Demand for Stream Mitigation in Colorado, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study proposed an assessing framework in order for estimating potential stream mitigation demand from development pressure in Colorado, USA. As the authors insisted, the proposed work would be replicable for any other states or regions where the relevant data sets are well documented. Based on data manipulation and analysis using GIS, current and forecast stream impacts were spatially characterized.

The broad objectives of the proposed study was well described, and the results were clearly presented. I concerned about applicability of this analyzing framework to localized case studies, but the authors adequately discussed about regarding limitations.

I have enjoyed reading this article. The paper looks good to be published after minor spell checks.

Author Response

I have enjoyed reading this article. The paper looks good to be published after minor spell checks.

We read through the manuscript and corrected all mistakes (~15), which are shown in track changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article characterize current demand and supply for stream mitigation using permitted riverine impacts requiring compensatory mitigation and current status of mitigation banks in Colorado, respectively. As a result Use GIS to assess future demand over the next 5 years by forecasting and mapping the lengths of streams that will likely be impacted by specific development and land use changes.

The overall of the paper is well organized and quite interesting. The methodology is reasonable and the references are provided properly. However, I found some problems of this paper. So I am writing some comments below for the improvement and possible publication of the paper.  

In row 378, Table 6. Observed and relative frequencies of generalized impact types, 2012-2017. ---> Table 6. Observed and relative frequencies of generalized impact types, (2012-2017).

In row 417 & 427, Figure 5., Figure 6. The color of the picture should be marked differently to improve readability.

In row 438, Table 8. It is judged to be different from the classification presented in this article and needs confirmation.

In row 1055, Table B4 *** p <0.001 ** p <0.010 * p <0.050 was used, but it is not shown in the result table.

Author Response

In row 378, Table 6. Observed and relative frequencies of generalized impact types, 2012-2017. ---> Table 6. Observed and relative frequencies of generalized impact types, (2012-2017).

Changed as suggested.

In row 417 & 427, Figure 5., Figure 6. The color of the picture should be marked differently to improve readability.

The color scheme we used to show increasing Impact Risk (beige to deep red) is commonly used and is consistent with land use maps that show development intensity. For these reasons, we did not change the color scheme.

In row 438, Table 8. It is judged to be different from the classification presented in this article and needs confirmation.

We removed the “Moderate” category/row to be consistent with the preceding figures.

In row 1055, Table B4 *** p <0.001 ** p <0.010 * p <0.050 was used, but it is not shown in the result table.

All three of these significance levels are used in the table.