- General(active tab)
- Site information
- Monitoring maintenance
- Performance
- Design & implementations
- Lessons, risks, implications...
- Policy, general governance and design targets
- Socio-economic
- Biophysical impacts
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.
Light or indepth?
In-depth
The in-depth description of the case study
NUTS Code
Latvija
RBD code
LVLUBA
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Ilze Kalvane, BEF Latvia
Source(s)
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Longitude
23.4008938
Latitude
56.8299499
Site information
Climate zone
cool temperate moist
Mean rainfall
650
Mean rainfall unit
mm/year
Average temperature
6
Mean runoff unit
450 - 600 mm
Average runoff coefficient
0,25
Type
Case Study Info
Mean annual runoff range
150 - 300 mm
Monitoring maintenance
Monitoring impacts effects
1
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.
Design & implementations
Application scale
Field Scale
Installation date
2005-05
Age
9
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
km
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
| Arrangement type | Responsibility | Role | Comments | Name |
|---|
Design consultation activity
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments |
|---|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Other
|
Initiation of the measure
|
Ķemeri 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
|
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.
Hydrological and water quality assessments have to be carried out prior to the re-meandring.
Success factor(s)
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Financing possibilities
|
main factor
|
Availability of financial resources and financing potential to implement such measures. |
Financing
| Financing type | Comments |
|---|---|
|
Other
|
EC LIFE Nature programme
|
|
National funds
|
Latvian Environmental Protection Fund
|
Barrier
| Barrier type | Barrier 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
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Other
|
main driver
|
Availability of financial resources and financing potential to implement such measures.
|
Financing share
| Financing share type | Share | Comments |
|---|
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 target
| Target purpose |
|---|
|
Improved Biodiversity
|
|
Groundwater Recharge
|
Policy pressure
| Pressure directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|
Policy area
| Policy area type | Policy area focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy impact
| Impact directive | Relevant impact |
|---|
Policy wider plan
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
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 Ķemeri national park
Costs total
144547,8125
Costs total information
Technical project and implementation + land purchase
Ecosystem improved biodiversity
1
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
1
Information on Ecosystem provisioning services
Water retention is increased
Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No information available
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