Laserfiche WebLink
c) The discussion and statistics given in the paragraph applicable to Case 4, beginning on <br />page (e)-37, contain some errors and omissions. We recommend that the narrative <br />paragraph on page (e)-37 be amended to state: <br />4) If sample adequacy is not achieved in the reference area (regardless of <br />whether sample adequacy is achieved in the reclaimed area), success will <br />be demonstrated by use of the two-sample "reverse null " Nest with <br />Satterthwaite approximation of standard error and degrees of freedom. The <br />test can be used if the following 2 conditions are met: 1) a minimum of 30 <br />sample observations are taken in the reclaimed area and also in the <br />reference area, and 2) the reclaimed area sample mean is greater than Q. <br />For clarification, we recommend that the "acceptance/rejection rule" for the t-test be <br />included immediately following the t-test on page (e)-38: <br />If the calculated t value is greater than the table t value (alpha = 0. 20, <br />dfSAT), then the null hypothesis is rejected. <br />Please consider these recommendations and revise the section as appropriate. <br />12. The reference to Rule 4.15.18(3) and (4) on page (e)-41, first paragraph under <br />"Revegetation Success Criteria..." heading is incorrect. The correct reference is 4.15.8. <br />Please correct the reference. <br />13. The same concerns noted in Item 11 for "Revegetation Success Criteria and Statistical <br />Procedures-Irrigated Pasture" section, beginning on page (e)-35, are also applicable to the <br />"Revegetation Success Criteria and Statistical Procedures-Dryland Pasture" section, <br />beginning on page (e)-41. Please amend the information presented in the latter section <br />to be consistent with amendments that will be made to corresponding portions of the <br />former section, in response to Item 11. <br />14. The discussion under "Revegetation Monitoring-All Areas" is somewhat confusing, and <br />seems to combine discussion of interim monitoring with sampling for final bond release. <br />If only one interim monitoring check is planned for various reclaimed parcels, monitoring <br />during the 4th growing season might be more useful than 2nd growing season. Achievement <br />of sample adequacy is not required for interim monitoring, but it would be logical to <br />employ sampling procedures that are otherwise consistent with final bond release <br />procedures, so as to provide representative data that can provide some indication of <br />establishment success and apparent potential for stands to meet bond release criteria in the <br />future. Procedures applicable to bond release sampling are fully addressed in previous <br />sections of the narrative, and should not be addressed in the narrative section applicable to <br />interim monitoring. Please consider these concerns, and amend the section as <br />appropriate. <br />15. On page (e)-50, final paragraph, there is reference to Exhibit 2.05.4-5 for the location of <br />James Martin (Dirk Richards) Property. The referenced exhibit does not include surface <br />6