Flood Hazard Assessment using Morphometry in Geospatial

Environment
Ummar Ahad (  [email protected] )
University of Kashmir https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2658-7404
Umair Ali
Government of Jammu and Kashmir
Syed Ahmad Ali
Aligarh Muslim University

Research Article

Keywords: Morphometry, Natural disaster, Flood behaviour, Sukhnag catchment

Posted Date: June 14th, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1629947/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License

Page 1/17
Abstract
Morphometric analysis has been applied in flood assessment in selective catchment damaged in 2014 Kashmir flood. Sukhnag-
Ferozpur catchment being located in hilly terrain of Kashmir basin, during heavy rainfall events all the water flows towards plainer
low lying area causing floods in the urban areas along different drainage pathways. The drainage analysis of catchment helps to
understand the physical behaviour with respect to floods. The sub-basins which contribute most in bringing floods in downstream
plainer area were delineated. The analysis of 14 sub-basins (coded from SF1- SF14) reveal that SF1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 lying in hilly
terrain with high relief ratio (Rh), high drainage density (Dd), high ruggedness number (Rn), and less time of concentration (Tc) has
greater peak discharge in a shorter time period to the plainer low lying areas. The low lying downstream area of SF10, 12, 13, and 14
are found most vulnerable to floods enhanced by other factors like anthropogenic activities, chaotic construction on the banks of
waterways, and death of drainage streams. The mud and silt coming with flood water ultimately causes siltation problems to
population and other aspect of life in low lying areas. The other ill effects of siltation with time leads to river course change, rise in
bed level, change in rate of flow, and occurrence of frequent floods in the area. Thus, systematic evaluation of morphometric
parameters using DEM in Geospatial environment helps to assess the flood behavior of catchment and apply suitable mitigation
measures to reduce the hazard.

1. Introduction
Natural disasters are thought to be the leading source of irreversible harm across the planet. (Vorogushyn et al. 2012). The
investigation of the physical activities of the watershed assists in recognizing the hydrologic and geomorphic tribulations like
floods, attrition and mass movement (Eze and Efiong 2010). The morphometric investigation if correctly coupled with
geomorphology and geology helps to predict approximate behavior of a watershed (Esper 2008). Drainage morphometry may be
used to determine which places are more vulnerable to flooding (Patel et al. 2012; Angillieri 2008; Roughani et al. 2007). Alexander
1972), and utility of other factors like intense rain fall, flood plain encroachment etc. The physiographic parameters of the drainage
basin, such as size, shape, slope, stream density, stream size and length, and so on, can influence the hydrological response of a
watershed (Gregory and Walling 1973).The tributaries of a river basin provide more water to the main river, producing flooding in
low-lying regions; each sub-basin, due to morphometric diversity, has its own particular water effect on the main river (Ozdemir and
Bird 2009). Floods have been mankind's most repeated and common natural tragedy from time immemorial. Floods, in any place,
pose a major threat to the economy, people, and ecology. In the Kashmir Basin, heavy rains in September 2014 and March 2015,
along with water-logging issues and river channel capacity limitations, resulted in floods in low-lying regions. The unforgotten flood
of September 2014 wreaked havoc on lives and property, notably in Jhelum's flood plains and environs. Other causal variables that
lead to floods in plainer areas include land use patterns, where unregulated urban expansion along river banks and flood plains is a
severe concern.

The morphometric analysis of different river basin was carried out using remote sensing and GIS technology (Ali et al. 2003; Ali and
Ali 2014, 2017). Hydrologists have used remote sensing and Geographical information systems (GIS) in their scientific research and
water resource management. Remote sensing and GIS have shown to be useful tools for unveiling spatial information such as
watershed boundary extraction and stream network delineation (Ahmed et al. 2010; Bertolo 2000). Watershed boundary delineation
and drainage network extraction was performed automatically using SRTM DEM (30m) in Arc GIS software. Application of drainage
parameters in conjunction with other contributing factors to natural disaster like flood has been assessed in the present study.

2. Study Area
The present study area is in Kashmir valley, northern India, NW Himalaya (Fig. 1), between latitude 33°54′ to 34°15′ N and longitude
74°15′30′′ to 74°48′ E. The Sukhnag-Ferozpur catchment drains an area of about 1008 km2 and has a length of about 54 kilometers
empties into the Wular Lake. Panjal traps, calcareous, Agglomerates, Shale, Karewas, and alluvium are the most prevalent rocks
found in the area.Panjal traps may be found in the far west, karewas can be found in the middle, and recent alluvium has covered
sections along the Jhelum River.

FIGURE 1

Page 2/17
Geomorphologically, the area consists of mountain tops, canyons (deeply incised streams), steep slopes, open slopes and plains.
The Pir-Panjal side of the region features a complicated and difficult topography with high altitude and steep terrain, which has
helped researchers better understanding of the geomorphic development prevailing in the area. The presence of high relief controls
steepness which in turn controls the energy available for driving forces such as runoff in the area. Geomorphologically, the area is
divisible into three zones (Fig. 2), the first zone beginning from its southwestern side identified as high, steep, rugged highlands with
deep and narrow fluvial basins define the rocky uplands. The zone is snow-covered for the majority of the year. The middle zone
consists of inclined lower and upper karewas that correlate to a large and moderately sloping pediment that immediately overlies
Panjal Traps/Triassic limestone and other foundation rocks. The third zone is flood plain zone which is characterized by wide
alluvial deposits brought by streams from uplands.

FIGURE 2

3. Data Base And Methodology

The data set used are SRTM DEM (30m resolution) and Survey of India (SOI) toposheet on the scale of 1: 50,000. The software’s like
ERDAS Imagine 9.1 and Arc GIS 10.2 were applied to extract slope, aspect, catchment boundary and drainage network map.
Watershed boundary and drainage network with order was automatically extracted using Arc Hydro tool in ArcGIS 10.2 software.
The output of the geoprocessing approach will be a drainage network based on stream categorization (Strahler 1964). A first-order
channel has no tributaries; two first-order channels produce a second-order channel, and two second-order channels produce a third-
order channel, and so on. The highest order stream in the studied region is of 6th order. Fill DEM is a systematic geoprocessing
method for extracting the hydrology, flow direction, flow accumulation, stream order raster, and stream order vector, among other
things. Similarly watershed boundary was automatically delineated from SRTM DEM using processing steps such as the fill basin,
the flow direction, and the flow accumulation A basin raster and a basin raster to feature will be incorporated. A basin raster and a
basin raster will be included. etc.Sub-watersheds were also delineated, water division line was produced from a watershed raster
layer generated from a DEM in the ARCGIS hydrology toolbox, and topographic maps revealed the nature of the land. The same
programme was used for the morphometric study of the sub-watersheds. The catchment is divided into fourteen sub-watersheds
with codes SF1 to SF14. Drainage characteristics and other factors were investigated to check the impact of the surface runoff to
the main stream from each basin to highlight the areas more prone to natural disasters like floods.

4. Results And Discussion

The basin variables like stream numbers, stream order, stream length, basin area, and boundary of each basin are derived from DEM
in Arc GIS. The results of the generated parameters are determined using measurements of each basin's linear, aerial, and relief
aspects (Table 1); to observe their influence in bringing floods in the downstream area.

4.1. Aspect Analysis

The direction in which a mountain slope faces is known as its aspect. "The downslope direction of the highest rate of change in
value from each to its neighbours" is how an aspect grid is defined (Gorokhovich and Voustianiouk 2006). The aspect's compass
direction was calculated using the output raster data value. The aspect value of 00 corresponds to true north, whereas
900corresponds to the east, aspect value 2700 is to the west and so forth. The aspect map is a crucial characteristic for determining
the influence of the sun on the local climate. Figure 3 shows an aspect map created in Arc GIS 10.2 using SRTM DEM for the
watershed. The region is dominated by the northeast and east facing hills.

TABLE 1

FIGURE 3

4.2. Slope Analysis

The slope is the degree of gradient of a physical aspect, such as a topographic landform, with respect to the surface that is
horizontal. In each place with lithology of different resistance, climato-morphologic processes regulate the slope element of the area;
nevertheless, tectonic processes also affect slope growth. The research area's slope map was created using DEM and may be shown

Page 3/17
in percentages or degrees. After calculating the slope, the greatest difference may be obtained and the gradient can
be calculated (Burrough and McDonnell 1998; Singh et al. 2014). The slope counted in degree in five classes viz. 1–3o (Gentle), 3–
5o (Moderate), 5–10o (Steep), 10–35o (Very Steep) and >35o (Very Very Steep) for the catchment (Fig. 4). The hilly terrain with
resistant rocks contributehigher slope gradient in southwest of the area. As a result, during heavy rains, the greater slope gradient
areas will produce quick runoff and flooding and less rainfall infiltration contributes maximum to downstream flood vulnerability.

FIGURE 4

4.3. Bifurcation ratios (Rb)

In a drainage basin, the bifurcation ratio is the ratio of the total number of stream segments in one order to the next higher order. It
has to do with a drainage system's branching pattern and is defined as the ratio of the total number of stream segments in one order
to the succeeding higher order in a river basin (Schumm 1956). The bifurcation ration has an important control on the runoff
peakness of the hydrograph (Jain and Sinha 2003). The value of bifurcation ratio calculated basin wise varies from one order to
another, which exhibits topographic variances and changes in stages of geomorphic evolution (Lattif and Sherief 2012). The Rb
value and their variation is controlled by geological and the lithological development of the catchment (Strahler 1964). In the area,
mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) fluctuates from 2.21 to 3.20 (Table 2); for flat terrain, a Rb of 2 is achieved, but for hilly or severely
dissected terrain, a Rb of 3-4 is obtained (Horton 1945). The mean bifurcation ratio displays a lot of flow energy, which in turn does
not provide ample time for infiltration and groundwater recharge, as well as high probability of flooding and vice versa. The high
bifurcation value of SF 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11 achieves peak discharge throughout the phase of deluge. Thus, results the downstream
areas more at risk of floods in an extreme weather conditions.

TABLE 2

4.4. Drainage density (Dd)

Dd is a crucial component of drainage morphometry, which is used to investigate dissected landscape, runoff capabilities, land
infiltration rate, and the basin's climate and vegetative cover. Climate and vegetation (Ozdemir and Bird 2009), soil and rock
characteristics (Moglen et al. 1998), relief, and landscape development processes all influence drainage density. The drainage
density is the length of a stream per unit area in a certain location. (Horton 1945; Strahler 1957). A high Dd indicates a highly
dissected catchment with a quick hydrological response to extreme precipitation, whereas a low Dd indicates a poorly drained
watershed with a slow drainage response. (Strahler 1964). Regions of extremely permeable material are coupled with poor drainage
density and low relief which implies low flood volume while as high drainage density is seen in areas with impervious sub-surface
substances and high relief causes high flood volume (Pallard et al. 2009). In the area, Dd varies form 0.79-3.46 km/km2 (Table 3).
High Dd values are in SF1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 because of impermeable material and high relief. The catchment's drainage density
map (Fig. 5) clearly shows that these sub-watersheds have a steep slope and impervious rock types. Low Dd value are in SF 13, 14,
10, and 12 is because of permeable material and low relief and an artificial effect on the land use pattern in the region that is
indiscriminate. High drainage density regions cause a rapid flood response, resulting in increased runoff in low-lying areas with low
Dd and flood susceptibility during severe hydrological events.

TABLE 3

FIGURE 5

4.5. Stream frequency (Fs)

Stream frequency is an essential morphometric parameter and provides additional information concerning the behaviour of river
basin to runoff process (Langbein 1947; Chorley et al. 1957) and is a factor that connects to asses peak flood discharge (Eze and
Efiong 2010). Melton (1958) looked at the direct link between runoff mechanisms and drainage density & stream frequency.
Generally, it is related to lithology, rock structure, vegetative cover, relief, infiltration capacity, character and quantity of precipitation
and permeability of sub-surface substance in the area (Magesh et al. 2010). In the area, Fs value varies form 0.28-4.97 per km2, and
is observed high in SF1, 2, 6, 7 and 8; areas with low soil permeability which results in more flow of water during high intensity

Page 4/17
rainfall. The high stream population is related to drainage density results faster runoff in downstream with increased flood
vulnerability of main stream.

4.6. Drainage texture (Dt)

In geomorphology, drainage texture is an important concept related to relative spacing of drainage lines (Rudraiah et al. 2008;
Ramaiah et al. 2012). Climate, flora, precipitation, earth materials type, infiltration capacity, topography, and stage of development
are all elements that influence drainage texture. (Smith, 1950). Dt is categorized into five groups i.e., very coarse (<2 per km), coarse
(2-4), moderate (4-6), fine (6-8) and very fine (>8 per km) (Smith 1950). The area with high drainage density is fine textured while low
drainage density area is having coarse drainage texture (Ozdemir and Bird 2009). In the area, Dt value varies from 0.58 to 6.86
indicating variation of drainage texture ranging from coarser to fine. The fine drainage texture areas indicate impervious
subsurface (Ramaiah et al. 2012), which results high runoff makes coarse textured area more prone to floods during intense rainfall.

4.7. Length of overland flow (Lo)

The length of overland flow (Lo) is an essential independent variable that influences a watershed basin's hydrological and
physiographical development (Horton 1932). Percolation/infiltration via the soil, which changes in time and area, has a substantial
impact on overland flow (Schmid 1997). It is the length of water over the ground before it is concentrated into designated drainage
channels and is equal to half of drainage density. (Horton 1945). The average channel slope is inversely proportional to the extent of
surface flow. The shorter overland flow length for SF1 indicated a faster runoff process, whereas the longer overland flow length for
SF14 indicated a more gradual runoff mechanism. The sub-river basin with lower 'Lo' and faster runoff transport water from
upstream into SF10, 13, and 14, which have a longer length of overland flow, making them more vulnerable to floods during heavy
rain. As demonstrated in recent devastating flooding in Jammu and Kashmir, the longer duration of overland flow and slower runoff
allow for more time for mud to settle. As a result, in addition to the immediate damage caused by flood water, siltation is a severe
environmental issue.

4.8. Form factor (Ff)

The form factor of a basin characterises its contour or shape and has a direct link with peak discharge, indicating the flow intensity
of a particular watershed basin (Horton 1945; Gregory and walling 1973). For absolutely circular basin, the form factor values would
always be less than 0.7854. In the area, Ff value varies from 0.12 to 0.78. High value of form factor states the circular shape and
low Ff value means elongated shape of basin. When the form factor is low, there is less side flow for shorter periods of time and
more main flow for longer periods of time, and vise - versa. (Reddy et al. 2004). As a result, a high Ff value of SF 1, 2, 5, 6 indicates a
high flow for a longer time, whereas a low main flow for a shorter time results in high peak flows in a shorter time. The low form
factor of the SF 9, 12 signifies a flatter peak flow over a longer period of time.

4.9 Circulatory ratio (Rc)

The circulatory ratio is a useful criterion for evaluating flood susceptibility of any area. The value of circulatory ratio ranges from
0.31 to 0.74 in the area. The Rc is affected by stream length and frequency, geological features, climate, land use/cover, relief, and
basin slope. (Rudraiah et al. 2008). The higher the circulatory ratio, the greater is the risk of flooding at the outlet point at peak times.
The watershed outlet point having high circulatory is one of the inlet points for downstream side basin with lower circulatory ratio.
This research demonstrates that areas with a low circulatory ratio, such as SF 9, 12, 13, and 14, are more vulnerable to flooding.

4.10. Relief Ratio (Rh)

It measures general steepness and is taken into consideration as a criterion for the depth of abrasion process (Schumm 1956) and
water outflows from a catchment gradient. The increasing undulating relief, steep slopes and high stream gradient results in
decrease in time of concentration (Tc) of runoff, thus increases flood peaks (Patton 1988). The relief ratio varies from 0.014 to
0.241 in the area. The higher values of relief ratio for SF 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 indicates steep slope and high relief, thus their higher Rh
indicates higher peak discharges with increased velocity (Altin and Altin 2011). These high Rh areas supply a greater amount of
water in a shorter period of time and bring floods in the lower Rh areas of the catchment.

4.11. Infiltration number (If)

Page 5/17
The product of Dd and Fs is called infiltration number and provides a design concerning the permeation features of the area. The
number of infiltration points is inversely related to the watershed's infiltration capacity. (Romshoo et al. 2012). Higher the If value,
lesser will be the permeation capacity results in higher runoff. Infiltration number varies from 0.22 to 17.19 in area and is higher in
SF1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. The sub-basins with high If reveal their low infiltration capacity and greater flow of water in short spell during
intense rainfall occurrence to the main river of the area.

4.12. Ruggedness number (Rn)

It is the product of relief and drainage density (Dd) of the basin in the equivalent unit (Strahler 1957; Melton 1958). For sub-
watersheds the ruggedness value obtained ranges from 6.615 to 0.252. The highest value of ruggedness was observed in SF1, 2, 6,
7, 8, and 11 with high relief in the basin and drainage density. The high flood potential is expected in high ruggedness with fine
drainage texture basins (Patton and Baker1976), to main stream in the area.

4.13. Compound Factor and Weightage

The morphometric variability was considered for the assessment of the flood inducing characteristics in each basin of the area.The
morphometric parameters i.e., mean bifurcation ratio, stream frequency, drainage density, drainage texture, form factor, relief ratio,
ruggedness number and infiltration number are found to have a direct correlation with flood runoff, i.e., the higher the value, the
larger the runoff. Each parameter was given a weighting, with the highest value weightage of 14, second highest weighted 13 and so
on and the lowest value was given weightage of 1.Compound factors (Table 4) were computed by summing all the ranks dividing by
the number of variables . The sub-basin with the maximum compound factor had a high priority, whereas the sub-basin with the
lowest compound factor had a low priority. The SF 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 sub-basins in upstream have highest influence on the highest
order stream and its flood plain during intense rainfall condition due their high runoff parameters like high ruggedness, high relief
ratio and low infiltration capacity and less time of concentration. The SF 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11 have moderate influence on floods in
downstream sub-basins because of their moderate to high If, Dd and mean Rb, moderate value Rh, moderate values of T, and Rn.
Lastly, low value of drainage density, relief ratio, infiltration number and ruggedness number of SF 12, 13, and 14 has less influence
to the main river but are more under danger and devastation effect of flood than other. The results mapped in ArcGIS environment
related to flooding are shown in Figure 6. By watershed evaluation, one can come to know about a specific watershed resulting into
higher discharge owing to an disproportionate amount of precipitation (Patel et al. 2012). The water from the upper reaches is
discharged into Jehlum River. During heavy rains, it is unable to condense all of the floodwaters, resulting in breached flows as well
as stream bank collapse, causing harm to civilization and property

Table 4

Figure 6

Last but not least, settlements along waterways and flood plains, as well as their impact on generating floods in any location, must
not be underestimated. (Fig. 7). Uncontrolled settlement and river encroachment is a serious issue considered in flood prone areas,
just seen its ill affect in recent Kashmir flood.

FIGURE 7

One of the problems in intense rainfall events is lose or discharge of silts and top soils from mountainous terrain in the southeast of
study area. Both natural and manmade activities such as heavy rainfall, high slope and rugged terrain (Fig. 8), lose upper soil cover,
unscientific farming, cutting of forests and trees and construction of new roads without taking due care of the environment are
responsible for soil losses in the area. The mud and silts coming with flood water enhanced by landslides (Fig. 7, Fig. 9) ultimately
causes siltation hazard (Figure 9) to population and other aspect of life in low lying areas. The other ill effects of siltation with time
leads to river course change, rise in river bed level, change in rate of flow, occurrence of frequent floods in the area. Apart from the
immediate harm inflicted by flood water to everything in its path, siltation in plainer regions is a severe environmental hazard. In this
regard, it will be crucial of removing potential hazard of floods in the habitant areas situated in plainer low lying areas and
minimizing soil lose in hilly terrain by applying all the above mitigation measures.

Figure 9

Page 6/17
5. Conclusions
The present study exhibits the efficacy of drainage behavior to categorize the catchment when it comes to the delineation of flood
risk areas. The low drainage density, low intensity, delayed runoff, greater surface flow, and increased human interaction makes area
of low altitude flood prone during heavy precipitation. The result elucidates that in intense rainfall conditions, there are chances of
greater runoff in sub-basin SF 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which results floods in downstream plainer area. The factors besides intense rainfall
include uncontrolled construction particularly along river banks, floodplains and outlet stream channels without considering flood
consequences. The downstream area of SF 10, 12, 13, 14 and in the same way other low lying areas were observed seriously
influenced in September 2014 Kashmir flood and one of the severe natural calamity in the recent history. The 2014 Kashmir flood
has affected people, settlement, and infrastructure in the area. Apart from direct damage by floods, the plainer low lying areas faced
siltation hazard which caused serious damage to agriculture, infrastructure and other aspects of life. The effective measures to
control floods in low lying areas are to reduce the floodplain encroachment, chaotic construction on river banks and outlet, and
maintenance and widening of drainage channels. To limit and alleviate the calamity caused by floods, a flood monitoring and early
system of alerts and adaption of strategies for flood forecasting should be implemented in the region.

Declarations
Ethical approval

The study complied with the ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to Publish

All the authors have agreed for the publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

We declare that there are no competing interests.

Funding

The present study has not received any funding from any agency.

Authors Contributions

The present study is a collaborative work of all the authors. However, ummar Ahad has worked for the general concept of the
manuscript, umair Ali has worked with software part and Dr. Syed Ahmad Ali has been actively engaged in making structural
changes to the manuscript.

Data Availability

On reasonable request, the corresponding author will provide the datasets generated and/or evaluated during the current work.

References
1. Ahmed, S.A., Chandrashekarappa, KN., Raj, S. K., Nischitha, V., Kavitha, G., 2010. Evaluation of morphometric parameters
derived from ASTER and SRTM DEM – a study on Bandihole sub-watershed basin in Karnataka. Journal of Indian Society of
Remote Sensing 38, 227–238.
2. Alexander, G. N., 1972. Effect of catchment area on flood magnitude. Journal of Hydrology 16, 225–240.
3. Ali, S. A., Rangzen, K., Pirasteh, S., 2003. Use of Digital Elevation Model for Study of Drainage Morphometry and Identification
of Stability and Saturation Zones in Relations to Landslide Assessments in Parts of Shahbazan Area, Zagros Belt, SW

Page 7/17
 Iran. Cartography 32, 162-169.
4. Ali, U., Ali, S. A., 2014. Analysis of Drainage Morphometry and Watershed Prioritization of Romushi–Sasar Catchment, Kashmir
Valley, India using Remote Sensing and GIS Technology. International Journal of Advanced Research 2, 5-23.
5. Ali, U. Ahmad S. A., 2017. Investigation of Drainage for Structures, Lithology and Priority (Flood and Landslide) Assessment
Using Geospatial Technology, J&K, NW Himalaya.Hydrologic Modeling, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.,ISBN: 978-981-10-
5800-4.
6. Ali, U., Ali, S. A.,IkbalJ., BashirM., Fadhl, M.,Ahmad,M., Al-dharab,H., Ali,S., 2018.Soil Erosion Risk and Flood Behaviour
Assessment of Sukhnag catchment,Kashmir Basin: Using GIS and Remote Sensing.Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS, DOI:
10.4172/2469-4134.1000230.
7. Altin, T. B., Altin, B. N., 2011. Drainage morphometry and its influence on landforms in volcanic terrain, Central Anatolia, Turkey.
Procedia– Social Behavioural Sciences 19, 732–740.
8. Angillieri, M. Y. E., 2008. Morphometric analysis of Colangüil river basin and flash flood hazard, San Juan, Argentina.
Environmental Geology 55, 107–111.
9. Burrough, P. A., McDonnell, R. A. (1998). Principles of Geographical Information System. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, p.
333.
10. Bertolo, F., 2000. Catchment delineation and characterisation, catchment characterisation and modelling Euro landscape
project. Ispra: Space Application Institute, Joint Research Center. Bose MK. 1972. Deccan basalts. Lithos 5, 131–145.
11. Chorley, R. J., Donald, E. G., MalmPogorzelski, H. A., 1957. New Standard for Estimating Drainage Basin Shape. American
Journal of Science 255, 138-141.
12. Esper, A. M. Y., 2008. Morphometric Analysis of Colanguil River Basin and Flash Flood Hazard, San Juan, Argentina.
Environmental Geology 55, 107-111.
13. Eze, B. E., Efiong, J., 2010. Morphometric parameters of the Calabar River basin: implication for hydrologic processes. Journal
of Geography and Geology 2, 18–26.
14. Gregory, K. J., Walling, D. E., 1973. Drainage basin form and process: a geomorphological approach.New York (NY): Wiley, p.
456.
15. Gorokhovich, Y., Voustianiouk, A., 2006 Accuracy assessment of the processed SRTM-based elevation data by CGIAR using field
data from USA and Thailand and its relation to the terrain characteristics. Remote Sensing of Environment 104, 409–415.
16. Horton,R. E., 1932. Drainage basin characteristics. Transactions of American Geophysical Union 13, 350-361.
17. Horton, R. E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: A hydrophysical approach to quantitative
morphology. Geological Society of American Bulletin 56, 275-370.
18. Jain, V., Sinha, R., 2003. Evaluation of geomorphic control on flood hazard through geomorphic instantaneous unit hydrograph.
Current Science 85, 1596–1600.
19. Jha, M. K., Chowdhury, A., Chowdary, V. M., Peiffer, S., 2007. Groundwater management and development by integrated RS and
GIS: prospects and constraints. Water Resource Management 21, 427– 467.
20. Jai, V., Sinha, R., 2003. Evaluation of geomorphic control on flood hazard through geomorphic instantaneous unit hydrograph.
Current Science 85, 1596–1600.
21. Langbein, W. B., 1947. Topographic characteristics of drainagebasins. United States Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 986
(C), 157-159.
22. Lattif, A. A., Sherief, Y., 2012. Morphometric analysis and flash floods of WadiSudr and WadiWardan, Gulf of Suez, Egypt: using
digital elevation model. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 5, 181-195.
23. Maathuis, B. H. P., 2006. Digital elevation model based hydro-processing. Geocarto International 21, 21–26.
24. Magesh, N. S., Chandrasekar, N., Soundranayagam, J. P., 2011. Morphometric evaluation of Papanasam and Manimuthar
watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India: a GIS approach. Journal of Indian Society of Remote
Sensing 64, 373–381.
25. Melton, M. A., 1958. Correlations structure of morphometric properties of drainage systems and their controlling agents. Journal
of Geology 66, 442–460.

Page 8/17
26. Moglen, G. E., Eltahir, E. A., Bras, R. L., 1998. On the Sensitivity of Drainage Density to Climate Change. Water Resource Research
34, 855-862.
27. Ozdemir, H., Bird, D., 2009. Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and
DEM in point of floods. Environmental Geology 56, 1405-1415.
28. Patel, D., Gajjar, C., Srivastava, P., 2012. Prioritization of malesari mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis: a remote
sensing and gis perspective. Environmental Earth Science 69, 2643–2656.
29. Patton, P. C., 1988. Drainage basin morphometry and floods. In: Baker VR, Kochel RC, Patton PC,editors. Flood geomorphology.
New York (NY): Wiley, p. 51–65.
30. Patton, P. C., Baker, V. R., 1976. Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls.
Water Resource Research 12, 941–952.
31. Reddy, G. P. O., Maji, A. K., Gajbhiye, K. S., 2004. Drainage morphometry and its influence on landform characteristics in a
basaltic terrain, Central India – a remote sensing and GIS approach. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation6, 1–16.
32. Pallard, B., Castellarin, A., Montanar, A., 2009. A look at the links between drainage density and flood statistics. Hydrological
Earth System Science 13, 1019–1029.
33. Romshoo, S. A., Bhat, S. A., Rashid, I., 2012. Geoinformatics for assessing the morphometric control on hydrological response at
watershed scale in the Upper Indus basin. Journal of Earth System Science 121, 659–686.
34. Ramaiah, S. N., Gopalakrishna, G. S., Srinivasa, S., Vittala, Md., Najeeb, K., 2012. Morphometric Analysis of Sub-basins in and
around MalurTaluk, Kolar District, Karanataka Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. Journal nature Environment and
Pollution Technology 11, 89-94.
35. Roughani, M., Ghafouri, M., Tabatabaei, M., 2007. An innovative methodology for the prioritization of sub catchments for
flood control. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 9, 79–87.
36. Rudraiah, M., Govindaiah, S., Vittala, S. S., 2008. Morphometry Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques in the Sub-Basins of
Kagna River Basin, Gulburga District, Karnataka. Journal of Indian Society Remote Sensing 36, 351-360.
37. Schmid, B. H., 1997. Critical Rainfall Duration for Overland Flow anInfiltrating Plane Surface. Journal of Hydrology 193, 45-60.
38. Schumm, S. A., 1956. Evolution of Drainage systems and Slopes in Badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 67, 597-646.
39. Singh, P., Gupta, A., Singh, M., 2014. Hydrological inferences from watershed analysis for water resource management using
remote sensing and GIS techniques. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science 17, 111-121.
40. Smith, K. G., 1950. Standards for grading textures of errosional topography. American Journal of Science 248, 655-668.
41. Strahler, A. N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of American Geophysical Union 38, 913-
920.
42. Strahler, A. N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks, section 4II, In: Handbook of Applied
Hydrology, edited by V.T. Chow, McGraw Hill, pp 439.
43. Vorogushyn, S., Lindenschmidt, K. E., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., Merz, B., 2012. Analysis of a detention basin impact on dike failure
probabilities and flood risk for a channel-dike-floodplain system along the river Elbe, Germany. Journal of Hydrology 436-437.

Tables
Table 1

Sub-watersheds wise stream analysis.

Page 9/17
Sub – Area Perimeter Basin Stream Numbers Stream Length
(km2)
Basins Length 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
order order
(Km) order order order order order

SF1 42.042 30.481 9.349 173 29 6 1 - - 104.13 25.39 6.18 9.86 - -

SF2 63.305 32.84 9.000 162 35 7 2 1 - 104.63 31.69 14.31 10.7 .65 -

SF3 69.894 39.259 12.998 149 31 7 3 1 - 99.913 30.72 23.26 6.55 1.64 -

SF4 80.525 44.05 14.006 175 35 7 1 1 - 115.44 55.00 11.83 2.68 6.64 -

SF5 57.939 34.687 10.299 112 31 7 1 1 - 95.775 47.65 14.73 4.85 13.31

SF6 27.456 23.273 7.977 77 16 5 2 1 - 58.97 15.63 10.71 7.25 2.09 -

SF7 34.748 32.162 12.474 93 20 5 1 1 - 65.385 15.22 6.22 2.4 10.54 -

SF8 30.437 28.222 10.116 71 19 7 2 2 1 50.185 16.19 18.78 1.20 10.41 .11

SF9 62.12 45.648 18.824 81 17 6 3 1 - 97.719 19.32 17.89 11.4 2.17 -

SF10 108.55 45.878 18.108 48 14 5 1 1 - 70.773 30.02 6.78 7.44 8.86 -

SF11 78.643 44.12 17.348 134 23 8 2 1 1 130.63 40.32 12.69 18.1 .29 7.6

SF12 87.671 59.682 27.015 45 13 2 1 1 - 86.607 35.16 2.69 .65 25.38 -

SF13 101.24 54.59 21.266 24 7 2 1 2 1 34.184 17.33 4.69 .65 8.7 20.4

SF14 131.13 63.324 24.902 25 7 2 1 1 1 47.09 23.09 3.39 .65 18.74 12.4

Table 2

Values of bifurcation ratios, Mean bifurcation ratios, Length ratio.

Page 10/17
 Table 3

Sub-watersheds wise morphometric parameters.

Page 11/17
Sub- Stream Form Ruggedness Relief Drainage Drainage Infiltration Length of Over
frequency Ratio(Rh) no (If) Land Flow
basin Factor Number Texture Density(Dd)
(Fs) (Ff) (Rn) (T)

SF1 4.97 0.48 4.086 0.126 6.86 3.46 17.1962 0.14

SF2 3.27 0.78 4.303 0.186 6.30 2.56 8.3712 0.19

SF3 2.73 0.41 2.691 0.089 4.86 2.32 6.3336 0.22

SF4 2.72 0.41 3.618 0.109 4.97 2.37 6.4464 0.21

SF5 2.62 0.55 3.033 0.097 4.38 3.04 7.9648 0.16

SF6 3.67 0.43 6.615 0.241 4.34 3.44 12.6248 0.15

SF7 3.45 0.22 5.725 0.159 3.73 2.87 9.9015 0.17

SF8 3.35 0.29 5.355 0.166 3.61 3.18 10.653 0.16

SF9 1.74 0.17 2.024 0.045 2.36 2.39 4.1586 0.21

SF10 0.64 0.33 0.354 0.017 1.50 1.14 0.7296 0.44

SF11 2.15 0.26 5.152 0.112 3.83 2.66 5.719 0.19

SF12 0.71 0.12 1.110 0.024 1.04 1.74 1.2354 0.29

SF13 0.36 0.22 0.252 0.014 0.67 0.84 0.3024 0.54

SF14 0.28 0.21 0.353 0.017 0.58 0.79 0.2212 0.63

Table 4

Prioritization results of Morphometric analysis and compound parameter.

Sub-basin Rbm Dd Fs Rn Rh T If Ff Compound Factor Priority

rank

SF1 12 14 14 9 9 14 14 10 12 High

SF2 10 8 10 10 12 13 10 12 10.625 High

SF3 7 5 9 6 5 9 7 8 7 Medium

SF4 12 6 8 8 7 8 8 8 8.125 Medium

SF5 11 11 7 7 6 10 9 11 9 High

SF6 4 13 13 14 13 11 13 9 11.25 High

SF7 8 10 12 13 10 4 11 4 9 High

SF8 6 12 11 12 11 6 12 6 9.5 High

SF9 5 7 5 5 4 2 5 2 4.375 Medium

SF10 3 3 3 3 2 12 3 7 4.5 Medium

SF11 9 9 6 11 8 7 6 5 7.625 Medium

SF12 6 4 4 4 3 1 4 1 3.375 Low

SF13 2 2 2 1 1 5 2 4 2.375 Low

SF14 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 1.75 Low

Page 12/17
Figures

Figure 1

Location map of Sukhnag-Ferozpur Catchment of Kashmir Basin, India.

Figure 2

3D view highlights geomorphic scenario of the catchment.

Page 13/17
Figure 3

Aspect map showing dominant slope direction for catchment.

Page 14/17
Figure 4

Slope map showing high slope in Southwest of the area.

Page 15/17
Figure 5

Drainage density map showing domination of drainage network in southwest and west of the area.

Figure 6

Final map showing rank of influence on downstream low lying areas with respect to flooding.

Figure 7

Shows settlements and agriculture on the banks and floodplain in which river is nowhere visible and Highlights the post- rainfall
effect of the areas.

Page 16/17
Figure 8

Highlights different relief features along graph AA and BB from source to mouth in the catchment.

Figure 9

Siltation (Mud) which caused a lot of damage in addition to devastation caused by direct flood water in low lying areas of Kashmir
Basin and surrounding areas.

Page 17/17