Table 7.3: Change in area coverage by LU/LC categories in Rihand reservoir & its environs

Sl. No.	LU/LC categories	Area in hectares
		1982	1994/95	Changes
1.	Built-up land	840	3520	+2680
2.	Agricultural land	19190	14230	-4960
3.	Forest
	Dense forest	15170	11540	-4630
	Open forest	1480	2630	+1150
	Degraded forest	3840	4950	+1110
4.	Water bodies	26080	27400	+1320
5.	Open lands, with or without scrub	8020	7540	-480
6.	Others
	Quarries	900	1830	+930
	Mine dumps	620	1180	+560
	Agriculture within notified forest area	-	1140	+1140
	Dense forest outside notified forest area	60	240	+180

Source: Sekhar, 1996

Table 7.4: Change in LU/LC from 1965 to 1988 in MAKUM coalfield

Sl. No	LU/LC categories	% land of total study area
		1965	1988	Changes
1	Cropland	14.43	9.23	-5.20
2	Fallow land	15.67	10.71	-4.96
3	Hutments with plantations	6.49	14.97	+8.48
4	Built-up land	5.31	9.04	+3.73
5	Dense forest	27.22	11.53	-15.69
6	Open forest	4.02	6.91	+2.89
7	Degraded forest	10.83	18.72	+7.89
8	Quarry & mine dump	1.48	2.93	+1.45
9	Tea garden	14.06	15.18	+1.12
10	Waste land	0.49	0.78	+0.29

Source: Dutta, 1997

This indicates loss of 15.69 ha of dense forest in 23 years, i.e. about 0.7 ha per year. Apparently it may not be a serious rate but the fact is, this region is almost like a hilly region. It may be noted from the table that built-up land is very less here, only about 9%. Such regions should have 66% of land under forest cover as per the National Forest Policy of GoI, 1988. While in actuality dense forest cover was 11.53% in 1988 which is again going on decreasing. This explains seriousness of the situation.

A study in JCF detailed in a monograph (Ghosh, 1999b) and a book (Ghosh, 2000a) details the seriousness of the situation in JCF. A field of about 450 sq km land area originally a forest-cum-agricultural land (Ruthermond et al., 1980) now rarely shows any effective forest cover.