My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL40397
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL40397
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:59:36 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:38:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/15/2006
Doc Name
2006 Production Date Information
From
Dan Mathews
To
Kent Gorham
Permit Index Doc Type
Vegetation
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.
/
13
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
Dan <br />From: Mathews, Dan (~[/r ~ <br />Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2.44 PM <br />To: Brown, Sandy; Gorham, Kent <br />Subject: Golden Eagle 2006 Production Data <br />Sandy and Kent: <br />Awhile back you asked me to take a look at the subject data, to confirm that the consultant used the proper statistical <br />procedures. I did confirm this at the time; everything looked copacetic. The only question we had was in regard to the fact <br />that the undesirable forb component was not identified, and was included in the data totals. I didn't have time at that point <br />to run the analyses myself, but I was able to do that today (I recently got StatGraphics loaded back on my computer and <br />wanted to try it out; this data seemed like a good candidate). <br />Along with some summary statistics, I ran reverse null t-test comparisons for the Rangeland and AVF areas. In both <br />cases, I subtracted out the Undesirable Forb component, and ran the comparisons on that basis. In both cases, the null <br />hypothesis of equality was rejected; the alternative hypothesis (Reference area mean less than Reclaim area mean) was <br />accepted. This was pretty much a statistical confirmation of what was intuitively obvious from the data. The t-tests <br />demonstrated that the reclaim area means exceed the respective reference area means at the 80% level of statistical <br />confidence, pursuant to Rule 4.15.11(2)(c). If necessary, I would have run the test of reclaim area mean vs (90%) of <br />reference area mean, which the rule allows, but in this case it wasn't necessary (i.e. demonstration was made for 100% of <br />reference area mean, ergo would also be the case for 90% of reference area mean). <br />I'll put a copy of the StatGraphics printouts in the mail. <br />Daniel T. Mathews <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />Grand Junction Field Office <br />101 South 3rd, Suite 301 <br />Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 <br />daniel. mathews(o)state.co. us <br />Phone (970)242-5025 <br />FAX (970) 241-1516 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.