Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Report for the Pend Oreille Wetlands Wildlife Project, Technical Report 2002.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), developed in 1980 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1980a, USFWS 1980b), uses a habitat/species based approach to assessing project impacts, and is a convenient tool to document the predicted effects of proposed management actions. The Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) endorsed the use of HEP in its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to evaluate wildlife benefits and impacts associated with the development and operation of the federal Columbia River Basin hydroelectric system (NPPC 1994). The Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group (AFIWG) used HEP in 1987 to evaluate wildlife habitat losses attributed to the Albeni Falls hydroelectric facility (Martin et al. 1988). In 1992, the AFIWG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Kalispel, Coeur d'Alene, and Kootenai Tribes) began implementing activities to mitigate these losses. Implementation activities include protecting, restoring and enhancing wildlife habitat. HEPs are used extensively within the NPPC's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Wildlife managers use HEP to determine habitat lost from the construction of the federal hydroelectric projects and habitat gained through NPPC mitigation program. Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models for each of the seven target species are used to determine habitat quality and quantity losses for representative habitat cover types for this project. Target species include Bald Eagle, black-capped chickadee, Canada goose, mallard, muskrat, white-tailed deer and yellow warbler. In 2002, a HEP team determined the habitat condition of the 436-acre Pend Oreille Wetlands Wildlife Project (Figure 1). The HEP team consisted of the following members and agencies: Roy Finley, Kalispel Natural Resource Department (KNRD); Neil Lockwood, KNRD; Brian Merson, KNRD; Sonny Finley, KNRD; Darren Holmes, KNRD; Anna, Washington Dept. of Fish and Game (WDFW); and Scott, WDFW. Baseline Habitat Units (HU) will be credited to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for protection of habitats within the project area. The HSI models used were identical to those modified for use in 1991 (Attachment A). The objective of using HEP as an assessment tool is two-fold. First, it provides an unbiased and measured assessment of wildlife habitats within the mitigation parcel. This data is used to offset the Albeni Falls Dam HU loss ledger. That ledger accounts for the loss of wildlife habitat that resulted from the construction and inundation of Albeni Falls hydroelectric project and the extent to which those losses have been mitigated. Additionally, the baseline HEP evaluation describes existing habitat conditions on the property and will be used, along with other tools, to determine initial management, restoration, and enhancement activities. HEP analyses will be completed every five years to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies in improving and maintaining habitat conditions while providing additional HU crediting to BPA for enhanced habitat values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.028 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".