Laserfiche WebLink
As previously stated in the process of weighting, a reliable estimate of variance is lost. Therefore a Two - <br />sample t -test was completed against each reference area using the logic that if BRB -5 passes against <br />each reference area individually, the reclaimed area would thus pass the weighted herbaceous <br />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 />to <br />xbr- 0.94.f <br />= <br />Shy (0.9 s S"f 2 <br />nbr nref <br />t — 2193.0 — (0.9 * 835.1) = 13.78 <br />1119654.6 (0.81 * 309914.9) <br />30 + 30 <br />f SE�ar <br />Maas = y <br />(SEb,. + (0.9 * .SE,fff <br />nbr — 1 n"'f - 1 <br />_ 1119654.6 (0.81 * 309914.9) — <br />dfaac — 30 30 _ 41.36 or 41 <br />193.2 s4 (0.9 #101.6 }+ <br />30 — 1 30— 1 <br />Since critical t,. = 0.851 (one - tailed, alpha = 0.2, 41 dfsat) and tc is greater than this critical value, the <br />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 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 Sagebrush Reference Area <br />allowable herbaceous production is as follows: <br />We <br />