Progress report for ONE24-448

Download PDF

ONE24-448 (project overview)

Project Type: Partnership

Funds awarded in 2024: $30,000.00

Projected End Date: 06/30/2026

Grant Recipient: Allegheny County Conservation District

Region: Northeast

State: Pennsylvania

Project Leader:

Hayly Hoch

Allegheny County Conservation DIstrict

Expand All Collapse All

Project Information

Project Objectives:

Objective 1: This project seeks to reduce soil lead concentration on two urban farm sites using a standardized remediation plan that prioritizes soil health Best Management Practices (BMPs); progress analysis through a combination of traditional laboratory testing and field based monitoring techniques; and on-going direct support to the urban farmers throughout implementation via the Technical Assistance Team.

Objective 2: This project seeks to better understand the true cost of building soil health and reducing risk of soil lead exposure through enterprise budgeting, exploring viability for non-edible crop sales to support a portion of this work, and compensating farmers through stipends for the labor and ecosystem services their farm sites provide.

Objective 3: This project seeks to highlight challenges and viable solutions for growers working with urban soils through comprehensive outreach efforts that center farmer expertise and experiences in order to successfully scale vacant lot remediation for urban agriculture expansion.

Introduction:

Pittsburgh is facing impacts from environmental shifts, land access, and loss of industry. Communities experience these impacts acutely and lead to negative health consequences. Urban agriculture sits at the crux of these challenges as a potential solution, so long as the legacy of soil contamination is addressed. ACCD has been providing soil testing and analysis at no charge; community interest in specific lead data on urban agriculture sites has increased, and remediation for contaminated soil is required.

According to Penn State University’s Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, Pittsburgh could resemble Knoxville, TN by mid-century and Jonesboro, AR by 2080 (currently 10 degrees warmer in the summer). The PA Department of Environmental Protection reports that PA annual precipitation has increased by 10% over the last century, and projects increased trends. The area can expect increasing flooding, landslides, and stress on infrastructure.

Allegheny County’s urban/peri-urban communities have high levels of vacancy, 60,000 vacant parcels (27,000 in the City of Pittsburgh). These parcels are often laden with legacy contamination (Pb, As, Cr, Cd) and have poor soil health and surface ecology features (low organic matter, compaction, invasive species). Due to a variety of health concerns, vacant lots need to be tested for lead. Lead binds with the soil at a molecular level and can be ingested or inhaled, exposing individuals to a toxic level, particularly concerning for children. Certain vegetables, especially leafy greens have high lead uptake (Heckert, 2018). Children tested in the City of Pittsburgh in 2021 have confirmed elevated blood lead levels (>= 5 μg/dL), higher on average than children tested elsewhere in Allegheny County (Allegheny, n.d.).

Many social determinants of health can be connected to cycles of poverty, and chronic health conditions are compounded by lacking access to healthy food. In Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, the estimated rate of food insecurity exceeds the national rate of 11% at 19.4% and 13.1%, respectively. Healthy soil is critical for urban agricultural operations and the communities that consume their food. Local Farm-a-Lot and Adopt-a-Lot programs streamline permissions needed for urban farmers to “adopt” vacant lots. In order to access these vacant lots, Pb average level must be <1000 ppm (City, n.d.).

Real potential exists in these prolific vacant spaces. ACCD and partners have opportunities to reduce risks from legacy contamination and open land to grow food, improve holding capacity for stormwater, increase carbon sequestration and biodiversity, and add value to surrounding real estate by encouraging green use. NRCS has found that a 1% increase in organic matter prequalifies an additional 20,000 gallons of holding capacity per acre of land. Ecosystem services such as this are particularly important in a county dealing with soil loss, compromised water quality, and increasing amounts of precipitation causing ongoing flooding, landslides, road failures, threats to public health, and high costs to local governments to respond to and manage these issues.

These challenges are evident on be.wilder and SSPN’s future farm sites. These growers want their sites to have a productive community use and current soil lead levels prevent this. Be.wilder’s site has levels from 106 PPM to 1221 PPM. SSPN’s site has levels from 54 PPM to 914 PPM. There are no federal guidelines on acceptable soil lead levels, both sites’ average is above the 400 PPM threshold and growing leafy greens and root vegetables is strongly recommended against. The farm operators are committed to reducing exposure to soil lead through site remediation and building long term soil health. Yet, it is a resource and labor intensive process and a return on investment is not immediately evident.

ACCD intends to offer meaningful, detailed information to help inform, inspire, and grow the scale of investment in urban agriculture by and for the benefit of residents. Doing so will create more functional connectivity between land and water and the people and wildlife depending on them. This in turn will increase Pittsburgh’s environmental health, economic sustainability, and overall quality of life. ACCD will accomplish this through a combination of strategies including culturally sensitive, equitable outreach; robust technical assistance; subsidized services case study documentation; education about progress and findings to diverse practitioners and community groups; and accessible communications around best practices and standard operating procedures to facilitate replication.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand/collapse or show everyone's info

Megan Gallagher
bewilderfarm@gmail.com
be.wild.er farm (Commercial (farm/ranch/business))
Wilkinsburg, PA
(814) 566-7664 (office)
Raynise and TaRay Kelly
soilsisters835@gmail.com
Owner
Soil Sisters Plant Nursery (Commercial (farm/ranch/business))
123 Beltzhoover Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15210
(412) 224-7157 (office)
Chris Maurukami
C.Murakami@Chatham.edu
Assistant Professor of Agroecology
Chatham University’s Falk School of Sustainability (Other college or university)
107 Woodland Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15232
United States
(412) 365-1347 (office)
Russ Thorsen
russell@pasafarming.org
Farmer Outreach Specialist
PA Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) (Nonprofit / non-governmental organization)
1631 N Front St
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(814) 349-9856 (office)

Research

Materials and methods:

OBJECTIVE 1: This project seeks to reduce soil lead concentration on two urban farm sites using a standardized remediation plan that prioritizes soil health Best Management Practices (BMPs); analyze progress through a combination of traditional laboratory testing and field based monitoring techniques; and provide on-going direct support to the urban farmers throughout implementation via the Technical Assistance Team.

Treatments:
1. Part A
  1. Carbon rich organic matter: Six to eight inches will be spread across the entire research area; both sites will utilize a mix of wood chips and biochar. Compost tea application to assist with initiating breakdown of carbon heavy wood chips. Incorporate using a backhoe and remove debris.
  2. Compost: If available, applied at a depth of at least 2 inches on crops rows in the research area.
2. Non-edible crop trial: on each site, the urban grower will select a non-edible crop to grow and market. Crop selection will take into consideration each urban grower’s existing customer base and market access, processing requirements and infrastructure, existing resources and skills knowledge, shortened seasonality, and high amount of biomass residue left after the non-edible crop has been harvested. Non-edible crop examples include cut flowers, flax for fiber, broom corn, or ornamental gourds.
3. Part B
  1. Green manure: After non-edible crops have been harvested, remaining plant residues will be flail mowed or weed whacked, and incorporated into the soil using a walk behind tractor.
  2. Compost application
  3. Additional soil amendments: Specific soil conditions of each site will drive additional soil amendments. Lightly incorporate using a walk-behind tractor.
  4. Cover crop: The final treatment will be to broadcast seed a fall sown cover crop mix. Mow, incorporate the cover crop, and tarp to encourage decomposition.
Experimental design: On each site, a research area (area identified by urban farmer for in-ground crop production) and control area have been identified. Data will be collected in both research and control areas before and after implementation of the remediation plan to comprehensively understand changes in Pb concentration at each site. See attached “ExperimentalDesign”for research and control areas at Site 1 and Site 2. Urban Farmers and Technical Assistance Team will meet virtually 1x per month to 29 check in on progress and navigate unexpected challenges; additional site visits will be conducted as needed.
Treatment application: See timeline for treatment application. Urban Farmers and Technical Assistance Team will meet virtually 1x per month to check in on progress and navigate unexpected challenges; additional site visits will be conducted as needed.
Data to collect, Measurement protocols, and Methods for analysis:
1. Soil samples: See attached “Soil Sample Data Collection Sheet”
  1. Conduct micro mapping of Pb PPM via ACCD XRF, before and after remediation plan in both research area and control area.
    1. Samples will be taken and documented on the same plot grid as shown in “SoilSisters_HeavyMetal_Mapping” and “Be.Wilder_HeavyMetal_Mapping” (see attached).
    2. Average site Pb concentration will be calculated using all sample results.
    3. Determine if amendments were successful based on net reduction in Pb concentration of research areas compared to the control areas by comparing before and after results Pb ppm results.
    4. Interpretation using Adopt-a-Lot and Farm-a-Lot program lease requirements of 400+ PPM Pb not suitable for vegetable production (City, n.d.).
  2. Collect 1 representative site sample for traditional lab testing, before and after remediation plan in both research area and control area.
    1. CASH lab testing via Cornell Soil Health Laboratory: change in overall soil health score and other soil health properties (Organic Matter, extractable Phosphorus)
    2. Total sorbed lead (EPA method 3050B + 6010) via Penn State University Agricultural Analytical Services Lab: Interpret using EPA standard of 400+ ppm Pb not suitable for vegetable production.
    3. Plant available lead (modified morgan) via UMASS Extension: Interpret using 22+ ppm Pb not suitable for vegetable production.
      1. Did not utilize this test as Farmer Cooperator feedback was to stick with PSU as it is the mostly widely utilized lab in our region; most familiar with sample collection and mailing process
    4. NRCS Soil Health Assessment, before and after remediation plan in research area only
      1. Conducted as outlined in NRCS Technical Guide 450-06 (United, 2021).
  3. Plant tissue analysis of Pb concentration in non-edible crop via Penn State University Agricultural Analytical Services Lab 30
    1. Analyze using UK regulations on maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (European, 2011).

OBJECTIVE 2: This project seeks to better understand the true cost of building soil health and reducing risk of soil lead exposure through enterprise budgeting, exploring viability for non-edible crop sales to support a portion of this work, and compensating farmers through stipends for the labor and ecosystem services their farm sites provide.

Data to collect
1. Track costs and labor associated with implementation of remediation plan.
2. Track costs and labor associated with non-edible crop growth, harvest, post-harvest process, sales.
3. Track revenue of non-edible crop.

Measurement protocols
1. Urban farmers will submit bi-weekly logs via Google forms tracking labor in hours and expense costs by activity.
2. Urban farmers will report non-edible crop revenue at the end of season using tools developed by Technical Assistance Team in alignment with existing point of sale systems.
Methods for analysis
1. Use enterprise budgeting to evaluate viability of non-edible crop sales to support remediation plan implementation.
2. Compare true cost of building soil health to stipend provided, develop recommendation for benchmark subsidy that recognizes value of ecosystem services performed by urban farms during remediation plan implementation.

OBJECTIVE 3: This project seeks to highlight challenges and viable solutions for growers working with urban soils through comprehensive outreach efforts that center farmer expertise and experiences in order to successfully scale vacant lot remediation for urban agriculture expansion.

Methods for analysis
1. Project results for each site will be comprehensively reported in a Site Case Study with input and review by Urban Farmers and Technical Assistance Team.
2. See “Outreach Plan” below for details on how Site Case Studies will be used to achieve objective.

Research results and discussion:

Objective

a. Results

		Be.wilder		Soil Sisters		Rebecca Ave
		BEFORE	AFTER	BEFORE	AFTER	BEFORE	AFTER
pXRF Analysis	site average ppm pb	520.10	384.70	409.71		533.2
	Site average risk	Medium (400- 999 ppm pb)	Low (150- 3999 ppm pb)	Medium (400- 999 ppm pb)		Medium (400- 999 ppm pb)
	Highest ppm pb result	1221 ppm pb	941 ppm pb	1143 ppm pb		2159 ppm pb
Cornell Soil Health Lab	CASH overall score	85/100	91/100	91/100		90/100
Penn State Soil Analytics Lab	Pb Environmental soil test	282 ppm	426.51 ppm	488.32 ppm pb		780.00
	pH	6.7	7.2	7.4		7.2
	Phosphorous	179 lb/acre (optimum)	252 lb/acre (optimum)	142 lb/ acre (deficient)		69 lb/acre (deficient)
	CEC	13.8	18.3	17.7		17.2
	Organic matter %	3.5	4.6	4.4		4.6
NRCS Soil Health Assessment
Penn State Plant tissue analysis	Pb ppm	23.91

b. Discussion

Be.wilder

1. pXRF results Analysis

70	# of samples decreased in ppm pb
84%	% of samples decreased
13	# of samples increased in ppm pb
16%	% of samples increased
4	# of samples decrease from high risk to med risk
20	# of samples decrease from med risk to low risk
4	# of samples decrease from low risk to very low risk
135.40	Overall site average ppm pb change
135.40	Average change in ppm pb per sample
45	# of samples with decrease of >100 ppm
54%	% of samples with decrease of >100 ppm

The F-test for two-sample variances compares the variability in lead concentrations (PPM/Pb) between 2023 and 2025. Variable 1 (2025) has a variance of 31,890.46, while Variable 2 (2023) has a higher variance of 65,704.36, with 83 observations in each group. The calculated F-statistic is 0.4854, which is less than the critical F value of 0.6939. Additionally, the p-value is 0.00062, which is well below the 0.05 significance threshold. This indicates a statistically significant difference in variances, suggesting that the variability in lead levels was significantly lower in 2025 compared to 2023.

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

	Variable 1	Variable 2
Mean	384.6987952	520.0963855
Variance	31890.45695	65704.35645
Observations	83	83
df	82	82
F	0.4853628994
P(F<=f) one-tail	0.0006221818926
F Critical one-tail	0.6939173608

The t-test results indicate a statistically significant decrease in average lead concentrations (PPM/Pb) from 2023 to 2025. The mean lead level dropped from 520.10 in 2023 to 384.70 in 2025, with respective variances of 65,704.36 and 31,890.46 across 83 observations in each year. The calculated t-statistic of -3.95 and a one-tailed p-value of 0.00006 show that this difference is highly significant, well below the 0.05 threshold. Even under a two-tailed test, the p-value remains extremely low at 0.00012, confirming a meaningful difference in lead levels. These results provide strong evidence that lead concentrations have significantly declined between 2023 and 2025.

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

	Variable 1	Variable 2
Mean	384.6987952	520.0963855
Variance	31890.45695	65704.35645
Observations	83	83
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	146
t Stat	-3.948540642
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.00006094598582
t Critical one-tail	1.655357345
P(T<=t) two-tail	0.0001218919716
t Critical two-tail	1.976345655

2. Objective

a. Results

	Be.wilder	Soil sisters	Rebecca Ave
Total Expense	$12,150.11
Supplies	4777.36
Equipment	1203.75
Contract Labor	5719
Lab Testing Services	450

Value of Farmer Labor ($15/hr)	$1680
Hours	112

Total Revenue	$170.10
Value of cash crop	0.70/ stock
Harvest total	243

b. Discussion

3. Objective

a. Results: Site Case Studies are currently in development

b. Discussion

Research conclusions:

Research is still ongoing

Participation summary

3 Farmers/Ranchers participating in research

2 Ag service providers participating in research

Education & outreach activities and participation summary

30 Consultations

2 Curricula, factsheets or educational tools

2 Online trainings

1 Published press articles, newsletters

2 Tours

3 Webinars / talks / presentations

2 Workshop field days

Participation summary:

15 Farmers/Ranchers

5 Agricultural service providers

Education/outreach description:

Case studies of each of the 3 sites in the project will be developed and adding to the Urban Soils Best Management Guide, creating a living document that reflects the progress and impact of this project over time. These resources are intended for a grower audience, but it is relevant to anyone in the region.
ACCD successfully coordinated 2 on-farm workshops for a grower audience and a farmer-to-farmer format. Both workshops exceeded the goal of 15 attendees per event, with 27 participants attending workshop 1 and 21 participants attending workshop 2.
ACCD and participating farmers have presented at numerous conferences and webinars for additional peer learning, including the 2025 PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference, the 2025 National Association of Conservation Districts Annual Meeting, and the 2025 New York City Urban Soil Symposium. Additional webinars include “Compost as Gold” presentation for Pittsburgh Food Policy Council webinar series and “Urban Soils: Overview & Remediation” presentation for the National Giving Grove Network. In 2026, PASA staff will highlight the continuation of this collaboration via a poster presentation during the 2026 PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference.
To date, ACCD has hosted 9 Soil Lead Screening Pop-up Events for resident backyard gardeners, exceeding the original goal of 25 participants engaged with a total of 41 residents engaged during these events.
In 2025 alone, ACCD completed 23 site visits to complete heavy metals micro mapping for urban growers, an increase from 22 site visits in 2024.
ACCD is developing a Model Urban Soils Program Standard Operating Procedures guide, intended for an agency audience. Partner PASA will help share this resource statewide and has begun using this draft to implement Urban Soils programming in Erie, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. ACCD will ensure that the technical assistance process is more formally documented between ACCD and PASA for future replication. While both ACCD and PASA offer various forms of technical assistance to farmers, and both are routinely collaborative, this relationship is largely informal. The desire is to delineate a more standard operating procedure to share with other organizations, partners, and farmers after the pilot concludes, to maximize effectiveness and efficiency.
By using stipends and compensation for the participating farmers, ACCD intends to help offset cost challenges they may have in implementing recommendations, and to ensure continued participation. Farmers will receive education and introductions to sources of information and other successful urban growers of both non-edible (year 1) and edible (year 2) plants/crops for market as well as incentives and other assistance offered via NRCS. All activities will be summarized, updated, and shared in detail in the case studies.

Learning Outcomes

3 Farmers/Ranchers gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness

5 Agricultural service providers gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness

48 Others gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness

Key areas in which farmers gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness:

To date, we have not yet conducted post surveys with 3 farmer cooperators to measure change in knowledge, attitude, skills, and/or awareness. This is planned for Q1 of 2026.
Workshops
1. The first of 2 soil health workshops, planned in partnership with Grow Pittsburgh and Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, took place on July 16, 2025 at at be.wilder farm. The event, “Urban Soil Health Workshop: Lessons Learned In Soil Lead Remediation” was a spectacular success with 27 attendees. We kicked off the workshop with Megan, owner of be.wilder, providing background on her farm operation, goals for expansion, and land acquisition experience. She handed it off to ACCD and PASA staff to present on the initial soil lead contamination and general soil health concerns at the site before describing the “remediation recipe” that was implemented over the course of 2024. We then discussed results that show the site’s average soil lead content decreased from 520.20 ppm pb in 2023, considered medium risk, to 384.70 ppm pb in 2025, considered low risk. Not only did 84% of samples decrease in soil pb concentration with more than half of those samples being a significant decrease of 100 ppm or more, but zero samples came back above 1000 ppm pb, or high risk. These results have been validated as statistically significant by partners at Chatham University. After celebrating the win for reducing risk of exposure to soil lead on site, Megan described the overall positive changes in physical, chemical, and biological soil health that she has witnessed to date in the 2025 growing season as a result of the “remediation recipe.” We wrapped up the evening with Megan’s reflections on what went well and what to change for future Urban Soil Health Remediation projects, audience Q&A, and a social hour with BBQ, snacks and refreshments to support urban grower peer to peer learning and community building. Post surveys display an overwhelmingly positive response from workshop attendees with 90% of survey respondents rating the “knowledge provided by presenter” as either “good” or “very good” as well as 95% of survey respondents rating “knowledge gained in this session” as either “good” or “very good.” When asked how likely participants were “to use this information moving forward,” 85% responded either “likely” or “very likely,” and 19 out of 20 of survey respondents rated their “overall experience with the event” as “good” or “very good.” The change in skill confidence exhibited between pre and post surveys also showcases the success of this first workshop. As a result of the workshop, there was a 17.11% increase in “knowledge of or skill in soil health properties,” with 16 total participants identifying as either “intermediate, ““advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; 13.98% increase in “knowledge of or skill in urban soil challenges and contaminants,” with 16 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; 34.76% increase in “knowledge of or skill in strategies to reduce risk of exposure to soil lead,” with 18 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; 20.93% increase in “knowledge of or skill in using best management practices to improve soil health,” with 16 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; and 30.99% increase in “knowledge of or skill in government agencies, institutions, or community organizations that provide technical assistance to urban growers,” with 12 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event.
2. The final soil health workshop, planned in partnership with Grow Pittsburgh and Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, took place on October 22, 2025 at Soil Sisters, one of this year’s urban soil health remediation project sites. Tree Pittsburgh assisted with outreach and promotion of this workshop. The event was a spectacular success with 21 attendees. This workshop was intended to demonstrate the “remediation recipe” in process, providing general soil lead risk reduction strategies vs the dilute and lock up recipe piloted at the site. The evening centered on Soil Sisters’s owners’ experiences prior to a robust audience Q&A. Finally, attendees enjoyed a social hour with empanadas, snacks and refreshments to support urban growers, peer to peer learning and community building. Post surveys display an overwhelmingly positive response from workshop attendees with 93% of survey respondents rating the “knowledge provided by presenter” as either “good” or “very good” as well as 93% of survey respondents rating “knowledge gained in this session” as either “good” or “very good.” When asked how likely participants were “to use this information moving forward,” 93% responded either “likely” or “very likely,” and 100% of survey respondents rated their “overall experience with the event” as “good” or “very good.” The change in skill confidence exhibited between pre and post surveys also showcases the success of this workshop. As a result of the workshop, there was a 24.68% increase in “knowledge of or skill in soil health properties,” with 13 total participants identifying as either “intermediate, ““advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; 31.87% increase in “knowledge of or skill in urban soil challenges and contaminants,” with 14 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; 31.99% increase in “knowledge of or skill in strategies to reduce risk of exposure to soil lead,” with 14 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; 14.58% increase in “knowledge of or skill in using best management practices to improve soil health,” with 15 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event; and 33.60% increase in “knowledge of or skill in government agencies, institutions, or community organizations that provide technical assistance to urban growers,” with 10 total participants identifying as either “intermediate,” “advanced,” or “expert” by the end of the event. These results demonstrate the continuous demand for soil health learning opportunities for urban growers of all scales from urban farmers to backyard gardeners.
3. This work has also been presented to regional partners and farmer audiences at the following conferences with a high degree of interest and follow up collaborations:
  1. NACD Annual Meeting
  2. PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference
  3. USI NYC Symposium
To date, we have not gathered feedback on Urban Soil Health Best Management Field Guide with case studies from cooperator farmers as it is still being drafted. Feedback from urban grower audience in BIRM network to measure change in knowledge, attitude, skills, and/or awareness as a result of this resource is projected for Q1 of 2026.

Project Outcomes

3 Farmers/Ranchers changed or adopted a practice

7 Grants applied for that built upon this project

4 Grants received that built upon this project

$1,191,773.00 Dollar amount of grants received that built upon this project

Project outcomes:

As a result of this project, 3 Farmer Cooperators are taking a full year to improve soil health instead of jumping immediately into production on newly acquired vacant lots. Through this process, Farmer Cooperators have been introduced to soil health BMPs such as cover cropping, mulching, and more as they are integral treatments in the Soil Health Remediation Plan. ACCD has connected Farmer Cooperators to NRCS and FSA TA staff resulting in construction of a high tunnel via EQIP at be.wilder, and a pending application for a high tunnel at Soil Sisters. Farmer Cooperators have also been trained on and communicated more confidence on different soil testing methods and field assessment techniques. We look forward to documenting thorough Farmer Cooperator feedback in the final case study attachments for each site.
Megan, owner of be.Wilder, has repeatedly communicated that, even had this project not resulted in a significant change in soil lead concentration, she would recommend this process to other urban farmers during the site planning and development phase as the secondary benefits on rubble and debris removal, reduced compaction, and incorporation of organic matter had an immense positive impact on the growing conditions from her perspective.

41 New working collaborations

Assessment of Project Approach and Areas of Further Study:

Be.wilder has completed Objective 1, with Soil Sisters and Rebecca Ave scheduled to wrap up Objective in Q1 of 2026. Throughout Objective 1, a number of lessons have already been learned to date with regard to project methods, keys to success, and unanticipated challenges.
1. One significant hurdle was the delay in remediation plan implementation at Soil Sisters due to the aforementioned delay in land ownership transfer. In addition to the delay in ownership transfer, Soil Sisters had negotiated an in-kind donation for a local developer to provide leveling services in exchange for utilizing the space as a staging site for building occurring nearby in the neighborhood. This leveling was an essential opportunity for Soil Sister’s long term success at the site, so our remediation plan implementation needed to be adapted to accommodate their work and timeline. However, this leveling pushed the start date a full year, and actually introduced contaminated fill and additional debris to the site.
2. Next, all three sites needed to make changes to the order of remediation plan treatments as a result of local supply and available labor. All of these challenges and changes demonstrate the need for this replicable soil health remediation plan to provide room for flexibility and adaptation to an urban grower’s specific needs, business goals, scale and timeline.
3. Through this project, it has become clear that cost of contractor “scoop dump” work to remove debris, incorporate organic material, and de-compact site is directly related to site history (namely number of structures and date of demolition), and recent site disturbance. The contractors that we have partnered with on this project from Fourth River Workers Guild have developed unique methods for efficient sorting and removal of debris depending on size that we look forward to haring in the case study development. Fourth River Workers Guild has also begun to train other contractors from JobCorps on this method through a partnership with local Hilltop Urban Farm, further expanding the reach of this work.
No revisions in methodology at this time
In light of the success demonstrated at be.wilder, we look forward to continuing this investigation at Soil Sisters and Rebecca Ave. We hope to replicate the early success, thereby increasing our confidence in recommending this practice to other urban farmers.
Additional work is absolutely needed in this area. This method is suitable for sites that have only soil lead contamination, but we are in need of a protocol for dilute/ lock up for site with both lead and arsenic soil contamination, which is common in our region. Lead and arsenic have conflicting requirements for chemical binding in the soil profile in that while lead is less bioavailable under basic soil pH conditions, arsenic is less bioavailable under acidic soil pH conditions.
We believe other Technical Assistance professionals in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and rust belt regions would benefit significantly from this body of work. Already we have received interest from land grant university and Extension professionals, NRCS conservationists, and other conservation district staff. Although delayed as a result of the federal government shut down earlier this year, we hope to convene interested technical assistance professionals in a Regional Urban Soil Health Roundtable that meets regularly to share best practices, lessons learned, resources, and more.

Return to Project Overview

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.