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 cs-lv-01-final_version.pdf NUTS Code Latvija RBD code LVLUBA Transboundary 0 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 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. Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Financing possibilities main factor 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 Full Context Collection(aka Doorway or Gallery) Case Studies Pathway(aka Context) Default view Area(aka Level or Site) ALL