___________________

¹ A metric ton or tonne is equivalent to 2,204 lbs and a ton, short ton, or avoirdupois ton is equivalent to 2,000 lbs. In this report, metric ton is abbreviated as t (e.g., grams per metric ton or g/t), whereas ton is not abbreviated (e.g., ounces per ton or oz/ton).

² Gold and other precious metals are measured in troy ounces. One troy ounce is approximately 1.097 avoirdupois ounces.

are less than 50 acres in total permit area, and one-quarter are less than 10 acres (2020 data; see Figure 1-6). Only 2 percent of permit areas exceed 1,000 acres and these large operations produce limestone, granite, titanium, or kyanite.

Although Virginia has seen very little gold production in the past 70 years, the rising price of gold (see Figure 1-7) has brought renewed attention to the potential for gold exploration and mining in the Commonwealth. Additionally, in recent decades, the efficiency of valuable minerals extraction has increased, which means that lower-grade materials can be profitably mined and processed. Increasing gold prices and extraction efficiencies mean that deposits that at one time were previously not economic may become economic. This has often resulted in mining companies returning to sites previously considered to be “mined out” (i.e., all the mineral reserves at the time of active mining had been removed), and restarting operations to mine material that had previously been considered to be noneconomic or waste (see Box 1-1). According to Heylmun (2001), conservative estimates of Virginia’s lode gold reserves and placer gold reserves are 378,000 and 274,000 ounces, respectively (see Box 1-2), although methods used to determine these values and uncertainties associated with the estimates are not discussed. Heylmun (2001) notes that “the Piedmont region became sort of a ‘forgotten province’ after the American West opened up . . . [and that] there are good possibilities for commercial gold production in Virginia, as well as to the south in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama. New exploration methods might uncover gold deposits in areas which have never been exploited.”

In the fall of 2020, it became widely known that Aston Bay Holdings, Ltd., was performing exploration drilling on privately owned forestland in Virginia’s Buckingham County with a goal of assessing the area’s potential for gold mining. County officials were reportedly unaware of the activity and, when informed, believed the local zoning ordinance did not permit mineral exploration drilling. However, Buckingham County’s Board of Supervisors soon voted to retroactively allow exploratory drilling (Vogelsong, 2021). This and other renewed interest in mineral exploration and mining in Virginia has raised concerns among stakeholders regarding the potential impacts of such operations on the Commonwealth’s people and environment.

CHARACTERISTICS OF VIRGINIA RELEVANT TO GOLD MINING IMPACTS

The following sections outline key characteristics of gold-bearing regions of Virginia with potential relevance to gold mining activities.

Land Ownership and Mineral Rights in Virginia

Approximately 84 percent of all land in Virginia is privately owned (Virgina DCR, 2022b), which means that in Virginia, exploration and potential development of gold resources is most likely to occur on private lands. The remaining land in the Commonwealth is owned by private organizations and local, state, federal, and tribal governments. Approximately 5 percent of Virginia’s land (Virgina DCR, 2022b) is owned by the state government and is comprised of Wildlife Management Areas, State Forests, and State Parks. Some of these lands could be mined for gold if the project proponent were granted a lease by the state, but it is unclear which state lands in Virginia might be open to such mineral extraction. The federal government owns approximately 2.4 million acres

in Virginia, or approximately 9 percent of the Commonwealth (CRS, 2020), but most of these lands are managed for conservation and recreation purposes. Other large tracts, like military reservations, are closed to mineral exploration and development. There are currently no tribal reservations in the areas of Virginia that are most favorable for gold mineralization, although historic tribal lands cover the state and tribal communities maintain strong ties to a number of areas (see Chapter 5). As a result, the committee focused its deliberations on private and state-owned lands and did not focus on considerations specific to gold mining in tribal reservations or federal lands in Virginia.

In general, the owner of the surface estate in Virginia also owns the underground minerals. However, because the ownership of the underground minerals can be sold or disposed of separately from the surface estate, there can be situations where the surface and subsurface resources are owned by different parties. Such “split estate” scenarios can lead to conflict between the surface estate owners and the owners of the subsurface mineral rights.

Population Demographics

Population density and demographic characteristics vary widely in the gold-bearing areas of Virginia. Metropolitan communities in northeast Virginia have relatively higher population densities (e.g., Fairfax County has approximately 2,941 people per square mile). In contrast, many of the state’s rural areas have relatively lower population densities (see Figure 1-8)—for example, Buckingham County has fewer than 30 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Future mining and exploration activities are likely to be concentrated in the more rural areas of the Commonwealth, which also have different demographic characteristics from the state overall. As discussed in Chapter 4, approximately 1 in 5 Virginia residents are African American, 1 in 10 are Hispanic, and around 10 percent live below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020), but certain regions have higher populations of minorities and underserved populations (see Chapter 5). For example, in Buckingham County, where recent exploration activity raised concerns, 32 percent of residents are African American and 21 percent are living below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

Panel on Climate Change shows that Eastern North America will very likely experience increased average and extreme precipitation in the future (IPCC, 2021), leading to more severe flooding and flooding outside of current floodplains. Some studies estimate that before the end of the century, extreme summer thunderstorms in the southeastern United States will result in between 40 and 80 percent more rain than the same storms do today (Prein et al., 2017). To account for these changes, the Virginia Department of Transportation updated its guidance for bridge construction in 2021 (VDOT, 2020), requiring engineers to anticipate a 20 percent increase in rainfall intensity and a 25 percent increase in discharge.

Seismicity

Earthquakes and seismic activity can damage mining infrastructure, including open pits, underground workings, processing facilities, tailings storage facilities, and waste dumps (Lenhardt, 2009). While the East Coast of the United States experiences far less seismic activity and fewer large earthquakes than the West Coast, significant earthquakes have occurred historically. Around 6 to 12 earthquakes per year originate in Virginia and one or two of those is large enough it can be felt (Virginia Energy, 2022b; VTSO, 2021). Most earthquakes in Virginia occur in three zones: the Central Virginia seismic zone, the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone, and the Giles County seismic zone (see Figure 1-10). The Central Virginia seismic zone, between Charlottesville and Richmond, overlaps with much of the gold-pyrite belt. Earthquakes documented in this zone include a magnitude 5.8 earthquake in the town of Mineral in 2011, a magnitude 4.8 earthquake northwest of Goochland in 1875, and a magnitude 4.5 earthquake in Powhatan County in 2003 (Tarr and Wheeler, 2006). There is also evidence for earthquakes of magnitude 6 or higher between 350 and 2,800 years ago (Tuttle et al., 2015, 2021).

Seismic activity in this region is relatively frequent, but generally low magnitude. However, because seismic waves propagate much farther in the eastern United States (Frankel et al., 1990; Pollitz and Mooney, 2015) than

in the western United States (Nishenko and Bollinger, 1990), earthquake damage can occur at some distance from the epicenter. As an example, the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred in Mineral in 2011 caused significant damage approximately 80 miles away in Washington, DC, including $15 million in damage to the Washington Monument and $34 million in damage to the National Cathedral.

STUDY TASK AND APPROACH

In response to citizen concerns over potential impacts of gold mining, the Virginia State Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 2213, which mandates a study of gold mining in Virginia. The workgroup to address HB2213 consists of two components: (1) a committee appointed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to evaluate the technical aspects and potential impacts of gold mining in Virginia (see Box 1-3) and (2) a committee formed by the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Virginia Department of Health (“state agency committee”) to focus on local equity and environmental justice issues and environmental and human health concerns of the local community. This report reflects the work of the first committee.

To address the task, the National Academies appointed a committee of 13 experts from academia, industry, and state government with expertise in hydrogeology, geology, geochemistry, ecotoxicology, epidemiology, public health, environmental medicine, environmental policy, environmental law, mining regulations, environmental engineering, mining engineering, and geotechnical engineering (see Appendixes A and B). The committee held six virtual information-gathering sessions focused on the geology, mining, potential environmental and health impacts of mining, public participation in mine permitting processes, and the regulations of Virginia and other states. These sessions included presentations and discussions with representatives from industry, academia, community-based organizations, and governments. Information-gathering meetings featured case studies from a variety of places including South Carolina, Montana, Alaska, California, Canada, and Spain.

Committee members also visited several sites where they received tours and presentations relevant to gold mining activities in Virginia and elsewhere in the eastern United States. This included visits to the Moss Mine

in Virginia and the Haile Gold Mine and the Brewer Gold Mine Superfund Site in South Carolina, as well as examination of rock core from the Vaucluse mine in Orange County and samples obtained from exploration in Buckingham County. These activities helped the committee to better understand the geologic setting of gold deposits in Virginia (Moss Mine, Vaucluse Mine, and the exploration site in Buckingham County), presently operating gold mine operations (Haile Gold Mine), and historical operations that were unsuccessfully reclaimed (Brewer Gold Mine Superfund Site). The committee also benefited from public input obtained through two town halls, a tour of Buckingham County, and written comments. These written comments included a report from the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and Dr. Ann Maest, Vice President of Buka Environmental. The committee carefully considered all information sources—including scientific studies, peer-reviewed publications, regulatory documentation, case studies, site visits, and public comments—in determining the findings outlined in this report.

A few clarifications are noteworthy regarding the committee’s interpretation of the Statement of Task. Although the impetus for the study had its roots in events related to exploration activities in Buckingham County, the Statement of Task indicates the study should have a statewide focus. The study’s statewide focus limits the ability to draw site-specific conclusions. This report outlines general themes and procedures that are important to assessing potential gold mining projects in Virginia, but comprehensive and robust analysis of site-specific environmental baseline characteristics and evaluation of population and ecosystem health and social and environmental justice considerations are necessary in order to adequately assess the potential impacts of particular projects.

As described in Box 1-2, the committee interpreted “gold mining” to refer to the extraction of gold from a mineral reserve where gold is a primary metal of material economic interest. This includes historical mining sites in which waste rock³ and tailings from earlier activities could be mined again in the future as “gold deposits” (e.g., Moss Mine, Box 1-1). The committee recognizes that there may be some gold deposits in Virginia that have not yet been discovered or well defined by exploration. Additionally, existing data on the geology and impacts of historic gold mines in Virginia is limited. Generally, modern geologists would typically visit an active (or recently active) local mine site to observe the mining operation, collect samples for laboratory analysis, and interview researchers and workers with intimate knowledge of the deposit geology. Unfortunately, such an approach is largely unfeasible for the gold occurrences in Virginia because much of the active mining occurred before the Civil War, and the most recent large-scale mining activities ceased before World War II. In addition, many former mine sites have been reclaimed back to a natural environment (see Figure 1-4), flooded, or covered by urban development—making them largely inaccessible for study. As such, available information about the geology of the state’s gold mining sites is limited. Therefore, the committee acknowledges uncertainties in its findings, where relevant.

The committee interpreted the words “air and water quality,” which appear several times in the Statement of Task, to confer an emphasis on human health and ecological concerns rather than other societal and economic impacts associated with potential mining. Neither the potentially negative nor the potentially positive societal and economic impacts associated with gold mining are considered in this report, even though these impacts are extremely important when doing a site-specific environmental assessment prior to permitting. For more information on the societal impacts and the economic benefits and costs of mining see Cust and Poelhekke (2015), Ivanova and Rolfe (2011), Ivanova et al. (2007), Lockie et al. (2009), Petkova et al. (2009), Que et al. (2015), and Sincovich et al. (2018).

Finally, the committee determined that the Statement of Task emphasized local and regional human health and environmental impacts, instead of global impacts like greenhouse gases. Additionally, based on guidance from the sponsor, the committee interpreted its Statement of Task to emphasize potential impacts of gold mining activities on the people and ecosystems living near mining operations, rather than on mining industry employees and professionals. The committee recognizes the importance of clear and consistent safety training and certification programs, review and updates to safety regulations, compliance inspections, coordination with federal partners, and promotion of a safety-driven culture in the mining industry, but the committee’s evaluation did not focus on the adequacy of occupational safety and health aspects of the relevant codes and regulations.

___________________

³ Waste rock is material which contains little or no gold and must be removed to access the ore from which gold will be extracted.