages in each forest division which have been taken up for preparing the map is provided in Annexure V. The change detection over 25 years (1990 – 2015) was also observed. The vulnerable areas which should be kept under permanent forest cover were arrived at by superimposing potential soil erosion map over PLPA village boundaries of each division. Division wise forest cover maps and erosion maps are discussed in the following sections.

S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division

The forest cover map of S.A.S.Nagar division (1990) is shown in figure 3.15. Landuse and land cover classes were delineated from the satellite data , from LANDSAT of November, 1990. In 1990 the division had maximum area under moderately dense forest (6824.79 ha ) followed by open forest (4182.84 ha) > non forest (5550.93) > scrub (17.28)>water body (13.41 ha). In 2015 the highest cover was under open forest (6663 ha) followed by non forest (5947) > moderately dense forest (3650 ha )> water bodies (154 ha) > scrub (13 ha) (Figure 3.16). The change detection map with respect to forest cover during 1990 to 2015 have been presented in figure 3.17. These areas must be maintained under forest cover for preventing further degradation of soil. The estimated potential soil loss in S.A.S.Nagar division is severe in majority of the areas (Figure 3.18). These maps would be useful for taking further decision regarding notifying areas under PLPA in future. These areas must be kept under forest cover for preventing soil loss and improving sub soil water.

Rupnagar Forest Division

The forest cover map of Rupnagar division (1990) is given in figure 3.19. Five different classes in 1990 found were non forest (21163 ha) > open forest (18373 ha ) > mod dense forest ( 14657 ha) > water bodies (1112) > scrub (289). The forest cover map of Rupnagar division (2015) have been presented in figure 3.20. It showed maximum area under non forest (29705 ha) followed by open forest (15799 ha ) > mod dense forest ( 8144 ha) > water bodies (580) > scrub (248).The change detection map during 1990 to 2015 have been presented in figure 3.21. The estimated potential soil loss in the division is severe in majority of the areas (Figure 3.22). In a large portion of Rupnagar division, the

46 estimated potential soil loss is under moderately severe to severe category These areas must be kept under forest cover for preventing soil erosion. Garhshankar Forest Division

The forest cover map of Garhshankar division (1990) is given in figure 3.23. Five different classes in 1990 found were non forest ( 24577 ha) followed by open forest (19818 ha) > mod dense forest (12628ha ) > water bodies (179) > scrub (155). The forest cover map of Garhshankar division (2015) have been presented in figure 3.24. It showed maximum area under non forest ( 29797 ha) followed by open forest (19846 ha) > mod dense forest ( 6392 ha ) > scrub (597)> water bodies (22). The change detection map during 1990 to 2015 have been presented in figure 3.25. The estimated potential soil loss in large part of the division is in severe and very severe in majority of the areas (Figure 3.26). These areas must be kept under forest cover for preventing soil erosion.

47

Figure 3.15 : Digital forest cover map (1990 ) of S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division (Punjab)

48

Figure 3.16 : Digital forest cover map (2015 ) of S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division (Punjab)

49

Figure 3.17 : Digital Forest cover change detection (1990-2015) map of S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division (Punjab).

50

Figure 3.18: Digital soil loss map in relation to (2015) of S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division (Punjab)

51

Figure 3.19: Digital Forest cover map (1990) of Rupnagar Forest Division (Punjab)

52

Figure 3.20 : Digital Forest cover map (2015) of Rupnagar Forest Division (Punjab)

53

Figure 3.21 : Digital forest cover change detection (1990-2015) map of Rupnagar Forest Division (Punjab)

54

Figure 3.22: Digital soil loss map in relation to forest cover (2015) of Rupnagar Forest Division (Punjab)

55

Figure 3.23. Digital forest cover map (1990) of Garhshankar Forest Division (Punjab)

56

Figure 3.24 : Digital forest cover map (2015) of Garhshankar Forest Division (Punjab)

57

Figure 3.25 : Digital Forest cover change (1990-2015) detection of Garhshankar Forest Division (Punjab)

58

Figure 3.26 : Digital soil loss map in relation to forest cover (2015) of Garhshankar Forest Division (Punjab)

59

Hoshiarpur forest division

The forest cover map of Garhshankar division (1990) is given in figure 3.27. Five different classes in 1990 found were mod dense forest ( 27246 ha) followed by non forest (8042ha) > open forest (7057ha ) > water bodies (144) > scrub (53). The forest cover map of Hoshiarpur division (2015) have been presented in figure 3.28. The change detection map during 1990 to 2015 have been presented in figure 3.29. The estimated potential soil loss in large part of the division comes under very severe in majority of the areas (Figure 3.30). These areas must be kept under forest cover for preventing soil erosion.

Dasuya forest division

The forest cover map of Dasuya division (1990) is given in figure 3.31. Five different classes in 1990 found were mod dense forest ( 9249 ha) followed by non forest (9072ha) > open forest (5639ha ) > water bodies (200) > scrub (39). The forest cover map of Dasuya division (2015) have been presented in figure 3.32. The change detection map during 1990 to 2015 have been presented in figure 3.33. The estimated potential soil loss in large part of the division comes under severe in majority of the areas (Figure 3.34). These areas must be kept under forest cover for preventing soil erosion. Gurdaspur forest division

The forest cover map of Gurdaspur division (1990) is given in figure 3.35. Five different classes in 1990 found were open forest ( 10627 ha) followed by mod dense forest (9092 ha) > non forest (55495 ha ) > water bodies (434) > scrub (295). The forest cover map of Gurdaspur division (2015) have been presented in figure 3.36. The change detection map during 1990 to 2015 have been presented in figure 3.37. The estimated potential soil loss in have been shown in figure 3.38.

60

Figure 3.27: Digital forest cover (1990) map of Hoshiarpur Forest Division (Punjab)

61

Figure 3.28: Digital forest cover (2015) map of Hoshiarpur Forest Division (Punjab)

62

Figure 3.29 : Digital Forest cover change detection map (1990-2015) of Hoshiarpur Forest Division (Punjab)

63

Figure 3.30 : Digital soil loss map in relation to (2015) of Forest Division Hoshiarpur (Punjab)

64

Figure 3.31: Digital Forest cover map (1990) of Dasuya Forest Division (Punjab)

65

Figure 3.32: Digital Forest cover map (2015) of Dasuya Forest Division (Punjab)

66

Figure 3.33 : Digital map of Forest cover change (1990-2015) of Dasuya Forest Division (Punjab)

67

Figure 3.34 : Digital Soil loss map in relation to forest cover (2015) of Dasuya Forest Division (Punjab)

68

Figure 3.35 : Digital Forest cover map (1990) of Gurdaspur Forest Division (Punjab)

69

Figure 3.36 : Digital Forest cover map (2015) of Gurdaspur Forest Division (Punjab)

70

Figure 3.37 : Digital Change detection of forest cover map (1990 -2015) of forest division Gurdaspur Forest Division (Punjab)

71

Figure 3.38: Digital Soil loss map in relation to forest cover (2015) of Gurdaspur Forest Division (Punjab)

72

3.4. OBJECTIVE 4: SITE SPECIFIC MEASURES/TREATMENTS IN DIFFERENT SUB WATERSHEDS/ MICRO WATERSHEDS FOR ENHANCED CONSERVATION OF SUB SOIL WATER

Site specific soil and water conservation measures are required to be undertaken on massive scale for not only conserving and enhancing sub soil water , but also for preserving the Shivaliks itself. The vegetation and mechanical measures are to be adopted in all these water sheds, particularly where potential erosion is quiet high. To locate the sites for such measures, the drainage maps for each forest division had been prepared which are presented as figure 3.39 to 3.44. The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) map of Shivalik is presented in fig. 3.45 and division wise DEM maps are presented in figures 3.46 to 3.51. The digital slope map of Shivalik is presented in fig. 3.52. The slope maps of individual division are presented in figures 3.53 to 3.58. On the basis of slope and soil depth , the mechanical structures which need consideration / adoption are presented in table 3.8. The choice of species should essentially be the local vegetation to maintain the biodiversity of this transitional zones , which is sandwiched between mighty Himalayas and extensive plains.

Table 3.8. Suitability of mechanical measures for land protection

Sr. Erosion control measure Land Soil Rainfall (mm) No. slope (%) depth 1 Bunding a Contour bunding < 6 Shallow to deep, permeable <800 b Graded bunding < 6 do 800-1500 c Contour terrace wall (Stone 15-35 Good and very high infiltration rate > 1000 pitched contour bunds) 2 Bench terracing a Level <33 Medium to deep <2500-3000 b Inward sloping <33 Do Do c Outward sloping <33 Shallow <1200 3 Trenching Continuous contour trenches <8 Medium <1500 Staggered contour trenches <8 Medium <2000

Graded trenches <33 Medium to deep, but well drained 2000-3000

4 Stone wall

Contour <33 Shallow to medium <1500 Graded <33 do 1500-2500

73

Figure 3.39 : Digital Drainage map of S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division (Punjab)

74

Figure 3.40 : Digital Drainage map of Rupnagar Forest Division (Punjab)

75

Figure 3.41 : Digital Drainage map of Garhshankar Forest Division (Punjab)

76

Figure 3.42 : Digital Drainage map of Hoshiarpur Forest Division (Punjab)

77

Figure 3.43 : Digital Drainage map of Dasuya Forest Division (Punjab)

78

Figure 3. 44 : Digital Drainage map of Gurdaspur Forest Division (Punjab)

79

Figure 3.45: Digital Elevation (m) Model of Shivalik zone in Punjab

80

Figure 3.46: Digital Elevation Model (m) of S.A.S.Nagar Forest Division (Punjab)

81

Figure 3.47: Digital Elevation (m) Model of Rupnagar Forest Division (Punjab)

82

Figure 3.48: Digital Elevation (m) Model of Garhshankar Forest Division (Punjab)

83

Figure 3.49: Digital Elevation (m) Model of Hoshiarpur Forest Division (Punjab)

84

Figure 3.50: Digital Elevation (m) Model of Dasuya Forest Division (Punjab)

85

Figure 3.51: Digital Elevation (m) Model of Gurdaspur Forest Division (Punjab)

86

Figure 3.52 : Digital Slope (%) map of Shivalik region of Punjab

87

Figure 3.53 : Digital Slope (%) map of S.A.S.Nagar ( Punjab)

88

Figure 3.54 : Digital Slope (%) map of Rupnagar (Punjab)

89

Figure 3.55 : Digital Slope (%) map of Garhshankar (Punjab)

90

Figure 3.56 : Digital Slope (%) map of Hoshiarpur (Punjab)

91

Figure 3.57 : Digital Slope (%) map of Dasuya (Punjab)

92

Figure 3.58 : Digital Slope (%) map of Gurdaspur (Punjab)

93

CHAPTER 4

SALIENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Shivaliks have been identified as one of the eight most degraded rain-fed agro ecosystems of the country. (Agrawal et al., 2002). The fragility of Shivaliks is characterized by steep slopes, undulating topography, coarse textured gravelly soil, leading to high soil erosion. Regulated restrictions through PLPA had ensured better vegetative cover and hence reduced soil erosion. In the present study estimated potential soil erosion maps of each division were prepared and taking into account the fragility of Shivaliks, it is recommended that the area which fall under the category moderate (10-15 t ha-1 yr-1), moderately severe (15 -20 t ha-1 yr-1), severe (20-40 t ha-1 yr-1) and very severe (> 40 t ha-1 yr-1), should essentially be kept under forest cover to protect them from further degradation. To check soil erosion, clearing or breaking of land and quarrying, grazing or collection and removal of grass etc should be restricted or regulated. Removal of trees which are on steep slopes should be restricted. Trees whose removal can accelerate erosion should not be allowed for felling and the vegetation cover may be enhanced. 2. Closure under PLPA should be done on the basis of natural features like watershed boundaries, ridge lines, nalls etc. for the ease of management. The khasra, khatoni numbers etc are difficult to identify on the ground and therefore should be avoided as the basis for closure of Shivalik hills under PLPA. 3. Sub soil water in PLPA areas ranged from 1.3 to 996 litres / minute, whereas the depth of ground water varied from 1.5 to 20 meters below ground level, during the month of May, 2017. The soil moisture (%), averaged over depth of 60 cm, in the sampled location varied from 1.75 to 7.5 %. Previous study in Punjab Shivalik on impact of integrated water shed management, an average rise in ground water table, varying from 0.7 to 7.7 m over a period of 7 years have been reported (Dogra,2000). The improvement in moisture regime was also indicated by the appearance of moisture loving vegetation (mesophytic) such as algae, mosses, Typha, Vitex and Eugenia. But, the positive impact

94

of PLPA on sub soil water and soil moisture improvement are not permanent, rather is a function of continued protection and maintenance of vegetation cover. Therefore, the efforts need to be continued to further improve soil moisture by maintaining or improving forest cover in those areas. 4. The vegetation survey reveals that the forest under PLPA are quiet diverse with tree diversity being more than shrub diversity. Rich biodiversity have also been reported by Jerath et al., 2006. This biodiversity and Forest cover have been achieved after regulation of the area for more than a century. It needs to be preserved for future and hence regulatory control in these areas need to be continued for larger interest of the humanity. Hence Regulatory control on felling of tree and clearing of vegetation should be continued and only allowing silviculturally available trees be allowed to be felled. It is recommended that local species / indigenous species of the region may be chosen for future plantation particularly in areas which are devoid of vegetation or under scrub forest. 5. Very steep slope areas (Gair Mumkin pahar ), upper catchments, highly unstable areas require continued protection and need to be essentially kept under the ambit of PLPA . Some of the areas appears to be well vegetated and relatively stabilized due to protection provided under PLPA. This stability is only temporary, and largely depends on continuous protection measures. However, from such areas which are relatively more stable, felling of few more trees may be permitted as compared to less stabilized areas. 6. With changing climatic conditions, the rainfall pattern of the region is becoming more erratic, with a trend of increasing temperature, decreasing rainfall, less number of rainy days and high intensity storms. In future, higher temperature and less rainfall will induce prolonged drought period leading to decreased vegetation cover and more incidence of forest fire. Owing to decreased vegetation cover, exposed hills will be prone to severe soil erosion. To cope up with these future exigencies, preparedness in terms of increasing forest cover under PLPA, improving soil moisture by construction

95

small pond sand ditches is essentially required. This will increase sub soil water and also provide the required water to the wild life, which is an integral part of forest. 7. Mr. Ribbentrop, The conservator of Forest while reviewing Forest Report of 1881-82 wrote “The lower hills between Peshawar to Kaleshar doon (Now in Yamuna Nagar district of Haryana) are most important forest areas in the province due to their influence on the agricultural wealth of the underlying country” (Quoted in Holland, 1928). Punjab Shivalik, being part of the above range, are still more relevant these days owing to much dependence on agriculture in down stream areas and decreasing rainfall. Hence, these areas should be maintained under forest cover as these are catchment areas which provide water for irrigation to downstream agriculture and sustain water yield. 8. In PLPA villages, there are many settlements and other areas which had been delisted in the past should be brought under tree cover in form of agro forestry as they are part of the catchment. This can be achieved by providing quality planting stocks of commercial species which are not under the ambit of forest timber regulation. 9. Since the villagers of PLPA areas are generally poor and are in disadvantageous areas, it is also recommended that the department should train them in activities like nursery production, medicinal and aromatic plants cultivation through skill development programmes and have a buy back guarantee to alleviate their poverty to make them more inclined towards forest protection. 10. Punjab Shivaliks is declared as an IBA (Important Bird Area) site by Bombay Natural History Society in view of the large bird population recorded from the area. A total of 396 species of birds have been recorded from the area of which four are globally threatened and about 156 species under Wildlife Protection Act. Specific projects with international funding need to be taken up for conservation of rare, endemic and threatened bird species (Jerath et al., 2006). 11. Bio-rich areas identified by Jerath et al., 2006 may be brought under Protected Area Network (wherever such PANs do not exist already) as these are restricted to certain fragmented pockets. Major areas requiring protection are:

96

. Guru Govind Singh Nature Reserve, Anandpur Sahib (Ropar) . Sadavrat Forest Ropar and Ropar Wetland (Ropar) . KahanpurKhuhi Forest (Hoshiarpur) . Dholbaha –Kukanet Forest (Hoshiarpur) . Nara Forest (Hoshiarpur) . Chohal Forest (Hoshiarpur) . Takhni- Rehmapur Wildlife Sanctuary (Hoshiarpur) . Talwara Forest(Hoshiarpur) . Manguwal Forest (Hoshiarpur) . Dhar and Dunera Forests (Gurdaspur)

97

REFERENCES

Agrawal, D.K., N.A. Farooquee, P.K. Samal, S. Sharma, LMS Palni (2002) Siwalik development strategy I Action Plan. G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Almora.

Bhattacharya, P. Mandal, D. and Bhatt,V.K. and Yadav, R.P. (2011) A quantitative methodology for estimating soil loss tolerance limits for three states of Northern India. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:276-292.

Bouyoucos G.J. (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soils. Agronomy Journal. 54, 464-465.

Dogra, A.S. (2000) Management of Soil & Water resources for sustainable development of agriculture in low and mid Shivalik of Himachal Pradesh. In: Fifty years of Research on Sustainable Resource Management in Shivaliks (Eds. S.P.Mittal, R.K.Aggarwal, and J.S.Samra). CSWCRTI, Research Centre, Chandigarh, pp. 417-430.

Glover, Harold SIR (1944). Erosion in the Punjab its causes and cure. Feroz Printing Works, Lahore: 114 pp.

Grewal, S.S., Dogra, A.S. and Jain, T.C. (1999). Poverty Alleviation and Resource Conservation through Integrated Watershed Management in a Fragile Foot-hill Ecosystem. Paper presented at the International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference held at Purdue University, Indiana, May 1999

Holland, L.B (1928) A Report on Denudation and erosion in the low hills of the Punjab. Civil an Military Gazette, Lahore: 6 pp.

Jerath, Neelima and Puja (2006). Introduction: In Biodiversity in the Shivalik Ecosystem of Punjab, India, PSCST-Chandigarh. Publishers Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh-Dehra Dun: 1- 19.

Jerath, Neelima, Puja and Chadha, Jatinder (Editors) (2006). Biodiversity in the Shivalik Ecosystem of Punjab, India, PSCST-Chandigarh. Publishers Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh-Dehra Dun.

98

Kushwaha,S.P.S., Mukhopadhyay,S., Prasad,V.H. and Kumar, S. (2010). Sustainable development planning in Pathri Rao sub-watershed using geospatial techniques. Current Science. Vol. 98, No. 11, 1479 – 1486.

Mahajan,G., Plaha,J.K., Bhagi,V. and Bhandari,A (2000). Geology and ground water resources of Shivaliks in Punjab. In: Fifty years of Research on Sustainable Resource Management in Shivaliks (Eds. S.P.Mittal, R.K.Aggarwal, and J.S.Samra). CSWCRTI, Research Centre, Chandigarh pp.17-22.

Martin, D., Mahapatra, S. K., Singh, S. P. and Dhankar, R. P.(2007). Landform analysis of warm humid Kumaon Himalayas using IRSID data for development of mountainous lands. Indian J. Remote Sensing, Vol 35, 101–106.

Martin,D. and Saha,S.K. (2009). Land evaluation by integrating remote sensing and GIS for cropping system analysis in a watershed. Current Science. Vol. 96, No. 4, 569 – 575.

Pal, Sharmistha., Sidhu, G. S., Tiwari, A. K., Sarkar, D. and Sharda, V.N. 2016. Soil erosion in Punjab. Current Science. 111: 1687-1693.

Singh S.K., Singh C.K. and Mukherjee, S. (2010). Impact of land-use and land-cover change on groundwater quality in the Lower Shiwalik hills: a remote sensing and GIS based approach, Cent. Eur. J. Geosci. 2 (2), 124-131.entr

pean Journal of Geosciences

99

Annexure -I

Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation Research Centre, Chandigarh

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR CONSULTANCY ON Conservation of subsoil water in Shivalik hills, Forest Department, Punjab 1. Sr. No: ______2. Date of interview: ______3. Name of respondent (Govt. Representative/ Farmer) ______(M/F) 4. Mobile Number: ______5. Location: (a) Name of village: ______Lat/ Long: ______(b) Hadbast No/ Name.: ______(c) Forest Division: ______6. Name of watershed/area: ______7. Total Land Holding (ha): ______

S. Particulars Year 2005-06 Year 2016-17 Remarks No. 1 Irrigated i) Tubewell ii) WHS iii) Open well iv) Spring (seasonal/ ephemeral/perennial) v) Streams(seasonal/ ephemeral/perennial) 2. Rainfed Total 8. Benefits incurred to village S. Item/Particular Year 2005-06 Year 2016-17 Remarks No.

1. Ground water level (m) (Well/ Tubewell) 2. Land saved from flood (ha) due to soil and water conservation measures

9) Crop Yield: Kharif Rabi Other

Other plantations: Species Area Income

Part B. Village / Watershed level information

Sl Activities Year of Area Number Volume construction/pla ntation

1 Water Harvesting A. Storage

100

i. Surface water harvesting Tank ii. Village Pond iii. Percolation Tank iv. Rejuvenation of Tal/Naula / Khaula/spring 2. Drinking water facilities 3 Soil and water conservation works A. Non arable lands i. Contour Trenching ii. Stone wall iii. Recharge pits/filter iv. Vegetative measures B. Drainage line treatment I. Check dam i. Dry stone ii. Gabion iii. Earthen iv. Live v. Any other material II. Spur III. Wattling IV. Diversion drain 4 Forestry A. New Plantations B. Maintenance of old plantation C. Afforestation 5 Streams – Seasonal, Ephimeral, Perennial 6 Springs - Seasonal, Ephimeral, Perennial

Part C. Soil related parameters in Subwatersheds

Name of Lat Long Altitude Vegetation/ Sample Soil Sampling watershed/Hadbast land use type nomenclature Sample depth (cm) number No.

Part D. Plant diversity assessment in Subwatersheds

Size of sample plot 20 x 20 m for trees; Shrubs : 5 x 5 m Grasses 0.5 x 0.5 m

Name of Lat Long Altitude Type of Number Collar girth watershed/Hadbast vegetation of plants number (Tree, Shrubs, grases) Tree- Local name

101

Annexure II

Surface-sub-surface discharge during May 2017

Forest Altitude Discharge Division Name of watershed Lat. Long. (m) (liter/sec.) Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'18.4'' 75*48'09.7'' 433 16.6 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'22.7'' 75*47'29.8'' 381 5.8 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'29.8'' 75*47'28.0'' 378 4.8 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'26.4'' 75*47'19.4'' 365 16.7 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*51'10.1'' 75*48'04.2'' 375 1.9 Sansarpur-Munak 451 Dasuya (A2D) 31*49'17.3'' 75*51'09.8'' 8 Sansarpur-Munak 558 Dasuya (A2D) 31*50'00.1'' 75*52'51.7'' 5.1 Garhshanker Balachaur (C5H) 31*09'01.2'' 76*22'27.7'' 358 0.3 Garhshanker Balachaur (C5H) 31*08'38.1'' 76*21'52.4'' 355 2.2 Banowal Mastiwal 389 Hoshiarpur (A2C) 31*47'10.300'' 75*53'19.558'' 7.4 Banowal Mastiwal 350 Hoshiarpur (A2C) 31*47'02.360'' 75*52'46.785'' 7.8 Banowal Mastiwal 350 Hoshiarpur (A2C) 31*48'24.01'' 75*51'28.230'' 12.2 Nara-Dada-Manjhi Hoshiarpur (C2F) 31*34'05.393'' 76*01'54.520'' 220 3.8 Areli-Matti-Dung 396 Pathankot (B3B) 32*24'36.36'' 75*44'01.20'' 3.4 Pathankot Potoli- Nadi (B3E) 32*26'23.70'' 75*50'52.74'' 524 1.8 Roper Kotla khad (D2F) 31*14'45.147'' 76*36'09.77'' 496.5 0.17 Roper Bathlor Ki Khad (D2T) 31*02'36.62'' 76*31'20.4'' 225 23.5 Roper Kotla khad (D2F) 31*13'08.997'' 76*33'38.332'' 253 5.05

102

Annexure III

Water depth in open wells during May 2017

Forest Altitude water Division Name of watershed Latitude Longitude (m) depth (m) Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*51'49.3'' 75*49'03.1'' 502 2.5 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'18.4'' 75*48'09.7'' 433 2.5 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'22.8'' 75*47'28.4'' 387 7.6 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'29.8'' 75*47'28.0'' 378 1.8 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*52'10.3'' 75*46'58.3'' 361 4.6 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*51'22.8'' 75*47'48.0'' 370 10.7 Dasuya Bhatoli- Baniyal (A2E) 31*51'01.6'' 75*47'36.2'' 367 0.2 Dasuya Sansarpur-Munak (A2D) 31*49'16.4'' 75*51'11.4'' 460 1.9 Dasuya Sansarpur-Munak (A2D) 31*56'06.1'' 75*52'27.1'' 634 4.55 Garhshanker Balowal-Rattiwal (C5G) 31*06'54.4'' 76*24'33.0'' 364 1.87 Garhshanker Balowal-Rattiwal (C5G) 31*06'20.6'' 76*23'21.8'' 331 1.3 Hoshiarpur Banowal Mastiwal (A2C) 31*47'52.080'' 75*53'07.756'' 402 20 Hoshiarpur Banowal Mastiwal (A2C) 31*47'10.300'' 75*53'19.558'' 389 1.5 Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung (B3B) 32*23'28.98'' 75*45'07.76'' 498 3.6 Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung (B3B) 32*24'19.86'' 75*44'42.6'' 415 2 Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung (B3B) 32*23'54.00'' 75*45'55.2'' 450 2.5 Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung (B3B) 32*24'500.96'' 75*45'45.66'' 438 2.5 Pathankot Areli-Matti-Dung (B3B) 32*24'19.86'' 75*44'42.6'' 415 2 Pathankot Potoli- Nadi (B3E) 32*27'09.84'' 75*52'03.90'' 621 4.6 Pathankot Potoli- Nadi (B3E) 32*26'19.56'' 75*50'44.04'' 522 2.5 Ropar Bathlor Ki Khad (D2T) 31*02'23.6'' 76*29'19.9'' 393 8 Ropar Bathlor Ki Khad (D2T) 31*02'23.92'' 76*29'57.75'' 228 2.25 Ropar Sugarao (B6D) 30*57'40.43'' 76*41'24.67'' 337 5 Ropar Sugarao (B6D) 30*57'19.87'' 76*40'18.93'' 314 2.5 Ropar Sugarao (B6D) 30*58'29.93'' 76*38'13.26'' 302 15 S.A.S.Nagar Budh ki nadi 30*54'02'' 76*45'00'' 398 2 S.A.S.Nagar Budh ki nadi 30*53'47'' 76*43'45'' 387 20

103

Annexure IV Water level in different Blocks over the period BLOCK NAME WATER LEVEL November 2000 AUR 8.55 AUR 8.13 BALACHAUR 10.56 BALACHAUR 10.51 BALACHAUR 16.68 BANGA 4.56 BANGA 7.28 BHUNGA 3.68 BHUNGA 8.84 DASUA 2.8 DHARIWAL 3.18 DHARIWAL 8.7 DHAR KALAN 0.63 DHAR KALAN 7.44 DINANAGAR 2.35 DINANAGAR 3.03 DINANAGAR 4.18 DERA BASSI 2.05 DERA BASSI 2.14 DERA BASSI 3.2 DERA BASSI 2.84 DERA BASSI 1.32 GARHSHANKAR 9.25 GARHSHANKAR 17.83 GARHSHANKAR 22.48 GARHSHANKAR 11.28 GURDASPUR 3.97 GURDASPUR 3.24

104

HAZIPUR 7.87 HAZIPUR 6.32 HOSHIARPUR - I 4.08 HOSHIARPUR - I 8.05 HOSHIARPUR - II 5.16 HOSHIARPUR - II 10.95 HOSHIARPUR - II 3.94 HOSHIARPUR - II 5.18 MAHILPUR 8.17 MAHILPUR 31.26 MAHILPUR 2.38 MUKERIAN 1.81 MUKERIAN 3.66 MUKERIAN 1.06 MUKERIAN 4.01 NAROT JAIMALSING 2.47 NAWANSHAHR 10.15 NAWANSHAHR 5.52 PATHANKOT 10.25 PATHANKOT 3.91 PATHANKOT 2.75 PATHANKOT 1.79 PATHANKOT 5.16 SAROYA 24.45 TALWARA 3.9 TALWARA 10.59 TANDA 3.12 TANDA 5.04 BLOCK NAME WATER LEVEL Nov 1998 AUR 7.03 AUR 7.66 AUR Not Available

105

BALACHAUR 11.86 BALACHAUR 9.29 BALACHAUR 21.43 BANGA 2.43 BANGA 5.83 BANGA 3.8 BHUNGA 2.93 BHUNGA 21.85 BHUNGA 8.55 BHUNGA Not Available DASUA 3.9 DASUA 3.1 DASUA Not Available DASUA 6.82 DHARIWAL 4.85 DHARIWAL Not Available DINANAGAR 2.81 DINANAGAR 2.3 DINANAGAR 3.54 DINANAGAR Not Available DINANAGAR 5.15 DINANAGAR Not Available DINANAGAR Not Available DERA BASSI 2.76 DERA BASSI 7.02 DERA BASSI 3.15 DERA BASSI 5.85 DERA BASSI 2.05 GARHSHANKAR 10.45 GARHSHANKAR 11.75 GARHSHANKAR 21.69 GARHSHANKAR 24.47

106

GARHSHANKAR Not Available GURDASPUR Not Available GURDASPUR 3.2 GURDASPUR 2.95 HAZIPUR 5.97 HAZIPUR 4.9 HOSHIARPUR - I 2.51 HOSHIARPUR - I 6.04 HOSHIARPUR - I 1.47 HOSHIARPUR - I 2.1 HOSHIARPUR - I 5.44 HOSHIARPUR - II 1.52 HOSHIARPUR - II 8.01 HOSHIARPUR - II 2.8 HOSHIARPUR - II 4.03 HOSHIARPUR - II Not Available HOSHIARPUR - II Not Available HOSHIARPUR - II 3.26 HOSHIARPUR - II Not Available MAHILPUR 6.35 MAHILPUR Not Available MAHILPUR 4.99 MAHILPUR 2.42 MUKERIAN 1.32 MUKERIAN 3.46 MUKERIAN 1.46 MUKERIAN Not Available MUKERIAN 4.62 NAROT JAIMALSING 2.92 NAROT JAIMALSING Not Available NAROT JAIMALSING Not Available NAROT JAIMALSING Not Available

107

NAWANSHAHR Not Available NAWANSHAHR 5.62 PATHANKOT Not Available PATHANKOT 3.81 PATHANKOT 10.17 PATHANKOT 1.03 PATHANKOT 1.46 PATHANKOT 2.64 PATHANKOT 5.23 PATHANKOT Not Available SAROYA 11.8 SAROYA Not Available SAROYA 28.62 TALWARA 7.8 TALWARA 9.42 TANDA 1.53 TANDA 2.2

108

Water level BLOCK NAME Nov.2000 Nov.2016 AUR 8.34 14.16 BALACHAUR 12.6 23.1 DASUA 2.8 8.9 TALWARA 7.2 15.7 BANGA 5.92 17.4

BHUNGA 6.26 20.3

DINANAGAR 3.61 5.2 DERA BASSI 2.31 15.1 GARHSHANKAR 15.2 22.9 NAWANSHAHR 7.8 12.7 HAZIPUR 7.1 10.5 HOSHIARPUR 6.2 24 MAHILPUR 13.9 23.7 MUKERIAN 2.6 5.56 TANDA 4.1 11.5 PATHANKOT 4.8 10.5

DHAR KALAN 5.94 12.5

109

Water level Division/ Block May name 2000 May.2016 AUR 7.9 14.16 BALACHAUR 15.1 23.1 DASUA 12.3 8.9 TALWARA 10.1 15.7 BANGA 6.36 17.4 BHUNGA 11.7 20.3 DINANAGAR 4.3 5.2 DERA BASSI 3.6 15.1

GARHSHANKAR 15.2 22.9 NAWANSHAHR 7.5 12.7 HAZIPUR 8.1 10.5 HOSHIARPUR 6.00 24 MAHILPUR 13.4 23.7 MUKERIAN 4.2 5.56 TANDA 3.3 11.5 PATHANKOT 6.0 10.5

DHAR KALAN 8.7 12.5

110

Annexure V

Photo 3.1: The soil and water conservation structures in PLPA area

111

Photo 3.2: Surface and sub surface water measurement in PLPA areas

112

Annexure VI LIST OF PLPA VILLAGES

SAS NAGAR FOREST DIVISION

Sr.No. Name of H.B. Geographical Area Village No. in Hectare 1 Baliali 34 217.87 2 Lakhnor 36 216.58 3 Landran 38 306.66 4 Majatri 57 225.47 5 Bhukhri 70 122.00 6 Malakpur 84 129.11 Dhakoran 7 154 kalan 175.81 8 Hoshiarpur 159 289.67 9 Bharongian 160 190.82 10 Salamatpur 162 144.68 11 Thaska 174 112.67 12 Pallanpur 234 386.66 13 Saini Majra 318 261.09 14 Labangarh 319 223.25 15 Buranan 321 312.55 16 Tarapur 325 1175.56 17 Mirzapur 326 1506.05 18 Gocher 328 415.49 19 Majra 332 1715.22 20 Sultanpur 333 116.73 21 Dulwan 337 443.19 22 Siswan 338 1753.51 Chhotti Barri 23 339 1172.82 Nangal 24 Parol 340 445.45 25 Mullanpur 342 884.36 26 Majrian 343 488.89 27 Sunk 344 880.59 28 Parchh 349 978.98 29 Nada 350 738.69 30 Karoran 352 1849.15 TOTAL 17879.54

113

RUPNAGAR FOREST DIVISION

Sr.No. Name of H.B. Geographical Village No. Area in Hectare 1 Malikpur 35 449.44 2 Kheri 66 Salabatpur 255.01 3 Ban Majra 123 89.36 4 Mathri 124 93.63 5 Phulpur 181 Grewal 101.35 6 Simbal 182 Jhallian 163.39 7 Thona 190 182.18 8 Raje Majra 192 195.85 9 Ramgarh 203 159.74 10 Baman Majra 213 218.00 11 Swamipur 232 346.27 12 Bela Dhiani 261 616.59 13 Bhanam 272 279.28 14 Bhalan 273 868.18 15 Talwara 279 222.88 16 Dubheta 280 136.59 17 Humbewal 281 506.20 18 Niku Nangal 282 234.44 19 Dukli 283 219.69 20 Meghpur 284 242.65 21 Manakpur 285 140.50 22 Patti 287 219.02 23 Raipur 288 172.13 24 Bandhlehri 289 192.49 25 Donal 291 111.92 26 Thaluh 292 945.14 27 Jandbari 355 28 Behlu 293 62.67 29 Surewal 296 333.45 30 Bikapur 297 158.22 31 Barari 299 16.49 32 Dharu 300 114.11 33 Paili Khurd 301 27.42 34 Basowal 302 114.56

114

35 Ganguwal 303 218.01 36 Mangewal 306 157.89 37 Tarapur 313 227.04 38 Rampur Kalan 314 318.33 39 Dadhi 316 314.58 40 Hardo 316 Narmoh 237.81 41 Lamlehri 317 263.69 42 Mianpur 317 Handur 200.67 43 Mianpur 319 19.43 44 Hardoharipur 319 146.25 45 Sahota 320 30.17 46 Thappal 322 244.89 47 Mohiwal 324 249.99 48 Dhanera 325 89.38 49 Bhaowal 325 313.68 50 Lakher 326 223.42 51 Barapind 326 638.74 52 Kakrala 332 53 Mehandli 327 Khurd 247.32 54 Bhartgarh 327 567.79 55 Samlah 328 624.40 56 Kharota 328 159.96 57 Paharpur 329 309.07 58 Baloli 330 559.11 59 Majher 331 118.22 60 Chikna 332 176.07 61 Nard 333 104.14 62 Ghanour 334 73.29 63 Maura 335 104.13 64 Nangal 335 (Sarsa) 295.44 65 Chamroli 336 103.28 66 Ghanaula 337 209.01 67 Dehni 338 226.08 68 Baruwal 339 257.72 69 Sahu Majra 339 334.90 70 Dabhur 340 294.41 71 Chhoti 340 Makauri 296.27

115

72 Jandla 341 142.99 73 Bari Makouri 341 81.16 74 Mindhwan 342 417.87 75 Chak Karma 342 227.26 76 Raipur Sahni 343 588.04 77 Mansali 343 540.62 78 Dollowal 344 427.99 79 Dangauli 344 228.46 80 Jeowal 345 147.50 81 Kalyanpur 346 413.27 82 Dhaloh 347 257.41 83 Chaurian 204 84 Barhampur 348 773.26 85 Sanana 348 507.48 86 Ajauli 349 110.16 87 Ladal 349 175.47 88 Dabkhera 350 183.42 89 Berampur 350 135.85 90 Kalitran 351 132.01 91 Daroli 352 419.82 92 Khalidpur 352 155.86 93 Nangli 354 548.07 94 Magror 355 141.88 95 Dasgran 357 279.52 96 Bari 363 963.93 97 Fathepur 363 472.57 98 Mataur 364 193.87 99 Bhangala 364 222.88 100 Jhinjri 365 432.13 101 Jhandian 365 1185.64 102 Norangpur 366 416.20 103 Mehandli 367 Kalan 120.20 104 Chandpur 368 313.40 105 Kakot 368 230.49 106 Baddal 369 280.84 107 Majri 369 995.51 108 Kheri 373 109 Kotla 370 349.61 110 Bardar 370 1642.45 111 Bhagwala 371 38.86 112 Haripur 371 365.34

116

113 Bhatoli 372 188.59 114 Harnampur 372 238.40 115 Hirdapur 374 702.48 116 Purkhali 376 199.51 117 Balamgarh 386 593.87 118 Mukari 387 140.12 119 Singhpur 388 293.07 120 Bhangal 477 222.07 121 Mehandpur 478 524.10 122 Spalwan 479 305.43 123 Plata 480 319.00 124 Haripur 481 289.27 125 Samundrian 482 337.18 126 Kahanpur 483 Kuhi 247.24 127 Gocher 484 228.02 128 Raisara 485 316.07 129 Nalhoti 486 466.65 130 Kukoowal 487 497.12 131 Kalwan 488 786.89 132 Rampur Kalan 489 105.44 133 Haripur 490 Ganura 303.39 134 Raipur 491 154.50 135 Sakhpur 492 458.74 136 Jhangrian 493 181.20 137 Karuran 494 457.43 138 Katta 495 174.81 139 Sabor 496 421.83 140 Ghai Majra 497 208.71 141 Saupur 501 115.49 142 Hayatpur 501 577.21 143 Kartarpur 502 137.90 144 Nurpur Khurd 503 356.40 145 Jatoli 505 582.69 146 Kangar 506 211.93 147 Barari 510 20.97 148 Basali 512 590.84 149 Balewal 513 596.35 150 Tibba Nangal 514 596.11 151 Jhandian 515 361.91 152 Jatwar 516 654.47

117

153 Dhamana 517 896.29 154 Rajgiri 518 721.90 155 Khatana 519 735.24 156 Tiba Taprian 520 575.85 157 Khad Bathlaur 521 1005.39 158 Garh Baga 522 1577.60 Total 52060.40

GARHSHANKAR FOREST DIVISION

Sr.No. Name of Village H.B. Geographical No. Area in Hectare 1 Jogewal 194 543.97 2 Rohnu 196 139.09 3 Kathgarh 203 484.75 4 Siana 215 414.96 5 Kukar Majara 248 317.79 6 Maujupur 250 110.90 7 Road Majara 251 174.67 8 Nangal 252 214.54 9 Bora 258 145.32 10 Ghagon 259 192.02 Roranwali 11 Purkhowal 268 165.23 12 Kukran 279 405.48 13 Hyatpur 280 577.23 14 Haler 281 85.55 15 Bharowal 282 350.95 16 Khanni 340 749.13 17 Harjiana 341 525.71 18 Jaijon 342 96.18

118

19 Chak Nathan 343 0.00 20 Mallewal 344 1640.71 21 Badowal 345 195.57 22 Bariana 346 558.92 23 Lassara 347 0 24 Mehdood 348 683.68 25 Gajjar 349 673.20 26 Abhowal 350 66.52 27 Bilron 351 512.13 28 Bharatpur 352 351.42 Rajputtan 29 Rampur 353 1173.74 30 Hajipur 354 490.10 31 Lehra 355 188.45 32 Souli 356 0 33 Birampur 357 1285.29 34 Khanpur 358 539.74 35 Shahpur 359 140.13 36 Sadarpur 360 271.78 37 Barapur 361 317.88 38 Chak Gujran 362 250.55 39 Chak Rauntan 363 117.73 40 Kunail 364 328.45 41 Jamalpur 365 120.00 42 Chandpur Rurki 366 700.36 43 Bholewal 367 136.96 44 Suchhewal 368 295.76 45 Torowal 369 457.88 46 Pojewal 371 726.49 47 Singhpur 373 348.01 48 Malewal 375 106.70

119

49 Chandiani Kalan 376 901.38 50 Mangupur 377 638.01 51 Kukar Suha 378 409.42 52 Majhot 379 581.05 53 Sehbajpur 380 264.23 54 Jitpur 381 61.00 55 Nanowal 382 186.10 56 Raju Majra 383 1627.08 57 Bhanewal 384 0 58 Bhadi 385 0 59 Bungri 386 0 60 Adoana 387 484.99 61 Takarla 388 821.32 62 Ballowal 394 1401.69 Saunkhari 63 Tandoh 397 223.18 64 Mehandipur 401 758.35 65 Kular 402 0 66 Mohan Majra 403 291.46 67 Nighi 404 612.09 68 Tundewal 407 436.22 69 Golumajra 408 346.98 70 Bagowal 409 452.02 71 Paniali 411 292.11 72 Majra Jattan 412 716.33 73 Raipur 413 507.14 74 Nangal 414 177.30 75 Fetehpur 415 197.81 76 Banah 416 572.58 77 Tonsa 417 781.22 78 Asron 418 571.54 79 Rail Majra 419 1493.48 80 Majari 475 180.28 81 Kokowal 476 249.86 82 Binewal 477 839.13 83 Mehidwani 478 1048.59

120

84 Bhadiar 479 703.08 85 Kot 480 489.37 86 Maira 481 357.58 87 Dallewal 482 500.58 88 Gaddiwal 483 229.59 89 Mansowal 484 788.61 90 Khurali 485 529.67 91 Malkowal 486 128.26 92 Rattanpur 487 205.77 93 Bawanipur 488 511.03 94 Achilpur 489 377.32 95 Nainwan 490 428.41 96 Kalewal 491 427.36 97 Sihwan 492 216.29 98 Sekhowal 493 818.38 99 Haibowal 494 166.79 100 Tibba 495 177.55 101 Harwan 496 349.52 TOTAL 43900.68

HOSHIARPUR FOREST DIVISION

Sr. Name of Village H.B. No. Geographical No. Area in Hectare 1 Nounitpur 16 86.58 2 Surapur 25 112.38 3 Dhakon 33 67.20 4 Booro Bari 37 74.38 5 Manolian 42 251.53 6 Jangniwal 44 207.94 7 Chambal Kalan 63 96.02 8 Bahowal 282 419.80 9 Phalahi 291 355.95 10 Mugowal 297 669.90 11 Jandiala 298 385.44 12 Jhanjowal 299 210.00 13 Alamwal 300 63.33 14 Halluwal 301 246.49

121

15 Haveli 302 231.03 16 KAHARPUR 305 200.99 17 Dasowal 306 56.77 18 Lehli Kalan 307 199.50 19 Hardowal Kalan 311 224.12 20 Lehli Khurd 314 103.67 21 Rampur 318 445.20 22 Bhulewal Gujjran 319 153.78 23 Sherpur 322 102.65 24 Badhna 328 57.14 25 Tajewal 329 203.96 26 Sarangwal 330 118.82 27 Bichoi 331 3339.85 28 Soona 332 822.05 29 Maili 333 2902.43 30 Kanger 334 540.37 31 Kothi 335 474.33 32 Chak Narial 336 374.87 33 Bassi Jamal khan 337 23.91 34 Fatehpur 337 237.97 35 Ganguwal 338 183.44 36 Lalwan 339 1302.44 37 Bassi Mustfa 353 129.43 38 Satial 366 137.31 39 Koi 462 927.93 40 Barohi 463 505.76 41 Naroor 464 521.80 42 Kangwari 465 1584.96 43 Manhota 466 360.64 44 Thana 467 841.71 45 Katohar 468 488.70 46 Raghwal 469 470.67 47 Ramtatwali 470 1284.27 48 Dehrian 471 932.04 49 Kukanet 472 1994.85 50 Bari Khad 473 1200.26 51 Bahera 474 892.77 52 Bahroom 475 107.83 53 Dholbaha 476 2228.16 54 Phaphial 477 115.48 55 Janouri 478 2157.72

122

56 Dandoh 479 605.44 57 Kort 480 551.80 58 Patial 481 2257.66 59 Atwarapur 482 634.92 60 Patiari 483 0 61 Husainpur 484 209.57 62 Rehmapur 485 374.48 63 Malout 486 1346.79 64 Takhani 487 920.93 65 Mehngrowal 488 2725.75 66 Kaphat 489 912.92 67 Mustfapur 490 186.69 68 Arniala Shahpur 491 657.82 69 Nari 492 1181.70 70 Baroti 493 858.38 71 Chohal 494 905.67 72 Saleran 495 1471.29 73 Dada 496 2104.42 74 Manjhi 497 1224.83 75 Nara 498 1120.54 76 Tharoli 499 772.04 77 Dalewal 500 943.73 78 Patiarian 501 1146.19 79 Kharkan 502 1109.84 80 Chak Sadhu 503 1275.06 TOTAL 57927.00

DASUYA FOREST DIVISION

Sr.No. Name of Village H.B. Geographical No. Area in Hectare 1 Behbowal 224 645.99 2 Asafpur 359 103.54 3 Badalian 360 120.91 4 Purelian 362 300.33 5 Beh Bidhia 362 144.35 6 Swar 363 80.99 7 Siprian 367 302.77 8 Bharath 368 405.07 9 Jugial 369 0 10 Ghughwal 370 187.01

123

11 Passi Karora 371 123.59 12 Kando karora 372 0 13 Badla 373 0 14 Ghaggar 374 49.90 15 Narnol 375 75.58 16 Shri Pandian 376 214.02 17 Beh Ranga 464 0 18 Dhar 550 187.82 19 Beh Mawa 552 234.52 20 Beh Jogan 553 190.37 21 Beh Kitto 554 188.61 22 Nathuwal 555 482.52 23 Beh Lakhan 556 0 24 Mawa 559 337.79 25 Beh Dullo 560 335.56 26 Beh Fatto 561 287.93 27 Heer Beh 562 391.71 28 Barri 565 273.41 29 Palli 566 197.22 30 Dugral 567 193.08 31 Bering 568 324.66 32 Beh Khusala 569 362.56 33 Beh Chuhar 570 173.63 34 Beh Shankar Kaur 571 410.15 35 Beh Atta 572 148.70 36 Beh Nangal (Alias 573 220.46 Kamahi Devi) 37 Beh Daria 574 55.96 38 Kothi 575 202.21 39 Barian 576 81.41 40 Pohari 577 240.93 41 Labhar 578 684.74 42 Chattarpur 579 684.76 43 Narangpur 580 153.22 44 Latholi 581 21.93 45 Tung 582 184.70 46 Chamuhi 583 171.64 47 Shukhchainpur 584 76.30 48 Bhol Badhmaian 585 245.49 49 Dharampur 586 612.86 50 Jharera 587 239.78 51 Depur 588 812.54 52 Repur 589 0 53 Rakhri (Alias 592 531.31 Datarpur)

124

54 Gwal Chack Jassu 590 330.13 55 Namoli 593 0 56 Bhatoli 594 0 57 Gwal Chak 595 Shangaru 0 58 Sathawan 596 410.03 59 Rauli 597 121.33 60 Fatehpur 598 321.03 61 Ram Nangal 599 91.30 62 Adampur Mothian 600 142.03 63 Chingarwan 601 378.45 64 Dohar 602 139.78 65 Bhera 603 136.23 66 Talwara 604 1089.08 67 Rajwal 605 653.53 68 Bhambotar 606 612.14 69 Tholu 607 622.66 70 Bhater 608 0 71 Dhalal 609 131.46 72 Bringli 610 928.15 73 Bhol Kalota 611 214.82 74 Plahar 612 244.23 75 Mangu Merra 614 117.64 76 Batwara 615 217.26 77 Alera 616 172.89 78 Amroh 617 165.20 79 Nangal Kanora 618 232.21 80 Kartoli 619 296.79 81 Sikri 620 322.47 82 Bhavnor 621 743.17 83 Bhatoli 622 81.93 84 Sahora Kandi 623 235.21 85 Sahora Dadial 624 237.03 86 Badla 626 1477.96 87 Chak Fala 629 265.39 88 Thundial 630 0 89 Bassa 636 189.52 90 Neknama Hardo 637 699.04 91 Neknama Senso 638 0 92 Rampur Haler 639 423.34 93 Dadial 640 1526.51 94 Aglour 641 0 95 Adado Chak 643 34.29 96 Sangwal 644 533.22 97 Changial 645 325.25

125

98 Sansarpur 646 621.77 99 Makkowal 649 266.79 100 BAJWA 112 95.89 101 AJMER 94 107.79 102 GAG JALLO 627 347.21 103 BISO CHAK 171 181.00 TOTAL 29177.71

PATHANKOT FOREST DIVISION

Sr. No. Name of H.B. Geographical Village No. Area in Hectare 1 Nargota 372 357.38 2 Bungal 390 704.86 3 Hara 394 4059.81 4 Narainpur 395 727.38 5 Tirhari 396 2958.77 6 Tarheti 397 435.73 7 Kot 398 1386.66 8 Thara Jhilka 399 3724.81 9 Thara Uparla 399 40.40 Dhar Kalan 400 709.32 10 Hardosaran 401 372.97 11 Chamor 402 137.13 12 Phangota 403 976.40 13 Sarti 404 1345.32 14 Bangla 405 573.46 15 Darban 406 347.65 16 Dukhniali 407 295.65 17 Ghar 408 481.87 18 Barsudal 409 561.41 19 Bhamlada 410 671.06 20 Naloh 411 1272.91 21 Dhar Khurd 412 490.59 22 Faugli 413 905.74

126

23 Jalahar 414 170.44 24 Bhanguri 415 1041.75 25 Rogh 416 135.19 26 Lanjera 417 731.22 27 Dunera 418 730.44 28 Lehroon 419 933.58 29 Bhakhtpur 420 57.73 TOTAL 27337.64

127

BACK COVER

128