Case study:Removal and opening of sluice gates on the Vence River

0.00

(0 votes)

To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.

Location: 49° 43' 28.91" N, 4° 42' 45.64" E

Edit location

Loading map...

{"format":"googlemaps3","type":"HYBRID","minzoom":false,"maxzoom":false,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"limit":50,"offset":0,"link":"all","sort":[""],"order":[],"headers":"show","mainlabel":"","intro":"","outro":"","searchlabel":"... further results","default":"","import-annotation":false,"width":"auto","height":"400px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"visitedicon":"","wmsoverlay":false,"zoom":14,"layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview","rotate"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"resizable":false,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"cluster":false,"clustergridsize":60,"clustermaxzoom":20,"clusterzoomonclick":true,"clusteraveragecenter":true,"clusterminsize":2,"imageoverlays":[],"kml":[],"gkml":[""],"searchmarkers":"","fullscreen":false,"scrollwheelzoom":false,"showtitle":false,"hidenamespace":true,"template":"Location map popup","userparam":"","activeicon":"","pagelabel":false,"ajaxcoordproperty":"","ajaxquery":"","locations":[{"text":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Title:\u003C/b\u003E Removal and opening of sluice gates on the Vence River\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECountry:\u003C/b\u003E \u003Ca href=\"/wiki/index.php?title=France\" title=\"France\"\u003EFrance\u003C/a\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Status:\u003C/b\u003E Complete\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThemes:\u003C/b\u003E Habitat and biodiversity\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E","title":"Removal and opening of sluice gates on the Vence River","link":"","lat":49.724698061341,"lon":4.7126780182948,"icon":"/wiki/images/a/af/Red_marker.png"}]}

Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	Complete
Project web site
Themes	Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
Country	France
Main contact forename	Grégory
Main contact surname	Stéphan
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Syndicat intercommunal d’études et de travaux pour l’aménagement de la Vence Mairie (SIETAV)
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects	No

This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.

La Vence, 34 Km long, is a tributary of Mouse River. It was modified by the presence of eleven sluice gates, historically used to generate hydropower for artisanal or industrial uses. Nowadays they have lost their original use (with the exception of a micro hydropower still active) and they are used only for water control during low water. The lack of consultation during the sluices gate operations increases the flooding risk. This leads the local institutions - le syndicat intercommunal d’études et de travaux pour l’aménagement de la Vence (SIETAV) et la direction départementale de l’agriculture et de la forêt (DDAF) - to propose adjustments for each of them. Three owners agreed to try it and let the sluice gates open. The valves are held open on two sluice gates and two of them can be removed. Work bank protection and flow diversification are made a few hundred meters upstream and downstream each sluice gate. Baffles, combs and dead wood is placed to diversify flows and limit bank erosion and narrowing of the the riverbed. Willow stakes are placed to recreate a riparian revegetation. This work is done in the traditional way without the use of motorized vehicles in the riverbed.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.

The monitoring show an increase of the habitats diversification especially in terms of flow velocity and depth. Regression for mineral substrates (clogging) in favor of more coarse mineral substrates (favorable for spawning) is observed.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

The sluice gate of Saint-Marceau in March 2007, three years after its opening.

La Vence upstream the sluice gate of St. Ponce in March 2007, after its opening. Artisanal works are placed on the right bank to increase flow diversification.

La Vence upstream the sluice gate of Poix-Terron in September 2009.

The localization of the four sluice gates.

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Edit the catchment and subcatchment details (affects all case studies in this subcatchment) Catchment River basin district Rhin-Meuse River basin Meuse Subcatchment River name La Vence Area category Area (km2) Maximum altitude category Maximum altitude (m) Dominant geology Ecoregion Dominant land cover Waterbody ID Site Edit site Name WFD water body codes FRB1R578 WFD (national) typology WFD water body name Pre-project morphology Reference morphology Desired post project morphology Heavily modified water body No National/international site designation Local/regional site designations Protected species present No Invasive species present No Species of interest Dominant hydrology Dominant substrate River corridor land use Average bankfull channel width category Average bankfull channel width (m) 33 m <br />0.003 km <br />300 cm <br /> Average bankfull channel depth category Average bankfull channel depth (m) Mean discharge category Mean annual discharge (m3/s) 2.22.2 m³/s <br />2,200 l/s <br /> Average channel gradient category Average channel gradient 0.15 Average unit stream power (W/m2) 1078.771,078.77 W/m² <br /> Project background Edit project background Reach length directly affected (m) 10001,000 m <br />1 km <br />100,000 cm <br /> Project started Works started 2004/01/01 Works completed 2004/12/31 Project completed Total cost category Total cost (k€) 00 k€ <br />0 € <br /> Benefit to cost ratio Funding sources Cost for project phases Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname Investigation and design Stakeholder engagement and communication Works and works supervision Post-project management and maintenance Monitoring Supplementary funding information No financial investment. The operation took four to five days of work for three agents. Reasons for river restoration Edit reasons for restoration Mitigation of a pressure Flood risk management Hydromorphology Quantity & dynamics of flow, Continuity of sediment transport, Continuity for organisms Biology Fish Physico-chemical Other reasons for the project Measures Edit Measures Structural measures Bank/bed modifications sluice gate removal Floodplain / River corridor Planform / Channel pattern Other Non-structural measures Management interventions Social measures (incl. engagement) Other Monitoring Hydromorphological quality elements Edit Hydromorphological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Substrate conditions No Yes No No No Biological quality elements Edit biological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Invertebrates No Yes No No No Fish No Yes No No No Physico-chemical quality elements Edit Physico-chemical quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic Edit Other responses Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Monitoring documents Upload monitoring documents Additional documents and videos Upload additional documents Case study description by ONEMA (French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments) (in French) Additional links and references Edit links and references Link Description Supplementary Information Edit Supplementary Information