{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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	EnviroAtlas - Natural biological nitrogen fixation	Pollinators on landfill sites, United Kingdom	Wild bees over 26 yrs of restored prairie, IL, USA	Recreational fishery index, USA	CommunityViz, Albany county, Wyoming
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	US EPA EnviroAtlas - BNF (Natural biological nitrogen fixation), 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	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	*	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.	389	401	414	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	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	Lieske, S. N., Mullen, S., Knapp, M., & Hamerlinck, J. D.
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2013	2013	2017	2021	2003
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	EnviroAtlas - National	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.	Wyoming Community Viz TM Partnership Phase I Pilot: Aquifer Protection and Community Viz TM in Albany County, Wyoming
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	*	*	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 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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas	*	Not applicable	*	https://communityviz.com/
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	EnviroAtlas Team ? Comment: Additional contact: Jana Compton, EPA	Sam Tarrant	Sean R. Griffin	Gregg Lomnicky	Scott Lieske
Contact Address	Not reported	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	Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics University of Wyoming, Laramie WY 82071
Contact Email	enviroatlas@epa.gov	sam.tarrant@rspb.org.uk	srgriffin108@gmail.com	lomnicky.gregg@epa.gov	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
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: "...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.]	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	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	Groundwater recharge area, City of Laramie
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	*	*	No scenarios presented	N/A	Continuation of trends

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

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

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

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
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.	Doc-389	None	None	Doc-473
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	None	EM-697	None	None	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2006-2010	2007-2008	1988-2014	2013-2014	2050
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	*	*	time-stationary	time-dependent	*
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	*	*	Not applicable	past time	*
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	*	*	Not applicable	discrete	*
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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Geopolitical	Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis)	Physiographic or ecological	Geopolitical	Watershed/Catchment/HUC
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	counterminous United States	East Midlands	Nachusa Grasslands	United States	Laramie City's aquifer protection area
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	>1,000,000 km^2	1000-10,000 km^2.	10-100 km^2	>1,000,000 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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	* ? Comment: Watersheds (12-digit HUCs).	*	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	*	spatially lumped (in all cases)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	*	*	other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin)	length, for linear feature (e.g., stream mile)	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	irregular	multiple unrelated locations	Area varies by site	stream reach (site)	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	*	*	Analytic	*	Numeric
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	*	*	deterministic	*	*
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	*	*	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	*	Not applicable	No	*	Unclear
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	*	Not applicable	No	*	*
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	*	*	None	*	*
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	*	Not applicable	No	*	Unclear
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	*	Not applicable	No	*	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	*	Not applicable	No	*	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
North America United States	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	North America United States Wyoming

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

New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
*	*	None	*	*

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	39.5	52.22	41.89	36.21	41.31
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-98.35	-0.91	-89.34	-113.76	-105.46
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	*	*	WGS84	*	*
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Estimated	Estimated	Provided	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Created Greenspace \| Grasslands	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Rivers and Streams	Ground Water \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Terrestrial	restored landfills and grasslands	Restored prairie, prairie remnants, and cropland	reach	watershed
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	Individual or population, within a species	Species	Guild or Assemblage	Not applicable

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
*	Genus Calliopum Lasioglossum Species Apis mellifera Bombus lapidarius Oedemera nobilis Episyrphus balteatus Bombus terrestris/lucorum Bombus pascuorum	other Bees	*	*

EnviroAtlas URL

New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
Average Annual Precipitation, Natural Biological Nitrogen Fixation, The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)	GAP Ecological Systems	GAP Ecological Systems	None Available	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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Soil formation and composition Decomposition and fixing processes	[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	[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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
Atmosphere Soil (2) Specific types of soil Quality Indicator	*	None	Rivers and Streams (111) Fauna (4) Fish Quality 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	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
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)	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)	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)	Year (Not applicable)	Age of site restoration (years) Management (Not applicable)	Dollar cost ($/fish/size class)	*

Intermediate

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
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 (%)	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)	*

Response

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	EM-709	EM-788	New or revised model	Continuation of trends
Observed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.observedResponseHelp ?	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	*
Computed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.computedResponseHelp ?	Natural BNF per HUC12 (kg N ha^-1 yr^-1)	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)	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:

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