My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE61897
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE61897
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:08:24 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 7:20:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980003
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
VEGETATION REFERENCE AREA STUDY
Section_Exhibit Name
1996 APPENDIX C
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
t = 0.1 x X) n <br />• s <br />With R = mean <br />s = standard deviation <br />' n = number of samples <br />This is equivalent to the formula suggested by Mike Savage in his letter to <br />David Duba, dated July 14, 1981 (see attached copy). The 0.1 factor in the <br />equation implies estimation to within 10% of the actual mean value. Tabu- <br />lar t - values were from the p = 0.2 level fora two-tailed distribution, <br />with the appropriate degrees of freedom, providing 80% statistical confi- <br />dence in the estimate. For each data set, after some data were collected, <br />R, s, and t were computed. If the computed t did not exceed the tabular t, <br />sampling was continued and t was recomputed. This process was repeated <br />until the computed t exceeded the tabular t. At this point, sampling was <br />considered sufficient, as the data set estimated within 10% of the actual <br />mean value with 80~ statistical confidence. <br />• For data collected in 1981, the same sequence of data presentation will be <br />followed as for data collected and presented in the 1980 report. Table A.1 <br />and A.2 contains herbaceous biomass data collected in 1981 in the aspen <br />mine and reference areas. Thirty lmz plots were clipped on the mine area, <br />and 28 on the reference area. The mean dry weight on the reference area <br />(120.6 g/m2) slightly exceeded that on the mine area (112.3 g/m2). Clipped <br />samples were sorted into grass and forb categories; according to Mike <br />Savage, separation by species was not required, since cover data had been <br />previously presented by species in the 1980 report (personal communication <br />at Hayden Gulch mine, August 18, 1981). Grass and forb percentages were <br />comparable on the mine and reference areas, at 61% and 54~ respectively, of <br />the total, while fortis comprised the remainder. <br />Table A.5 presents shrub and tree density data for the aspen vegetation <br />type, for both mine and reference areas. The table includes data collected <br />in 1980 and three transects sampled in 1981 (nos. 5-7) for shrubs and ane <br />for trees in the mine area. Mhen combined with the 1980 mine area data, <br />• the 1981 data allow sample adequacy requirements to be met. The mean <br />density of shrubs and seedlings was 108.0 ± 6.4 per 250mz. <br />637C3 ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.