Central Mineral Resources Team
The Geochemical Landscapes Project was officially launched with the Soil Geochemistry Workshop (view the agenda, PDF file, 24 KB) held in Denver, Colorado in March 2003. This workshop was attended by 112 participants (view list of agencies, PDF file, 19 KB) representing 41 Federal and State agencies, academia, environmental consulting firms, and the medical community. The attendees were divided into four working groups, with each group asked to address one of the following issues relating to the proposed soil geochemical survey of North America: 1) sample design, 2) sample collection protocols, 3) chemical/microbiological analysis and pilot studies, and 4) marketing. These reports detail some of the complexities of planning such a national geochemical mapping exercise. We solicit your comments on any of the issues raised.
The Sample Design breakout session was charged with the task of defining the target population and overall spatial distribution of samples to be collected for a continental-scale soil geochemical survey.
The following is a report summarizing the discussion of the Sample Design breakout session that occurred during the Soil Geochemistry Workshop, Denver, Colorado, March 4-6, 2003.
The Sample Design breakout session was charged with the task of defining the target population and overall spatial distribution of samples to be collected for a continental-scale soil geochemical survey.
The specific topics addressed were:
Note: In the text below the term geochemical background will be used. This usage should be read to include the background levels of inorganic compounds, organic compounds and their residues, and of microbiological species of interest and concern. Additionally, it should be remembered that background is not a single value (mean, geometric mean or median) but a range. That range includes the values encountered in the diversity of the environments being sampled. This is particularly important to some regulatory agencies that set "action levels" based on the distribution of background data.
Various different target populations were discussed, e.g., undisturbed soils as in the "Shacklette" data (Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984), or other soils. It was agreed that the soils as affected by current land-use should be the target, including agricultural, non-agricultural, forest or urban soils, etc. Thus there would not be an attempt to reproduce "Shacklette". The consensus was that the objective of a continent-wide survey should be to determine the current status of North American soils, defining the spatial pattern of the chemical landscape and quantifying the variability; so defining the "geochemical background". Therefore, the target population is the surface soils of the North American continent.
The value of "Reference Soils" of similar parentage and pedogenic processes as those sampled nearby that had undergone human disturbance was highlighted. A goal should be to sample reference soils for each general area, in order to provide direct comparisons with nearby "ambient" soils that have undergone physical disturbance (recognizing that both will have received natural and anthropogenic dust inputs). This will assist in determining the impact of human activities on the land. Already acquired NRCS benchmark pedons may (as an alternative?) provide similar information, i.e. a measure of soil less disturbed by human impact that would assist and support the interpretation of the continental-scale sampling program.
The objective of the coverage should be to represent, without sampler bias, the largest land-use in each sampling unit. The size of the "sampling unit" has yet to be defined, but it likely will be of the order of one square kilometer. A final decision here requires interaction with the sample collection protocol group. The objective will be to sample to dominant land-use, e.g., arable land, rather than the environment at the sampler's entry point, e.g., a stream gully. During the discussions, the problems of land access were recognized; these may be physical, such as a lake covering the designated sample unit, or an owner denying access. For such instances, protocols for selecting alternate sample units needs to be defined.
Shacklette, H.T., and Boerngen, J.G., 1984, Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270, 105 p.
The pros-and-cons of stratifying the continent-wide sampling on various conceptual frameworks were extensively discussed. Candidates included soil, ecological classifications, surficial geology, hydrological region, and population density. The discussion of these brought into focus the competing interests of physical scientists and those interested in ecosystems, and those whose prime concern was human health. However, although some were considered to have some advantages, it was apparent that they would likely put constraints on the use of the resulting data by other investigators with different conceptual frameworks, thus reducing the data's overall utility. Furthermore, it was recognized that there may be completely new conceptual frameworks as yet undeveloped that would be important in the "life-time" of the data. To assist in the future use of the data, it was agreed that an extensive set of site descriptors be collected that would facilitate various post-survey data analyses and interpretations.
In order to preserve the maximum long-term use of the data, it was recommended that a sampling scheme be employed that gave each part of North America an equal opportunity of being sampled. This implies use of a spatial grid to guide sampling. A brief presentation was made by the representative of the U.S. Forest Service (Mike Amacher) concerning the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, which employs the hexagonal US-EPA E-Map grid. It was reported that the studies undertaken with this framework can be used in a multitude of post-hoc ways. Recognizing that there would be technical issues to be resolved, it was recommended that a hexagonal spatial framework be selected in order to maximize the possible interaction with and utility of the FIA data. Furthermore, it was recognized that there could be important synergies to be achieved, in as much as the soils of the forested regions of the United States were being sampled under the FIA program. Collaboration would lead to the current program proposal being focused on nonforested areas, and the results of the two programs being combined to provide continental-scale coverage.
The option of collecting composite samples to represent the hexagonal spatial units was discussed. While it was agreed that such a strategy would lead to a good estimator of the mean composition of the spatial units, that was not the objective of the study. Rather the objective was to collect a suite of samples that represented the variability of the North American continent, and to relate those results to ancillary environmental factors. This relational analysis would be particularly difficult with composite, rather than point, samples.
The grid sampling design would be more sparse than will be necessary for investigations of specific questions of causation, perhaps especially in urbanized areas. If the objective at some stage was to derive a better estimate for a particular sub-region, a more intensive sampling program nested within the grid sampling locations could be undertaken in that area.
For the purpose of discussion, a sampling density some three times greater than "Shacklette" was assumed. This leads to a projected primary 10,000 sites in continental North America. It was suggested that at 5% of these sites four additional levels of detailed sampling be completed in order to permit estimation of the spatial variability of the analytes. Of the five total sites in the hexagonal unit, one would be the normal site visited, two would be sites sampled (10 m radius composites?) some random distance up to 100 m apart (average 67 m). The sample material from one of these sites will be split and submitted as an analytical duplicate. The other two sites will provide information on intermediate levels of spatial variability; the details remain to be determined and discussed. This design will permit ANOVA and/or kriging techniques to be employed to estimate spatial variability at five levels in the context of sub-sampling and analytical variability. This procedure will lead to a total of 11,500 sites/locations to be visited, together with an additional 500 within walking distance, resulting in a total of 12,000 field samples and 12,500 analyses for each horizon defined by the sample collection protocol breakout group.
It was recognized that in some areas societal or ecosystem issues would require a greater detail of information, and therefore a greater sampling density. The sampling framework should be designed in such a way to permit infill sampling within the continental framework. It was recommended that pilot projects address this issue and develop sampling protocols permitting variable density sampling to meet the needs of state-level planners and ecosystem/human-health risk assessors. To avoid a spatial bias over the approximately 10 years estimated as needed for sample collection, it was recommended that sites be sampled approximately evenly over the continent in any given year. In this way, if analytical or other biases over time were discovered, these would not be superimposed on the data in a pattern such as east to west.
There are legal considerations over the use of soil samples collected under the FIA program. The enabling legislation guarantees anonymity, and the geo-referenced locations are confidential. Should a collaborative program be developed with the Forest Service, which appears desirable, this matter will have to be addressed.
It was noted that we would never have more "reference" sites than now. If the objective is to acquire together with the proposed "status" sampling a "reference" set for studies of anthropogenic impact there should be some urgency. Perhaps more samples could be taken in the field than would be analyzed. These could be archived as later funding developed.
In light of the above, one of the greatest values of the program may be the resulting sample archive that will permit quantification of ecosystem changes by investigators in the future. Therefore, the provision of appropriate archival storage is considered essential.
The possibility of generating a metadata index of soil data was proposed. This would identify and describe existing data sets together with information concerning their location and availability.
Concerns were raised that the achievable sample densities would not be sufficient to answer questions at local levels. Others felt this was offset by the opportunity to determine how local values fit into the 'broader context' of continental scale.
The following attendees signed the membership sheets for this working group:
Please provide any comments or suggestions about the report on Sample Design to the Project Chiefs, Martin Goldhaber or David Smith.
An alternative to a systematic grid that also allows intensification in subregions if necessary is a spatially-balanced survey design based on methodology of Stevens, D.L., Jr. and A.R. Olsen (2004). "Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources." Journal of American Statistical Association 99(465): 262-278. Software to select such a sample is also available. spatial input is in form of shapefiles. This does not take advantage of a linkage with FIA. It does make it easier to focus sampling in areas where soil changes may be at a different scale that other areas.
Tony Olsen USEPA (olsen.tony@epa.gov)
The following is a report summarizing the discussion of the Sample Collection Protocol breakout session that occurred during the Soil Geochemistry Workshop, Denver, March 4-6, 2003.
The Sample Protocol breakout session discussed issues related to:
Note: We have based our discussion on the presumption that the study will be done using newly collected samples, but have also considered the possibility of using archived samples as an alternative strategy if suitable archives are available.
There is a strong consensus that a single-sample-per-site approach is inadequate to characterize a site considering the multiple uses that a new data set might serve. A survey could be designed either by sampling at predetermined depth intervals or by soil horizons. Some past and ongoing surveys have taken the depth interval approach, but our group had general agreement that sampling by horizon is more appropriate because it provides data on discrete soil genetic units whereas depth interval sampling would mix different genetic units in an uncontrolled and largely unknown manner. Thus, we recommend that each site be carefully studied and described pedologically and that each recognizable soil horizon be sampled and archived with the understanding that not all horizons would be analyzed in the initial study.
Recognizing that analyzing as many as five samples per site may not be feasible in an initial survey we recommend the following priorities.
What constitutes a sample site? This issue is critical in designing a sampling protocol and was not clearly resolved in our discussions. Whether a site is considered to be a point or some finite area can have major ramifications for how and what to sample. If a site is a single point, a pedon for example, the problem is simplified in that the only requirement is to describe and sample a single profile. The point would be pre-selected by some unbiased, random method, and the field sampler would have no options in exact location relative to landscape position, cultural features, etc. If the site is an area, additional decisions are required to determine how the area should be characterized relative to potential local variability in soil characteristics. If for no other reason, practical considerations may necessitate some flexibility in selecting a sample site within an acceptable distance of the pre-selected site position. Considerations of access, strong anthropogenic influence, or inappropriate landscape features are likely to be factors in determining the actual locations where samples can and should be collected. Thus, field crews need some guiding principals in site selection.
If there is to be some permissible degree of flexibility in defining the exact sample locality at a site, what factors should be considered and how should the decision be made? This will be a relatively important issue in areas with large landscape or land-use variability on a local scale, and less critical in more uniform areas, such as prairie agricultural regions. The basic issue seems to be the area of influence that we would hope to ascribe to an individual site, and thus the degree to which our site represents the characteristic composition of the surrounding landscape. An extreme example might be a pre-selected site location that falls in a wetland in a landscape that is only 5% wetland and 95% well drained uplands. Should the sample be taken from the wetland, or will there be some flexibility to sample from a part of the landscape that is more representative of the immediate area?
We did not reach consensus conclusions on the most appropriate way to characterize a site; the principal unresolved issue being whether the aim is to characterize a point or some small but finite area. Several options could be adopted. These include:
Grain size: — There was general agreement that the size fraction that should be chemically analyzed is the less-than-2-mm fraction. There might be justification for also analyzing a finer fraction in some cases because the finer fraction might be the dominant human exposure source. Field collection of samples should sieve material and recover a coarser fraction as well. The working group recommended a 7 cm cutoff in which material less than 7 cm would constitute the sample and the greater than 7 cm fraction discarded after weighing.
Determining loads: — For many applications of this survey, it will be important to know loads of various components, not just concentrations in the fine soil fraction (for instance milligrams of arsenic in fine soil fraction per cubic meter of total soil). In some instances this can be calculated from bulk soil density. For soils with a significant weight fraction greater than the 2 mm analytical cutoff size, particularly pebbly and cobbly soils, it may be necessary to collect samples volumetrically to determine directly the weight fraction of fine soil per unit volume.
Describing soils: — The basis for describing soils should be the pedon description method used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service described in NRCS Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils (version 2.0). That sample description procedure can be modified to add additional variables as needed for geochemical studies.
Features that should be considered for additions to the NRCS description include, gamma ray spectral measurements, and spectral reflectance. Bulk density is also critical and may require collection of a separate sample for laboratory density determination.
Photographic documentation of the soil profile, the surrounding landscape, vegetation, and human activities should be done for each site.
The exact sample locations should be determined with the best available GPS readings or reference to permanent features so that sites can be accurately recovered for additional future studies.
Use of cores: — Cores of soil profiles can be useful both for original description and sampling and for archiving intact profiles. Cores should be considered in areas where they can be obtained effectively. In many areas, particularly in stony soils, they are both difficult to obtain and may be biased samples because they necessarily exclude the coarsest size fractions.
Sampling protocols: — A uniform protocol for collecting, handling, packaging, and preserving samples needs to be developed. Both research and regulatory groups have already developed many protocols. A survey should be conducted of those protocols to insure that we use one that is as efficient as possible, sound for research uses of samples, and will produce results that are acceptable for regulatory procedures.
There are two considerations relative to archives.
The following is a report summarizing the discussion of the Pilot Studies & Analytical Methods breakout session that occurred during the USGS-NRCS Soil Geochemistry Workshop, Denver, March 4-6, 2003.
The Pilot Studies and Analytical Methods breakout session was charged with the task of evaluating the role of pilot studies and specific analytical measurements to the overall effort of determining the geochemistry of soils in North America.
The specific topics addressed were:
*How could pilot studies be used to help define the protocols that will be used in the overall North American soil-geochemical mapping effort?
The initial discussion topic centered on defining the characteristics of a useful pilot study. Primarily, a pilot study should represent a geographic test site for testing and determining sampling and analytical methodologies to be used in the continental study. There will inevitably be choices to be made among site selection paradigms at the North American level, sampling methodologies at the individual site level, and geochemical/soil characterization analytical techniques. The full spectrum of these choices should be incorporated for testing into the pilot study. Several diverse geographic areas need to be selected for pilot studies that reflect a range of moisture/temperature regimes, land use, and other soil forming factors that test sampling, sample handling-sample preparation methodologies and analytical schemes under a range of real-world conditions in order to anticipate problems that may occur in the broader survey.
An important aspect of the pilot studies is to use a greater sampling density than likely will be feasible in a continental survey. This scheme would allow a quality evaluation of the resulting geochemical maps at multiple densities. This comparison will not only help determine the required sampling density(s) for the North American Survey, but the pilot study could also be a test of the stability of maps made from the earlier Shacklette data set (Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984).
The pilot studies group felt that an additional goal of both the pilot studies and resulting North American study should be to increase the understanding of geochemical behavior of trace soil constituents as related to landscape and soil processes. To achieve this goal, the pilot study site(s) should encompass multiple landforms within landscapes of several physiographic provinces in order to evaluate hydrologic and pedogenic processes relative to soil geochemistry.
Pilot studies should be conducted with an eye towards marketing the larger study. For this reason, there may be some political considerations in addition to scientific ones factored into the choice of study areas. One way to achieve both the scientific and marketing goals is to construct pilot studies so that they can stand on their own. The data should be of interest in their own right, with the goal of publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The USGS-NAWQA (National Water Quality Assessment) Program pilot studies that led to both scientific and political advances for the full NAWQA effort were discussed as an example. Marketing is also served by allowing a comment period so that users can react to the approaches taken in the pilot studies. Finally, in order to facilitate the construction of a North American map, we should consider pilot studies that can cross into Canada and Mexico. Such transects would allow project members in the three nations to iron out cross-border issues related to the full North American survey.
Shacklette, H.T., and Boerngen, J.G., 1984, Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270, 105 p.
*What are the attributes of a good pilot-study area?
Each pilot study must incorporate a range of climates, soil types and land uses. A base map used for selecting site locations should reflect these parameters as well. To incorporate the range of selected parameters, the pilot study locations or sampling sites would likely be constructed as transects cutting across a variety of landscapes and landforms. We discussed both the Ecoregion Map and a Hydrologic Landscapes map as possible models for identifying general areas for appropriate study transects. Ecoregions are widely recognized by Department of Interior agencies as guides for their regional work, and thus would have some broad recognition and relevance to other Interior agencies.
The Hydrologic Landscape concept, developed by Tom Winter of the USGS, bears some similarities to ecoregions but also incorporates parameters related to soil-forming processes. He breaks natural landscapes into units defined by parameters that control water movement. These include topography (upland, slope, and lowland areas), permeability of surface materials and climate. Furthermore, the concept is extensible; these landscapes can be defined at a range of scales. A drawback is that hydrologic landscape maps do not yet exist for Canada and Mexico, although it appears that the data exist to construct them. Given the links to ecoregions and soil-forming processes, the group felt that Hydrologic Landscape maps should be considered as a possible guide for constructing the pilot study transects, and as an aid in data interpretation.
Remote sensing was considered by the group as an indispensable aid in the selection of pilot study sites and in data interpretation. Remote sensing is important because the data is continuous, allowing interpolation between sample sites.
*What sort of methods and protocols should be used in pilot studies and a North American soil-sampling effort?
The working group felt that there were two sets of measurements of such high priority that they should be completed on all pilot study samples: (a) major and trace elemental analysis, and (b) soil characterization analyses.
Major and trace elemental analysis: The most important measurement for the study is the total elemental composition. It is regarded as the most consistent analysis (a system constant). Other types of analyses involving partial chemical extractions are much more dependent on procedural details and, likely, operator technique. Thus, these partial extractions (total recoverable) data may not stand the test of time. It was concluded that the primary sample analytical protocol should be a four acid (HCl, HNO3, HF, HClO3) digestion with analysis by inductively coupled plasma, mass-spectroscopy (ICP-MS). This methodology offers the combination of high throughput, excellent sensitivity, and a broad range of analytes (>40 elements). These ICP-MS data would have to be supplemented by a short list of single element techniques to determine Se, Hg, forms of C, and total S.
In addition to these minimum analyses, the pilot studies should include additional measurements on a subset of the samples. This subset would include digestion using a sintering procedure. Sintering is more effective at dissolving refractory elements such as Zr, Nb and Ta. These refractory elements are generally regarded as immobile in the soil profile relative to other elements and thus potentially serve as a useful reference for interpreting soil processes. In addition, the subset of samples would be analyzed by additional methodologies including Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), and X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF). These data would provide benchmarks against which the primary analytical protocol could be judged.
Soil Characterization Analyses: The second and equally important priority is a suite of soil characterization analyses necessary for placing the study soil in context with existing soil data. The soil characterization parameters would include field moisture content, bulk density, pH, cation exchange capacity, particle size analysis, and citrate thionite-extractable Fe, Al, and Mn. In addition, it was suggested that clay mineralogy might be done by x-ray diffraction analysis on a subset of the samples.
QA/QC and estimated costs: The group concluded that standardized QA/QC procedures involving analysis of standard soil reference materials, blanks, spiked samples, and blind duplicates should be followed. A rough estimate of the cost of the basic 4-element digestion, ICP-MS analysis, single element procedures and soil characterization parameters to be done on all samples is $200/sample. QA/QC costs would add about 20% to the overall cost of the analyses.
Sample Handling and Storage: Samples should be screened in the field to < 20 millimeter size, and transported to the laboratory in heavy plastic bags. These bags would prevent soil moisture loss. Forced air-drying at ambient temperature offers rapid drying with minimum sample alteration. Dried samples are then sieved and analyses performed on <2-mm soil material. The <2-mm sample would be split into an analytical and an archive fraction. The analytical protocols require grinding to 100 mesh for elemental analysis, the <2-mm soil would be used for soil characterization analyses. After preparation, the samples (and unground archive split) should be stored in glass containers with Teflon-lined lids to prevent loss of volatile constituents such as Hg.
In addition to basic elemental and characterization parameters, the breakout group considered groups of analyses that would add value to both the pilot studies and North American survey: (a) bioavailability, (b) organic geochemistry, and (c) microbiology.
This terminology refers to the fraction of the total concentration of a given element in a sample that is accessible to organisms. A spectrum of selective extraction or leach procedures exist that could be applied to determine this fraction. Two specific approaches are justified. The first extraction is a water leach. It would be applied to all samples. This would provide distribution coefficients (Kd's) that could be used to establish solubility of metals in soil solutions. Ultimately, the results of this study would establish a large database that could be used for many soil studies. The preferred procedure would utilize a <2-mm sized, unground sample, and a 2:1 water: sample ratio. The analysis of the resulting extract would be performed by ICP-MS to provide low detection limits for elements of interest. It was estimated that this analysis would cost about $50 per sample.
The second type of bioavailability test would be on a subset of the samples and focus on human health issues. These leach studies would be triggered by samples with elevated trace element values (perhaps the 95th percentile of the data but this would be determined during initial feasibility testing) for a suite of elements with known human health consequences. This second level would use a simplified gastric leach to mimic elements dissolved by the human digestive system.
The presence of specific organic compounds in soil is of interest because of the toxicity of a subset of these compounds. In considering incorporation of organic analyses into the pilot study projects and the full survey, the breakout group felt that organic analyses could address a series of important themes. The first theme is long-range transport of organic compounds. It is recognized that many organic compounds are being found far from the application site. Soil plays a role in this process as a reservoir for the organics, but available data on specific organic compounds in soils is very limited. Well-designed pilot studies could help address the issue of organic movement through (translocation) or across the soil surface (erosion) as either complexes with inorganic constituents (e.g., clays) or in solution.
The second related theme was the geographic distribution of major pesticides and their transformation products. The amount and location of pesticide applications are generally known on a regional basis, but the fate of these pesticides in time and space is not. Analysis of samples from the pilot studies and the North American survey could add substantially to knowledge of the fate of applied pesticides. Also unclear is the mechanism of storage and control of contaminants in soils. Binding of pesticides to natural soil organic matter is a likely sink for some of the organic compounds of interest, but the extent and compound specificity of this process requires research. Also related to fate and transport of organic pollutants is the transport of these compounds between the pedosphere and hydrosphere. It should be possible to compare organic geochemistry data from this project and existing water quality data from the NAWQA program to understand the transport mechanisms between these reservoirs.
Of major importance in the context of global carbon cycling is the distribution of natural organic matter in soils. This distribution is of interest both laterally and with depth in the soil profile. Changes in the these distributions over time impact the global carbon balance, and a national survey could lead to a useful baseline map of this parameter. If soil geochemical maps were tied to an underlying knowledge of soil-forming processes, the national soil organic map would have even more predictive power and utility.
The analytical costs for organic compounds can be quite expensive. So, methods adaptations are needed to accomplish the goals of pilot and North American surveys. The group felt that it should indeed be possible to keep the costs down by picking a few key compounds from compound groups that relate to the above themes. The resulting method could be automated using robotics. It was the consensus opinion that low-cost methods could be developed that could be done for under $100 a sample (not including some very-expensive-to-analyze compounds such as PCB's or Dioxins).
Similar to all microbiological studies, soil microbiology is advancing at a rapid rate due to the advent of powerful new analytical techniques. This is both a blessing and a concern. Using these methods, it is possible to characterize soil microorganisms in ways that were previously impossible. On the other hand, the technology is evolving so rapidly that it may prove to be critical to archive samples to take advantage of later developments. The consensus of the group was that soil microbiological studies should be conducted during the pilot phase of the soil geochemistry survey.
The recommendation was to utilize two complementary methods. The phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis is quantitative and relatively straightforward. The PLFA data will provide a measure of microbial biomass as well as markers for major groups of organisms (i.e. patterns of microbial ecology). It does not reveal the identity of individual microbial species. Cost is about $50/sample. The second method is DNA fingerprinting. This approach has the potential to provide both patterns of microbial ecology and identify specific microorganisms. There are various methods for identifying DNA extracted from soil samples, and the group recommended denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). This method is more expensive (~ $150/sample) so the recommendation was to do surface samples only. Once the DNA is extracted from the soil, it may be frozen for later analysis. Furthermore, once the DNA is separated into components from individual microorganisms using the DGGE procedure, the resulting 'strips' with separated DNA bands may be stored frozen for later analysis. The DNA extraction might be used to test for the presence of pathogens in soil samples. There are a number of pathogens potentially present in soils (e.g., anthrax) and a national soil survey could provide background data on their distribution.
Sample preservation and transportation issues for the soil microbiology analyses are critical. Sampling collection must be performed using sterile techniques including sterile gloves and sterile sample containers. About 50 grams of soil is required. The soil could held at room temperature for a day or so following sampling, but should be subsequently transported frozen to the site for analysis.
The following is a report summarizing the discussion of the Marketing and International Collaboration breakout session that occured during the Soil Geochemistry Workshop, Denver, March 4-6, 2003.
The Marketing and International Collaboration breakout session group was charged with generating ideas for making the concept of a North-American-scale soil geochemical survey more visible to decision makers (i.e., government officials), collaborators, and potential clients in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.
We quickly recognized that no one in the group was a marketing expert, and it was suggested that we might want to hire an intern from a local university's business school to assist in developing a business and marketing plan for the proposed survey. The group focused on activities that could be initiated in the very short term. Selected points of discussion and recommendations are listed below:
| Mineral Resources | Eastern / Central / Western / Alaska / Minerals Information |
| Crustal Imaging & Characterization / Spatial Data |
U.S. Department of the Interior |
U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/projects/geochemical_landscapes/t1subtask1.html
Page Contact Information: CMRT Webmaster
Page Last Modified: 10-Sep-2008@16:50
