mitigation bank
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

11
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

3
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason P. Julian ◽  
Russell C. Weaver

Colorado, the headwaters for much of the United States, is one of the fastest growing states in terms of both population and land development. These land use changes are impacting jurisdictional streams, and thus require compensatory stream mitigation via environmental restoration. In this article, we first characterize current demand and supply for stream mitigation for the entire state of Colorado. Second, we assess future demand by forecasting and mapping the lengths of streams that will likely be impacted by specific development and land use changes. Third, based on our interviews with experts, stakeholders, resource managers, and regulators, we provide insight on how regulatory climate, challenges, and water resource developments may influence demand for stream mitigation. From geospatial analyses of permit data, we found that there is currently demand for compensatory stream mitigation in 13 of the 89 HUC-8 watersheds across Colorado. Permanent riverine impacts from 2012–2017 requiring compensatory mitigation totaled 38,292 linear feet (LF). The supply of stream mitigation credits falls well short of this demand. There has only been one approved stream mitigation bank in Colorado, supplying only 2539 LF credits. Based on our analyses of future growth and development in Colorado, there will be relatively high demand for stream mitigation credits in the next 5–10 years. While most of these impacts will be around the Denver metropolitan area, we identified some new areas of the state that will experience high demand for stream mitigation. Given regulatory agencies’ stated preference for mitigation banks, the high demand for stream mitigation credits, and the short supply of stream credits, there should be an active market for stream mitigation banks in Colorado. However, there are some key obstacles preventing this market from moving forward, with permanent water rights’ acquisitions at the top of the list. Ensuring stream mitigation compliance is essential for restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of stream systems in Colorado and beyond.


2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (13) ◽  
pp. 4207-4215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane L. Peralta ◽  
Jeffrey W. Matthews ◽  
Angela D. Kent

ABSTRACT Wetland mitigation is implemented to replace ecosystem functions provided by wetlands; however, restoration efforts frequently fail to establish equivalent levels of ecosystem services. Delivery of microbially mediated ecosystem functions, such as denitrification, is influenced by both the structure and activity of the microbial community. The objective of this study was to compare the relationship between soil and vegetation factors and microbial community structure and function in restored and reference wetlands within a mitigation bank. Microbial community composition was assessed using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism targeting the 16S rRNA gene (total bacteria) and the nosZ gene (denitrifiers). Comparisons of microbial function were based on potential denitrification rates. Bacterial community structures differed significantly between restored and reference wetlands; denitrifier community assemblages were similar among reference sites but highly variable among restored sites throughout the mitigation bank. Potential denitrification was highest in the reference wetland sites. These data demonstrate that wetland restoration efforts in this mitigation bank have not successfully restored denitrification and that differences in potential denitrification rates may be due to distinct microbial assemblages observed in restored and reference (natural) wetlands. Further, we have identified gradients in soil moisture and soil fertility that were associated with differences in microbial community structure. Microbial function was influenced by bacterial community composition and soil fertility. Identifying soil factors that are primary ecological drivers of soil bacterial communities, especially denitrifying populations, can potentially aid the development of predictive models for restoration of biogeochemical transformations and enhance the success of wetland restoration efforts.


2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 837-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Spieles ◽  
Meagan Coneybeer ◽  
Jonathan Horn

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin K. Moorhead ◽  
Irene M. Rossell ◽  
James W. Petranka ◽  
C. Reed Rossell
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Michael W. Klish ◽  
Stephen L. Jamieson ◽  
Kenneth L. Jacobson ◽  
James R. Scheidt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document