\magnification=\magstep1
\noindent
{\it Andrew McAward and Ed Schwendemann -- Final Paper}
\bigskip
Your presentation to the class was very good, and you had some good 
background information on the Blackstone River that other groups
did not mention.  

The final project paper is also very good.  You did a reasonable job
with the measurements of the different categories of surfaces, and
the discussion of you would define and compute the run-off index is
also mostly good.  The main comment I have is that there
are a number of other ways to set up reasonable methods there and
some of them might be {\it better choices} in some ways.  For instance,
the way you computed $z$-scores for each block in each category, 
then took a weighted average of the $z$-scores is actually a bit
``backwards'' if you want to use statistical techniques based
on the standard normal distribution to identify the problem areas.
Namely, it would be better to take the weighted average of the 
areas of the the different categories of surfaces for each ``block''
and call that the $RI$ for that block.  Then if you computed
the average and SD of those $RI$ values and did the $z$-scores
based on the single $RI$ values, you would have a direct basis of
comparison for the different blocks.  
The way you set this up would not yield values that
followed a standard normal distribution (even approximately).
So you would still need to do something else to compare your
runoff-index values for different blocks and pick out the 
problem areas.  You did not really consider that last step, 
so what you said was not quite complete.  

The other general comment I have is that the paper has two
very abrupt transitions, one at the point where 
you begin to describe the campus measurement process, and
the second at the start of the section about ideas for 
things that could be done on campus to minimize runoff
problems.  The ``seams are showing'' in both of those
places.  You could have either added section headings
to indicate where you were going next, or included
transition sentences to do the same thing.  

Technical points in the citations and bibliography are 
handled very well.
 
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1)}  ``Decrease in slope'' is not correct here.  You
mean ``change in elevation.''  The slope is the ratio
``rise over run'' and that is actually pretty consistent
over the whole hillside.  
\item{2)}  The quotation about the Blackstone River
being ``the most polluted river in the country 
with respect to toxic sediments'' is actually used
twice in three pages.  This is repetitive and the 
second does not add anything.  It might have been
good to mention exactly why this is important 
in combination with runoff, though.  Note that 
water flowing into the Blackstone can stir up 
sediment from the river bed and mix it back into
the water.
\item{3)}  ``Activities like boating'' is not 
a complete sentence.  You could say `` ... 
suitable for `secondary contact' activities
only'' (such as boating). 
\item{4)}  This is one of the ``seams are showing''
spots I mentioned above.   
\item{5)}  I'm assuming the $w_i$ are the weighting
factors discussed two pages before.  It might be
good to mention that that is what they are before
giving the formula -- say ``Let $w_i$ be the weighting
factors introduced previously. Then we compute a
runoff index value by ... '' 
\item{6)}  This is the other ``seams are showing''
place.   
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Final Project Grades}
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Presentation:}  A-  (92)
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Paper Content:}  A- (92)  
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Paper Form:}  A- (92)
\bye
