Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
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/).
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
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 ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
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.
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.
- -
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
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
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)
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
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
Table 13
Statistical characterization of groundwater quality data set for 45 sampling sites, 2016.
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
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 ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
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”.
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.
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
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
Table 17
Land capability classification results.
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.
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
Please cite this article as: Gupta, M., et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.001i