Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20165173

Geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri

Abstract

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines are located in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri, where barite and lead ore are present together in surficial and near-surface deposits. Lead mining in the area began in the early 1700’s and extended into the early 1900’s. Hand mining of lead in the residuum resulted in widespread pits (also called shafts or diggings), and there was some underground mining of lead in bedrock. By the 1860’s barite was recovered from the residuum by hand mining, also resulting in widespread diggings, but generally not underground mines in bedrock. Mechanized open-pit mining of the residuum for barite began in the 1920’s. Barite production slowed by the 1980’s, and there has not been any barite mining since 1998. Mechanized barite mining resulted in large mined areas and tailings ponds containing waste from barite mills. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that lead is present in surface soils in Washington and Jefferson Counties at concentrations exceeding health-based screening levels. Also, elevated concentrations of barium, arsenic, and cadmium have been identified in surface soils, and lead concentrations exceeding the Federal drinking-water standard of 15 micrograms per liter have been identified in private drinking-water wells. Potential sources of these contaminants are wastes associated with barite mining, wastes associated with lead mining, or unmined natural deposits of barium, lead, and other metals. As a first step in helping EPA determine the source of soil and groundwater contamination, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the EPA, investigated the geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines. Ore minerals are barite (barium sulfate), galena (lead sulfide), cerussite (lead carbonate), anglesite (lead sulfate), sphalerite (zinc sulfide), smithsonite (zinc carbonate), and chalcopyrite (copper-iron sulfide). The Cambrian Potosi Dolomite is the most important formation for the ore deposits, followed by the Eminence Dolomite. Because galena, sphalerite, and barite are less soluble than dolomite, chemical weathering of the ore-bearing dolomite bedrock resulted in the concentration of ore minerals in the residuum. Most of the barite and lead mining was in the residuum, which averages 10 to 15 feet thick. Lead mining by French explorers may have begun in 1719 along Old Mines Creek at Cabanage de Renaudiere, which was followed shortly by the discovery of lead and the development of lead mines at Mine Renault (also called Forche a Renault Mine), Old Mines, and at other places along the Big River, Mineral Fork, and Forche a Renault Creek. Lead mining began sometime between 1775 and 1780 at Mine a Breton, the name of which was later changed to Potosi. Other mining areas were developed in the early part of the 19th century, including Fourche a Courtois (Palmer Mines), the French Diggings, and the Richwoods Mines. Zinc became a valuable resource after the Civil War, and the Valles Mines was an important supplier of zinc as well as lead, with at least some production up until the 1920’s. Lead mining declined in the early part of the 20th century as mining in the Old Lead Belt, Mine La Motte, and the Tri-State District expanded. The earliest lead mines were diggings in the residuum and were round holes (shafts) about 4 feet in diameter dug with pick and shovel about 15–20 feet deep, with drifts dug a short distance laterally from the bottom of the shafts. This mining process was repeated a short distance away until a large area was covered with pits. Some mining in bedrock began by about 1800, with shafts as deep as 170 feet and as much as several hundred feet of lateral drifts. Smelting of the lead ore to elemental lead was first done using a log furnace, which was inefficient; estimates have been made that only about 50 percent of the lead was recovered, and the remainder was lost to the ashes (slags) and to volatilization. Starting in 1798, ash furnaces were used to smelt the ashes from the log furnaces. These two furnaces were worked in tandem for many years but were gradually replaced by other furnaces, including the Scotch hearth. Estimates of lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent have been made for the Scotch hearth. By the mid-1870’s the air furnace was being used, also with estimated lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent. Zinc furnaces were built when zinc became a valuable commodity, but much of the zinc ore was shipped out of the area, either to a smelter in St. Louis, Missouri, or to other smelters. The total lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated at 180,000 tons of lead and 60,000 tons of zinc. An estimated 97,000 tons of lead and an estimated 120,000 tons of zinc were lost during smelting. The estimated losses do not include losses at the mine site during mining and preparation for smelting, such as the loss of fine-grained galena during hand cleaning or the discarding of zinc ore before its value was known, for which no estimates are available. Hand mining for barite in the residuum was active by at least the 1860’s and peaked from 1905 to the 1930’s when several thousand people were engaged in barite mining. Hand mining (diggings) and cleaning of the ore was done in much the same way as earlier lead mining, with the additional use of a rattle box to further clean the barite. Mechanized open-pit mining of old barite diggings began in 1924 to recover barite left behind by hand mining, and washing plants were used to clean the clay from the barite. Hand mining, however, continued to thrive, and washer plants began to close temporarily in 1931; nearly all of the barite produced before 1937 was by hand mining. By the 1940’s, however, all barite mining was mechanized. Mechanized mining used shovels powered by steam, gasoline, or electricity (and by the 1950’s draglines and front-end loaders) to mine the residuum. The ore was loaded onto rail cars (and by the 1940’s, trucks) for shipment to washer plants. Clay was removed from the barite using a log washer, and a jig was used to concentrate the barite. Overflow from the log washers was waste and went to a mud (tailings) pond. The coarse jig tailings went to tailings piles or were used as railroad ballast and, later, to create roads within the mine pit. Some barite was ground, depending on its final use, and some ground barite was bleached using a hot solution of sulfuric acid to remove impurities such as iron minerals and lead sulfide (galena). An earlier bleaching process used lead-lined tanks. Large quantities of water were required for milling the barite; some was recirculated water and the remainder came from dammed streams or was pumped from wells. Tailings and wastewater were impounded behind dikes that were built across small valleys and were increased in height as necessary using washer waste and any overburden that had been stripped. In some cases, dikes were built across valleys that had already been mined for barite. The total production of barite from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated to have been about 13.1 million tons. Most of the barite production was from Washington County. Hand mining and processing of barite was inefficient. Estimates of barite recovery range from less than one-fourth to about one-half because pillars between the shafts in the residuum needed to be left unmined for stability. With mechanized mining, large amounts of barite were lost during the milling process. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of the barite was lost and that about two-thirds of the lost barite was fine-grained and was discharged to the tailings ponds. Some galena was lost to the tailings ponds. A 1972 inventory of tailings ponds by the Missouri Geological Survey identified 67 ponds in the Southeast Missouri Barite District (there are more than this currently documented). Results from samples from four ponds that were drilled were used to estimate that the 67 ponds contained almost 39 million tons (or cubic yards) of tailings averaging about 5 percent barite, for a potential reserve of 1.935 million tons of barite. It is not known how much lead was removed during barite mining, either by hand or mechanized mining and processing, how much lead was recovered, or how much lead went as fines to the tailing ponds or as coarse material to mine roads or was otherwise lost.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.6423° to 38.5064° latitude; -91.1004° to -90.1114° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Douglas N. Mugel. 2017-03-09. Geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165173

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗