{PAGE NAME} | {WEB AREA NAME}

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	EnviroAtlas - Natural biological nitrogen fixation	Rate of Fire Spread	Value of a reef dive site, St. Croix, USVI	RUM: Valuing fishing quality, Michigan, USA	Pollinators on landfill sites, United Kingdom	Wild bees over 26 yrs of restored prairie, IL, USA	Recreational fishery index, USA	Drag coefficient Laminaria hyperborea	CAESAR landscape evolution model	CommunityViz, Albany county, Wyoming
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	US EPA EnviroAtlas - BNF (Natural biological nitrogen fixation), USA	Rate of Fire Spread	Value of a dive site (reef), St. Croix, USVI	Random utility model (RUM) Valuing Recreational fishing quality in streams and rivers, Michigan, USA	Pollinating insects on landfill sites, East Midlands, United Kingdon	Wild bee community change over a 26 year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, IL, USA	Recreational fishery index for streams and rivers, USA	Drag coefficient Laminaria hyperborea	Embedding reach-scale fluvial dynamics within the CAESAR cellular automaton landscape evolution model	Wyoming Community Viz TM Partnership Phase I Pilot: Aquifer Protection and Community Viz TM in Albany County, Wyoming.
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	US EPA \| EnviroAtlas	*	US EPA	*	*	None	US EPA	*	*	*
EM Source Document ID	262 ? Comment: EnviroAtlas maps BNF based on a correlation with AET modeled by Cleveland et al. 1999, and modified by land use (% natural vs. ag/developed) within each HUC. AET was modeled using climate and land use parameters (equation from Sanford and Selnick 2013). For full citations of these related models, see below, "Document ID for related EM.	306	335	382 ? Comment: Data collected from Michigan Recreational Angler Survey, a mail survey administered monthly to random sample of Michigan fishing license holders since July 2008. Data available taken from 2008-2010.	389	401	414	424	468	479 ? Comment: Published as a report by the University of Wyoming, but no record of peer review.
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	US EPA Office of Research and Development - National Exposure Research Laboratory	Rothermel, Richard C.	Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver	Melstrom, R. T., Lupi, F., Esselman, P.C., and R. J. Stevenson	Tarrant S., J. Ollerton, M. L Rahman, J. Tarrant, and D. McCollin	Griffin, S. R, B. Bruninga-Socolar, M. A. Kerr, J. Gibbs and R. Winfree	Lomnicky. G.A., Hughes, R.M., Peck, D.V., and P.L. Ringold	Mendez, F. J. and I. J. Losada	Van De Wiel, M. J., Coulthard, T. J., Macklin, M. G., & Lewin, J.	Lieske, S. N., Mullen, S., Knapp, M., & Hamerlinck, J. D.
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2013	1972	2014	2014	2013	2017	2021	2004	2007	2003
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	EnviroAtlas - National	A Mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels	Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI	Valuing recreational fishing quality at rivers and streams	Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands, United Kingdom: An evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects	Wild bee community change over a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie	Correspondence between a recreational fishery index and ecological condition for U.S.A. streams and rivers.	An empirical model to estimate the propagation of random breaking and nonbreaking waves over vegetation fields	Embedding reach-scale fluvial dynamics within the CAESAR cellular automaton landscape evolution model	Wyoming Community Viz TM Partnership Phase I Pilot: Aquifer Protection and Community Viz TM in Albany County, Wyoming
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	*	Documented, not peer reviewed	*	*	*	Peer reviewed and published	*	*	*	Not peer reviewed but is published (explain in Comment)
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published on US EPA EnviroAtlas website	Published USDA Forest Service report	*	*	*	Published journal manuscript	*	*	*	Published report

Software and Access (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas	http://firelab.org/project/farsite	*	*	*	Not applicable	*	*	http://www.coulthard.org.uk/	https://communityviz.com/
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	EnviroAtlas Team ? Comment: Additional contact: Jana Compton, EPA	Charles McHugh	Susan H. Yee	Richard Melstrom	Sam Tarrant	Sean R. Griffin	Gregg Lomnicky	F. J. Mendez	Marco J. Van De Wiel	Scott Lieske
Contact Address	Not reported	RMRS Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 5775 US Highway 10 West, Missoula, MT 59808	US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA	Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA	RSPB UK Headquarters, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, U.K.	Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, U.S.A.	200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR, 97333	Not reported	Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada	Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics University of Wyoming, Laramie WY 82071
Contact Email	enviroatlas@epa.gov	cmchugh@fs.fed.us	yee.susan@epa.gov	melstrom@okstate.edu	sam.tarrant@rspb.org.uk	srgriffin108@gmail.com	lomnicky.gregg@epa.gov	mendezf@unican.es	mvandew3@uwo.ca	lieske@uwyo.edu

EM Description (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	DATA FACT SHEET: "This EnviroAtlas national map displays the rate of biological nitrogen (N) fixation (BNF) in natural/semi-natural ecosystems within each watershed (12-digit HUC) in the conterminous United States (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) for the year 2006. These data are based on the modeled relationship of BNF with actual evapotranspiration (AET) in natural/semi-natural ecosystems. The mean rate of BNF is for the 12-digit HUC, not to natural/semi-natural lands within the HUC." "BNF in natural/semi-natural ecosystems was estimated using a correlation with actual evapotranspiration (AET). This correlation is based on a global meta-analysis of BNF in natural/semi-natural ecosystems. AET estimates for 2006 were calculated using a regression equation describing the correlation of AET with climate and land use/land cover variables in the conterminous US. Data describing annual average minimum and maximum daily temperatures and total precipitation at the 2.5 arcmin (~4 km) scale for 2006 were acquired from the PRISM climate dataset. The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006 was acquired from the USGS at the scale of 30 x 30 m. BNF in natural/semi-natural ecosystems within individual 12-digit HUCs was modeled with an equation describing the statistical relationship between BNF (kg N ha-1 yr-1) and actual evapotranspiration (AET; cm yr–1) and scaled to the proportion of non-developed and non-agricultural land in the 12-digit HUC." EnviroAtlas maps BNF based on a correlation with AET modeled by Cleveland et al. 1999, and modified by land use (% natural vs. ag/developed) within each HUC. AET was modeled using climate and land use parameters (equation from Sanford and Selnick 2013). For full citations of these related models, see below, "Document ID for related EM."	ABSTRACT: "The development of a mathematical model for predicting rate of fire spread and intensity applicable to a wide range of wildland fuels is presented from the conceptual stage through evaluation and demonstration of results to hypothetical fuel models. The model was developed for and is now being used as a basis for appraising fire spread and intensity in the National Fire Danger Rating System. The initial work was done using fuel arrays composed of uniform size particles. Three fuel sizes were tested over a wide range of bulk densities. These were 0.026-inch-square cut excelsior, 114-inch sticks, and 112-inch sticks. The problem of mixed fuel sizes was then resolved by weighting the various particle sizes that compose actual fuel arrays by either surface area or loading, depending upon the feature of the fire being predicted. The model is complete in the sense that no prior knowledge of a fuel's burning characteristics is required. All that is necessary are inputs describing the physical and chemical makeup of the fuel and the environmental conditions in which it is expected to burn. Inputs include fuel loading, fuel depth, fuel particle surface-area-to-volume ratio, fuel particle heat content, fuel particle moisture and mineral content, and the moisture content at which extinction can be expected. Environmental inputs are mean wind velocity and slope of terrain. For heterogeneous mixtures, the fuel properties are entered for each particle size. The model as originally conceived was for dead fuels in a uniform stratum contiguous to the ground, such as litter or grass. It has been found to be useful, however, for fuels ranging from pine needle litter to heavy logging slash and for California brush fields." FARSITE4 will no longer be supported or available for download or further supported. FlamMap6 now includes FARSITE.	ABSTRACT: "...We investigated and compared a number of existing methods for quantifying ecological integrity, shoreline protection, recreational opportunities, fisheries production, and the potential for natural products discovery from reefs. Methods were applied to mapping potential ecosystem services production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall, we found that a number of different methods produced similar predictions." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "A number of methods have been developed for linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as reef structural complexity, fish biomass, or species richness, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Principe et al., 2012). We investigated the feasibility of using existing methods and data for mapping production of reef ecosystem goods and services. We applied these methods toward mapping potential ecosystem goods and services production in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)...For each of the five categories of ecosystem services, we chose a suite of models and indices for estimating potential production based on relative ease of implementation, consisting of well-defined parameters, and likely availability of input data, to maximize potential for transferability to other locations. For each method, we assembled the necessary reef condition and environmental data as spatial data layers for St. Croix (Table1). The coastal zone surrounding St. Croix was divided into 10x10 m grid cells, and production functions were applied to quantify ecosystem services provisioning in each grid cell...A number of recreational activities are associated directly or indirectly with coral reefs including scuba diving, snorkeling, surfing, underwater photography, recreational fishing, wildlife viewing, beach sunbathing and swimming, and beachcombing (Principe et al., 2012)…Another method to quantify recreational opportunities is to use survey data of tourists and recreational visitors to the reefs to generate statistical models to quantify the link between reef condition and production of recreation-related ecosystem services. Wielgus et al. (2003) used interviews with SCUBA divers in Israel to derive coefficients for a choice model in which willingness to pay for higher quality dive sites was determined in part by a weighted combination of factors identified with dive quality: Relative value of dive site = 0.1227(Scoral+Sfish+Acoral+Afish)+0.0565V where Scoral, Sfish are coral and fish richness, Acoral, Afish are abundances of fish and coral per square meter, and V is water visibility (meters)."	ABSTRACT: " This paper describes an economic model that links the demand for recreational stream fishing to fish biomass. Useful measures of fishing quality are often difficult to obtain. In the past, economists have linked the demand for fishing sites to species presence‐absence indicators or average self‐reported catch rates. The demand model presented here takes advantage of a unique data set of statewide biomass estimates for several popular game fish species in Michigan, including trout, bass and walleye. These data are combined with fishing trip information from a 2008–2010 survey of Michigan anglers in order to estimate a demand model. Fishing sites are defined by hydrologic unit boundaries and information on fish assemblages so that each site corresponds to the area of a small subwatershed, about 100–200 square miles in size. The random utility model choice set includes nearly all fishable streams in the state. The results indicate a significant relationship between the site choice behavior of anglers and the biomass of certain species. Anglers are more likely to visit streams in watersheds high in fish abundance, particularly for brook trout and walleye. The paper includes estimates of the economic value of several quality change and site loss scenarios. "	ABSTRACT: "...Restored landfill sites are a significant potential reserve of semi-natural habitat, so their conservation value for supporting populations of pollinating insects was here examined by assessing whether the plant and pollinator assemblages of restored landfill sites are comparable to reference sites of existing wildlife value. Floral characteristics of the vegetation and the species richness and abundance of flower-visiting insect assemblages were compared between nine pairs of restored landfill sites and reference sites in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom, using standardized methods over two field seasons. …" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The selection criteria for the landfill sites were greater than or equal to 50% of the site restored (to avoid undue influence from ongoing landfilling operations), greater than or equal to 0.5 ha in area and restored for greater than or equal to 4 years to allow establishment of vegetation. Comparison reference sites were the closest grassland sites of recognized nature conservation value, being designated as either Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)…All sites were surveyed three times each during the fieldwork season, in Spring, Summer, and Autumn. Paired sites were sampled on consecutive days whenever weather conditions permitted to reduce temporal bias. Standardized plant surveys were used (Dicks et al. 2002; Potts et al. 2006). Transects (100 × 2m) were centered from the approximate middle of the site and orientated using randomized bearing tables. All flowering plants were identified to species level…In the first year of study, plants in flower and flower visitors were surveyed using the same transects as for the floral resources surveys. The transect was left undisturbed for 20 minutes following the initial plant survey to allow the flower visitors to return. Each transect was surveyed at a rate of approximately 3m/minute for 30 minutes. All insects observed to touch the sexual parts of flowers were either captured using a butterfly net and transferred into individually labeled specimen jars, or directly captured into the jars. After the survey was completed, those insects that could be identified in the field were recorded and released. The flower-visitor surveys were conducted in the morning, within 1 hour of midday, and in the afternoon to sample those insects active at different times. Insects that could not be identified in the field were collected as voucher specimens for later identification. Identifications were verified using reference collections and by taxon specialists. Relatively low capture rates in the first year led to methods being altered in the second year when surveying followed a spiral pattern from a randomly determined point on the sites, at a standard pace of 10 m/minute for 30 minutes, following Nielsen and Bascompte (2007) and Kalikhman (2007). Given a 2-m wide transect, an area of approximately 600m2 was sampled in each	ABSTRACT: "Restoration efforts often focus on plants, but additionally require the establishment and long-term persistence of diverse groups of nontarget organisms, such as bees, for important ecosystem functions and meeting restoration goals. We investigated long-term patterns in the response of bees to habitat restoration by sampling bee communities along a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie in north-central Illinois, U.S.A. Specifically, we examined how bee communities changed over time since restoration in terms of (1) abundance and richness, (2) community composition, and (3) the two components of beta diversity, one-to-one species replacement, and changes in species richness. Bee abundance and raw richness increased with restoration age from the low level of the pre-restoration (agricultural) sites to the target level of the remnant prairie within the first 2–3 years after restoration, and these high levels were maintained throughout the entire restoration chronosequence. Bee community composition of the youngest restored sites differed from that of prairie remnants, but 5–7 years post-restoration the community composition of restored prairie converged with that of remnants. Landscape context, particularly nearby wooded land, was found to affect abundance, rarefied richness, and community composition. Partitioning overall beta diversity between sites into species replacement and richness effects revealed that the main driver of community change over time was the gradual accumulation of species, rather than one-to-one species replacement. At the spatial and temporal scales we studied, we conclude that prairie restoration efforts targeting plants also successfully restore bee communities."	ABSTRACT: [Sport fishing is an important recreational and economic activity, especially in Australia, Europe and North America, and the condition of sport fish populations is a key ecological indicator of water body condition for millions of anglers and the public. Despite its importance as an ecological indicator representing the status of sport fish populations, an index for measuring this ecosystem service has not been quantified by analyzing actual fish taxa, size and abundance data across the U.S.A. Therefore, we used game fish data collected from 1,561 stream and river sites located throughout the conterminous U.S.A. combined with specific fish species and size dollar weights to calculate site-specific recreational fishery index (RFI) scores. We then regressed those scores against 38 potential site-specific environmental predictor variables, as well as site-specific fish assemblage condition (multimetric index; MMI) scores based on entire fish assemblages, to determine the factors most associated with the RFI scores. We found weak correlations between RFI and MMI scores and weak to moderate correlations with environmental variables, which varied in importance with each of 9 ecoregions. We conclude that the RFI is a useful indicator of a stream ecosystem service, which should be of greater interest to the U.S.A. public and traditional fishery management agencies than are MMIs, which tend to be more useful for ecologists, environmentalists and environmental quality agencies.]	ABSTRACT: "In this work, a model for wave transformation on vegetation fields is presented. The formulation includes wave damping and wave breaking over vegetation fields at variable depths. Based on a nonlinear formulation of the drag force, either the transformation of monochromatic waves or irregular waves can be modelled considering geometric and physical characteristics of the vegetation field. The model depends on a single parameter similar to the drag coefficient, which is parameterized as a function of the local Keulegan–Carpenter number for a specific type of plant. Given this parameterization, determined with laboratory experiments for each plant type, the model is able to reproduce the root-mean-square wave height transformation observed in experimental data with reasonable accuracy." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Therefore, a relation between C˜D and some nondimensional flow parameters is desirable to characterize hydrodynamically the L. hyperborea model plants for predictable purposes."	We introduce a new computational model designed to simulate and investigate reach-scale alluvial dynamics within a landscape evolution model. The model is based on the cellular automaton concept, whereby the continued iteration of a series of local process ‘rules’ governs the behaviour of the entire system. The model is a modified version of the CAESAR landscape evolution model, which applies a suite of physically based rules to simulate the entrainment, transport and deposition of sediments. The CAESAR model has been altered to improve the representation of hydraulic and geomorphic processes in an alluvial environment. In-channel and overbank flow, sediment entrainment and deposition, suspended load and bed load transport, lateral erosion and bank failure have all been represented as local cellular automaton rules. Although these rules are relatively simple and straightforward, their combined and repeatedly iterated effect is such that complex, non-linear geomorphological response can be simulated within the model. Examples of such larger-scale, emergent responses include channel incision and aggradation, terrace formation, channel migration and river meandering, formation of meander cutoffs, and transitions between braided and single-thread channel patterns. In the current study, the model is illustrated on a reach of the River Teifi, near Lampeter, Wales, UK.	The Wyoming Community VizTM Partnership was established in 2001 to promote the use of geographic information system-based planning support systems and related decision support technologies in community land-use planning and economic development activities in the State of Wyoming. Partnership members include several state agencies, local governments and several nongovernment organizations. Partnership coordination is provided by the Wyoming Rural Development Council. Research and technical support is coordinated by the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center’s Spatial Decision Support System Research Program at the University of Wyoming. In June 2002, the Partnership initiated a three-phase plan to promote Community VizTM based planning support systems in Wyoming. Phase I of the Partnership plan was a “proof of concept” pilot project set in Albany County in southeastern Wyoming. The goal of the project was to demonstrate the application of Community VizTM to a Wyoming-specific issue (in this case, aquifer protection) and to determine potential challenges for broader adoption in terms of data requirements, computing infrastructure and technological expertise. The results of the Phase I pilot project are detailed in this report. Efforts are currently underway to secure funding for Phase II of the plan, which expands the use of Community VizTM into four additional Wyoming communities. Specific Phase II objectives are to expand the type and number of issues addressed by Community VizTM and increase the use of Community VizTM in the planning process. As a part of Phase II the Partnership will create a technical assistance network aimed at assisting communities with the technical challenges in applying the software to their planning issues. The third phase will expand the program to more communities in the state, maintain the technical assistance network, and monitor the impact of Community VizTM on the planning process.
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	None identified	*	*	*	None provided
Biophysical Context	No additional description provided	Not applicable	No additional description provided	stream and river reaches of Michigan	No additional description provided	The Nachusa Grasslands consists of over 1,900 ha of restored prairie plantings, prairie remnants, and other habitats such as wetlands and oak savanna. The area is generally mesic with an average annual precipitation of 975 mm, and most precipitation occurs during the growing season.	None	No additional description provided	River Teifi, Lampeter, Wales	Groundwater recharge area, City of Laramie
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	*	*	*	targeted sport fish biomass	*	No scenarios presented	N/A	*	Varying flow velocities and durations	Aquifer protection

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application	Method Only	Method + Application	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method Only	Model Run Associated with a Specific EM Application
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	Doc-346 \| Doc-347 ? Comment: EnviroAtlas maps BNF based on a correlation with AET modeled by Cleveland et al. 1999, and modified by land use (% natural vs. ag/developed) within each HUC. AET was modeled using climate and land use parameters (equation from Sanford and Selnick 2013). For full citations of these related models, see below, "Document ID for related EM.	None	None	None	Doc-389	None	None	Doc-424	Doc-467	Doc-473
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	None	None	None	None	EM-697	None	None	EM-896 \| EM-897	EM-997	None

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2006-2010	Not applicable	2006-2007, 2010	2008-2010	2007-2008	1988-2014	2013-2014	Not applicable	Not applicable	2000
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	*	time-stationary	time-dependent	Not applicable	time-dependent	*
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	past time	*	*	*
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	discrete	*	continuous	*
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	1	*	*	*
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	Year	*	*	*

EM spatial extent (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Geopolitical	Not applicable	*	Watershed/Catchment/HUC	Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis)	Physiographic or ecological	Geopolitical	Not applicable	Watershed/Catchment/HUC	Watershed/Catchment/HUC
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	counterminous United States	Not applicable	Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix	HUCS in Michigan	East Midlands	Nachusa Grasslands	United States	Not applicable	River Teifi	Laramie City's aquifer protection area
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	>1,000,000 km^2	Not applicable	100-1000 km^2	100,000-1,000,000 km^2	1000-10,000 km^2.	10-100 km^2	>1,000,000 km^2	Not applicable	1000-10,000 km^2.	*

Spatial Distribution of Computations (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	* ? Comment: Watersheds (12-digit HUCs).	Not applicable	*	*	*	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	*	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	*	Not applicable	area, for pixel or radial feature	*	*	other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin)	length, for linear feature (e.g., stream mile)	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	irregular	Not applicable	10 m x 10 m	reach in HUC	multiple unrelated locations	Area varies by site	stream reach (site)	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	*	*	*	Numeric	*	Analytic	*	*	*	Numeric
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	deterministic	*	*	*	*
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	*	None	*	*	*	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	*	*	*	*

Model Checking Procedures Used (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	*	Not applicable	Yes	*	Not applicable	No	*	Yes	Not applicable	Unclear
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	Yes	Not applicable	No	*	Not applicable	Not applicable	*
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	*	*	*	R squared \| 0.552 \| unitless	*	None	*	*	*	*
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	*	*	Yes	*	Not applicable	No	*	Unclear	Not applicable	Unclear
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	Not applicable	No	*	*	Not applicable	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	Not applicable	No	*	*	Not applicable	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	*	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	*	*	*	*

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Location of EM Application (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
North America United States	*	*	North America United States Michigan	Europe United Kingdom	North America United States Illinois	North America United States North Carolina Indiana Wyoming Northern Mariana Islands Utah Guam Arizona Montana Kentucky California Kansas Delaware Florida Pennsylvania Iowa Mississippi Illinois Texas Connecticut Georgia Maryland Idaho Oregon Vermont Puerto Rico Maine Oklahoma Tennessee American Samoa Alabama Arkansas South Carolina Washington Nebraska West Virginia Colorado Massachusetts Missouri Alaska U.S. Virgin Islands Washington D.C. North Dakota Wisconsin Nevada New York Rhode Island Hawaii South Dakota Minnesota New Jersey Michigan Virgina New Mexico New Hampshire Louisiana Ohio	*	Europe United Kingdom	North America United States Wyoming

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
*	*	Tropical Atlantic West Tropical Atlantic Tropical Northwestern Atlantic Eastern Caribbean	*	*	None	*	Temperate North Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northern European Seas	*	*

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	39.5	-9999	17.73	45.12	52.22	41.89	36.21	Not applicable	52.04	41.31
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-98.35	-9999	-64.77	85.18	-0.91	-89.34	-113.76	Not applicable	-4.39	-105.46
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	*	WGS84	*	Not applicable	*	*
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Estimated	Not applicable	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated	Provided	Estimated	Not applicable	Estimated	Estimated

Environments and Scales Modeled (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	Rivers and Streams	Created Greenspace \| Grasslands	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Rivers and Streams	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	Rivers and Streams	Ground Water \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Terrestrial	Not applicable	Coral reefs	stream reaches	restored landfills and grasslands	Restored prairie, prairie remnants, and cropland	reach	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	River	watershed
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	*	Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	*	*	*

Organisms modeled (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Guild or Assemblage	Not applicable	Individual or population, within a species	Species	Guild or Assemblage	*	Not applicable	Not applicable

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
*	*	*	Family panfishes Species Brown trout smallmouth bass Brook trout Walleye	Genus Calliopum Lasioglossum Species Apis mellifera Bombus lapidarius Oedemera nobilis Episyrphus balteatus Bombus terrestris/lucorum Bombus pascuorum	other Bees	*	Species Laminaria hyporborea	*	*

EnviroAtlas URL

New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Average Annual Precipitation, Natural Biological Nitrogen Fixation, The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)	Average Annual Precipitation	None Available	The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), Enabling Conditions, Employment Rate	GAP Ecological Systems	GAP Ecological Systems	None Available	National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD PlusV2)	Average Annual Precipitation	Dasymetric Allocation of Population, Total Annual Reduced Nitrogen Deposition, Employment Rate

EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left

CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)

New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Soil formation and composition Decomposition and fixing processes	*	[Ecosystem] Cultural Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Physical and experiential interactions Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in different environmental settings	[Ecosystem] Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Wild animals and their outputs	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Pollination and seed dispersal	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats Pollination and seed dispersal	[Ecosystem] Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Wild animals and their outputs [Ecosystem] Cultural Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Physical and experiential interactions Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in different environmental settings	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Mediation of flows Liquid flows Flood protection	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Mediation of flows Liquid flows Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance Mass flows Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates	[Non-ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance by natural physical structures and processes Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances By natural chemical and physical processes Not applicable [Ecosystem] Provisioning Materials Water Ground water for non-drinking purposes [Ecosystem] Cultural Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Physical and experiential interactions Physical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings Intellectual and representative interactions Aesthetic

National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)

New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Atmosphere Soil (2) Specific types of soil Quality Indicator	*	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Quality Indicator	Rivers and Streams (111) Fauna (4) Fish Quality Indicator	*	None	Rivers and Streams (111) Fauna (4) Fish Quality Indicator	*	Rivers and Streams (111) Water (3) Liquid water Flow Indicator Soil (2) Specific types of soil Flow Indicator	Groundwater Water (3) Liquid water Flow Indicator

EM Variable Names (and Units)

* Note that for runs, variable name is displayed only where data for that variable differed by run AND those differences were reported in the source document. Where differences occurred but were not reported, the variable is not listed. Click on variable name to view details.

To view run information for variables, select any variable below or view run data for all variables.

Predictor

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Driving Variables (and Units) em.detail.drivingVariableHelp ?	12-digit hydrological unit code (HUC12) (Not applicable) Annual average of maximum daily temperature (°C) Annual average of minimum daily temperature (°C) Annual precipitation (cm/yr) Land use/land cover (Not applicable)	Depth of fuel (ft) Low heat content of fuel size class within fuel category (Btu/lb) Mean loading of fuel size class within fuel category (lb/ft^2) Mean particle density of fuel size class within fuel category (lb/ft^3) Mean surface-area-to-volume ratio of fuel size class within fuel category (ft^2/ft^3) Mean windspeed at midflame height (ft/min) Mineral content of fuel size class within fuel category (lb minerals/lb wood) Moisture content of fuel size class within fuel category (lb moisture/lb wood) Slope (%)	Coral abundance (no. m^-2) Coral richness (unitless) Fish abundance (no. m^-2) Fish richness (unitless) Water visibility (m)	Agriculture (%) All species angling license (y/n) (Not applicable) Angler home zipcode (Not applicable) Avg. light vehicle fuel economy ($/gal) Fishing trip type (individual angler) (Not applicable) Forest (%) Gasoline price (monthly retail) ($/gal) Land use land cover class (site reach) (Not applicable) Maintenance and depreciation (vehicle) ($/mi) Mean angler income ($/yr) Mean temperature (July) (°C) NHD Hydrologic units (Not applicable) National wild and scenic rivers protection (%) Restricted angling license (y/n) (Not applicable) Round trip travel distance (mi) Stream length (km) Targeted sport fish (Not applicable) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (brook trout) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (brown trout) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (panfishes) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (smallmouth bass) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (walleye) (kg/ha) Urban (%)	Pollinating insect species (Not applicable) Pollinating insect visits (No.) Season (Not applicable) Site type (landfill/reference) (Not applicable)	Agriculture within 500 m (%) Size of site (ha) Woodland within 500 m (%)	Ecoregion (optional) (Not applicable) Fish size classes (Not applicable) Game fish taxa (Not applicable) Game fish taxa abundance (site) (No. ind./taxa/site) Strahler stream order (optional) (Not applicable)	Plant species (Laminaria hyperborea) (Not applicable)	Cross-sectional area of the flow (m^2) Downstream slope (Not reported) Flow depth (m) Fractional transport rate to the total transport rate (function) (Not reported) Fractional volume (Not reported) Inflow hydrograph (Not reported) Initial topography (Not reported) Rainfall (Not reported) Ratio of sediment to water density (NA) Roughness (Not reported) Sediment distribution (not reported) Sediment inflow (Not reported) Shear velocity (Not reported) Vegetation pattern (Not reported)	Albany county study area boundary (Not reported) City annual budget data ($) Common land use list (Not reported) Distances from residential parcels to recreational trail access (miles) Existing development (Not reported) Existing land use or zoning data (Not reported) Guidelines for future land use/zoning (Not reported) Number of vehicle trips taken (trips) Population projections (Not reported) Property, sales, and lodging tax data ($) Proportion of land development to open space seen from observation points (NA) Roads/infrastructure (Not reported) Species distribution GIS data (Not reported) Topography (Not reported) Vehicle miles traveled (miles) Water consumption data (millions of gallons) Water quality data (nitrate levels) (ppm)
Constant or Factor Variables (and Units) em.detail.constantFactorVariableHelp ?	Land cover parameter (unitless)	Mineral damping coefficient of fuel category (unitless) Moisture damping coefficient of fuel category (unitless) Ratio of surface area of fuel category to total surface area per unit fuel cell (unitless) Ratio of surface area of fuel size class to total surface area of fuel category (unitless)	Coefficient for combined richness and abundance variables (unitless) Coefficient for water visibility (unitless)	Brook trout coefficient (unitless) Brown trout coefficient (unitless) Cold water (No. trips) Did not target particular species (y/n) (Not applicable) Opportunity cost constant (unitless) Panfishes coefficient (unitless) Smallmouth bass coefficient (unitless) Targed panfishes (y/n) (Not applicable) Targeted bass (yes/no) (Not applicable) Targeted other fishes (y/n) (Not applicable) Targeted trout (y/n) (Not applicable) Targeted walleye (y/n) (Not applicable) Walleye coefficient (unitless)	Year (Not applicable)	Age of site restoration (years) Management (Not applicable)	Dollar cost ($/fish/size class)	Coefficient of the modified Keulegan-Carpenter parameter (unitless) Horizontal velocity in the middle of the vegetation field (m s^-1) Peak wave period (s) Plant area of frontal edge per unit height (m) Vegetation height (m) Water depth (m) Width of vegetation field (m)	Gravity (Not reported) Manning's coefficient (NA)	*

Intermediate

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Intermediate (Computed) Variables (and Units) em.detail.intermediateVariableHelp ?	Actual evapotranspiration per HUC12 (cm year^-1) Biological nitrogen fixation per HUC12 (kg N ha^-1 yr^-1) Land cover fraction per HUC12 (%)	Characteristic surface-area-to-volume ratio of fuel category (ft^2/ft^3) Characteristic surface-area-to-volume ratio of fuel complex (ft^2/ft^3) Heat of preignition for fuel size class within fuel category (Btu/lb) Low heat content of fuel category (Btu/lb) Mean bulk density of fuel complex (lb/ft^3) Mean packing ratio of fuel complex (unitless) Net loading of fuel category (lb/ft^2) No-wind propagating flux ratio (unitless) Potential reaction velocity of fuel complex (min^-1) Slope coefficient (unitless) Wind coefficient (unitless)	None	Driving costs ($) Expected targeted sport fish presence by reach (cold or warm water) (Not applicable) Opportunity cost of travel time ($) Stream reaches (fishable) within 200 miles of angler zipcode (Not applicable) Travel costs ($)	None	None	Game fish taxa abundance (site) per size class (No. ind./site/size class) Site recreational fishery index value per fish taxa ($/fish taxa)	Keulegan-Carpenter number (unitless) Modified Keulegan-Carpenter parameter (unitless)	Current topography (Not reported) Deposition of suspended sediments (Not reported) Discharge (m^3 / s) Erosion (Not reported) Flow velocity (Not reported) Fluvial processes (Not reported) Hillslope processes (Not reported) Suspended load (Not reported) Topography adjustment (Not reported) Transport rates (Not reported) Volumes (m^3)	*

Response

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Aquifer protection
Observed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.observedResponseHelp ?	None	None	None	None	Autumn season richness of pollinating insects per landfill site (No.) Autumn season richness of pollinating insects per reference site (No.) Cumulative individual abundance of pollinating insects for landfill sites (No.) Cumulative individual abundance of pollinating insects for reference sites (No.) Cumulative pollinating insect species for landfill sites (No.) Cumulative pollinating insect species for reference sites (No.) Frequency of most abundant pollinating insect species on landfill sites (no. of sites) Frequency of most abundant pollinating insect species on reference sites (no. of sites) Individual abundance of the most abundant pollinating insect species on landfill sites (No.) Individual abundance of the most abundant pollinating insect species on reference sites (No.) Spring season richness of pollinating insects per landfill site (No.) Spring season richness of pollinating insects per reference site (No.) Summer season richness of pollinating insects per landfill site (No.) Summer season richness of pollinating insects per reference site (No.)	Bee abundance (No.) Bee species richness (No.)	None	None	None	*
Computed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.computedResponseHelp ?	Natural BNF per HUC12 (kg N ha^-1 yr^-1)	Rate of spread (ft/min) Reaction intensity (Btu/ft^2 min)	Relative value of a dive site (unitless)	Angler recreational demand increase for brook trout (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for brown trout (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for panfishes (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for smallmouth bass (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for walleye (WTP) ($)	None	Bee species rarified richness (No.) Richness effects (of changes in bee community composition over time) (unitless) Species replacement (of changes in bee community composition over time) (unitless) Total Jaccard dissimilarity (of changes in bee community composition over time) (unitless)	Recreational fishery index score (US) (unitless)	Drag coefficient (unitless)	Erosion and deposition maps (Not reported) Flow and sediment hydrographs (Not reported) Grain size (Not reported) Inundation (Not reported) Topography (Not reported)	Cost of community services (millions of dollars) Local tax revenues (millions of dollars) Quantity of water (millions of gallons) Recreation access (Miles to trail) Riparian area impacted (Acres) Traffic impacts (Vehicle miles traveled) Visual impact (Not reported) Water quality (nitrate levels) (ppm) Wildlife habitat (acres)

US EPA

EcoService Models Library (ESML)

View Runs

: Wild bee community change over a 26 year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, IL, USA (EM-788)

EM Identity and Description

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

Comment:

EM Modeling Approach

Comment:

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EnviroAtlas URL

EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left

CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)

National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)

EM Variable Names (and Units)

* Note that for runs, variable name is displayed only where data for that variable differed by run AND those differences were reported in the source document. Where differences occurred but were not reported, the variable is not listed. Click on variable name to view details.

Predictor

Intermediate

Response