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
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Site information
Type
Case Study Info
Light or indepth?
Light
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.
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.
Design & 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
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments |
|---|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
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.
|
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
| Financing share type | Share | Comments |
|---|
Policy, general governance and design targets
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.
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
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kretinga town special plan
|
Local scale plan, including all the town focuses
|
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
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.
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
