Download (PDF 244 KB): https://research.fs.usda.gov/download/treesearch/27972.pdf
Abstract
This paper describes specific measures recently employed for protection of riparian resources during construction of an oil and gas pipeline that crossed coastal reaches of 23 perennial and intermittent streams between Point Conception and Gaviota in Santa Barbara County, California. Flumes were constructed to maintain stream flow; anchored straw bales and silt fences were used to filter sediment in the streams; water bars, incorporated straw mulch, anchored jute fabric, and trench plugs were installed to minimize soil loss on slopes; jute and synthetic fabrics were used to stabilize stream banks; construction-related removal of vegetation was minimized through site-specific project modifications agreed to prior to construction; and impacts on sensitive plant species were reduced by transplanting or by salvaging and replanting after construction. Construction at stream crossings was limited by permit to the summer period of normally low streamflows and was required to avoid the breeding season of sensitive riparian-dependent bird species. Restoration of native woody vegetation was encouraged through a number of approaches emphasizing use of material native to the individual watersheds. Many of the more successful approaches employed in this project resulted from refinements to original plans made in the field by representatives of the applicant, construction contractors, consultants to the applicant, environmental monitors, and representatives of Santa Barbara County.
Parent Publication
Citation
Mulroy, Thomas W.; Storrer, John R.; Semonsen, Vincent J.; Dungan, Michael L. 1989. Techniques for Minimizing and Monitoring the Impact of Pipeline Construction on Coastal Streams. In: Abell, Dana L., Technical Coordinator. 1989. Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference: protection, management, and restoration for the 1990s; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-110. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 226-232
