You are on page 1of 13

International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr

Original Research Article

Designing a watershed scorecard as a performance evaluation tool for


Ur River watershed, Tikamgarh District, Madhya Pradesh
Meeta Gupta a,n, V.C. Goyal a, Fawzia Tarannum b, Jyoti P. Patil a
a
National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee 247667, India
b
Teri University, New Delhi 110070, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study is an attempt to design a watershed scorecard by identifying and evaluating selected set of
Received 27 April 2017 indicators, such as surface water quality, ground water quality, soil condition, agriculture condition, and
Received in revised form forest condition, which accurately reflect the health of the watershed. Ur River Watershed in Tikamgarh
3 October 2017
District, Madhya Pradesh was taken as a case study to assess the watershed health. Evaluation was done
Accepted 13 October 2017
by calculating different indices for the selected set of indicators and comparing them with the National
standards and guidelines. Based on the performance of each indicator, the grades were assigned to the
Keywords: indicators which helped in designing the watershed scorecard. The results revealed that within the
Watershed scorecard watershed, the forest and soil conditions need a considerable plan for improvement in order to maintain
Ur River
the ecosystem whereas the surface water quality, groundwater quality and the agricultural conditions
Bundelkhand
requires protection as well as enhancement in certain areas.
Water quality
Agricultural condition & 2017 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and
Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction resources. It is an important management tool which works on the


principle of ‘what gets measured gets managed’. A watershed
Conservation of natural resources on watershed basis is the scorecard provides a snapshot of the current condition of the
most widely adopted technology in developed as well as devel- watershed and identifies changes that may have taken place over
oping countries due to its suitability across climatic conditions. the past years (Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, 2013). A
The watershed approach enables planners to harmonize the use of scorecard not only reports the current status of natural resources
soil, water and vegetation in a way that conserves these resources but also helps to identify the drivers of change, major hotspots,
and maximize their productivity (Kerr, 2002). The first step in the emerging issues as well as measures trend (Maaskant & Quinlan,
development of a strategy for improving and protecting the con- 2012).
dition of a watershed is its assessment. It is very important to A watershed scorecard is used as a tool to educate people re-
assess a watershed in order to understand its current status and garding the status of natural resources around them. It is intended
how it got there (Shilling et al., 2004). In order to tackle this si- for a wide array of audiences: from individuals and organisations
tuation, the society needs tools that cater to watershed manage- to planners and policy makers (Muskoka Watershed Council,
ment, that describes the current situation and trends, and deliver a 2014). To build a watershed scorecard, a conceptual framework is
simplistic approach to discuss natural resource stewardship in required which contains indices and multi-metric indicators
watersheds (Cornwall et al., 2010). A ‘watershed scorecard’ is a tool (Saugeen Conservation, 2013). The indicators collectively provide
for prioritizing the need to monitor and inform and involve the environmental data that is categorised and is scored or graded to
local people, planners, decision makers, researchers and scientists report on the overall watershed health.
(Cornwall et al., 2010). A watershed scorecard is similar to a report Through the literature review it has been established that the
card, which is designed to understand the condition of natural study on watershed management and its indicators has been going
on since ages; however, the concept of watershed report card/
scorecard has evolved after the year 2000. The organisations
n
Corresponding author. which have done extensive work on Watershed Report Card are
E-mail addresses: meetagupta91@gmail.com (M. Gupta), the 36 Conservation authorities in Ontario, Canada. These Con-
vcg.nihr@gov.in (V.C. Goyal), fawzia.tarannum1@teriuniversity.ac.in (F. Tarannum),
jyoti.nihr@gov.in (J.P. Patil).
servation Authorities promote an integrated watershed approach
Peer review under responsibility of International Research and Training Center balancing human, environmental and economic needs (St. Clair
on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Region, 2013). They were the first to come up with the concept of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001
2095-6339/& 2017 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
2 M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

watershed report cards which could be used as a scientific way for The St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA) develops
reporting the health of the watershed to the local decision makers watershed scorecards for St. Clair Region Watershed covering an
in watershed across Ontario. They have been producing these re- area of 4130 km2. The first scorecard was released in 2008. The
ports in a gap of every 4–5 years using standardised indicators scorecard indicators and grading system used were adopted from
since 2004. Along with the Conservation Authorities, many other the Conservation Ontario in 2011. These cards assess and grade
organisations published their work on watershed report cards. surface water quality and forest condition in 14 watersheds (St.
Appended are the brief details of some of the literature/publica- Clair Region Conservation Authority, 2013).
tions on watershed report cards done by many organisations. Sonoma Ecology Center (SEC) along with Napa County Re-
Through the literature review it has been established that the source Conservation District (Napa RCD) produces watershed
study on watershed management and its indicators has been going scorecard for Sonoma Creek (430 km2 valley). This scorecard is
on since ages; however, the concept of watershed report card/ based primarily on data for water year 2007 and with the help of
scorecard has evolved after the year 2000. The organisations five indices i.e., natural supply, storage, streams, landscape per-
which have done extensive work on Watershed Report Card are meability and stewardship the watershed is evaluated. SEC de-
the 36 Conservation authorities in Ontario, Canada. These Con- veloped three point scale and the 3 levels are labelled as; poor (1
servation Authorities promote an integrated watershed approach point), fair (2 points) and good (3 points). These labels are related
balancing human, environmental and economic needs (St. Clair to a quantitative measure of reference conditions (Cornwall et al.,
Region, 2013). They were the first to come up with the concept of 2010).
watershed report cards which could be used as a scientific way for Mohawk River Watershed Coalition of Conservation Districts
reporting the health of the watershed to the local decision makers (the Coalition) initiated the Mohawk River Watershed Manage-
in watershed across Ontario. They have been producing these re- ment in collaboration with members of the Mohawk River Wa-
ports in a gap of every 4–5 years using standardised indicators tershed Advisory Committee. The Mohawk River Watershed en-
since 2004. Along with the Conservation Authorities, many other compasses and area of 8961 km2. The 10-digit hydrologic unit
organisations published their work on watershed report cards. code (HUC) is the level at which watershed health is assessed
Appended are the brief details of some of the literature/publica- using a set of quantitative indicators for three aspects of wa-
tions on watershed report cards done by many organisations. tershed health i.e. water quality, land use and habitat each as-
Muskoka Watershed Council designed the first watershed sessed with different number of sub- indicators. A score of 1–5 was
scorecard for Muskoka Watershed covering an area 7638 km2 to assigned for the indicators selected for evaluation. The scores as-
report on the watershed ecological health in 2004 and then reg- sociated with these metrics of watershed health were combined to
ularly generated them over a gap of 3 years i.e., in 2007, 2010 and a final score; some were weighted for overall significance. The
2014 (Muskoka Watershed Council, 2014). They generated the relatively low scores indicate potential impairment and suggest
scorecard at the scale of quaternary watersheds levels with the the need restoration. In contrast, relatively high scores indicate
indicators - land, water, and wetland resources, and biodiversity of healthy conditions that warrant protection (Mohawk River Wa-
the watershed. The grading pattern followed by them is as: Not tershed Coalition, 2015).
Stressed (green), Vulnerable (yellow), and Stressed (red). The Portland City Council, under 2005 Portland Watershed
Mississippi Valley Conservation (MVC) generates the watershed Management Plan (PWMP), generates watershed scorecard for
scorecard for Mississippi Valley watershed every five years. The Portland Watershed which comprises of five main watersheds and
Mississippi Valley watershed encompasses an area 4450 km2 and covers an area of 3044 km2. Scorecard indicators include four main
it was subdivided into eleven sub-watershed areas for the eva- resource categories i.e. Hydrology, Water Quality, physical habitat
luation of watershed health. The scorecard was first generated in and biological communities. The data for each indicator is then
2007 and then in 2013. The indicators and grading system used converted into a score on a scale of 0–10, which can also be
were adopted from the Conservation Ontario in 2011. The scor- equated to a letter grade scale. A score of three or lower means the
ecard assesses and grades surface water quality, ground water indicator is not properly functioning, or providing little to no
quality and forest conditions in each of the sub-watershed (Mis- function to support a healthy watershed. A score of eight or higher
sissippi Valley Conservation Authority, 2013). means the indicator is properly functioning, or functioning at a
The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) level that supports a healthy urban watershed (Bureau of En-
generates watershed scorecards for the Upper Thames River Wa- vironmental Services, 2015).
tershed, covering an area of 3420 km2 every five years. The UTRCA These watershed report cards are used as a way to track
produced scorecards in 2007 and 2012. The watershed is com- changes in the health of the watershed and also to take appro-
prised of 28 watersheds that are either major tributaries or sec- priate management practices as well as protect the significant
tions of the main branches of the Thames River. Scorecard in- areas for future generations.
dicators and grading system were adopted from the Conservation Even in India, the concept of watershed assessment and man-
Ontario in 2011. The 2012 Upper Thames River Watershed used agement is not new and is considered as an effective poverty al-
two indicators i.e., forest conditions and surface water quality for leviation intervention in the rainfed regions in India (Reddy, Sa-
the assessment of each sub-watershed (Maaskant & Quinlan, harawat, & George, 2017). Many of the semi-arid rainfed states of
2012). India are characterized by low and erratic rainfall, frequent
Saugeen Conservation produces watershed scorecards for droughts, high risk and uncertainty, low level of technological
Saugeen area of jurisdiction every five years. The watershed covers changes and degraded natural resources (Pathak et al., 2007). The
an area of 4632 km2. Scorecards were generated in 2008 and 2013. majority of the population in this region is dependent on agri-
The watershed was subdivided into 10 sub-watershed areas where culture as a source of livelihood. Due to these adverse conditions,
each was evaluated by four main resource categories chosen as agricultural productivity and farmers’ incomes are low and un-
indicators i.e., forest conditions, wetland conditions, and surface stable. In this harsh environment, the watershed ecosystems are
and groundwater quality (chosen as per the conservation Ontario losing their pliability and sustainability. The situation is similar in
guidance). Grading for different indicators is based on the pro- the Tikamgarh District of Madhya Pradesh (MP). Over the years,
vincial grading system. An average score was taken for two in- the region has been afflicted with severe droughts resulting in the
dicators in order to get the final grade score (Saugeen Conserva- gradual loss of the environmental components of the watershed.
tion, 2013). The area is under-developed and is home to sizeable unemployed,

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

poverty-stricken and undernourished population. Since the com- 2.1. Climate


munities and economies largely depend on them, therefore, a long
term sustainable health of the watershed is important. The Na- The climate of the Ur River watershed in Tikamgarh district is
tional Institute of Hydrology (NIH) has undertaken a project which characterized by hot summers and general dryness except during
aims to integrate hydrology, climate change and integrated water the monsoons. The normal maximum temperature during the
resource management with the livelihood issues in Tikamgarh month of May is 41.8 °C and the normal minimum during the
district, MP. month of January is 7.0 °C. The district receives rainfall from the
The purpose of this paper is to report the development of the south-west monsoon during months of June to September. The
first watershed scorecard of the Ur River watershed, Tikamgarh average annual rainfall is approximately 854 mm (1990–2013). The
district of Madhya Pradesh, which was used to evaluate the health mean areal rainfall has been computed based on the Thiessen
of the watershed and to suggest future protection initiatives. It is Polygon Method. The rain gauge stations at Tikamgarh, Jatara,
the first scorecard developed for this watershed and also first such Baldeogarh and Palera influence the rainfall pattern in the basin. It
attempt in the Indian context. The watershed scorecard designed can be observed that the rain gauges at Jatara and Tikamgarh have
provides a detailed research and a framework of indicators that maximum influence followed by Baldeogarh and the rain gauge at
can potentially be used to analyse and assess the watershed Palera has minimal influence on the rainfall pattern in the basin.
health. Most of the rainfall is received in the four monsoon months of
June to September (Fig. 2). Of the total average annual of 854 mm
for 1990–2013, 774.78 mm, forming 91% of the total was received
2. Study area during these four months. The watershed also received about
22 mm of rain on the average in October – December and 16 mm
Tikamgarh District is located in the northern part of Madhya from January – February. About 10 mm of rainfall was received in
Pradesh in India. It lies nearly at the center of the historical and the remaining three months of the year. The climate date used in
geographical region of Bundelkhand. Physical Boundaries of the this study was obtained from India Meteorological Department,
district are formed by Betwa and two of its tributaries, Jamni and Pune.
Dhasan. The study area chosen for the research is Ur River wa-
tershed (Fig. 1). Administratively, Ur River watershed located in 2.2. Land resources
Tikamgarh district is bounded by Chattarpur in the east and south.
The western and northern boundaries run along Lalitpur and Land use land cover profile of Ur River watershed area (Fig. 3)
Jhansi districts of Uttar Pradesh, respectively. The mainland wa- depicts that out of total 991 km2 of land dense forest is only 4.37%
tershed area extends between latitudes 24°35′0″ N and 25°05′0″ N while scrub forest is 15.87% and for agriculture area double crop is
and between 78°50′0″ E and 79°10′0″ E longitudes. The whole of 48.01%, rabi crop is 1.79% and kharif crop is 2.39%. The land with or
the area lies above Tropic of Cancer. without scrub is 12.96%, barren rocky land is 7.15% and built up
The total geographical area of the Ur River watershed is area is 1.54%. Fallow land is 2.33% and river and water bodies are
991 km2. The maximum length of the watershed is about 119 km covering 3.58% of the total area (LISS-IV Satellite imagery, 5.8 m
from North to South with an average width of about 80 km and resolution). It is clearly evident from the data that the main source
has an average elevation of 400 m above the main sea level. The Ur of livelihood is agriculture and any pressure on the agriculture will
River watershed area falls under four development blocks of Ti- increase the vulnerabilities of the communities. The soils in the
kamgarh district (Jatara, Palera, Baldeogarh and Tikamgarh). The watershed area have a fine sandy texture. Nearly 635 km2 of the
study area comprises 190 villages. The total population of 190 area is covered with sandy loam soil and another 267 km2 of the
villages is 2, 95,116 which is 20% of the total population of the area is covered with sandy-clay-loams soils. (Madhya Pradesh
district (Directorate of Census Operations, 2011). Council of Science & Technology, 2011)

Fig. 1. Location of Ur River watershed in Tikamgarh District.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
4 M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Fig. 2. Monthly average rainfall (long-term) at the influencing rain gauge.

been used for the calculation of SWQI of the water body. Water
quality index provides information on a rating scale from zero to
hundred. Lower value of SWQI indicates better quality of water
and higher value shows poor water quality. The calculated SWQI
values are classified into five types and the grading had been done
accordingly as shown in the Table 2 (Sinha, Kumar, & Singh, 2014).
Surface water quality tests were performed in the November
2015. A total of 17 samples (15 ponds, 2 rivers) were tested for
9 parameters i.e., pH, turbidity, nitrate, hardness, chloride, dis-
solved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TDS), alkalinity and
electrical conductivity (EC). Of the 17 samples, as shown in the
Fig. 4, 7 samples were taken from Tikamgarh tehsil, 3 samples
from Jatara tehsil, 1 from Palera tehsil and 6 samples from Bal-
deogarh tehsil.

3.1.2. Groundwater quality


The groundwater quality index (GWQI) has been calculated by
using the standards of drinking water quality recommended by
Bureau of Indian Standards IS 10500 (2012). The weighted ar-
ithmetic index method (Tyagi et al., 2013) has been used for the
calculation of GWQI for the samples. Groundwater quality index
provides information on a rating scale from zero to three hundred.
As shown in Table 3, the calculated GWQI values are categorised
into five classes and the grades are given accordingly (Ra-
makrishnaiah, Sadashivaiah, & Ranganna, 2009).
Groundwater quality tests were performed in March 2016. A
total of 45 samples (32 hand pumps and 13 wells) were tested for
8 parameters i.e., pH, turbidity, fluoride, nitrate, iron, hardness,
chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Of the 45 samples, as
shown in the Fig. 5, 26 samples were taken from Tikamgarh tehsil,
12 samples from Jatara tehsil, 3 from Palera tehsil and 4 samples
Fig. 3. LULC map of Ur River watershed in Tikamgarh District. from Baldeogarh tehsil.

3. Methodology 3.1.3. Forest condition


With a view to maintain the environmental balance, the na-
3.1. Scorecard indicators tional forest policy envisages an average forest cover of 33% of the
geographical area for the whole of the country (Ministry of En-
This scorecard focuses on five wide areas of study: surface vironment & Forests, 1988). As shown in Table 4, the per cent
water quality, groundwater quality, forest condition, agricultural forest cover has been classified into 4 categories and then given a
condition and soil condition using a standard grading scheme. The grade in reference to Conservation Ontario standardized guide-
indices and indicators selected for the study are given in Table 1. lines (Briggs et al., 2003).

3.1.1. Surface water quality 3.1.4. Agricultural condition


The surface water quality index (SWQI) has been calculated by 3.1.4.1. Crop diversification index. Gibbs and Martin's Method for
using the standards of drinking water quality recommended by Demarcating Crop Diversification Regions (1962) is used to esti-
Bureau of Indian Standards IS 10500 (2012). The weighted ar- mate the different variety of crops that can rise in a given area in
ithmetic index method (Tyagi, Sharma, Singh, & Dobhal, 2013) has one season. It is calculated by using the formula given in Eq. (1)

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i

Table 1

M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
List of indices and indicators selected for the study.

S.No. Index Indicators Why to measure? How is it measured? Data availability

- -
1 Surface Water pH, Turbidity, NO3 , DO, TDS, Cl , Clean water is important for a healthy watershed as it supports di- Sampling and analysis done using EXO1 Sampling and analysis done for the year
Quality EC, Hardness and Alkalinity verse aquatic habitat, good quality drinking water, vibrant recrea- Sonde. 2015
tional areas and adds to the aesthetic value of the natural
environment.
2 Groundwater pH, Turbidity, NO3-, F-, TDS, To figure out the concentrations of natural and anthropogenic con- Sampling and chemical analysis done using Sampling and analysis done for the year
Quality Hardness, Cl- and Fe taminants as groundwater is used for consumption purposes as well Jal Tara Water Testing Kit. 2016
as for carrying out household chores.
3 Forest Condition % Forest Cover The rural area are mostly dependent on forests for their livelihood Spatial data analysis and image LISS-IV satellite imagery, 5.8 m resolution
and basic needs such as fuelwood, fodder, timber needs etc. More- interpretation for the year 2012–2013
over, the forest cover provides information about the sustainability
and health of an ecosystem.
4 Agricultural Crop Diversification Index To understand the competition that goes on among different agri- Gibbs and Martin's Method for Demarcating KVK Tikamgarh and Agricultural Depart-
Condition cultural activities for space. Crop Diversification Region ment, Tikamgarh data base for the year
Cropping Intensity It offers flexibility when combined with appropriate sampling pro- Cropping intensity is calculated by divid- 2012–2013
cedure for determining and evaluating vegetable production and ing the gross cropped area by the net
cropping pattern data. sown area.
5 Soil Condition Soil Depth Determines the effective rooting depth for plants and in accordance Spatial data analysis and image Madhya Pradesh Council of Science and
with texture, mineralogy and gravel content, the capacity of the soil interpretation Technology, for the year 2011–2012
column to hold water
Soil and Land Irrigability Class It is useful to make groupings of soils according to their suitability Spatial data analysis and image
for sustained use under irrigation and also to predict the behaviour interpretation
of soils when they are brought under irrigation
Land Capability Class It provides a ranking of the ability of an area to support agriculture Spatial data analysis and image
on a sustainable basis interpretation
Capability Index for Irrigated It evaluates the capability of soil for irrigated agriculture. Sys and Verheye's Capability Index for
Agriculture Agriculture

5
6 M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 2 Table 3
Grades for surface water quality index.Source: Sinha et al. (2014) Grades for groundwater quality index.Source: Ramakrishnaiah et al. (2009)

SWQI value Class Water quality Our grades GWQI value Class Water quality Our grades

00–25 I Excellent A o 50 I Excellent A


26–50 II Good B 50–100 II Good B
51–75 III Poor C 100–200 III Poor C
76–100 IV Very Poor D 200–300 IV Very Poor D
4100 V Unsuitable for Drinking E 4300 V Unsuitable for Drinking E

3.1.5.3. Land capability classification. Land capability classification


Crop Diversification Index = 1–Σx 2/(Σx)2 (1) is an interpretative grouping of soil mapping units mainly based
on inherent soil characteristics, external land features and en-
Where, x represent percentage of total cropped area under an vironmental factors that limit the use of land for agriculture,
individual crop of the particular region pasture, or other uses on a sustained basis (All India Soil & Landuse
The scores are classified into 4 classes which help us to assign Survey Organisation, 1971). The land capability has been classified
grades as shown in Table 5 (Dutta, 2012). under 8 capability classes using the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) classification and we have assigned grades for
3.1.4.2. Cropping intensity. Cropping intensity refers to raising of a the study accordingly as shown in Table 9 (Klingebiel & Mon-
number of crops from the same field during one agriculture year. It tgomery, 1961).
can be computed using the formula given in Eq. (2)
3.1.5.4. Capability index for irrigated agriculture. The land is eval-
Cropping Intensity = (Gross Cropped Area /Net Sown Area) uated using the parametric model proposed by Sys and Verheye
× 100…… (2) and is called as the Capability Index for Agriculture Method. The
formula used is given in Eq. (3)
The scores are classified into 4 classes which help us to assign
grades (Das & Mili, 2012) as shown in Table 6. C i = A x B x C x D x E x F x G…… (3)

Whereby the different symbols stand for soil texture (A), soil
3.1.5. Soil condition depth (B), calcium carbonate (C) and gypsum (D) status, alkalinity
3.1.5.1. Soil depth. The soil depth classification is done using the and salinity levels (E), drainage (F) and slope (G). Each of these
Soil Series - Criteria and Norms provided by the National Bureau of
factors is allocated a numerical value between 0.1 and 1.0. The
Soil Survey and Land Utilization Planning (Sehgal, 1992). The soil results fall under 5 classes with the help of which we have as-
depth is categorised into 7 classes and grades are assigned ac- signed a grade to each class as shown in Table 10 (Karimi, Ba-
cordingly as shown in Table 7. gherzadeh, & Ebrahimi, 2015).

3.1.5.2. Soil and land irrigability classification. The soil and land ir-
rigability classification is done using the Soil Series - Criteria and 4. Results and discussions
Norms provided by the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land
Utilization Planning (Sehgal, 1992). The results fall under 5 classes 4.1. Surface water quality
with the help of which we have assigned a grade to each class as
shown in Table 8. The surface water quality index for the various surface water

Fig. 4. Map showing sampling locations for estimating surface water quality.
Source: Google Earth

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Fig. 5. Map showing sampling locations for estimating groundwater quality in 2016.
Source: Google Earth

Table 4 Table 8
Grades for percent forest cover.Source: Briggs et al. (2003) Grades for soil and land Irrigability.Source: Sehgal (1992)

% Forest cover Our grades Grade description Classes Description Our grades

430.1 A Excellent I None or slight soil limitations for sustained use under A
15.1–30.0 B Good irrigation
5.0–15.0 C Poor II Moderate soil limitations for sustained use under B
o5.0 D Very Poor irrigation
III Severe soil limitations for sustained use under irrigation C
IV Very severe soil limitations for sustained use under D
Table 5 irrigation
Grades for crop diversification index (CDI).Source: Dutta (2012) V Not suited for irrigation or non-irrigable soil class E
Misc. Water bodies and built up
S.no. Level of diversification Category Our grades

1 0.80–0.88 High A ΣSIi / ΣWi ¼ 50.23.


2 0.60–0.80 Medium B Water quality index for nine analysed physicochemical para-
3 0.40–0.60 Low C
meters of Ur River watershed was 50.23. Present value indicates
4 Below 0.40 Very Low D
that SWQI falls in the “Good” category (Class-2). The results for the
individual 9 physico-chemical parameters revealed that all the
Table 6 parameters are within the permissible limit. Taking into account
Grades for cropping intensity index.Source: (Das & Mili, 2012) the total number of surface water quality samples (17), it may be
emphasized that according to the definition adopted in Table 2,
S.no. Levels for cropping intensity index Category Our grades
none of the individual sampling locations yielded excellent SWQI
1 Above 140 High A (i.e. in the range of 0–25). Moreover, among the entire sampling
2 130–140 Medium B network, S4 demonstrated highest SWQI of 123.86, while 82% of
3 120–130 Low C the aggregate samples showed good water quality (Fig. 6).
4 Below 120 Very Low D
When the water quality data obtained was compared with the
standard grading system being followed, it was observed that the
Table 7
surface water quality of Ur River watershed is of “B” grade.
Grades for soil depth.Source: Sehgal (1992)
4.2. Groundwater quality
Soil depth Series Our grades

The ground water quality of the Ur River watershed had been


4150 cm Very Deep A
100 – 150 cm Deep B assessed to analyse the suitability of ground water for drinking
75 – 100 cm Moderately Deep purpose and other domestic applications. The results obtained
50 – 75 cm Moderately Shallow C from analysis of water sampled from locations within the wa-
25 – 50 cm Shallow D
tershed area for the year 2016 are represented in Tables 13, 14.
10 – 25 cm Very Shallow
o10 cm Extremely Shallow E
Therefore, groundwater quality index for Ur River watershed ¼
ΣSIi / ΣWi ¼ 72.70.
The results obtained from the study revealed that the GWQI of
bodies falling in the watershed is established for 9 physico-che- Ur River watershed is well within the permissible limit and the
mical parameters. SWQI calculations for 17 surface water bodies status of ground water from wells and hand pumps is ‘Good’
have been depicted in the Tables 11, 12. during the sampling period; indicating groundwater can con-
Therefore, surface water quality index for Ur River watershed ¼ sidered fit for drinking purpose.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
8 M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 9
Grading scheme for land capability classification.Source: Klingebiel and Montgomery (1961)

Classes Description Our Grades

1 Soils have slight limitations that reduce their use. A


2 Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. B
3 Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.
4 Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both. C
5 Soils have little or no erosion hazard but have other limitations impractical to remove that limit their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or
wildlife food and cover.
6 Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or D
wildlife habitat.
7 Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife
habitat.
8 Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and restrict their use to recreational purposes, E
wildlife habitat, or water supply or aesthetic purposes.

Table 10
Grading scheme for capability index.Source: Karimi et al. (2015)

Capability index (Ci) Suitability class Suitability class Suitability class description Our grades
definition

480 S1 Highly Suitable The characteristics are optimal for plant growth A
60–80 S2 Moderately Suitable The characteristics are nearly optimal for the land utilization type and limitation B
affect productivity for not more than 20% with regard to optimal yield
45–60 S3 Marginally Suitable The characteristics have marginal influence on crop yield decline. However, benefits C
can still be made and the yield remains economical.
30–45 N1 Currently Not Suitable The characteristics show that the land is not currently suitable temporarily. However, D
benefits can still be made
o30 N2 Permanently Not Suitable Such limitations will not only decrease the yields below the limitation E
profitable level, but may inhibit the use of the soil for the considered land
utilization

Table 11
Statistical characterization of surface water quality data set for 17 sampling sites.

pH Turbidity (NTU) NO3- (mg/L) Hardness (mg/L) Cl- (mg/L) DO (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Alkalinity (mg/L) EC (lmhos)

Mean 7.60 23.56 4.15 107.06 21.84 3.15 211.06 65.29 261.20
Median 7.79 9.39 0.20 100.00 23.41 3.20 220.00 80.00 310.70
Min 6.80 0.00 0.00 60.00 1.47 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max 8.40 133.72 45.00 210.00 53.67 7.00 313.00 160.00 472.70
SD 0.54 33.99 11.91 36.87 16.35 2.19 81.29 47.97 188.11

Table 12
Calculation of surface WQI for 17 sampling sites.

Chemical parameter Standard value Si Specific weights wi Relative weights Wi Given concentration Ci Ideal value Cio Quality rating qi Sub-index SIi

pH 8.00 3.00 0.10 7.60 7.00 0.60 5.99


Turbidity 10.00 2.00 0.07 23.56 0.00 2.36 15.71
Nitrate 45.00 5.00 0.17 4.15 1.00 0.07 1.19
Hardness 300.00 3.00 0.10 107.06 0.00 0.36 3.57
Chlorides 250.00 3.00 0.10 21.84 0.00 0.09 0.87
DO 5.00 4.00 0.13 3.15 14.60 1.19 15.90
TDS 1000.00 5.00 0.17 211.06 0.00 0.21 3.52
Alkalinity 200.00 2.00 0.07 65.29 0.00 0.33 2.18
EC 2000.00 3.00 0.10 261.20 0.00 0.13 1.31
Σwi ¼ 30.00 ΣWi ¼ 1.00 ΣSIi ¼ 50.23

The results for the individual physico-chemical parameters 9 samples falling in the poor category (Fig. 7).
showed that, the values of pH, fluoride, nitrate, iron, chloride and The results of groundwater quality for the sources located
TDS for all the 45 samples were well within the permissible limit. within area showed that the water is fit for human consumption.
The values for turbidity for most of the samples were within However, it has been observed that GWQI value has increased
permissible limit with an exception of 12 samples (S9, S12, S16, from 64.23 observed in 2014(Estimated from observations taken
S17, S18, S20, S22, S23, S27, S30, S35 and S40). Similarly for during project period) to 72.70 in 2016 indicating the quality of
hardness only 6 samples showed values exceeding the permissible water is getting poor in some of the locations. Thus, they require
limit (S22, S26, S27, S29, S31 and S33). some amount water treatment in order to make it fit for drinking
During the study period, the minimum GWQI 34.44 was re- purpose. These water sources need to be secured from con-
corded and the maximum was 134.82 was recorded. Out of 45 tamination to avoid adverse health effects on human beings. Thus,
samples, 12 samples were regarded in the excellent category with the groundwater quality of Ur river watershed receives a “B” grade

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 9

Fig. 6. Graph showing SWQI for 17 sampling sites in Ur River watershed.

Table 13
Statistical characterization of groundwater quality data set for 45 sampling sites, 2016.

pH Turbidity Fluoride Nitrate Iron Hardness Chloride TDS

Mean 7.39 16.78 0.60 59.11 0.28 457.24 113.05 488.64


Median 7.50 10.00 0.60 45.00 0.30 376.00 70.90 438.00
SD 0.37 16.00 0.00 34.99 0.26 431.06 103.46 256.84
Min 7.00 10.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 112.00 14.18 123.00
Max 8.50 100.00 0.60 100.00 1.00 2640.00 496.30 1370.00

Table 14
Calculation of GWQI for 45 sampling sites for 2016.

Chemical parameter Standard value Si Specific weights wi Relative weights Wi Given concentration Ci Ideal value Cio Quality rating qi Sub-index SIi

pH 8.00 4.00 0.14 7.39 7.00 0.39 5.56


Turbidity 10.00 2.00 0.07 16.78 0.00 1.68 11.98
Fluoride 1.50 4.00 0.14 0.60 1.00  0.80  11.43
Nitrate 45.00 5.00 0.18 59.11 0.00 1.31 23.46
Iron 0.30 4.00 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.94 13.44
Hardness 300.00 2.00 0.07 457.24 0.00 1.52 10.89
Chloride 250.00 3.00 0.11 113.05 0.00 0.45 4.84
TDS 500.00 4.00 0.14 488.64 0.00 0.98 13.96
Σwi ¼ 28.00 ΣWi ¼ 1.00 ΣSIi ¼ 72.70

Fig. 7. Graph showing GWQI for 45 sampling sites in Ur River watershed.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
10 M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

as per the grading system defined. Table 15


Calculation for computing crop diversification index.

4.3. Forest condition S.No. Crops X (km2) X2 (km4)

The Ur River watershed is sparsely forested and the forest cover 1 Rice 38 1455
2 Soybean 70 4917
in even the most thickly forested tehsils under the watershed area 3 Sesame 75 5612
is rather low. The area under the total forest cover calculated is 4 Urad 181 32,707
about 4.37% (43 km2) for dense forests under the watershed area. 5 Gram 69 4707
Majorly, two types of forest are found in the watershed region i.e. 6 Mustard 36 1269
7 Wheat 298 88,612
dry teak forest and dry deciduous scrubs. 8 Other Crops 162 26,244
The National Forest Policy (1894) envisages an average forest ΣX ¼ 928 Σ(X2) ¼ 1,65,525
cover of 33% of the geographical area for the whole of the country
(Ministry of Environment & Forests, 1988). There are stretches of
dense forests observed in Jatara area where Parai, Kirtwarai and
several other small streams join together. However, the forest 4.5. Soil condition
scenario is very grim in the watershed as the forest cover has
decreased from 10% in 2009 to 4% (Directorate of Census Opera- 4.5.1. Soil depth
tions, 2011). Thus, it immediately requires a comprehensive forest Using the spatial data generated it was found that most of the
management programme. Through the FGD's conducted in the soils falling under this watershed area have a maximum depth of
study area, it was known that due to constant misuse by lopping, around 54 cm. Such soils cover nearly 250 km2 of the watershed.
over grazing and over cutting, the forests have deteriorated, par- Another about 271 km2 is under soils of 25–50 cm. About 612 km2
ticularly those within reach of settlements. Apart from ecological is under the soil of depth under 60 cm. About 108 km2 is under
deterioration, villagers also reported that there is growing short- soils of depth less than 10 cm. Such shallow soils are mostly in
age of firewoods, timber, fodder and other raw materials while the hilly and stony areas. Thus, as per the defined grading system for
demand is increasing. Thus, the forest cover has been given a “D” soil depth, Ur River watershed has moderately shallow soil depth
grade as per the grading system followed. and receives a grade “C”.

4.5.2. Soil and land irrigability classification


4.4. Agricultural condition
Land irrigability depends upon topographical and geomor-
phological features like slope, sub-surface, grading, drainage,
4.4.1. Crop diversification index
depth of water-table, etc. Soil irrigability is determined by soil
The cropping pattern of Tikamgarh shows that wheat is the
characteristics such as depth, texture, permeability, moisture
main staple food of the district. Although a number of crops like
holding capacity, subsurface cover, salinity, subsoil drainage and
rice, soybean, seasame, urad, gram, mustard, etc are cultivated in
erosion etc.
the district but the area bears the tradition of cultivation of wheat
Under both criteria, about 555 km2 of land can support sus-
throughout the year. Table 15 shows the percentage share of crop
tained irrigation under severe or very severe limitations and about
in km2 in the study area and the calculations for crop diversifica-
166 km2 of land not suited for irrigation (Table 16). Southern
tion index. tehsils, Tikamgarh and Baldeogarh have little of such high quality
Using equation (9), the value of Crop Diversification Index is
lands while Jatara and Palera are relatively better off. The land
0.81. This can be attributed to the fact that the soils in the wa- unsuitable for irrigation under any conditions falls in the hilly
tershed area have a fine sandy texture. Also, the area is subjected parts of the watershed area.
to low erratic rainfall, extensive soil erosion, less developed agri- Thus, on the basis of the soil and land irrigability grading cri-
cultural infrastructure and irrigational facilities. Due to these rea- teria, the Ur River watershed receives a grade “C”.
sons, the farmers are left with no option but to grow several crops
in one season from security point of view which result in high 4.5.3. Land capability classification
magnitude of crop diversification. Through the analysis done for Land capability map of the Ur River watershed shows that all
the previous years, it has been observed that the CDI has been in the land is subject to risk of soil erosion. Subject to this limitation,
the constant range i.e. 0.80 in 2011 (as calculated by author). Thus, about 30% of the land within the watershed area falls in Class III
the grade for crop diversification index for the Ur River watershed and is marginally suited for sustained agriculture. Overall, 67% of
was “A”. the area is suitable for agriculture and about 33% is not suitable for
agriculture but well suited to forestry, pasture, silvi-pastoral sys-
4.4.2. Cropping intensity tem and wild life and recreation (Table 17).
The net area sown under this watershed is 471 km2 and the Thus, on the basis of the land capability grading scheme, the Ur
gross cropped area is 928 km2 (calculated by author). Thus, using River watershed receives a grade “B”.
Eq. (2) the cropping intensity under the Ur River watershed comes
out 197%. The study reveals increase in cropping intensity in the Ur 4.5.4. Capability index for irrigated agriculture
River watershed from 168% reported in 2009 (as calculated by The values for different parameters in the Sys and Verheye's
author). This indicates that the net area is being cropped more Equation are given in Table 18. Using Eq. (3), the capability index
than once during one agricultural year. This also implies higher for irrigated agriculture (Ci) is calculated as 46.17. Thus, the cap-
productivity per unit of arable land during one agricultural year. ability index falls in the category S3 i.e., these soils are marginally
Thus, the grade for cropping intensity index was “A” as per the suitable but characterized by limitations in soil texture. Thus, the
grading system followed. Ur River watershed receives a grade “C” as per the capability index
On analysing both the indicators under agriculture (i.e. Crop for irrigated agriculture.
diversification index and Cropping intensity), the average grade for On analysing all the 4 indicators under soil condition index, the
Ur river watershed for the agricultural conditions is “A”. average grade for Ur River watershed for the soil conditions is “C”.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 11

Table 16
Soil and land irrigability classification results.

Class Soil and land irrigability classification Soil Land

Area (km2) % of total geographical area Area (km2) % of total geographical area

I None to slight limitations for sustained use under irrigation 129 13% – –
II Moderate Soil limitations for sustained use under irrigation. 84 8% 213 22%
III Severe Soil limitations for sustained use under irrigation 438 44% 301 30%
IV Very severe Soil limitations for sustained use under irrigation 117 12% 251 25%
V Not suited for irrigation 166 17% 169 17%
Misc. Water Bodies and built up 57 6% 57 6%
Total 991 991

4.6. Overall results Table 18


Results for capability index for irrigated agriculture.
The composite grades for the health of the overall watershed
Notation Description Detail Parametric value/rating
are based on average for forests, surface water quality, ground-
water quality, agricultural conditions and soil conditions are given A Soil Texture Sandy loam 75
in Table 19. Aw ¼ 65, P ¼ 1.15
The surface water quality receives a “B” grade. The watershed B Soil Depth 60 cm 0.8
(50–80)
area contains a large number of tanks, lakes and ponds. Most of C CaCO3 Status o 5% 0.95
the tanks are of considerable size, which not only help in irrigation (0.3–10)
of fields but also provide water at certain places. These tanks D Gypsum Status Nil 0.90
provide opportunities of fishing and as the water recedes, people (o 0.3)
E ESP and EC ESP ¼ 6.28 (0–8) 1
grow a variety of crops on its bed. As per the analysis, the quality EC 0.25 (0–4)
of water is good and it can be used for drinking as well as for F Drainage Status Well Drained Soil 0.90
irrigation facility. 1.2–2 m
The Ur River watershed scores a “B” grade for groundwater G Slope 0–1% 1.00

quality. The groundwater quality for all the sampling points re-
vealed that the water is suitable for the drinking purpose. How-
Table 19
ever, the ground water of some areas needs some degree of Overall grades for Ur River watershed.
treatment before drinking. During the studying period, all the
8 parameters are within the permissible limit for most of the Indices Grades Description

samples. However there has been exception of a very few cases.


Surface Water Quality B Good ecosystem conditions.
The condition of the forests in the Ur River watershed is con- Some areas may require enhancement
sidered to be very poor and has been given a “D” grade. Only 4.37% Groundwater Quality B Good ecosystem conditions.
of watershed is forested. Forests conditions are under varying Some areas may require enhancement
Forest Condition D Very Poor ecosystem conditions.
degrees of pressure from agriculture and waterfront development.
Considerable improvements required
Reforestation efforts should be targeted to increase the size of Agricultural Condition A Excellent ecosystem conditions.
forested areas and to restore connections between small and iso- Some protection may be required
lated forested areas Soil Condition C Poor ecosystem conditions.
Overall improvements necessary
The agricultural conditions in the Ur River watershed receive
an “A” grade. As per the analysis and through the FGD's it has been
established that the watershed area falls under wheat producing The Ur River watershed scores a “C” grade for soil conditions.
areas of Madhya Pradesh. Urad and Soybean are also major crops The soils in general display weak development of horizon and
in the area, which has attracted farmers towards it due to its cash have low organic content but are fairly good at maintaining humid
value in the market.

Table 17
Land capability classification results.

Classes Land capability classification Land

Area (km2) % of total geographical area

IIe Soils have moderate limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. 213 22%
IIIe Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, 301 30%
or both.
IVe Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or 155 16%
both.
Vie Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly 99 10%
to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
VIIe Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to 115 12%
grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
VIIIe Soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their 51 5%
use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or aesthetic purposes.
Misc. Water Bodies and built up 57 6%
Total 991

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
12 M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 20
Watershed scorecard for Ur River watershed.

Index Indicators Grade Trend Indicator description

Surface Water Quality pH, Turbidity, NO3-, DO, TDS, Hardness, B ** Ponds, lakes, streams are the circulatory system of a watershed. It is a key com-
Cl-, Alkalinity, EC ponent of the environment, impacting human health and flora & fauna
Average Grade B ** Good ecosystem conditions
Ground Water Quality pH, Turbidity, NO3-, F-, TDS, Hardness, B The ground water quality is assessed to analyse the suitability of ground water for
Cl-, Fe drinking purpose and other applications.
Average Grade B Good ecosystem conditions

Forest Condition % Forest Cover D It estimates the area of more than 1 ha in extent and having tree canopy density of
10% and above.
Average Grade D Very poor ecosystem conditions

Agricultural Condition Cropping Intensity Index A It assesses farmer's actual land use in area and time relationship for each crop
compared to the total available land area.
Crop Diversification Index A 2 It analyses rising of different varieties of crops in the arable land.
Average Grade A Excellent ecosystem conditions

Soil Condition Soil Depth C It is the vertical distance into the soil from the surface to a layer that essentially
stops the downward growth of plant roots.
Land and Soil Irrigability Class C ** It is grouping of soils based on physical and socio-economic factors.
Land Capability Class B ** It provides a ranking of the ability of an area to support agriculture on a sustainable
basis.
Capability Index for Irrigated Agriculture C ** It evaluates both the capability for irrigated agriculture in general and the suitability
for specific crops under rain-fed conditions.
Average Grade C Poor ecosystem conditions

Note:.
Declined Conditions Improved Conditions 2 Same Conditions.
** First time sampling/ FGD's /GIS analysis.
Trends for the mentioned indicators have been established from literature and study for the years 2009–2014.

moisture regime. The soils are moderately shallow but can po- recommendations that would help for better assessment of wa-
tentially sustain a reasonable level of cultivation subject to the tershed health in future studies and research:
limitations of soil erosion.
Thus, with the help of these grades, we generated a watershed 1. Micro-level study of the watershed should be taken up so as to
scorecard which is shown in Table 20. get more accurate and localised results.
2. An assessment for the usability of the indicators is needed for
the study area according to the prevailing conditions, stressors,
5. Conclusion preventive and conservative action. However, it is also im-
portant to maintain a balance in revising the indicators as the
Ur River watershed falls in the Bundelkhand region which indicators require long term datasets for the study. Thus, the
comes under the semi-arid zone and is significantly sensitive to changes should be done with careful consideration.
climate change and prone to droughts. The region has been facing
3. Monitoring should be carried out more for indicators like sur-
a variable climate condition that has been worsened due to irre-
face water quality, groundwater quality, and water storage in
gular rainfall. Failure in agriculture has become a cyclical phe-
order to establish the trends of their functionality.
nomenon in the Bundelkhand region which has resulted in ex-
treme distress in many parts. Thus, the utmost priority is to have
constant monitoring and assessment of the resources and facilities
Acknowledgements
available basis which immediate management and planning ac-
tivities can be taken to help the people of Bundelkhand. Thus, a
This work was carried out at National Institute of Hydrology
watershed scorecard was generated for Ur River watershed which
under the project supported by Technology Information, Fore-
provides a complete overview of the ecological health of the wa-
casting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), Department of Science
tershed. Since the study was conducted for the first time, it pro-
and Technology, Government of India. The authors would like to
vided a snapshot of the current ecological situation of our natural
acknowledge Dr. Sandeep Goyal, (Senior Principal Scientist & Head,
resources and serves as a baseline to discuss how to improve and
MPRA Division, MPCOST) and his team for generating all GIS da-
maintain healthy systems for future.
tabase for the Ur River watershed required for the study.
The detailed information and the results contained in this
watershed scorecard is shared with the District Collectorate of
Tikamgarh and is expected that it will provide help to the reg-
ulatory and legislative decision makers, planners and watershed
Funding
stakeholders to understand the condition of our forests, ground-
water, surface water, soil, and agriculture in the watershed. It is
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
expected that this information will be useful in watershed man-
agencies in the public, commercial, or non- profit sectors.
agement planning activities within the watershed. Individuals and
organisations working for watershed development should also Appendix A. Supporting information
work out to achieve “A” grades in the watershed.
Based on our present study, following are some of the Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i
M. Gupta et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 13

the online version at doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001. These data gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf〉 (Accessed 2 February


include Google maps of the most important areas described in this 2016).
Maaskant, K., & Quinlan, C. (2012). 2012 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards.
article. Ontario: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
Madhya Pradesh Council of Science and Technology (2011). Resource Atlas of Ti-
kamgarh Studies. Madhya Pradesh: Centre for Policy.
Ministry of Environment and Forests (1988). National Forest Policy 1988. New Delhi:
References
Government of India (Available at)〈http://www.moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/
introduction-nfp.pdf〉 (Accessed 2 February 2016).
All India Soil, & Landuse Survey Organisation (1971). Soil Survey Manual. New Delhi: Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (2013). Mississippi valley watershed report
IARI. card. Mississippi: Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority.
Briggs, T., Craig C., Larson, P., Maaskant, K., Cathy Q. & Wilcox, I. (2003). Watershed Mohawk River Watershed Coalition (2015). Mohawk River Watershed Management
Reporting: Improving Public Access to Information. Conservation Ontario Plan. New York: Mohawk River Watershed Coalition.
Champions. [online] Available at 〈http://conservationontario.ca/projects/pdf/re Muskoka Watershed Council (2014). 2014 Muskoka Watershed Report Card. Musk-
ports/PHASE%20I/watershed_reporting.pdf〉 (Accessed 4 April 2016). oka: Muskoka Watershed Council.
Bureau of Environmental Services (2015). Portland Watershed Health Index Sum- Pathak, P., Wani, S. P., Sudi, R., Chourasia, A. K., Singh, S. N., & Kesava Rao, A. V. R.
mary. City of Portland: Bureau of Environmental Services. (2007). Rural prosperity through integrated watershed management: A case study
Bureau of Indian Standards. (2012). Indian Standard Drinking Water — Specifica- of Gokulpura-Goverdhanpura in eastern Rajasthan (Global Theme on Agroeco-
tion (Second Revision). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. systems Report no. 36. Patancheru 502 324). Andhra Pradesh, India: Interna-
Cornwall, C., DiPietro, D., Farrar, C., Knapczyk, F., Hoenicke, R., Lawton, R., Micheli, L., tional Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).
… Zlomke R. (2010). 2007 Watershed Health Scorecard Sonoma Creek Wa- Ramakrishnaiah, C. R., Sadashivaiah, C., & Ranganna, G. (2009). Assessment of water
tershed Interim Technical Report on Indices for Water Quantity Sonoma Valley quality index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India. E-
Knowledge Base. [online] Available at 〈http://knowledge.sonomacreek.net/so
Journal of Chemistry, 6(2), 523–530.
nomascorecard〉 (Accessed 2 February 2016).
Reddy, V. R., Saharawat, Y. S., George B. A. (2017). Watershed Management in South
Das, B., & Mili, N. (2012). Pattern of crop diversification and disparities in agri-
Asia: A Synoptic Review. Available at 〈https://mel.cgiar.org/xmlui/handle/20.
culture: A case study of Dibrugarh district, Assam (India). Journal of Humanities
500.11766/5912?Show¼ full〉 (Accessed 6 April 2017).
and Social Science, 6(2), 37–42.
Saugeen Conservation (2013). Watershed report card. Saugeen: Saugeen
Directorate of Census Operations (2011). District Census Handbook. Madhya Pra-
desh: Government of India. Conservation.
Sehgal, J. (1992). Soil Series – Criteria and Norms. Technical Bulletin, NBSSLUP Pub.
Dutta, S. (2012). A spatio-temporal analysis of crop diversification in Hugli district,
West Bengal. Geo-Analyst, 2(1). 36, 40p., Nagpur 440010, India.[pdf]. Available at 〈http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.
Karimi, S., Bagherzadeh, A., & Ebrahimi, H. (2015). Parametric approach to land in/bitstream/1/2034127/1/51.pdf〉 (Accessed 20 February 2016).
evaluation for irrigation methods using GIS model at Jolgeh-Rokh Plain, Iran. Shilling, F., Sommarstrom S., Kattelmann R., Washburn B., Florsheim J. & Henly R.
Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Science, 5(S1), 3699–3703. (2004). California Watershed Assessment Guide.[pdf]. California: California
Kerr, J. M. (2002). Watershed development projects in India: An evaluation by John Resources Agency. Available at 〈http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/CWAM_chapters/
Kerr in collaboration with Ganesh Pangare and Vasudha Lokur Pangare (Re- CWAG_web.pdf〉 (Accessed 20 February 2016).
search Report; 127). [e-book]. United States of America: International Food Sinha, A., Kumar, B., & Singh, T. (2014). Water quality assessment of two ponds of
Policy Research Institute, Available at Google Books 〈https://books.google.co.in〉 Samastipur district (India). International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(4).
(Accessed 29 March 2016). St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (2013). Watershed Report Card 2013. On-
Klingebiel, A. A. & Montgomery, P. H. (1961). Land Capability Classification, Agri- tario: St. Clair Region Conservation Authority.
culture Handbook No. 210 (Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P., & Dobhal, R. (2013). Water quality assessment in
Department of Agriculture, 1961), pp. 1–21. Available at 〈https://www.nrcs.usda. terms of water quality index. American Journal of Water Resource, 1(3), 34–38.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i

You might also like