Floodplain restoration of the river Slampe, Latvia

General

National Id:

Latvia_01

Site name:

L106 SP “ Water body code according to the Lielupe river basin management plan. Located in the territory of Kemeri national park, Dunduru meadows (Dzukste parish, Tukums county).

Summary:

The river flow regime was restored by re-meandering the river thus restoring also the floodplain. In total 2,1 km long river stretch was restored by digging and damming channelled lower stretch of the river Slampe, Lielupe River Basin District, Latvia. In parallel, hydrological regime was created in floodplain meadows along river in 105 ha. The project was implemented in 2005 with financial support of the EC LIFE Environment programme.

The in-depth description of the case study:

cs-lv-01-final_version.pdf

NUTS Code:

Latvija

RBD code:

LVLUBA

Transboundary:

Data provider:

Ilze Kalvane, BEF Latvia

Source(s):

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT of the project "Conservation of wetlands in Kemeri National Park, Latvia (project number: LIFE2002/NAT/LV/8496)

Palienes režima atjaunošana Slampes upes lejtece

MEADOWS OF DUNDURI AND RIVER SLAMPE

NWRM(s) implemented in the case study:

Re-meandering

Floodplain restoration and management

Longitude:

23.4008938

Latitude:

56.8299499

Site information

Climate zone:

cool temperate moist

Mean rainfall:

650

Mean rainfall unit:

mm/year

Average temperature:

Mean runoff unit:

450 - 600 mm

Average runoff coefficient:

0,25

Type:

Case Study Info

Light or indepth?:

In-depth

Mean annual runoff range:

150 - 300 mm

Monitoring maintenance

Monitoring impacts effects:

Monitoring location:

Edge of Field/Plot

Monitoring parameters:

Level of the groundwater

Performance

Performance impact estimation method:

Edge of Field/Plot

Performance impact estimation information:

Monitoring of the groundwater level was planned to be carried out in 13 boreholes at the river Slampe once in a month, but due to financial constraints the water level records are taken very seldom.

Biophysical impacts

Information on retained water:

not measured

Information on increased water storage:

not measured

Information on runoff reduction:

not measured

Water quality overall improvements:

Neutral impact-no change in WQ status

Information on Water quality overall improvements:

Water quality according to water biological quality elements (macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes) are not increased

Soil quality overall soil improvements:

N/A info

Lessons, risks, implications...

Key lessons:

Expert on hydrology has to be involved in the development of the technical project. Hydrological and water quality assessments have to be carried out prior to the re-meandring.

Success factor(s):

Type	Role	Comments
Financing possibilities	main factor	Availability of financial resources and financing potential to implement such measures.

Financing:

Type	Comments
Other	EC LIFE Nature programme
National funds	Latvian Environmental Protection Fund

Barrier:

Type	Role	Comments
Other	main barrier	Long procedures to obtain the permit for implementation of NWRM.
Attitude of decision makers	secondary barrier	Negative attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture, since river stretch is the important subject to ensure drainage in the catchment.
Attitude of relevant stakeholders	secondary barrier	Attitude of neighboring landowners who are not in favor of over flooded lands
Limited staff and consultant knowledge	secondary barrier	Lack of experience of all involved stakeholders

Driver:

Type	Role	Comments
Other	main driver	Availability of financial resources and financing potential to implement such measures.

Socio-economic

Direct benefits information:

not calculated

Ancillary benefits information:

not calculated

Costs investment:

144547,8125

Costs investment information:

Without administrative and personnel costs

Costs capital:

32597,150390625

Costs capital information:

Technical project and implementation

Costs land acquisition:

111950,65625

Costs land acquisition unit:

€ (total value)

Costs operation maintenance:

It is not calculated, but there is only visual monitoring carried out by inspectors of Ä¶emeri national park

Costs total:

144547,8125

Costs total information:

Technical project and implementation + land purchase

Ecosystem improved biodiversity:

Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity:

Restored floodplain meadows in 105 ha, which is important resting and feeding place for migratory water birds and re-meandered river is suitable feeding place for Ciconia nigra (bird species of EU importance). At the same time observed 4 individuals.

Ecosystem provisioning services:

Information on Ecosystem provisioning services:

Water retention is increased

Ecosystem impact climate regulation:

No information available

Policy, general governance and design targets

Policy description:

HMWB, altered hydrological regime in floodplain meadows, insufficient ecological status in river

Quantified objectives:

2.0

Policy pressure:

Policy requirement directive:

Policy impact:

Policy wider plan:

Policy area:

Policy target:

Target purpose
Improved Biodiversity
Groundwater Recharge

Design & implementations

Application scale:

Field Scale

Installation date:

2005-05

Age:

Performance timescale:

1 - 4 years

Area (ha):

105

Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha):

105

Size:

4,59999990463257

Size unit:

Design capacity description:

2.1 km long stretch of the channelled river was turned in to 4.6 km long meandered stream. Floodplain meadows restored in 105 ha

Constraints:

Lack of experience and knowledge of all stakeholders, acceptance of the neighbouring landowners.

Favourable preconditions:

NWRM implemented in protected area and landowner is state

Design contractual arrangement:

Design consultation activity:

Design land use change:

Design authority:

Authority type	Role	Name	Comments
Other	Initiation of the measure	Ä¶emeri National Park	Project manager and land manager after the implementation
Private property owners	Implementation	Meliorprojekts Ltd	Elaboration of technical project, supervision of the practical implementation
Private property owners	Implementation	Visko Ltd	Practical implementation of the meandering technical project
Private property owners	Other	Carl Bro Ltd	Assessment of ecological status according to benthic macroinvertebrates after the project implementation

Last updated: 18 Jun 2015 | Top

Miscellanous

Main menu

Floodplain restoration of the river Slampe, Latvia

Partners