Download August 25, 2009

UAF Mining Extension Advisory Group Audio Conference
August 25, 2009
Advisory Members Present:
Kelley Hegarty Lammers
Richard Hughes
Travis Hudson
Mitchell Dammeyer
Dr. Dan Walsh
UAF/CES Faculty/Staff Present: Dr. Fred Schlutt
Robert Gorman
Meg Burgett
Agenda Item #1: Group Introductions
Short introductions by audio participants.
Agenda Item #2: Review of FY 2010 proposed mining extension projects
Bob provided a brief overview of the four proposed projects for FY2010:
(see attached Proposed Work plan for complete descriptions of Issues)
 Issue A – Develop knowledge base of available information and human
resources for rural communities and residents regarding NEPA and
overall mineral development processing.
 Issue B – Develop interactive distance delivery resources that address
mineral development permitting and how individuals, communities and
local organizations can be part of the permitting process.
 Issue C – Deliver public interest workshops related to recreational
mining and geology.
 Issue D – Develop companion DVD to 2008 Mine Tour focusing on
mining in Indian Country and the Red Dog Mine.
Agenda Item #3: Ranking of FY 2010 projects
Advisory Group members prioritized proposed issues:
 Priority #1 - Issue A and Issue B were approximately equal in ranking.
Group Discussion: Issue A could be completed with existing CES staff
within a 3-month period. Compiled knowledge base should include
information and resources currently available to the general public
regarding NEPA and overall permitting and also identify any
information gaps and delivery and outreach efforts to get this
knowledge to rural residents and communities. The general opinion of
this group is that there is considerable information currently available
from a variety of sources; what is missing is the connection between
the resources and those that need the information. Even between
different agencies and organizations, there is a lack of knowledge of
resources available beyond their own. Developing a knowledge base
of this information and resources should be a high priority project for
the Mining Extension program. Issue B will require resources beyond
existing CES staff; it is the obvious follow up for Issue A though and
the two projects should both be addressed. This effort should involve
the synthesis and branding of existing knowledge and resources and
developing effective delivery methods for the target audience. The
group raised several points that should be addressed as these efforts
go forward:
o There is a need to “move” the existing information and
resources away from industry and even agency sources that are
sometimes viewed as being biased in some regions of the state,
this makes the “branding” of the knowledge base generated
very important – the University of Alaska and CES are seen as
being objective and capable of delivering unbiased information,
it is critical to maintain that objectivity.
o In many rural communities, there is a lack of understanding of
how things fit together. Delivery of information developed under
these efforts should emphasize “systems” – how things fit
together, how organizations work together, how processes work
and how individuals and communities fit within those systems.
o Limiting Issue B to things such as web pages and other selfdirected resources is a passive way of delivering information.
Outreach activities and functions, such as active list-serves and
other promotion actions should also be implemented to ensure
that the information is reaching the target audience.
 Priority #2 – Issue C
Group discussion: the subject and the location of the workshop impact
The value of workshops. The group recognizes the “historical”
significance of providing several of the topics covered in the Alaska
Prospector Series, and acknowledges the value identified by AMA in
providing basic prospecting skills to rural residents and communities.
However, in today’s politically charged climate, just offering such
classes could be seen as “advocating” for mining and tarnish the
perceived objectivity of CES. Choice of subject and geographic
location of the proposed workshops is seen as important. The group
suggests limiting the workshops to “historically” mining communities
such as Fairbanks and Nome and sticking with the topics of basic
prospecting, placer mining and virtual prospecting. The group also
suggested that some of the workshop topics might lend themselves
well to the concept of developing a series of “modules”, although there
was not general support to pursue that at this time.
Agenda Item #4: Target audiences, resources, outcomes and benchmarks
for priority projects.
Issue A (Priority 1):
Target audience – UA partners, other agencies and organizations with
responsibilities and/or programs addressing NEPA and the overall permitting for
exploration, development and closure of mineral extraction.
Resources – current CES faculty and staff
Estimated Cost - $3,930
Outcomes/benchmarks – knowledge base of existing information and resources;
gaps in information and delivery of knowledge
Issue B (Priority 2):
Target audience – general public, rural residents, communities and organizations
impacted by mineral exploration and development.
Resources – current CES faculty and staff; non-UA professional services
(contractor or web development).
Estimated Cost - $19,439
Outcomes/benchmarks – distance delivery resources including web pages,
active list serves and promotion activities
Issue C (Priority 3):
Target audience – general public with an interest in recreational mining and rural
residents with an interest in basic prospecting skills
Resources – Professional Services (contractors)
Estimated Cost (4 workshops) - $15,000
Outcomes/benchmarks – 4 workshops with minimum attendance of 12 per
workshop
Agenda Item #5: Other issues/items
Bob asked for the group’s input on the concept of using funds/resources
associated with the UAF Mining Extension program to support a CES field agent
with a focus on climate change impacts to Alaska.
As a whole, the group was not supportive of this concept – asking for the linkage
between climate change and mining extension; strongly supporting the existing
mining extension efforts and asking that these not be diluted by trying to also
address an issue as big as climate change. The group suggested that if CES was
desiring to broaden it’s base of field agents, a more logical combination would be
a geologist that could also address geologic hazards (volcanoes, earthquakes).
The group view was that there was a significant need in Alaska for a mining
extension program and asked the director to continue to support the program as
it was.
Agenda Item #6: Follow-up and next audio
Bob and Meg will prepare a workplan and budget for the three priority issues
identified by the advisory group and provide to the group for their review within
three weeks from this meeting. After the workplan is available, Meg will
coordinate the next audio before the end of September.