Project Charter BURP MMI Recalibration.docx

BURP MMI Recalibration Project Charter BURP MMI Recalibration Project Charter

Opportunity Statement:

Problem(s) the project is looking to solve

The current Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP) Multi-Metric Indices (for both wadeable streams and non-wadeable rivers) were developed using data gathered between 1998-2008. ID DEQ has continued sampling ~240 BURP each year since then (a mix of regional choice, probabilistic, and reference/trend sites), which could be used in an index recalibration that seeks to understand if our metrics previously selected to discriminate between stressed and non-stressed sites are continuing to perform well in light of potential shifts in reference site condition.

Updated biological indices for DEQ assessment of BURP sites will provide a more complete representation of site conditions as they will incorporate nearly all 30 years of our available dataset.

The Idaho DEQ Surface Water seeks to contract with Tetra Tech to undertake recalibration or redevelopment of our most used biological assessment indices. This will help DEQ to make scientifically informed assessment and listing/delisting decisions in the Integrated Report, as well as provide a more reputable metric score that may be used by external partners to help inform monitoring efforts or allocate limited restoration resources during implementation plans.

During the first few meetings with Tetra Tech after project kickoff, IDEQ will provide feedback on the perceived shortcomings of the old indices and expectations for the new indices.

Recommended Solution How the project will solve the problem(s)

Contract with Ben Jessup and Jen Stamp of Tetra Tech to evaluate current MMI2, incorporate BURP data collected and analyzed over the life of the program, and ensure that discrimination efficiencies are maintained or improved for each ecoregion and index (SFI, SMI, SHI, etc). We will also investigate implementing a new approach instead of the ecoregion approach, potentially a statewide model.

In Scope:

What is in scope

· Roughly one year time period from project inception to completion (barring unforeseen hurdles)

· Incorporate monitoring data across entire life of BURP program

· Trend analysis using all available BURP data

· With new data incorporated evaluate continued performance of existing metrics

· Investigate replacing, modifying or adding metrics for indices that no longer offer strong discrimination between stressed and non-stressed sites (ref and non-ref)

· Investigate the benefits/drawbacks of using reference condition approach, O/E approach, or statewide model approach

Out of Scope:

Identify areas / items out of scope for this project

· Biological condition gradient approach – likely too time intensive and requires expert panel to grade and assess sites/set thresholds

Project Benefits:

List the benefits as a result of successfully executing the project

· Updated biological indices for BURP site assessment will provide a more complete representation of site conditions as they will incorporate nearly all 30 years of the available dataset.

· This project provides a chance to mark past issues or shortcomings with the old indices and explore options for improvement.

Project Leadership:

Key Stakeholders:

ID DEQ

Surface Water Bureau

Other internal DEQ groups and external parties who use or reference the Integrated Report, BURP data, or BURP scores

Core Team:

List the names of project team members. If names are not known, then identify team name.

Timelines & Milestones:

Completed, July ‘25

Scoping meeting with Tetra Tech to discuss potential paths and associated costs/internal staff participation requirements.

· DEQ will refine EPA grant proposal with information and ballpark cost established meeting.

Late Summer 2025 Completed, Aug. 12th

Completed, Aug. 27th

Step 1) Official Project Kickoff. Integrate biological data, sample metadata, habitat data, and pair with spatially related water quality data when available.

· Copy of EDAS to TT from DEQ whenever requested, TT will identify any missing water quality data points/parameters desired and DEQ will find option for flat file transfer as needed. Wei could also export tables with TT parameters of interest.

May 2026 Wei will be primary POC when EW on Maternity Leave (~Jan-Mar). EW can take meetings as needed in March.

Step 2) Perform GIS desktop analysis to identify disturbance gradients and separate stressed and non-stressed sites. Typically decided based on GIS desktop exercise but may include WQ data if enough is available. Overall aim is to redevelop the disturbance gradient using the same general strategy as the original, but not exactly the same coverages/thresholds. Comment by Jessup, Benjamin: Are the existing/historical disturbance criteria important to replicate? This depends on the questions IDEQ is asking.

If asking whether the index is still performing as originally calibrated, then I would think we would want continuity of the disturbance gradient. This might be difficult given changes in GIS coverages originally used and currently available.

If a new disturbance gradient is desired to refine it and take advantage of current GIS coverage, then the comparability might not be pure. We could still evaluate different indices and metrics along the new gradient.

If trend analysis is important, we might want to pay attention to landscape changes over time. This adds complexity.

Recommendation: redevelop the disturbance gradient using the same general strategy as the original, but not exactly the same coverages/thresholds.

No edits are necessary but we can continue to discuss. Comment by Emily Washburne: EW edit to clarify we are going with Ben recommendation

· TT performs trend analysis on reference/trend sites to see if notable changes have occurred.

· IDEQ GIS staff to provide basic watershed delineations that align as closely as possible with historic site evaluation.

· Habitat will be left out of disturbance gradient evaluation.

Early Summer 2026

Step 3) Parse out different categories of reference sites (site classes) based on natural indicators to understand potential natural gradients and important predictor variables. Use ordination and cluster analysis to associate biological sample composition with potential predictor variables that explain reference biological types, with special consideration of existing ecoregional site classes.

· TT performs evaluation of previous ecoregional site class split performance. Identify and discuss potential new variables with small DEQ TAC group.

· Decision Point: DEQ TAC group meets with TT to decide path forward, maintain previous framework or move in new direction.

Summer 2026

Step 5) Decide on suite of metrics that offers best discrimination between stressed and non-stressed sites. Comment by Emily Washburne: EW refine this section

· DEQ TAC, PM and TT will meet to evaluate candidate suites of metrics that represent diverse types of information, are ecologically meaningful (mechanism of response can be explained), are not redundant with other metrics in the index, and show a consistent response along a known disturbance gradient.

Fall 2026

Step 6) Create updated Biological Assessments and Framework Development document, trend report, and a model calculation or application tool (r script desired by Wei). Ben/Jen will work with DEQ users to make sure they understand the performance capabilities of the index and how to interpret and apply it. We can continue using EDAS for data storage and manipulation.

· TT will create R script that produces the updated metrics/indices.

· Wei will use the R script and ensure that IDASA2 can calculate the updated IBI and produce macro/fish/habitat rating scores.

· DEQ will update the Legacy Data tab in IDASA2 to document the transition from the SMI2, SFI2, SHI2 to “IBI Version 3”.

· TT will create and give a presentation on appropriate use and application of indices to DEQ assessment staff (~16 individuals).

Winter 2027 (complete by ~May 2027)

Assumptions (A) & Constraints (C):

Known assumptions and/or constraints

AI – The incorporation of all ~30 years of BURP will change the discrimination efficiencies for two of the wadeable stream indices (SMI, SFI) across the three recognized ecoregions (PPBV, Foothills, Mountains), same for the non-wadeable river indices (RMI, RFI) across two ecoregions (Mountain, non-mountain). Habitat index will likely be maintained as is.

A2 – Metrics in each index category will need to be reevaluated to ensure that they provide adequate discrimination between stressed and non-stressed sites.

C1 – If adhering to the ecoregion approach, some ecoregions have fewer high quality reference sites (non-stressed) available for comparison.

C2 – River sites will have significantly fewer datapoints available for calibration and analysis over the life of the program.

Success Criteria:

Criteria for measuring project success and the key contributing factors

· Creation of an updated RMI3, RFI3, and RHI3 if warranted (RHI3 may contain same components as RHI2).

· Any updated IBI should have improved performance/discrimination efficiency when compared to the previous MMI2.

· Incorporate description of appropriate IBI v.3 use/application into a Water Body Assessment Guidance document update.

image1.png image2.svg S T A T E O F I D A H O D E P A R T M E N T O F E N V I R O NM E N T A L Q U A L I T Y image3.png