Laserfiche WebLink
Greg Lewicki <br />From: Mathews, Dan [Daniel. Mathews@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:52 PM <br />To: greg@lewicki.biz <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: New Horizon <br />Greg, <br />Regarding the problem with the reference area cover data; I discussed it with Sandy Brown, and she suggested an <br />approach that might possible work... <br />A passible so ution mi ht be to re-sam to reference area cover ASAP, and this time sam le it to meet sam le ade uac . <br />Assuming the reference area has not been gazed or mowed, but has een irnga ed, the cover of current year vegetative <br />growth in the reference area may be as high or higher now than it would have been in late May. If this can be confirmed <br />(based on management applied and comparison of May and September reference area cover), and if cover success can <br />be demonstrated by comparison of the May reclaimed area statistically adequate cover data to the September reference <br />area statistically adequate cover data, it could probably be argued that the comparison should be a valid demonstration of <br />success. <br />Maybe give some thought to this, and let me know what you think. This-a.' roach oach-maybe the only possible way to <br />salvage this-Y..?. ear's reclaimed area data, since the sample size in both the reclaimed area and the reference area was too <br />sma l to allow far the reverse nuTfcomparison, under Rule 4.1511 Dan <br />