PRELIMINARY DISASTER ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY REPORT

OF

KARNALI PROVINCE

MANGSIR 2079

PREPARED BY: NATIONAL DISASTER

RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY (NDRRMA)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2 desk study ......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Regional Geology ........................................................................................................ 4

2.3 Hydrological Information ............................................................................................ 4

2.3.1 Humla................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Kalikot.................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.3 Jumla .................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.4 Mugu .................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Seismology of the Region ........................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Summary of Disaster ................................................................................................... 9

4.1.1 Humla District .................................................................................................... 10

4.1.2 Kalikot District................................................................................................... 12
4.1.3 Jumla District ..................................................................................................... 14
4.1.4 Mugu District ..................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Damage and Losses ................................................................................................... 20

4.2.1 Humla................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.2 Kalikot................................................................................................................ 23
4.2.3 Jumla .................................................................................................................. 25
4.2.4 Mugu .................................................................................................................. 27
4.3 Damage Assessment of the Disaster Region ............................................................. 29

4.6 Limitation .................................................................................................................. 33

i
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 4-1 PHOTO SUMMARY OF THE HUMLA DISTRICT................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 4-2 PHOTO SUMMARY OF KALIKOT DISTRICT ....................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 4-3 PHOTO SUMMARY OF JUMLA DISTRICT.......................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 4-4 PHOTO SUMMARY OF MUGU DISTRICT ......................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 4-5 DISTRICTWISE DAMAGE FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 33

ii
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4-1 DAMAGE DATA AS PROVIDED BY LOCAL LEVEL .................................................................................................. 20
TABLE 4-2 MONETARY VALUE OF DAMAGE .................................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 4-3 DAMAGE DATA PROVIDED BY LOCAL LEVELS .................................................................................................... 23
TABLE 4-4 MONETARY VALUE OF DAMAGE .................................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 4-5 DAMAGE DATA PROVIDED BY LOCAL LEVEL ...................................................................................................... 25
TABLE 4-6 MONETARY VALUE OF DMAAGE .................................................................................................................... 26
TABLE 4-7 DISTRICTWISE DAMAGE AMMOUNT IN NRS..................................................................................................... 32

iii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This report deals with the study of landslide and flood damage incurred after the prolonged
rainfall event of October, 2022 based on the technical guidelines governed by NDRRMA.
Further supportive documents i.e., previous studies made by different agencies like DMG,
UNDP on disaster were taken as reference to complete this assessment. The objective of the
assessment is to get a preliminary level understanding of the locations, dimensions, and impacts
of the landslides and flood and their impact on the overall socioeconomic condition of the
region. The assessment has also proposed the recommendation for future study and short term
mitigation measures for the affected region. As the study was conducted immediately after the
disaster so, many locations were inaccessible, which are included in the report based on the
official data provided by the local and district administration.

1.1 Background

Due to continuous rainfall in the upper part of Karnali Province in the month of October, 2022,
extensive damage has occurred to the infrastructures and buildings. The landslide and flood
due to the rainfall has claimed life of around 50 people leaving thousand to search for shelter
as their permanent residence have become inhabitable. After the disaster, National Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Authority assigned four team for four most affected districts
for preliminary assessment of the disaster. The four district that are chosen for assessment are
Humla, Jumla, Kalikot and Mugu district of Karnali Province.
Table 1-1 Assigned Team
S.N. District Full Name Designation
1 Humla Jivan Joshi Civil Engineer
2 Humla Dev Raj Poudel Structure Engineer (Team Lead)
3 Humla Yubaraj Pangyani Administrative Officer
4 Jumla Pawan Babu Bastola Geo-tech Engineer (Team Lead)
5 Jumla Laxmi Parsad Bhatta Civil Engineer
6 Jumla Deepak kumar Khadka Administrative Officer
7 Mugu Raghunath Rimal Civil Engineer
8 Mugu Harish Paneru Geo-tech Engineer (Team Lead)
9 Mugu Deepak Kumar Acharya Administrative Officer
10 Kalikot Keshari Prasad Bhatta Civil Engineer
11 Kalikot Birasa Malla Geo-tech Engineer (Team Lead)
12 Kalikot Deepak Neupane Administrative Officer
13 Kalikot Saroj Kumar Yadav Civil Engineer

1
1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

● To collect the information about affected areas.
● Carryout reconnaissance of the disaster area such as flood and landslide.
● To prepare report on the collected and provided information and provide
recommendation based on the field visit and available data and information.

2
CHAPTER 2 DESK STUDY

The Himalaya extends nearly 2400 Kms from Namche Barwa in the east to Naga Parwat in the
west out of which the Nepal Himalaya covers around one third of the total Himalayan arc.
Nepal is tectonically divided into five distinct regions Gansser, 1974, Himalaya is divided
longitudinally into five tectonic zones. From south to north, the tectonic zones are Siwaliks,
Lesser Himalaya, Higher Himalaya, Tethys Himalaya and Trans Himalaya. According to
Thakur (1981), these tectonic zones are separated by major Himalayan thrust faults. The
southern most part i.e., Terai is separated from Siwaliks by Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) whereas
the Siwaliks and Lesser Himalaya are separated by Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The Main
Central Thrust (MCT) is the fault separating the Lesser and Higher Himalaya. Finally, the
South Tibetan Detachment marks the boundary between Higher Himalaya and overlying
fossiliferous sequence of Tibetan Tethys Himalaya.

2.1 Study Area

The study area lies in the Karnali Province of western Nepal. Four districts of the province
suffered extensively due to unseasonal rainfall event. The elevation of the study region varies
from 7000 ft to 26713 ft.

Figure 2.1 Topographic Map of Study Area

3
2.2 Regional Geology

The regional geology of the four districts are dominated by the rocks of Lesser Himalayan in
the South and Higher Himalayan in the northern part of the district. Rocks belonging to
Nawakot (Na) and Kuncha (Kn) Formation of Tansen group of Lesser Himalayan Meta-
Sediments and Bhimphedi (bh) and Phulcauki (ph) group of Lesser Himalayan Crystallines
and Precambrian high grade metamorphic rocks (hx) and Tertiary (Tgr) of Higher Himalayan
Crystalline rocks and Paleozioc (Pz) Sedimentary rocks Higher Himalayan Rocks.

Figure 2.2 Regional Geology of Study Area

2.3 Hydrological Information

2.3.1 Humla

The average rainfall of Nepal for the month of September and October is around 200mm and
50 mm respectively but, Mugu district received around 104 mm and 179 mm respectively in
the month of September and October (in 7 days). The observation reading is recorded from
meteorological station at Simikot Airport alone.

4
From the chart above, we can understand that the extent of rainfall during the month of October
(Asoj) was far higher than the average rainfall over Humla district which is the reason behind
the initiation of different disaster.

2.3.2 Kalikot

The average rainfall of Nepal for the month of September and October is around 200mm and
50 mm respectively but, Kalikot district received around 249.2 mm and 323.2 mm respectively
in the month of September and October (in 18 days). The observation reading are recorded
from meterological station at Manma alone.

Figure 2.2 Precipitation in the month of September and October

5
2.3.3 Jumla

The average rainfall of Nepal for the month of September and October is around 200mm and
50 mm respectively while the precipitation of Jumla in the month of September and October
are as shown in Figure 2.3. The observation reading is recorded from meteorological station at
Jumla Airport alone.

Figure 2.3 Precipitation in the month of September and October

2.3.4 Mugu

The average rainfall of Nepal for the month of September and October is around 200mm and
50 mm respectively but, Mugu district received around 178.26 mm and 234.24 mm respectively
in the month of September and October (in 12 days). The observation reading are recorded
from meterological station at Talcha Airport alone.

Figure 2.3 Precipitation in the month of September and October

6
2.4 Seismology of the Region

The region lies in seismically one of the most active zone of the world. The region has
experienced historical great earthquakes in the past and has not experienced such event for
large amount of time. Hence, the region lies in the seismic gap created west of the Pokhara.

Figure 2.4 Seismological Map of Nepal (NBC 105)

The regional geology map shown in Figure 2.4, shows the study area is transversed by Main
Central Thrust (MCT) and other regional active fault system like Mahabharat Thrust. The
region is considered seismically active as it sits in the seismic gap which has not experienced
seismic events for a long time.

7
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

The assigned team for Mugu district were mobilized in 15 October 2022. The purpose of the
visit is to collect the relevant information and data required for the preliminary assessment of
the disaster zone.
1. Desk study is conducted to determine the parameters to be studied in the field
2. Conduct DDMC meeting to assess the progress and limitation in the rescue works and
know the places where critical need of study is required.
3. Walkover survey and use of pocket tools such as tape, geological compass etc to assess
the extent of disaster zone and susceptible areas.
4. Investigate and determine the possible relocation region if available
5. Preparation of report and presentation of data and information collected from the site.
Safety tools such as helmets, boots and other accessories were used during the visit of disaster
areas.

8
CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY

The rapid assessment team was deployed in the aftermath of the disaster. The objective of the
team was to collect as much as possible data and prepare a report based on the collected and
provided data. With that objective in mind, all teams started their work with the DDMC
meeting with all the representatives from district administration, security personnel, local
agencies, journalist and stakeholders. The teams were assigned with some location which
needed critical investigation. So, the team visited the assigned locations and collected some
information which is presented in this report.

4.1 Summary of Disaster

The field visit was conducted within different places of four district. The type of disaster and
its cause are similar for most area of the district. The main reason for the wide range damage
in infrastructure and house is due to the unexpected continuous rainfall. These rainfall events
has caused runoff, increased flow in the local rivers and stream which in turn affected
settlement and infrastructures near to those streams. In addition to that, the toe cutting by river
of already saturated hill slope and erosion caused by the unmanaged runoff water flowing along
the slope has worsened their odds to landslide susceptibility let alone in some cases have
already failed taking all the structures such as water supply lines, local road, transmission pole,
farm lands and houses with it thereby, impairing the services within the vast region of these
district. The extent of damage to human life may be minimal owing to the fact that the extent
of disaster is relatively high but these slopes are going to fail in future if the agricultural
practices along these lands are continued and surface and sub-surface water management is
taken lightly.

9
4.1.1 Humla District

Landslide at Hildum Hydropower (left), Cracks formation (right)

Damaged Canal Alignment of Heldum hydropower

10
 Landslide at road section of Simikot-6

House buried under landslide at Chankheli-6, Melcham, Humla

Figure 4-1 Photo Summary of the Humla District

11
4.1.2 Kalikot District

House damages

Vulnerable Settlement in Kalikot District

12
Infrastructure damaged due to disaster

13
 Damage due to flood in Jiteghada bazar
Figure 4-2 Photo Summary of Kalikot District

4.1.3 Jumla District

KanakaSundari RM -5 Landslide caused 8 human casualties

14
Settlement vulnerable to disaster

15
Infrastructure damaged due to disaster

Cracks and sinkholes observed

Figure 4-3 Photo Summary of Jumla District

16
4.1.4 Mugu District

Temporary settlement

Vulnerable Settlement in Mugu District

17
18
Infrastructure damaged due to disaster

Gully Erosion and subsequent slides

Flooding in local rivers and streams

Figure 4-4 Photo Summary of Mugu District

19
4.2 Damage and Losses

The data and figures have been provided by local and district administration and are
summarized in this section. The figures are likely to increase as more detailed survey are
conducted through every local levels. The loss estimation is a preliminary information to figure
out the scale of damage loss in terms of financial value. Due to difficult geographical terrain,
unconnected roadways, scattered settlement and limited timeframe, the NDRRMA team had
visited limited area, but an effort was made to mobilize technical team of each municipality for
collection of the information on damage and losses caused by prolonged rainfall after Asoj
17,2079.
The damage quantity and estimation are summarized in following tables. These figures have
been provided by the local level government as a part of damage assessment so, the figures are
likely to fluctuate as the detailed data are provided during detailed study.

4.2.1 Humla

Table 4-1 Damage Data as provided by Local Level

Kharpunath
Tanajankot

Chankheli

Adanchuli

Sarkegad
Namkha
Simkot

Description Total

a Death 1 1 4 0 0 0 2 8

b Injury 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 6

c Private house complete

damage 300 0 1 89 2 265 30 687

Private house partial

damage 200 7 45 60 0 0 4 316

d School 5 1 3 9 0 6 3 27

e Health Post/Hospital 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 5
Public/Government
f Building 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 7
5.0 12.0 8.6 15.0 1.2 9.0 4.0 54.8
g Road/ Walking trail km km km km km km km km

20
 Kharpunath
Tanajankot

Chankheli

Adanchuli

Sarkegad
Namkha
Simkot
Description Total

h Bridge 1 5 5 0 0 2 0 13
Micro/small
Hydropower/Supply
i system - 1 2 2 2 0 1 8

j Water supply system - 1 5 6 0 9 0 21

k Agricultural land/Farm 0 0 21 - - 0 - 21
Cultural heritage /
l Temple/Monastery - 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

The pie chart above represents the proportion of financial losses among different sectors. In
overall the damage in the housing sector accounted for more than half of the total losses, i.e.,
56%, which was followed by road/ walking trails and contributed 15%. All other sectoral losses
were below 10% with least 0.1% in cultural heritage.

21
 Table 4-2 Monetary value of Damage

Description Tanajankot Simkot Chankheli Adanchuli Namkha Kharpunath Sarkegad Total

1 Houses 140200000 3500000 5750000 44700000 1000000 212000000 15400000 422550000

2 Schools 23200000 500000 700000 21000000 0 14000000 2000000 61400000

3 Health Posts /Hospitals 4500000 7000000 0 7000000 0 0 0 18500000

Public/Government
4 17500000 3000000 0 0 0 4500000 0 25000000
Buildings

5 Road/ Walking trail 20000000 24205000 21896858 25000000 1400000 16000000 9000000 117501858

6 Bridges 15000000 11600000 700000 0 0 11000000 0 38300000

Micro/Small Hydropower
7 0 10000000 7511420 12000000 960000 0 500000 30971420
/supply line

8 Water supply system 0 2500000 2130000 23000000 0 14500000 0 42130000

9 Agricultural land/Farm 0 0 4940000 0 0 0 0 4940000

1 Cultural heritage / Temple/

0 0 0 0 1000000 0 0 1000000
0 Monastery

Total 220400000 62305000 43628278 132700000 4360000 272000000 26900000 762293278

Total in words: Rupees Seventy-six Crore Twenty-two Lakh Ninety-three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-eight Only

22
4.2.2 Kalikot

Table 4-3 Damage Data provided by Local Levels

Khandachakra

Pachaljharana

Sanni Tribeni
Naraharinath

Suvakalika
Mahawai

Tilagufa
Raskot
Palata
Grand
Total

S.N Particulars
1 Death 2 1 5 8
2 Injury 3 2 20 25
3 Lost 15 15
4 House fully damaged 24 10 54 170 200 134 55 219 174 1040
5 House partially damaged 99 99
6 House on Risk 281 274 555
7 Health Post 1 2 7 10
8 School 1 6 18 26 29 23 11 8 18 140
9 Road 13 1 20 14 9 20 1 9 14 101
10 Bridge 1 3 3 7
11 Foot trail 6 23 1 82 13 22 147
12 Suspension Bridge 1 2 9 2 4 6 24
13 Wooden Bridge 3 8 11
14 Water Supply 8 15 29 32 103 38 5 44 274
15 Irrigation 3 33 17 2 110 51 9 27 252
16 Sewerage 6 6
17 Hydro Power 5 5
18 Small Hydro 6 6
19 Government Building 1 18 8 3 5 35
20 Temple 1 12 36 49
21 Electric pole 25 101 126
22 River Training work 11 44 157 212
23 Slope Stabilization 1 1 2

23
 Table 4-4 Monetary Value of Damage

S.N. Particulars Khandachakra Mahawai Naraharinath Pachaljharana Palata Raskot Sanni Tribeni Suvakalika Tilagufa Grand Total
1 House fully damaged 5,000,000 14,150,000 51,000,000 100,000,000 67,000,000 26,900,000 109,500,000 87,000,000 460,550,000
House partially
2 22,400,000 22,400,000
damaged/on risk
3 Health Post 100,000 7,500,000 13,000,000 20,600,000

4 School 900,000 17,500,000 11,300,000 14,500,000 17,200,000 29,790,000 27,500,000 19,500,000 31,500,000 169,690,000

5 Road/Foot trail 19,200,000 24,700,000 6,052,000 25,900,000 49,600,000 37,880,000 3,000,000 36,000,000 79,500,000 281,832,000

6 Bridge 2,000,000 3,000,000 47,500,000 52,500,000

7 Suspension Bridge 5,500,000 7,000,000 2,440,000 3,750,000 5,500,000 9,000,000 33,190,000

8 Wooden Bridge 1,700,000 900,000 2,600,000

Water
9 5,150,000 30,350,000 5,800,000 20,000,000 42,080,000 22,969,000 11,500,000 54,500,000 192,349,000
Supply/Sewerage
10 Irrigation 2,090,000 54,900,000 8,750,000 1,000,000 97,090,000 61,692,000 28,500,000 107,000,000 361,022,000
Hydro Power/Small
11 3,559,000 21,060,000 28,500,000 53,119,000
Hydro/Electric Poles
12 Government Building 2,000,000 7,700,000 5,050,000 13,000,000 7,750,000 35,500,000

13 Temple 1,600,000 2,600,000 19,000,000 23,200,000

14 River Training work 47,000,000 13,480,000 331,400,000 391,880,000

15 Slope Stabilization 6,000,000 6,000,000

Total 34,440,000 198,150,000 63,191,000 122,540,000 670,730,000 226,831,000 57,400,000 248,900,000 484,250,000 2,106,432,000

24
4.2.3 Jumla

Table 4-5 Damage Data provided by Local Level

Kanakasundar
SECTOR Chandannath Guthichaur Hima Patrasi Sinja Tatopani Tila Grand Total
i
Education 7 6 16 12 17 4 28 90
Embankment and Landslide
17 17
Risk Mitigation
Health Services 1 5 6
Housing land and Settlement 294 137 903 948 54 432 406 220 3,394
Irrigation 10 2 16 5 33 40 106
Other 125 1 323 551 1,000
Power 1 65 650 127 92 7 10 952
Productive Sector 2 30 1 - 20,469 20,502
Public Building 1 6 20 7 34
Roads and Bridge 21 15 35 131 4 84 21 102 413
Water Supply Sanitation 1 15 15 52 2 27 36 148
Grand Total 338 395 1,641 1,290 62 664 794 21,478 26,662

25
 Table 4-6 Monetary Value of Dmaage

Sector Chandannath Guthichaur Hima Kanakasundari Patrasi Sinja Tatopani Tila Grand Total

Education 5,500,000 600,000 46,100,000 6,000,000 34,000,000 4,100,000 15,500,000 111,800,000

Embankment 5,500,000 5,500,000

Health
1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000
Services
Housing land
and 84,900,000 22,900,000 193,000,000 267,300,000 3,420,000 77,500,000 253,500,000 38,450,000 940,970,000
Settlement

Irrigation 19,000,000 1,000,000 52,500,000 3,500,000 5,280,000 31,400,000 112,680,000

Other 3,575,000 150,000 67,788,000 22,140,000 93,653,000

Power 500,000 960,000 80,935,000 11,348,000 6,258,000 3,500,000 5,900,000 109,401,000

Productive
400,000 750,000 50,000 88,222,450 301,035,000 390,457,450
Sector
Public
1,000,000 12,700,000 31,000,000 8,500,000 53,200,000
Building
Roads and
18,750,000 8,700,000 78,500,000 107,600,000 300,000 53,500,000 24,150,000 52,000,000 343,500,000
Bridge

Water Supply
Sanitation and 500,000 3,000,000 40,800,000 15,600,000 200,000 18,900,000 13,300,000 92,300,000
Hygiene

Grand Total 131,550,000 41,485,000 504,535,000 438,848,000 4,120,000 202,158,000 446,540,450 486,725,000 2,255,961,450

26
4.2.4 Mugu

Table 4-1 Damage Data as Provided by Local Levels

S Particulars Quantity
N Chayanath Rara Soru R. Khatyad R. Mugu Karmarong R.
Mun. Mun. Mun. Mun.
1 Bridge 2 6 4 NA
2 Hydropower NA NA 10 2
3 Fully Damaged 332 382 157 14
Houses
4 Partially damaged 781 18 NA
Houses
5 Road NA 12 95 11.5 km
6 School 5 6 22 1
7 Shrine NA NA 26 4
8 Watersupply NA 49 69 3
9 Irrigation NA NA 99 NA
1 Water Mill NA NA 120 NA
0
1 Wooden Bridge NA NA 45 NA
1
1 Public Building NA 4 5 NA
2
1 Miscellaneous NA NA NA 54
3

Table 4-2 Monetary value of Damage

S Particulars Damage Estimate in Nrs. Total
N Chayanath Rara Soru R. Khatyad R. Mugu Karmarong R. Structure
Mun. Mun. Mun. Mun. wise
(Nrs.)
1 Bridge 10000000 27000000 2900000 NA 3990000
0
2 Hydropower NA NA 71000000 1680000 7268000
0
3 Fully Damaged 210900000 11620000 79500000 2405000 4090050
Houses 0 00
4 Partially damaged
Houses
5 Road NA 46500000 100385000 3030000 1499150
00
6 School 70700000 19500000 9650000 150000 1000000
00
7 Shrine NA NA 8300000 2500000 1080000
0
8 Watersupply NA 24500000 37825000 951000 6327600
0
9 Irrigation NA NA 317650000 NA 3176500
00

27
S Particulars Damage Estimate in Nrs. Total
N Chayanath Rara Soru R. Khatyad R. Mugu Karmarong R. Structure
Mun. Mun. Mun. Mun. wise
(Nrs.)
1 Water Mill NA NA 36500000 NA 3650000
0 0
1 Wooden Bridge NA NA 55780000 NA 5578000
1 0
1 Public Building NA 26000000 2900000 NA 2890000
2 0
1 Miscellaneous NA NA NA 9310200 9310200
3
Total Local Level Wise 291600000 25970000 722390000 20026200 1293716
(Nrs.) 0 200

Figure 4.5 Sector-wise Damage Figures in Mugu (in Nrs.)

If we compare the damage of different infrastructure which are related to river and stream i.e.
irrigation, water supply, Hydropower etc. with other infrastructure excluding houses, the
damage is around 585.7 million Nrs. Compared to 298.9 million Nrs. For other. In conclusion,
the widespread disaster is due to the fact that the existing structures were built without
anticipating flood of this scale due to lack of hydrological study. In infrastructure, irrigation
components have suffered the most after housing. If we look at local level wise data, Khatyad
Rural municipality has suffered most and Mugum Karmarong has suffered least.

28
4.3 Damage Assessment of the Disaster Region

The data given in 4.2 are compiled to determine the overall damage in the four districts of
Karnali Province namely, Humla, Kalikot, Jumla and Mugu. The data are summarized in Table
4-7.

4.4 Causes

The main causes for widespread damages are summarized below:

1) Prolonged rainfall
2) Poor management of drainage for surface and sub-surface water along hill slope
3) Poor agricultural practices
4) Encroachment of the bank of the river
5) Un-engineered road cutting

4.5 Recommendation

The disaster hit region of four districts were studied and following recommendation can be
suggested for mitigation:
1) After the rapid damage assessment, it is recommended to carry out further
geotechnical, geological and hydrological study in the mentioned sites of respective
districts.
Kalikot District:
• Khandachakra: 5, Garuwa and Ghodena
• Tilagufa: 4-Ranchuli, 7-Baligaun
• Palata: 8-Sonabada to Naibada
Jumla District:
• Tatopani Rural Municipality: Ward 4 – Jhargaun, Ward 3 – Lachhu Gaun, Ward
6 – Aireni, Ward 1- Birakha
• Tila Rural Municipality: Ward 4- Sakhu and Nuwakot, Ward 1- Mathillo
Khopri, Ward 5- Tilakot
• Hima Rural Municipality: Ward 6- Khaldhunga/ Dalitbasti , Ward 1 Badki/
Deragaun, Ward 3- Mophla, Ward 5- Banjaghat
• Sinja Rural Municipality: Ward 6 Ruga, Ward 2 Chulelgaun
• Kanaka Sundari Rural Municipality: Ward no 5- Barkote Bada , Ward no 3 –
Lumagaun
• Patrashi Rural Municipality: Ward 3 – Chauragaun

29
 • Guthichour Rural Municipality: Ward 1- Madi Sangu
Humla District:
• Heldum Small Hydropower- Simikot-4, Humla
• Tanjhakot Rural Municipality: Ward 1 (Kada gaun), Ward 2 (Baun bada, Koli
bada) , Ward 3 (Aulabudataja)
• Sarkegada Rural Municipality ward 1,5,7 and 8
• Adanchuli Rural Municipality- Ward 1,3 ,4 and 6
Mugu District:
• Chayanath Rural Municipality, Salim Landslide
• Talcha Airport
• Balai Bagar
• Chaina Khola
• Dobato Pahiro
• Duka Khola Pahiro
• Bhelbhir Pahiro
• Topla Landslide
• Soru Landslide
• Khatyad Landslide
2) Detail survey of landslide and flood including drone survey is to be done for the precise
study. Landslide Susceptibility map should be made and Hazard Map should be
prepared for the susceptible area. Further, Geophysical tests like ERT and SRT should
be carried out for characterizing the subsurface soil.
3) Geological study of road alignment must be done to propose retaining structures for
the scale of cutting done to construct the road.
4) Detail hydrological study of river and streams and the watershed area and probable
events of such or larger scale shall be determined.
5) The existing structures such as bridges, road following river route, hydropower,
irrigation and water supply, water mills shall be protected against future events of this
scale by providing embankments, river training structures, gully protection measures
such as check dams, energy dissipation structure etc.
6) One of the most lacking things that investigation team has found is the poor
management of water in steep residual slope which has led to erosion and debris flow
at multiple locations. These kinds of situations can be dealt with the provision of catch

30
 drains to divert water from problematic slope and disposal of the collected water at a
site with proper provision for energy dissipation of flowing water and check dams to
reduce debris flow.
7) The problem of erosion at most of the location can be mitigated with drainage works
accompanied by bio-engineering works.
8) Before relocation of displaced settlements, a proper study to demarcate hazard prone
region is required to avoid future losses.

31
 Table 4-7 Districtwise Damage Ammount in NRs.

Total Loss in Nrs. Total Loss in Nrs.

Particulars
Humla Kalikot Jumla Mugu (Sector wise)

Bridge 38,300,000.00 85,690,000.00 343,500,000.00 39,900,000.00 507,390,000.00

Hydropower 30,971,420.00 53,119,000.00 109,401,000.00 72,680,000.00 266,171,420.00

Fully Damaged Houses 460,550,000.00 2,233,075,000.00
422,550,000.00 940,970,000.00 409,005,000.00
Partially damaged Houses 22,400,000.00 22,400,000.00
Road and walking trail 117,501,858.00 281,832,000.00 - 149,915,000.00 549,248,858.00

School 61,400,000.00 169,690,000.00 111,800,000.00 100,000,000.00 442,890,000.00

Shrine 1,000,000.00 23,200,000.00 - 10,800,000.00 35,000,000.00

Water supply/ sewerage 42,130,000.00 192,349,000.00 92,300,000.00 63,276,000.00 390,055,000.00

Irrigation - 361,022,000.00 112,680,000.00 317,650,000.00 791,352,000.00
Water Mill - - 36,500,000.00 36,500,000.00

Wooden Bridge - 2,600,000.00 - 55,780,000.00 58,380,000.00

Public/ Government Building 25,000,000.00 35,500,000.00 53,200,000.00 28,900,000.00 142,600,000.00

Agricultural/ Farm Land 4,940,000.00 390,457,450.00 - 395,397,450.00

Hospital/ Healthpost 18,500,000.00 20,600,000.00 2,500,000.00 - 41,600,000.00

River Training works/ slope protection - 397,880,000.00 5,500,000.00 - 403,380,000.00

Miscellaneous - - 93,653,000.00 9,310,200.00 102,963,200.00

Grand Total (NRS.) 762,293,278.00 2,106,432,000.00 2,255,961,450.00 1,293,716,200.00 6,418,402,928.00

32
 762,293,278.00

1,293,716,200.00

2,106,432,000.00
2,255,961,450.00

Humla Kalikot Jumla Mugu

Figure 4-5 Districtwise Damage figures

4.6 Limitation

The rapid response team were assigned for the preliminary study of disaster in four disaster hit
district. The teams have prepared this report based on the visual inspection of most affected
sites. So, this report does not provide design of any mitigation measure. The mitigation measure
mentioned in this report are suggestive in nature and should be only implemented after detailed
study has been conducted. The estimation of damage is also tentative so, the figures are likely
to vary in the light of new facts and data. Many sites were inaccessible so damage estimation
is likely to increase after acquisition of data from such sites. Inclusion of advanced survey
methods like geophysical methods and drone survey can be very beneficial in the inaccessible
regions of the districts.

33