Case study:Removal of the Kernansquillec dam over the River Léguer
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Hydropower |
Country | France |
Main contact forename | Catherine |
Main contact surname | Moret |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Association de la Vallée du Léguer |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.riviere-du-leguer.com/ |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The Léguer is a first-category watercourse, classified as a “river with migratory fish” is one of the region’s most renowned salmon rivers.
Between 1920 and 1922, a dam was built across the Léguer in order to supply the Vallée paper mill - one of the biggest factories in the area - with electricity. The dam, approximately 15 metres tall, created a reservoir with a length of approximately 1.5 kilometres. Despite the presence of a fish pass, it was difficult for salmon to cross and this formed an impassable obstacle for eels.
In 1965, the paper mill went out of business. The dam then supplied electricity to EDF (French electricity supply ompany). Due to its poor condition, the former licence-holder decided not to renew its application. The dam went into the public domain in 1994.
In addition to the interruption of river continuity, there was significant silting up of the reservoir whose eutrophication was clearly visible. The risk of the dam failing became a growing concern and, due to the lack of maintenance, the Kernansquillec dam started cracking and became a direct threat to homes situated downstream. Following significant flooding in the winter of 1995, the government announced plans to dismantle the dam on the grounds of public safety.
In 1996 the dismantling began with the gradual draining of the reservoir; this drainage process would take five months. 90,000 m³ of sediments were extracted from the orginal river bed. Three 50-centimetre weirs were constructed in order to retain any sediments that might have escaped the suction dredging and reduce the risks of regressive erosion. The dam was then demolished.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|