BearWorks Institutional Repository MSU Graduate Theses Spring 2017 Channel Bar Morphology, Distribution, And Mining-Related Geochemistry In The iB g River, St. Francois County, Missouri: Implications For Geomorphic Recovery Lindsay Marie Olson Missouri State University As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The onc tent and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Environmental Chemistry Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Sedimentology Commons Recommended Citation Olson, Lindsay Marie, "Channel Bar Morphology, Distribution, And Mining-Related Geochemistry In The iB g River, St. Francois County, Missouri: Implications For Geomorphic Recovery" (2017). MSU Graduate Theses. 3198. http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3198 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The orkw contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHANNEL BAR MORPHOLOGY, DISTRIBUTION, AND MINING-RELATED GEOCHEMISTRY IN THE BIG RIVER, ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MISSOURI: IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOMORPHIC RECOVERY A Masters Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University TEMPLATE In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science, Geospatial Sciences in Geography, Geology, and Planning By Lindsay Marie Olson May, 2017 Copyright 2017 by Lindsay Marie Olson ii CHANNEL BAR MORPHOLOGY, DISTRIBUTION, AND MINING-RELATED GEOCHEMISTRY IN THE BIG RIVER, ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MISSOURI: IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOMORPHIC RECOVERY Geography, Geology, and Planning Missouri State University, May, 2017 Master of Science Lindsay Marie Olson ABSTRACT Tailings releases associated with large-scale historical Pb mining in St. Francois County, Missouri resulted in system-wide contamination of Pb and excess sediment in the Big River. Previous studies have addressed basin and segment scale variability of the contaminants; however, little is known about reach and bar scale variability. This study addresses how mining sediment inputs influence bar form and geochemistry across a range of scales. Bar sediment samples were collected at 21 reaches and analyzed for particle size and geochemistry, while air photo analysis was used to evaluate channel morphology, bar type, and area. Bar area is initially low in the upper mining region but increases with distance downstream. Bars near mining inputs are highly contaminated with Pb and decrease in contamination with distance downstream. While chat-sized mining sediment has not moved more than 60 km downstream, having attenuated or dispersed locally by moving into storage in bars or young floodplains, Pb contamination is transported further with fine sediment and is found throughout the study area. Bar sediments are well-mixed vertically; the bar head contains more Pb than the tail near mining sites. Signs of geomorphic recovery indicate that the channel is in the process of returning to equilibrium; however geochemical recovery will likely not occur for centuries. Further, if increasing trends in flooding continue, bar formation and mobility may increase in the future. KEYWORDS: fluvial geomorphology, Missouri, lead, mining, sediment transport This abstract is approved as to form and content _______________________________ Robert Pavlowsky Chairperson, Advisory Committee Missouri State University iii CHANNEL BAR MORPHOLOGY, DISTRIBUTION, AND MINING-RELATED GEOCHEMISTRY IN THE BIG RIVER, ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MISSOURI: IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOMORPHIC RECOVERY By Lindsay Marie Olson A Masters Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College Of Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science, Geospatial Sciences in Geography, Geology, and Planning May, 2017 Approved: _______________________________________ Robert Pavlowsky, PhD _______________________________________ Xiaomin Qiu, PhD _______________________________________ Jun Luo, PhD _______________________________________ Julie Masterson, PhD: Dean, Graduate College iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Bob Pavlowsky, for his guidance and support in helping me succeed in this endeavor. None of this would have been possible without you. Thanks also to my committee members, Dr. Xiaomin Qiu and Dr. Jun Luo, who offered helpful insight and ideas to expand my research and improve my writing. I am very grateful to my classmates at MSU who assisted with field data collection, particularly Megan Harrington, Anna Larkin, Andrew DeWitt, Andrea Mayus, Daniel Williams, and David Dickson. Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute assistant director Marc Owen is deserving of a special thank you for continually offering insight, wisdom, guidance, and humor throughout my graduate work. I am also very appreciative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for funding my field data collection and graduate research position at OEWRI through CESU Task # 301819T002, entitled “Big River Sediment Assessment Project”. I also want to thank the MSU Graduate School for providing additional financial support for data collection. This research would not have been possible without your assistance. My family and friends back in Wisconsin were a critical support system for me in accomplishing this feat. Much love and thanks goes out to Mom and Dad for having confidence in me and supporting me in many ways. I sincerely appreciate my boyfriend, Cory, who provided endless love and support as I pursued my dream while he patiently waited for me 650 miles away. Lastly, this work would not have been possible without the love and patience of my beloved feline companion, Walter, who spent countless hours warming my lap while I studied and wrote. Although he is no longer here to sit by me as I finish, I couldn’t have made it this far without him. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Background ...................................................................................................... 4 Stream Response to Disturbance and the Recovery Process .................................. 5 Sediment Transportation Processes ...................................................................... 13 Mining Sediment Impacts on Stream Morphology ............................................... 20 Chapter 3: Study Area ...................................................................................................... 22 Physical Characteristics ........................................................................................ 22 Channel and Valley Morphology .......................................................................... 26 Historical Land Use .............................................................................................. 28 Chapter 4: Methods .......................................................................................................... 32 Location and Description of Field Sites ................................................................ 32 Field Methods ....................................................................................................... 36 Laboratory Methods .............................................................................................. 39 Geospatial Methods .............................................................................................. 41 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 52 Characterization of Gravel Bars ............................................................................ 52 Downstream Bar Texture and Geochemical Variability ....................................... 66 Within-Bar Texture and Geochemical Variability ................................................ 75 Evidence of Geomorphic Recovery ...................................................................... 91 Chapter 6: Conclusions .................................................................................................... 97 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 101 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 108 Appendix A: Field Site Details ........................................................................... 108 Appendix B. Bar Sediment Sample Descriptions ............................................... 109 Appendix C. Pebble Count Data ......................................................................... 112 Appendix D. Channel Recovery Assessments .................................................... 113 Appendix E. Bar Sediment Sample Analysis ..................................................... 128 Appendix F. GIS 500 m Channel Cell Analysis ................................................