You are on page 1of 2

Review report

Journal: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering

Title: Assessment of Hydropower potential using remote sensing and GIS- A case study in Nethravathi
River Basin in India.

Report:

(A) General observation


(a) The authors have tried to assess the hydro power using remote sensing and GIS approach. In
the present day context such kind of studies are of immense importance. The authors have
tried to assess the runoff and generate the terrain information using recent technologies as
input for hydro power assessment.
(b) However, the authors have deviated from the objectives of the study. Since this manuscript
has been labelled as “case study”, a comparison between a existing project or existing study
should have been made. The authors tried to club up many things together (such as runoff,
ET, time of concentration, remote sensing, GIS) resulting in more confusion than clarity.
(c) The study could have been convincing if the authors had compared their assessment (hydro
power potential) with any projects existing or ongoing in the same basin.
(d) The authors in the manuscript (page number 4, line 17-22 and page 5, line 1-8) claims to
have all the requisite information, but I am surprised for not utilizing them. The authors
mentions that 6 years data of stream flow (1998-2003) were available, but they have not
validated their results with the available data for making their study more convincing.
(e) My suggestion to author is to assess the potential of hydro power based on available
observed data at the outlet and then simulate the stream flow for six sub basin. They should
have assigned the values of CN for different land use rather than having one lumped CN
value.
(B) Specific observation
(f) Page 4, line 13: The authors have used GIS for watershed delineation but they have not
mentioned the criteria for delineation of sub basin. They have not mentioned whether the
delineation was done manually or automatic delineation module available with all major GIS
platforms.
(g) Data used:
a. Rainfall data: Number of stations for which data available is not mentioned
b. In climatic data, the author mentions that precipitation data was collected from one
station i.e. Mangalore (Bajpe) station. Whether data from one station is adequate for
a basin of 3657 Km2.
c. Land use data: Which sensor was used for generating land use map? What was the
resolution of the imagery?
d. What is the location of stream flow data
(h) Evapo-transpiration: When the authors are estimating direct runoff using CN method, what is
the necessity of estimating ET. ET as per my understanding will be necessary, if the authors
consider the entire hydrologic cycle into consideration. What are the crop factors considered
for obtaining actual ET (page 8; Line 12-13)
(i) Page 7, line 15-18 and page 8, line 1-4:
a. The line 15-16 clarity required
b. In line 1-2, the authors mentions that precipitation is uniform over each grid, it
creates confusion whether grided precipitation information have been used.
(j) DEM: The authors have no where mentioned regarding the source of DEM. What kind of
DEM, its resolution etc. This is one of the most important input in the present study and
details are must.
(k) Land use and Soil map: Not mentioned in the manuscript. No map of land use and soil.
(l) Power estimation: Mention of turbines not necessary. Now-a-days turbines with 1 m head
are also available. The hydro power potential should have been calculated for each reach.
(m) Location of Weir and Power house: The authors mentioned the criteria for locating weir and
power house. How many such sites were available in each basin and why only one site in
each sub basin (Fig 5) was selected. Why alternate sites were not considered. Selecting
alternate site could have been novel finding.
(n) Conclusion: Page 12, line 23: The author mentions about the time of concentration using
Kirpich formula,
a. but it does not find mention in the entire manuscript.
b. What is the necessity of time of concentration in the present study when direct
runoff is estimated using CN method

(C) Others

(o) Page 2, Line 12: Giga and not gega


(p) Page 3,
a. Line 1: Spelling of Balance not matching with the name in reference
b. Line 2: spelling of Pannath not matching with reference
c. Line 9: abbreviation of MU
d. Line 13: source of the information relation to demand and supply of electricity in
Karnataka
e. Line 17-19: Objectives should be refined
(q) Page 4
a. Line 13: criteria for delineation of six sub basin
b. Line 17-19: name of stations for which precipitation data available
(r) Page 5
a. Line 7-8: location of stream flow data observation.
b. Methodology should be described before data collection. Alternately data can be
part of methodology
c. Line 21: GIS was used to....
(s) Page 10
a. Line 9:creating the attributes... What attributes?
b. Line 10: How hydraulic head was determined
c. Line 14: how avaregae rainfall was estimated. Whether Thessiens polygon was
created.
(t) References
a. References related to Jonathan et. al, (2002) and Pradhan et al., (2010) does not find
mention in the manuscript
b. Please check the journal style for writing references.