Laserfiche WebLink
As previously stated in the process of weighting, a reliable estimate of variance is lost. Therefore a two - <br />sample West was completed against each of the two reference areas using the logic that if BRB -5 passes <br />against each reference area individually, then the reclaimed area would thus pass the weighted <br />herbaceous production performance standard. <br />A two- sample t -test of Reverse Null Hypothesis with Satterthwaite's Adjustment of the assertion that the <br />2011 BRB -5 allowable herbaceous production is indistinguishable from Mountain Brush Reference Area <br />allowable herbaceous production is as follows: <br />t — 3 b, — 0.9xref <br />c — <br />0.9 Fb" S2 <br />nref <br />tc — 2193.0 — (0.9 * 835.1) =13.78 <br />1119654.6 (0.81 * 309914.9) <br />30 + 30 <br />SE, Qt <br />dfaat = + <br />tSEbr + (0.9 * SE,, f� <br />73 br — 1 72 "f - 1 <br />f 1119654.6 (0.81 * 309914.9)4 <br />38 + 30 <br />dfsar = = 41.38 or 41 <br />(193.2 4 + (0.9 * 101.6)4 <br />30 --1 30— 1 <br />Since critical t, = 0.851 (one - tailed, alpha = 0.2, 41 dfsat) and t, (13.78) is greater than this critical value, <br />the hypothesis of no difference is rejected and reclamation success for Phase III herbaceous production <br />relative to the 2011 Mountain Brush Reference area is demonstrated. <br />A two- sample t4est of Reverse Null Hypothesis with Satterthwaite's Adjustment of the assertion that the <br />2011 BRB -5 allowable herbaceous production is indistinguishable from Sagebrush Reference Area <br />allowable herbaceous production is as follows: <br />21 <br />