APPENDIX 11. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND HISTOGRAMS OF VARIOUS
PARAMETERS FOR GHN, OTHER QUESTA ROCK PILES, AND ANALOG
MATERIALS.
DENSITY FOR GHN, OTHER QUESTA ROCK PILES, AND ANALOG
MATERIALS
Descriptive statistics
TABLE A11-1. Descriptive statistics of density (g/cc) by geologic units for GHN and for
Questa materials. Histograms are below.
Unit
Mean
Median
Traffic
Unit C
Unit I
Unit J
Unit N
Unit K
Unit O
Unit M
Unit U
Unit V
Unit RUB
All GHN (including
unstable GHN)
Middle
SGS
SPR
SSS
SSW
All rock piles
Debris Flow
Alteration scars
Colluvium
Andesites
Rhyolite (Amalia
Tuff)
All Questa materials
1.88
1.73
2.00
1.81
1.81
1.77
1.83
1.91
1.82
1.89
1.70
1.84
2.12
1.75
1.79
1.90
1.95
1.85
1.87
1.90
2.18
2.0
1.8
1.8
Standard
error
0.03
0.06
Minimum
Maximum
1.86
1.76
Standard
deviation
0.11
0.12
1.72
1.57
2.06
1.85
1.85
1.81
1.78
1.81
1.97
1.86
1.86
1.71
1.83
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.15
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01
1.59
1.63
1.51
1.53
1.61
1.71
1.83
1.64
1.51
1.94
1.99
1.96
2.48
2.07
1.89
1.99
1.75
2.49
1.83
1.92
1.90
1.84
1.94
1.90
0.26
0.12
0.27
0.14
0.34
0.21
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.01
0.11
0.06
1.43
1.68
1.40
1.40
1.27
1.51
2.19
2.09
2.43
2.49
2.46
2.27
1.8
0.18
0.01
1.3
2.4
Number of
Samples
12
4
1
12
9
14
35
9
6
4
7
118
1
1
11
7
15
153
11
12
1
1
1
176
Statistical Analyses
Hypothesis 1. The dry density of the different geologic units in GHN rock pile is
different.
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was selected, which assesses the
samples in terms of mean. The tests were calculated using the SigmaStat@ software.
493
Results. The data are normal (P = 0.180) and have Equal Variance (P = 0.556). The
results are in Table A11-2.
TABLE A11-2. Comparisons of dry density (g/cc) in GHN units using standard ANOVA
analysis.
Unit
Traffic
Unit C-I
Unit J
Unit K
Unit N
Unit O
Unit M
Unit U
Unit V
Unit RUB (rubble zone)
Number
12
5
12
14
9
35
9
6
4
7
Mean
1.88
1.79
1.81
1.77
1.81
1.83
1.92
1.82
1.89
1.70
Standard
deviation
0.11
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.083
0.077
0.040
SEM
0.032
0.070
0.034
0.043
0.038
0.027
0.049
0.034
0.039
0.015
Conclusion
The differences in the mean values among the geologic units are not great enough to
exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is
not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.090). The dry density of the geologic units
is similar.
Hypothesis 2. The dry density of stable GHN rock pile is different from the dry density in
the unstable GHN rock pile.
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was selected, which assesses the samples in
terms of mean between two groups of data. The tests were calculated using the
SigmaStat@ software.
Results. The Normality Test Passed (P = 0.810), but the Equal Variance Test Failed (P <
0.050), so the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was used. The results are in Table A11-3.
TABLE A11-3. Comparisons of dry density (g/cc) between the unstable and stable
portions of GHN using the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test.
GHN group
stable
unstable
N
113
5
Missing
0
0
Median
1.83
2.10
25%
1.73
1.87
75%
1.92
2.37
Conclusion. The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than
would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P = 0.012).
Therefore, there is a difference between the median dry density between the unstable and
stable portions of GHN rock pile.
494
Hypothesis 3. The dry density of the density in the Questa rock piles is different from
each other.
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. Because the histograms indicate that the data are not approximately normally
distributed, the non-parametric test, Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on
ranks, was selected, which assesses the samples in terms of median, not mean. The tests
were calculated using the SigmaStat software. The test statistic in Kruskal-Wallis is
called H. If the H statistic is small, the average ranks observed for the groups are
approximately the same. If the H statistic is large, the variability among the average ranks
is larger than expected from random sampling, i.e. the samples are from different
distributions. The P value calculated for the test statistic H is the probability of
incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis. Only tests for which the p-value is less than 0.05
(the 5% level of the test; α-0.05) are acceptable evidence that the two samples are drawn
from different distributions.
Results. The results are in Table A11-4.
TABLE A11-4. Comparisons of dry density (g/cc) between the GHN, Spring Gulch
(SPR), Sugar Shack South (SSS) and Sugar Shack West (SSW) using the Kruskal-Wallis
One Way Analysis of Variance analysis. H = 5.526 with 3 degrees of freedom. (P =
0.137).
Group
GHN
SPR
SSS
SSW
N
118
11
7
15
Missing
0
0
0
0
Median
1.83
1.83
1.92
1.90
25%
1.74
1.58
1.85
1.79
75%
1.92
1.96
1.94
2.12
Conclusion. The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not
great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling
variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.137). Therefore, the dry
density of the four rock piles is similar.
Hypothesis 4. The dry density of the density in the Questa rock piles is different from the
debris flows and alteration scars (analog sites).
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
and analog sites 2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. Because the histograms indicate that the data are not approximately normally
distributed, the non-parametric test, Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on
ranks, was selected, which assesses the samples in terms of median, not mean. The tests
were calculated using the SigmaStat software. The test statistic in Kruskal-Wallis is
called H. If the H statistic is small, the average ranks observed for the groups are
approximately the same. If the H statistic is large, the variability among the average ranks
495
is larger than expected from random sampling, i.e. the samples are from different
distributions. The P value calculated for the test statistic H is the probability of
incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis. Only tests for which the p-value is less than 0.05
(the 5% level of the test; α-0.05) are acceptable evidence that the two samples are drawn
from different distributions.
Results. The results are in Table A11-5.
TABLE A11-5. Comparisons of dry density (g/cc) between the Questa rock piles and the
analog sites (alteration scars, debris flows) using the Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis
of Variance analysis. H = 1.827 with 2 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.401).
Group
all rock piles
debris flows
alteration scar
N
153
11
12
Missing
0
0
0
Median
1.84
1.94
1.90
25%
1.74
1.56
1.77
75%
1.94
2.14
2.03
Conclusion. The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not
great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling
variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.401). Therefore the
density is similar for the Questa rock piles and analog sites.
Dry density histograms
GHN Traffic Zone
GHN Unit C
8
2.0
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.5
1.0
0.5
1
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
Dry Density (g/cc)
2.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
Density (g/cc)
GHN Unit J
GHN Unit C-I
2.0
8
Number of Sampes
Number of Samples
7
1.5
1.0
0.5
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
2.5
3.0
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
496
GHN Unit N
GHN Unit J-N
5
14
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
12
4
3
2
10
8
6
4
1
2
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
1.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
GHN Unit K
3.0
2.5
3.0
Unit O
20
Number of Samples
6
5
Number of Samples
2.5
Dry Density (g/cc)
4
3
2
15
10
5
1
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
1.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
Dry Density (g/cc)
Unit MOQ
GHN Unit M
20
4.0
Number of Samples
Number of Sample
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
15
10
5
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
1.0
3.0
1.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
2.5
GHN Unit V
4.0
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
GHN Unit U
4.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
Dry Density (g/cc)
2.5
3.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
497
GHN Unit RUB
7
7
6
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
GHN Unit T-U-V
8
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
1
1
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
1.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
GHN Rock Pile
3.0
Spring Gulch Rock Pile
60
4.0
3.5
50
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
2.5
Dry Density (g/cc)
40
30
20
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
10
0.5
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
0.0
1.0
3.0
1.5
Dry Density (g/cc)
All Questa Rock Piles
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
Questa Debris Flows
4.0
70
3.5
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
80
60
50
40
30
20
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
10
0
1.0
3.0
2.5
0.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
Sugar Shack West Rock Pile
4.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
Dry Density (g/cc)
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
Dry Density (g/cc)
Sugar Shack South Rock Pile
0.5
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
2.5
3.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
498
Questa Alteration Scars
All Questa Materials
80
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
5
4
3
2
70
60
50
40
30
20
1
10
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Dry Density (g/cc)
Dry Density (g/cc)
LITHOLOGY FOR GHN, OTHER QUESTA ROCK PILES, AND ANALOG
MATERIALS
Descriptive statistics
TABLE A11-6. Descriptive statistics for lithology and hydrothermal alteration for GHN.
Data are in Appendix 7 and project Access database.
Sample
Description
Average
No of samples
Unit C
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit I
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit J
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit N
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit K
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit L
Rhyolite
%
(Amalia
Tuff)
100
1
Andesite
%
55.33333
40.61711
67
29.05168
9
6
68.75
35.93148
49.88889
42.20617
8
9
38
25.96151
Intrusive
granite/
aplite %
QSP %
Prophylitic
%
Argillic
%
40
1
35.375
24.63411
30.75
34.02328
8
4
51.5
24.94995
4.714286
3.039424
3.5
2.081666
0
10
7
4
64.53333
28.07609
14
22.72444
31.53333
15.19806
6.2
2.455315
4.285714
1.603567
16
15
6
15
15
7
36.66667
46.18802
63.33333
46.18802
28.33333
5.773503
10
9.165151
4
3
3
3
3
1
10.5
13.43503
89.5
13.43503
11.5
4.949747
17.5
3.535534
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
499
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit O
18.18182
9.536896
84.31818
12.34427
11.25
9.464847
29
13.18696
10.54167
3.705289
3.3
0.894427
15
15
4
16
16
6
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
Unit M
63.75
7.5
36.25
7.5
35
7.071068
3.666667
3.785939
2.5
0.707107
4
4
4
3
2
GHN-LFG0090
Unit P
0
100
25
8
3
avg
count
unit R
18.33333
3
81.66667
3
35
3
10.66667
3
3
2
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
unit S
7.5
10.6066
92.5
10.6066
27.5
3.535534
15
7.071068
2
2
2
2
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
unit U
40
34.64102
66.66667
23.09401
48.33333
12.58306
9
1.732051
3
3
3
3
3
1
avg
count
unit V
56.66667
3
33.33333
3
25
3
7.333333
3
2
1
Average
Standard
deviation
No of samples
unit rubble
0.333333
0.57735
99.66667
0.57735
11
3.605551
12.33333
7.505553
3
3
3
3
0
Histograms for lithology and hydrothermal alteration
GHN
25
GHN
35
30
20
Number
Number
25
15
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
20
40
60
% rhyolite (Amalia Tuff)
80
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Andesite
500
GHN
20
40
15
30
10
20
5
10
0
0
20
40
GHN
50
Number
Number
25
60
80
100
0
0
20
%QSP alteration
40
60
80
100
% Propylitic alteration
GHN
35
30
Number
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Argillic alteration
PASTE pH FOR GHN, OTHER QUESTA ROCK PILES, AND ANALOG
MATERIALS
Descriptive statistics
TABLE A11-7. Descriptive statistics of paste pH by geologic unit (updated from
McLemore et al., 2005, 2006a,b; Tachie-Menson, 2006). Descriptions of geologic units
are in Table 20. Data are in Appendix 7 and project Access database.
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
traffic
unit C
unit I
unit J
unit N
unit K
unit L
unit M
unit O
unit Q
unit P
unit R
unit S
unit T
unit U
unit V
4.4
2.92
3.05
3.39
3.51
4.78
6.94
4.52
5.40
5.35
5.9
6.14
6.22
4.02
3.91
4.39
4.3
2.88
2.96
3.17
3.54
4.31
7.00
4.29
5.23
5.64
1.0
0.36
0.70
0.75
0.64
1.54
1.22
1.47
1.70
0.67
0.18
0.08
0.13
0.10
0.07
0.26
0.35
0.17
0.13
0.39
2.5
2.33
2.19
2.14
2.15
2.36
4.76
2.36
2.43
4.
6.1
3.50
4.77
5.75
5.53
7.20
8.74
9.56
9.37
5.83
6.68
6.36
4.08
3.91
4.38
1.92
2.09
0.66
0.86
0.61
0.47
0.44
0.25
0.21
0.18
3.17
2.48
2.68
2.45
3.37
9.60
9.79
4.77
5.52
5.77
Number
of
Cases
29
20
31
56
74
36
12
71
182
3
1
17
22
7
17
11
501
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
unit W
Unit RUB
(rubble zone)
colluvium
bedrock
Entire GHN
Blind
Capulin
Middle
Spring Gulch
Sugar Shack
South
Sugar Shack
West
Sulfur Gulch
South
Questa rock
piles
Alteration scars
Debris flow
6.6
3.73
3.63
1.09
0.17
2.39
8.56
Number
of
Cases
2
42
3.78
4.16
4.29
7.78
4.29
5.63
6.47
4.80
3.29
3.34
3.89
7.90
4.30
5.76
7.01
4.32
1.30
1.87
1.57
0.60
1.41
2.03
1.78
1.39
0.19
0.31
0.06
0.11
0.28
0.20
0.25
0.14
2.40
1.86
2.14
6.40
2.37
1.60
2.43
2.19
8.60
9.60
9.79
8.70
7.50
9.70
8.80
8.07
45
36
804
28
25
103
52
131
3.54
2.79
1.64
0.19
1.78
7.80
76
6.23
7.24
1.99
0.16
2.52
9.91
149
4.73
4.19
1.84
0.04
1.60
9.91
1714
4.32
4.47
4.14
3.95
1.58
1.28
0.11
0.17
2.05
2.04
8.30
6.85
215
58
Histograms for paste pH
Number of Samples
12
15
10
5
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
Paste pH
8
10
Unit J
25
Number of Samples
12
10
8
6
4
20
15
10
5
2
0
6
Paste pH
Unit I
14
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
unit C
Traffic Zone
20
0
2
4
6
Paste pH
8
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Paste pH
502
Unit N
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
35
30
25
20
15
10
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
5
0
Unit L
4.0
40
0
2
4
6
8
0.0
10
0
2
4
Unit K
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
8
6
4
2
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
Paste pH
4
6
Unit M
Unit Q
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
10
2.0
20
15
10
5
0
2
4
6
8
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
0
2
4
Paste pH
6
8
10
Paste pH
Unit R
6
Unit S
7
5
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
8
Paste pH
25
4
3
2
1
0
10
35
10
0
8
Unit O
12
0
6
Paste pH
Paste pH
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
4
6
Paste pH
8
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Paste pH
503
unit U
Unit T
6
number of Samples
Number of Samples
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
8
10
16
Number of Samples
7
Number of Samples
6
Paste pH
Unit RUB (rubble zone)
Paste pH
Unit V
6
5
4
3
2
12
8
4
1
0
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
Paste pH
6
14
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
250
200
150
100
12
10
8
6
4
50
2
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
Paste pH
Capulin
8
10
Middle
25
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
6
Paste pH
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
Blind
GHN
300
0
8
Paste pH
20
15
10
5
0
2
4
6
Paste pH
8
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
paste pH
504
Spring Gulch
Sugar Shack South
30
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
20
15
10
5
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
Paste pH
Sulfur Gulch South
number of Samples
Number of Samples
50
40
30
20
400
300
200
100
10
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
8
10
Debris Flows
Alteration Scars
25
Number of Samples
50
Number of Samples
6
Paste pH
Paste pH
40
30
20
20
15
10
5
10
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
Paste pH
4
6
8
10
8
10
Paste pH
Colluvium
Bedrock
30
20
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
10
500
60
0
8
Questa Rock Piles
70
0
6
Paste pH
25
20
15
10
15
10
5
5
0
0
2
4
6
Paste pH
8
10
0
0
2
4
6
Paste pH
505
PYRITE FOR GHN, OTHER QUESTA ROCK PILES, AND ANALOG
MATERIALS
Descriptive statistics
TABLE A11-8. Descriptive statistics of % pyrite by geologic unit, other rock piles, and
other materials. Histograms are below. Data are in Appendix 7 and project Access
database.
Unit
traffic
Unit C
Unit I
Unit J
Unit N
Unit O
Unit M
Unit Q
Unit K
Unit L
Unit P
Unit R
Unit S
Unit T
Unit U
Unit V
Unit W
Unit RUB
colluvium
weathered
bedrock
Stable
GHN
Unstable
GHN
Entire
GHN
SGS
SSS
SSW
Middle
Questa
rock piles
Alteration
scars
Debris
flows
colluvium
andesite
Amalia
intrusives
All
Questa
Mean
Median
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Standard
Deviation
0.16
0.24
1.72
0.84
0.62
0.53
0.42
Standard
Error
0.04
0.07
0.31
0.17
0.10
0.06
0.06
Minimum
Maximum
0.15
0.06
0.13
0.22
0.22
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.00
0.63
0.78
0.55
7.50
3.80
3.00
2.89
1.47
0.77
2.44
1.4
0.31
0.27
0.25
0.33
0.21
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.15
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.20
0.11
0.11
1.03
0.96
0.84
0.34
0.72
0.5
0.5
3.6
0.49
1.06
3.20
0.09
0.10
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.91
6.04
3.61
Number
of Cases
20
11
30
25
36
75
50
2
22
13
1
7
9
5
5
7
1
31
113
44
0.6
0.6
1.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.9
3.6
0.5
0.9
0.68
0.21
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.56
0.03
0
4
380
1.5
1.0
1.9
0.12
0
13.5
232
0. 9
0.6
1.3
0.05
0.0
13.5
617
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.2
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.79
1.42
0.8
1.3
1.3
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.04
0.3
0
0.1
0.04
0
3.5
6.9
3.1
5.4
13.5
40
156
29
80
943
1.1
0.2
1.3
0.26
0
11
60
0.2
0.09
0.36
0.07
0.01
1.9
27
0.6
1.6
0.5
1.9
1.1
0.2
0.5
0.05
0.5
0.7
1.1
2.2
1.3
3.0
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
9
6
11
13.5
27
83
31
19
1175
506
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
Number
of Cases
materials
Hypothesis 1. The pyrite of the different geologic units in GHN rock pile is different.
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. Mann-Whitney rank sum was selected, which assesses the samples in terms of
mean. The tests were calculated using the SigmaStat@ software.
Results. The results are in Table A11-9.
TABLE A11-9. Comparison of units with one another using the Mann-Whitney rank sum
test.
Compare
Groups
Type of
test
Results
Unit C
Unit I
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
Statistically
different
Unit I
Unit J
Unit C
Unit J
Unit J
Unit N
Unit I
Unit JN
Unit C
Unit JN
Unit JN
Unit K
Unit JN
Unit O
Unit JN
Unit MOQ
Unit K
Unit O
Unit M
Unit O
P
(probability
of being
wrong)
0.005
Number of
samples
Median
25%
75%
11
30
0.55
0.87
0.485
0.660
0.658
1.380
Statistically
different
0.008
30
25
0.870
0.573
0.660
0.237
1.38
1.12
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
different
0.918
11
25
0.55
0.57
0.485
0.237
0.658
1.118
0.371
25
36
0.57
0.41
0.237
0.284
1.118
0.885
0.001
30
61
0.87
0.45
0.660
0.248
1.380
1.000
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
0.486
11
61
0.55
0.45
0.485
0.248
0.658
1.000
0.676
61
22
0.45
0.54
0.248
0.220
1.000
0.850
0.562
61
75
0.45
0.51
0.248
0.115
1.000
0.800
0.483
61
127
0.45
0.46
0.248
0.140
1.000
0.810
0.319
22
46
0.54
0.62
0.220
0.430
0.850
0.820
0.866
50
75
0.43
0.51
0.160
0.115
0.860
0.800
507
Compare
Groups
Type of
test
Results
Unit MOQ
Unit K
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
T-test
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
different
Unit JN
Unit MOQ
Unit K
Unit L
Unit RSP
Unit MOQ
Unit R
Unit S
Unit T
Unit V
Unit RSP
Unit TVU
GHN
SGS
GHN
SSS
GHN
SSW
GHN
Middle
SGS
SSS
SGS
SSW
SGS
Middle
SSS
SSW
SSS
Middle
SSW
Middle
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
MannWhitney
rank sum
P
(probability
of being
wrong)
0.359
Number of
samples
Median
25%
75%
127
22
0.46
0.54
0.140
0.220
0.810
0.850
0.483
61
127
0.45
0.46
0.248
0.140
1.000
0.810
0.029
22
13
0.53
0.89
0.220
0.722
0.850
0.978
Statistically
different
0.010
14
127
0.76
0.46
0.670
0.140
0.900
0.810
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
different
0.751
7
9
0.73
0.76
0.650
0.630
0.858
0.820
0.637
5
5
0.526
0.435
0.001
14
19
0.78
0.42
0.670
0.235
0.900
0.591
Statistically
different
<0.001
616
40
0.60
1.48
0.300
0.955
1.02
1.755
Statistically
different
<0.001
616
156
0.60
1.085
0.300
0.478
1.02
2.15
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
different
0.081
616
31
0.60
0.848
0.300
0.400
1.02
1.1
<0.001
616
80
0.60
1.559
0.300
0.828
1.02
2.74
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
different
0.331
40
156
1.48
1.085
0.955
0.478
1.755
2.15
0.007
40
31
1.48
0.848
0.955
0.400
1.755
1.1
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
same
population
Statistically
different
0.042
40
80
1.48
1.559
0.955
0.828
1.755
2.74
0.145
156
31
1.085
0.848
0.478
0.400
2.15
1.1
0.039
156
80
1.085
1.559
0.478
0.828
2.15
2.74
Statistically
different
0.003
31
80
0.848
1.559
0.400
0.828
1.1
2.74
508
Conclusion. The pyrite distribution varies within different units.
Pyrite with depth. The pyrite distribution differs from rock pile to rock pile (Table A-108). The pyrite distributions vary with depth within drill holes in the rock piles, but an
increase in pyrite is found in the hot zone of SI-50.
Pyrite concentration with depth
TH-GH-01
30
9800
Number of Samples
TH-GH-01
Elevation (ft)
9750
9700
9650
9600
25
20
15
10
5
9550
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
8
% Pyrite
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
10
12
14
10
12
Pyrite %
GH-TH-02
25
9460
Number of Samples
9480
TH-GH-02S
Elevation (ft)
9440
9420
9400
9380
9360
9340
9320
20
15
10
5
9300
9280
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
% Pyrite
6
8
Pyrite %
Middle S-2
20
8700
Number of Sample
MIDDLE S-2
8650
Elevation (ft)
8600
8550
8500
8450
8400
15
10
5
8350
8300
0
1
2
3
% Pyrite
4
5
6
0
0
2
4
6
8
14
Pyrite %
509
SGS-WRD-13
25
8660
Number of Samples
Sulfur Gulch South WRD-13
8640
Elevation (ft)
8620
8600
8580
8560
8540
8520
8500
20
15
10
5
8480
8460
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0
4
0
2
4
% Pyrite
6
8
10
12
14
Pyrite %
Histograms for pyrite
Pyrite for all Questa materials
Questa Rock Piles
700
Number of Samples
Number of samples
1000
800
600
400
200
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
14
0
2
4
GHN
10
12
14
400
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
8
Stable Portion GHN
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
6
Pyrite %
Pyrite %
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
Pyrite %
10
12
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Pyrite %
510
Middle Rock Pile
Unstable Portion GHN
40
35
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
160
120
80
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
14
Pyrite %
0
2
4
Sugar Shack South
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
60
40
20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
10
12
14
10
12
14
10
12
14
10
5
0
2
4
6
8
Pyrite %
Alteration Scars
50
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
14
15
0
14
25
20
15
10
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
40
30
20
10
0
14
0
2
4
Pyrite %
6
8
Pyrite %
Colluvium
Debris Flows
25
30
25
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
12
20
Pyrite %
Sulfur Gulch South
20
15
10
5
0
10
25
80
0
8
Sugar Shack West
100
0
6
Pyrite %
0
2
4
6
8
Pyrite %
10
12
14
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
Pyrite %
511
Rhyolite (Amalia Tuff)
30
50
25
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
Andesite
60
40
30
20
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
Pyrite %
4
6
8
10
12
14
Pyrite %
Intrusions (aplite, granite, porphyry)
Number of Samples
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Pyrite %
GRAVIMETRIC MOISTURE CONTENT
Descriptive statistics
TABLE A11-10. Descriptive statistics of gravimetric moisture content (%) by geologic
units and for Questa materials. Histograms are below.
Unit
traffic
Unit C
Unit I
Unit J
Unit N
Unit L
Unit K
Unit O
Unit M
Unit R
Unit S
Unit U
Unit V
Unit W
Unit RUB
All GHN (including
unstable GHN)
Capulin
Middle
Mean
Median
Standard
error
0.7
1.2
2.2
0.8
0.6
Minimum
Maximum
9.5
6.1
14.0
10.3
13.1
Standard
deviation
2.5
2.1
5.0
3.1
2.5
6.9
5.5
10.7
6.6
9.6
14.1
9.3
24.0
17.1
17.3
10.5
11.1
9.8
10.2
10.8
9.6
1.2
2.3
2.5
0.8
2.0
2.7
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.8
1.6
10.5
10.3
2.7
3.3
0.5
0.2
8.3
6.2
5.5
9.9
7.4
8.0
8.6
8.6
6.9
2.4
11.8
18.1
15.1
11.5
13.4
13.2
9.5
9.5
18.5
23.9
Number of
Samples
11
3
5
17
17
1
9
51
14
3
6
3
2
2
26
229
10.0
7.0
15.5
10.7
13.1
8.62
10.2
11.1
10.3
10.5
10.4
10.3
9.0
9.0
10.6
10.4
6.4
8.1
5.7
8.0
3.5
1.4
1.0
0.7
1.5
6.6
13.3
10.0
13
4
512
Unit
SGS
SPR
SSS
SSW
All rock piles
Debris Flow
Alteration scars
Colluvium
Mean
Median
10.2
6.3
8.1
7.5
9.5
5.2
9.2
14.4
9.8
6.5
7.6
7.6
9.2
4.7
10.0
13.8
Standard
deviation
4.4
1.8
3.3
2.2
3.5
4.3
3.9
3.0
Standard
error
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.8
Minimum
Maximum
4.1
3.8
2.7
2.7
1.5
1.0
0.1
9.2
20.2
8.9
23.1
12.1
23.9
28.6
19.7
20.8
Number of
Samples
36
18
51
40
390
36
48
13
Statistical Analyses
Hypothesis 1. The gravimetric moisture content of the outer geologic units in GHN rock
pile is different from the interior units.
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. The Normality Test failed (P < 0.050); therefore the Kruskal-Wallis One Way
Analysis of Variance on Ranks was selected. The tests were calculated using the
SigmaStat@ software.
Results. The results are in Table A11-11.
TABLE A11-11. Comparisons of gravimetric moisture content (%) in GHN units using
Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks analysis. Interior units include
units K, N, O, M, R, S, T, U, V, and W. H = 1.902 with 3 degrees of freedom (P = 0.593).
Group
Traffic zone
outer C-I-J
Interior units
Unit RUB
N
11
25
108
15
Median
9.46
10.72
10.57
10.75
25%
7.938
8.267
9.520
8.965
75%
12.145
13.828
12.690
12.480
Conclusion. The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not
great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling
variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.963) in gravimetric
moisture content between the outer units and interior units of GHN.
Hypothesis 2. The gravimetric moisture content of the Questa rock piles and analog sites
(alteration scars, debris flows, colluvium, weathered bedrock) is different.
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. The Normality Test failed (P < 0.050); therefore the Kruskal-Wallis One Way
Analysis of Variance on Ranks was selected. The tests were calculated using the
SigmaStat@ software.
513
Results. The results are in Table A11-12.
TABLE A11-12. Comparisons of gravimetric moisture content (%) between Questa rock
piles and analog sites (colluvium, weathered bedrock, alteration scar, debris flows). H =
90.006 with 4 degrees of freedom (P = <0.001).
Group
Questa rock
piles
Colluvium
Weathered
bedrock
Alteration scar
Debris flows
N
364
Median
9.200
25%
6.975
75%
13
9
13.750
15.650
12.192
13.970
16.223
16.725
48
36
10.025
4.700
7.485
3.785
11.285
5.540
11.425
Conclusion. The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are greater
than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P =
<0.001). The debris flows materials have a lower gravimetric moisture content median
than the other samples and the colluvium and weathered bedrock materials have higher
median gravimetric water contents than the other samples.
Histograms of gravimetric moisture content
Traffic Zone
Unit C
2.0
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
0.0
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
0
5
10
25
5
2.5
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
20
Unit J
Unit I
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
15
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
0
5
10
15
20
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
25
4
3
2
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
514
Unit K
Unit N
7
number of Samples
Number of Samples
5
4
3
2
1
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
0
25
0
5
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
10
20
25
Unit M
Unit O
7
Number of Samples
20
Number of Samples
15
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
15
10
5
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
0
25
0
5
2.5
5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
20
25
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
0
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
Interior Units (K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V)
Outer Units (C, I, J)
40
5
35
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
15
Unit RUB (rubble zone)
6
number of Samples
Number of Samples
Unit S
3.0
0.0
10
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
30
25
20
15
10
4
3
2
1
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
515
GHN
Capulin
4.0
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
5
10
15
20
0.0
25
0
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
5
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
20
25
10
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
8
6
4
2
0.5
0
5
10
15
20
0
25
0
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
5
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
Sugar Shack South
Sugar Shack West
20
14
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
15
Sulfur Gulch South
Middle
3.0
0.0
10
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
15
10
5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
0
25
0
5
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
10
Questa Rock Piles
25
Colluvium
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
20
4.0
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
15
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
5
10
15
20
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
25
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
516
Debris Flows
Alteration Scars
20
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
15
10
5
0
0
5
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
Weathered Bedrock
Number of Samples
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gravimetric Moisture Content %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TABLE A11-13. Descriptive statistics of Atterberg Limits by geologic unit for stable
portion of GHN rock pile. Histograms are below. Data are results obtained from NMIMT
sampling and testing on Questa rock piles 2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access
database) and from URS Corp. (2003).
Liquid Limit
Unit
Mean
unit C
unit I
unit J
unit N
unit K
unit M
unit O
unit P
unit R
unit S
unit U
unit V
rubble
zone
32.2
35.0
34.9
34.7
30.9
30.0
35.1
36.0
35.3
28.1
31.5
33.1
33.0
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
35.3
35.2
4.9
3.4
2.8
1.3
30.0
28.7
39.8
38.4
31.3
3.4
1.7
26.5
34.7
33.8
3.9
1.0
29.6
43.5
35.6
2.0
1.2
33.1
37.2
31.2
34.5
1.1
3.1
0.6
1.8
30.7
29.5
32.7
35.3
Number
of
Cases
1
3
7
2
4
1
16
1
3
1
3
3
2
517
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
Entire
GHN
Middle
Spring
Gulch
Sugar
Shack
South
Sugar
Shack
West
Capulin
Sulfur
Gulch
South
Questa
rock piles
colluvium
Alteration
scars
Debris
flows
33.0
33.5
5.5
0.7
3.3
43.5
Number
of
Cases
61
28.4
23.4
28.7
24.0
2.5
3.5
0.8
0.8
22.9
18.6
31.7
30.6
10
18
31.3
31.6
4.0
1.0
2.7
37.0
15
28.8
28.0
3.3
0.5
24.4
39.3
41
28.0
32.5
22.0
32.1
4.5
3.8
0.8
1.9
22.0
28.7
43.0
37.0
34
4
30.4
30.0
5.0
0.2
3.3
46.0
473
34.6
33.1
33.59
32.3
4.3
6.3
1.0
1.2
29.9
20.1
43.9
50.5
19
30
25.1
24.7
2.9
0.7
20.7
30.5
16
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
unit C
unit I
unit J
unit N
unit K
unit M
unit O
unit P
unit R
unit S
unit U
unit V
rubble
zone
Entire
GHN
Middle
Spring
Gulch
Sugar
Shack
South
Capulin
Sulfur
Gulch
South
17.9
23.9
19.6
22.7
17.6
19.0
20.1
22.4
18.3
20.9
19.1
23.5
21.6
24.7
19.5
1.8
2.6
1.0
1.0
21.9
15.6
25.1
23.4
18.2
2.2
1.1
14.5
19.6
19.8
2.5
0.6
16.6
24.0
18.4
1.5
0.9
16.8
19.8
18.3
25.6
2.0
4.5
1.1
2.6
17.7
18.3
21.4
26.5
Number
of
Cases
1
3
7
2
4
1
16
1
3
1
3
3
2
20.2
19.8
2.7
0.3
14.5
26.5
61
21.6
18.1
20.6
16.9
2.8
4.2
0.9
1.0
17.4
13.1
26.3
26.7
10
18
23.8
22.6
5.0
1.3
17.9
36.0
15
17.9
26.0
18.0
24.5
2.0
7.7
0.3
3.8
15.0
19.2
26.0
36.0
34
4
Plastic Limit
518
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
Questa
rock piles
colluvium
Alteration
scar
Debris
flows
19.1
19.0
3.0
0.1
11.4
36
Number
of
Cases
473
21.7
21.2
20.7
21.6
3.4
3.7
0.8
0.7
17.4
11.1
30.8
28.3
19
30
18.3
10.2
2.6
0.7
10.2
21.6
16
Unit
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Standard
Error
Minimum
Maximum
unit C
unit I
unit J
unit N
unit K
unit M
unit O
unit P
unit R
unit S
unit U
unit V
rubble
zone
Entire
GHN
Middle
Spring
Gulch
Sugar
Shack
South
Sugar
Shack
West
Capulin
Sulfur
Gulch
South
Questa
rock piles
colluvium
Alteration
scar
Debris
flows
14.3
11.1
15.4
12.1
13.3
11.0
14.9
13.6
17.0
7.1
12.4
9.7
11.3
10.2
16.4
6.4
3.0
3.7
1.1
5.3
9.3
17.9
17.7
13.7
3.9
2.0
8.5
17.6
14.6
3.7
0.9
20.4
18.8
3.1
1.8
6.7
13.6
13.4
13.0
8.1
2.4
6.7
1.4
3.9
9.8
3.9
14.4
17.0
Number
of
Cases
1
3
7
2
4
1
16
1
3
1
3
3
2
13.3
13.7
4.1
0.5
3.9
20.7
61
6.1
5.3
6.7
6.2
3.4
2.8
1.1
0.7
1.6
0.2
11.1
9.9
10
18
7.6
7.7
2.3
0.6
1.0
10.5
15
8.8
8.2
3.1
0.5
2.0
15.5
41
10.1
6.4
10.0
7.6
4.1
3.9
0.7
2.0
5.0
1.0
25.0
9.4
34
4
11.3
11.0
4.2
0.2
0.2
25.0
473
13.0
11.9
13.1
10.5
4.4
5.3
1.0
1.0
5.5
5.3
22.5
24.8
19
30
6.8
6.2
3.0
0.8
3.1
13.8
16
Plasticity Index
18.8
Hypothesis 1. The liquid limit of the geologic units in GHN rock pile is different from
each other.
519
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. The Normality Test passed (P = 0.555) and the Equal Variance Test Passed (P
= 0.573), therefore the One Way Analysis of Variance was selected. The tests were
calculated using the SigmaStat@ software.
Results. The results are in Table A11-14.
TABLE A11-14. Comparisons of liquid limit (%) in GHN units using One Way Analysis
of Variance analysis.
Group Name
LL-Unit C
LL-Unit I
LL-Unit J
LL-Unit K
LL-Unit M
LL-Unit N
LL-Unit O
LL-Unit R
LL-unit UV
LL-Unit RUB
(rubble zone)
N
1
3
7
4
1
2
16
3
6
2
Mean
32.170
35.003
34.947
30.935
30.030
34.730
35.037
35.287
32.330
32.950
Std Dev
0.000
4.921
3.408
3.415
0.000
1.202
3.860
2.048
2.273
2.135
SEM
0.000
2.841
1.288
1.707
0.000
0.850
0.965
1.182
0.928
1.510
Conclusion. The differences in the mean values among the treatment groups are not great
enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling
variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.413). Therefore, there
is no discernable difference in liquid limits between the GHN geologic units.
Hypothesis 2. The liquid limit of the Questa rock piles is different from the analog sites
(colluvium, alteration scars, debris flows).
Data. Data are results obtained from NMIMT sampling and testing on Questa rock piles
2004-2007 (Appendix 7 and project Access database).
Approach. The Normality Test failed (P <0.050), therefore the Kruskal-Wallis One Way
Analysis of Variance on Ranks was selected. The tests were calculated using the
SigmaStat@ software.
Results. The results are in Table A11-15.
TABLE A11-15. Comparisons of liquid limit (%) in GHN units using One Way Analysis
of Variance analysis. H = 37.573 with 3 degrees of freedom (P = <0.001).
Group
LL-rock piles
LL-col
LL-debris
LL-alt
N
473
18
18
30
Median
30.000
33.585
24.740
32.330
25%
27.000
30.950
22.635
30.490
75%
34.000
39.280
27.430
34.760
520
Conclusion. The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are greater
than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P =
<0.001). The median liquid limit of the debris flows is lower than the median liquid limit
of other Questa materials and the median liquid limit of the colluvium is larger than the
other Questa material.
521