Ecological adapted stormwater treatment in Kretinga town, Lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/resources/nwrm-imported/nwrm-case-studies/ecological-adapted-stormwater-treatment-kretinga-town-lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/++resource++plone-logo.svg Ecological adapted stormwater treatment in Kretinga town, Lithuania Title Ecological adapted stormwater treatment in Kretinga town, Lithuania Description Preview image No image Preview image caption Creators fullname Laszlo Cseh Contributors fullname NWRM Site information Type Case Study Info Light or indepth? Light Design and implementations Application scale City Installation date 2013 Area (ha) 18 Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha) 18 Size 100 Size unit m Max water retention capacity 0,0399999991059303 Max water retention capacity unit m3/sec Basis of design Planned water retention time in the ponds is ~ 48 hours; under heavy rains, the time can be ~ 24 hours. Constraints 1) some planning constrains regardin local cultural ceritage, but problem solved; 2) there were some problems with planning paths for leasure zone near retention ponds, as there are building restrictions in such wastewater treatment areas, but the problem was successfully solved. Public consultation 1 Contractural arrangements 1 Design contractual arrangement Arrangement type Responsibility Role Comments Name Contractual agreement Supporting Implementation Technical project SWECO Contractual agreement Supporting Implementation Construction GreenWorks Indusrty Design consultation activity No data Design land use change No data Design authority Authority type Role Responsibility Name Comments Local water authority Initiation of the measure Kretinga town municipality Other Baltic Coastal Research and Planning Institute Baltic Coastal Research and Planning Institute is a division of KlaipÄ—da university Local water authority Kretinga WWTP Lessons, risks, implications Key lessons 1) reduction of formation and collection of stormwater, for example installation of impervious surfaces shall be avoided (except in potentially polluted territories), clean stormwater absorbing soil facilities should be installed, projected areas of potentially polluted territories shall be as small as possible, etc., 2) reduction of the amounts of stormwater, centrally discharged into the environment, e. g. allow utilization of stormwater in the production process, watering of green areas, fire extinguishing, etc., and 3) reduction of pollution levels in stormwater, e.g. implement dry cleaning of potentially polluted territories, construct sheds in most hazardous areas. Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Attitude of decision makers main factor Financing possibilities main factor EU funding was a big help. Available support tools main factor During the MOMENT project, it was possible to gain knowledge about the similar retention ponds in Sweden. As this was one of the first (pilot) retention ponds in Lithuania, therefore, knowhow was very usefull. Legal obligations main factor Financing Financing type Comments EU-funds: Rural development funds EU structural support according to the objectives provided in Cohesion Promotion Operational Programme; National funds State budget; Sub-national funds municipal budget; Private funds budget of municipal enterprises, providing services of stormwater management. Barrier Barrier type Barrier role Comments Legal obligations / restrictions secondary barrier There were some problems with planning paths for leasure zone near retention ponds, as there are building restrictions in such wastewater treatment areas, but the problem was successfully solved. Driver Driver type Driver role Comments Legal obligations Might be also other reasons, but the stormwater discharge in Kretinga town did not in some parameters comply with the pollution requirements before the construction of the two retention ponds Financing share No data Policy, general governance Policy description 1) reduction of formation and collection of stormwater; 2) reduction of the amounts of stormwater, centrally discharged into the environment; 3) reduction of pollution levels in stormwater; 4) ensure that stormwater is managed separately form domestic, industrial. Part of wider plan 1 Policy target Target purpose Runoff control Peak-flow reduction Pollutants Removal Oher Societal Benefits Policy pressure No data Policy area No data Policy impact No data Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Kretinga town special plan Local scale plan, including all the town focuses Policy requirement directive No data Socio economic Costs investment 188000 Costs investment information Cost effectiveness estimations have not been calculated. It would be interesting to compare e.g. construction and operation costs of wetland/retention pond (such stormwater treatment facilities are under construction in Kretinga town) with conventional oil-sludge separator, taking into account removal of pollutants per unit costs. Evaluations will be carried out of the decrease of nutrients (P and N), hazardous substances, suspended solids and BOD from stormwater outlets after the construction of the treatment facilities. Biophysical impacts Retained water 7776 Retained water unit m3/day Information on retained water 90 l/s in total (40 l/s in one and 50 l/s in another retention pond) Water quality overall improvements Positive impact-WQ improvement Water quality Improvements Phosphorus (P) 50 Water quality Improvements (P) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Nitrogen (N) 30 Wq Improvements n unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Total Suspended Solid (TSS) 80 Water quality Improvements (TSS) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Copper (Cu) 50 Water quality Improvements (Cu) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Zinc (Zn) 50 Water quality Improvements (Zn) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Escherichia Coli (e.coli) 70 Water quality Improvements (e.coli) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements fecal coliforms (fecal coli) 70 Water quality Improvements (fecal_coli) unit % reduction pf pollutant Monitoring maintenance Monitoring impacts effects 1 Monitoring location Catchment outlet Monitoring parameters Suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, metals (cadmium, lead, zin), pathogenic bacteria Performance Performance impact estimation method Edge of Field/Plot Performance impact estimation information Estimated reduction of contaminants in the designed and constructed facilities: 1) SS †“ 80 percent. 2) Total phosphorus †“ 50 percent. 3) Total nitrogen †“ 30 percent. 4) Metals †“ cadmium, copper, lead and zinc †“ 50 percent. 5)Pathogenic bacteria †“ 70 percent. Measures Retention Ponds sources Kretinga Special plan and Stormwater Treatment, Akmena-Dane, Lithuania, Report 4.3.3. Nwrm type Light Nwrm geolocation General National Id Lithuania_02 Site name Kretinga town is a city in KlaipÄ—da County, Lithuania. It is the capital of the Kretinga district municipality. Summary Kretinga is located 12 km east of the popular Baltic Sea resort town of Palanga, and about 25 km north of Lithuania's 3rd largest city and principal seaport, Klaipėda. The Stormwater Special Plan developed introduces a new approach towards more sustainable stormwater solution from an environmental perspective. This type of ecologically adapted stormwater investments have been implemented in Lithuania for the first time. If they function as well as predicted and can be disseminated through appropriate channels, there should be good possibilities to introduce similar investments in other Lithuanian towns. NUTS Code Lietuva RBD code LT2300 Transboundary 0 EEA core metadata Topics Temporal coverage {} Geographical coverage {} Publisher Rights Other organisations involved Add sources for the data used {} Contents There are currently no items in this folder.
Ecological adapted stormwater treatment in Kretinga town, Lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/resources/nwrm-imported/nwrm-case-studies/ecological-adapted-stormwater-treatment-kretinga-town-lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/++resource++plone-logo.svg Ecological adapted stormwater treatment in Kretinga town, Lithuania Title Ecological adapted stormwater treatment in Kretinga town, Lithuania Description Preview image No image Preview image caption Creators fullname Laszlo Cseh Contributors fullname NWRM Site information Type Case Study Info Light or indepth? Light Design and implementations Application scale City Installation date 2013 Area (ha) 18 Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha) 18 Size 100 Size unit m Max water retention capacity 0,0399999991059303 Max water retention capacity unit m3/sec Basis of design Planned water retention time in the ponds is ~ 48 hours; under heavy rains, the time can be ~ 24 hours. Constraints 1) some planning constrains regardin local cultural ceritage, but problem solved; 2) there were some problems with planning paths for leasure zone near retention ponds, as there are building restrictions in such wastewater treatment areas, but the problem was successfully solved. Public consultation 1 Contractural arrangements 1 Design contractual arrangement Arrangement type Responsibility Role Comments Name Contractual agreement Supporting Implementation Technical project SWECO Contractual agreement Supporting Implementation Construction GreenWorks Indusrty Design consultation activity No data Design land use change No data Design authority Authority type Role Responsibility Name Comments Local water authority Initiation of the measure Kretinga town municipality Other Baltic Coastal Research and Planning Institute Baltic Coastal Research and Planning Institute is a division of KlaipÄ—da university Local water authority Kretinga WWTP Lessons, risks, implications Key lessons 1) reduction of formation and collection of stormwater, for example installation of impervious surfaces shall be avoided (except in potentially polluted territories), clean stormwater absorbing soil facilities should be installed, projected areas of potentially polluted territories shall be as small as possible, etc., 2) reduction of the amounts of stormwater, centrally discharged into the environment, e. g. allow utilization of stormwater in the production process, watering of green areas, fire extinguishing, etc., and 3) reduction of pollution levels in stormwater, e.g. implement dry cleaning of potentially polluted territories, construct sheds in most hazardous areas. Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Attitude of decision makers main factor Financing possibilities main factor EU funding was a big help. Available support tools main factor During the MOMENT project, it was possible to gain knowledge about the similar retention ponds in Sweden. As this was one of the first (pilot) retention ponds in Lithuania, therefore, knowhow was very usefull. Legal obligations main factor Financing Financing type Comments EU-funds: Rural development funds EU structural support according to the objectives provided in Cohesion Promotion Operational Programme; National funds State budget; Sub-national funds municipal budget; Private funds budget of municipal enterprises, providing services of stormwater management. Barrier Barrier type Barrier role Comments Legal obligations / restrictions secondary barrier There were some problems with planning paths for leasure zone near retention ponds, as there are building restrictions in such wastewater treatment areas, but the problem was successfully solved. Driver Driver type Driver role Comments Legal obligations Might be also other reasons, but the stormwater discharge in Kretinga town did not in some parameters comply with the pollution requirements before the construction of the two retention ponds Financing share No data Policy, general governance Policy description 1) reduction of formation and collection of stormwater; 2) reduction of the amounts of stormwater, centrally discharged into the environment; 3) reduction of pollution levels in stormwater; 4) ensure that stormwater is managed separately form domestic, industrial. Part of wider plan 1 Policy target Target purpose Runoff control Peak-flow reduction Pollutants Removal Oher Societal Benefits Policy pressure No data Policy area No data Policy impact No data Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Kretinga town special plan Local scale plan, including all the town focuses Policy requirement directive No data Socio economic Costs investment 188000 Costs investment information Cost effectiveness estimations have not been calculated. It would be interesting to compare e.g. construction and operation costs of wetland/retention pond (such stormwater treatment facilities are under construction in Kretinga town) with conventional oil-sludge separator, taking into account removal of pollutants per unit costs. Evaluations will be carried out of the decrease of nutrients (P and N), hazardous substances, suspended solids and BOD from stormwater outlets after the construction of the treatment facilities. Biophysical impacts Retained water 7776 Retained water unit m3/day Information on retained water 90 l/s in total (40 l/s in one and 50 l/s in another retention pond) Water quality overall improvements Positive impact-WQ improvement Water quality Improvements Phosphorus (P) 50 Water quality Improvements (P) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Nitrogen (N) 30 Wq Improvements n unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Total Suspended Solid (TSS) 80 Water quality Improvements (TSS) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Copper (Cu) 50 Water quality Improvements (Cu) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Zinc (Zn) 50 Water quality Improvements (Zn) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements Escherichia Coli (e.coli) 70 Water quality Improvements (e.coli) unit % reduction pf pollutant Water quality Improvements fecal coliforms (fecal coli) 70 Water quality Improvements (fecal_coli) unit % reduction pf pollutant Monitoring maintenance Monitoring impacts effects 1 Monitoring location Catchment outlet Monitoring parameters Suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, metals (cadmium, lead, zin), pathogenic bacteria Performance Performance impact estimation method Edge of Field/Plot Performance impact estimation information Estimated reduction of contaminants in the designed and constructed facilities: 1) SS †“ 80 percent. 2) Total phosphorus †“ 50 percent. 3) Total nitrogen †“ 30 percent. 4) Metals †“ cadmium, copper, lead and zinc †“ 50 percent. 5)Pathogenic bacteria †“ 70 percent. Measures Retention Ponds sources Kretinga Special plan and Stormwater Treatment, Akmena-Dane, Lithuania, Report 4.3.3. Nwrm type Light Nwrm geolocation General National Id Lithuania_02 Site name Kretinga town is a city in KlaipÄ—da County, Lithuania. It is the capital of the Kretinga district municipality. Summary Kretinga is located 12 km east of the popular Baltic Sea resort town of Palanga, and about 25 km north of Lithuania's 3rd largest city and principal seaport, Klaipėda. The Stormwater Special Plan developed introduces a new approach towards more sustainable stormwater solution from an environmental perspective. This type of ecologically adapted stormwater investments have been implemented in Lithuania for the first time. If they function as well as predicted and can be disseminated through appropriate channels, there should be good possibilities to introduce similar investments in other Lithuanian towns. NUTS Code Lietuva RBD code LT2300 Transboundary 0 EEA core metadata Topics Temporal coverage {} Geographical coverage {} Publisher Rights Other organisations involved Add sources for the data used {} Contents There are currently no items in this folder.
