Final report for ONE24-448

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

Summary:

Agricultural producers with lead soil contamination need scalable solutions to address soil heavy metals. Allegheny County Conservation District (ACCD), alongside partners PASA Sustainable Agriculture and Chatham University, created the Urban Soil Health Remediation (USHR) project that uses a "dilute and lock-up" strategy to reduce soil lead concentration and risk of exposure. With support from the SARE Partnership Grant, the USHR project was piloted on 3 urban farm sites in Allegheny County between 2023 and 2026. pXRF screening results from all three Urban Soil Health Remediation sites demonstrate a reduction in site average soil lead concentration, while improving general soil health indicators alongside properties, such as pH and phosphorous, that contribute to reducing lead bioavailability. Beyond this success, the USHR projects assessed 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. Finally, comprehensive outreach efforts that center farmer expertise and experiences resulted in increased knowledge of or confidence in soil health skills among all three participating urban farmers, two Urban Soil Health workshops that engaged 48 attendees, 14 Soil Lead Screening Pop-up Events for backyard gardeners that engaged 57 residents, and 43 site visits to complete Heavy Metal Micro-mapping for urban farmers across Allegheny County via pXRF.

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 - Producer
bewilderfarm@gmail.com
be.wild.er farm (Commercial (farm/ranch/business))
Wilkinsburg, PA
(814) 566-7664 (office)
Raynise and TaRay Kelly - Producer
soilsisters835@gmail.com
Owner
Soil Sisters Plant Nursery (Commercial (farm/ranch/business))
123 Beltzhoover Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15210
(412) 224-7157 (office)
Chris Maurukami (Educator)
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 (Educator)
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)
Jess Runco - Producer
jess@touchofgreenpgh.com
Owner
Touch of Green Landscaping
Wilkinsburg, PA 15221
(412) 596-5664 (office)

Research

Materials and methods:

OBJECTIVE 1: This project seeks to reduce soil lead concentration on three 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.
1. Remediation plan:
  1. Spread a layer of woodchips six to eight inches deep across research area.
  2. Spray woodchips with nitrogen rich soil probiotic to assist with initiating breakdown of carbon heavy wood chips.
  3. Incorporate wood chips into top 18 inches of soil profile using a backhoe, taking care to move backwards across the site to prevent re-compaction. Backhoe operator should work to simultaneously remove debris greater than 6 inches in diameter.
  4. Apply compost at depth of at least 2 inches.
  5. Seed a non-edible cash crop to grow and market. Crop selection should 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. Be.wilder selected broom corn for non-edible crop in 2024 season. For 2025 season, Soil Sisters grew broom corn and Rebecca Ave Garden grew cut flowers.
  6. 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.
  7. Specific soil conditions of each site will drive additional soil amendments. Lightly incorporate using a walk-behind tractor.
  8. The final treatment will be to broadcast seed a fall sown cover crop mix. In the spring, mow, incorporate the cover crop, and tarp to encourage decomposition.
2. Experimental design: On each site, a research area (area identified by urban farmer for in-ground crop production) has been identified. Data will be collected before and after implementation of the remediation plan to comprehensively understand changes in Pb concentration and bioavailability at each site. 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.
  1. Remediation timeline:
  2. Data to collect, Measurement protocols, and Methods for analysis:
    1. Soil samples:
      1. Conduct heavy metal micro-mapping of Pb PPM via ACCD pXRF, before and after remediation plan in research area.
        
        Samples will be taken and documented on the same plot grid according to ACCD’s Heavy Metal Micro-Mapping protocol.
        
        Average site Pb concentration will be calculated using all sample results.
        
        Determine if amendments were successful based on net reduction in Pb concentration of research areas by comparing before and after results Pb ppm results.
        
        Interpretation using local Adopt-a-Lot program lease requirements (City, n.d.).
      2. Collect 1 representative site sample for traditional lab testing, before and after remediation plan in research area.
        
        CASH lab testing via Cornell Soil Health Laboratory: change in overall soil health score and other soil health properties (Organic Matter, extractable Phosphorus)
        
        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. NRCS Soil Health Assessment, before and after remediation plan in research area
        
        Conducted as outlined in NRCS Technical Guide 450-06 (United, 2021).
    2. Plant tissue analysis of Pb concentration in non-edible crop via Penn State University Agricultural Analytical Services Lab
      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.
1. 1. Data to collect, Measurement protocols, and Methods for analysis
    1. Track costs and labor associated with implementation of remediation plan along with non-edible crop growth, harvest, post-harvest process, sales. Track revenue or value of non-edible crop.
    2. Use enterprise budgeting to evaluate viability of non-edible crop sales to support remediation plan implementation.
    3. 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 to successfully scale vacant lot remediation for urban agriculture expansion.
1. Data to collect, Measurement protocols, and Methods for analysis:
  1. Conduct Producer Reflection Surveys
  2. Host Urban Soil Health Workshops with pre/ post surveys on Urban Soil Health skills and knowledge
  3. Project results for each site will be comprehensively reported in a Site Case Study with input and review by Producers and Technical Assistance Team.

Research results and discussion:

Objective 1

a. Results

		Be.wilder		Soil Sisters		Rebecca Ave
		BEFORE	AFTER	BEFORE	AFTER	BEFORE	AFTER
pXRF Analysis	site average ppm pb	520.10	384.70	324.95	285.31 ppm	844.67 ppm	497.95 ppm
	Site average risk	Medium (400- 999 ppm pb)	Low (150- 399 ppm pb)	Low (150- 399 ppm pb)	Low (150- 399 ppm pb)	Medium (400- 999 ppm pb)	Medium (400- 999 ppm pb)
	Highest ppm pb result	1221 ppm pb	941 ppm pb	843 ppm pb	657 ppm pb	2159 ppm pb	1165 ppm pb
Cornell Soil Health Lab	CASH overall score	85/100	91/100	91/100	89/100	90/100	96/100
Penn State Soil Analytics Lab	Pb Environmental soil test	282 ppm pb	426.51 ppm pb	488.32 ppm pb	235.00 ppm pb	780.00 ppm pb	412.99 ppm pb
	pH	6.7	7.2	7.4	7.9	7.2	7.3
	Phosphorous	179 lb/acre (optimum)	252 lb/acre (optimum)	142 lb/ acre (deficient)	247 lb/acre (optimum)	69 lb/acre (deficient)	133 lb/acre (deficient)
	CEC	13.8	18.3	17.7	18.7	17.2	10.6
	Organic matter %	3.5	4.6	4.4	6.6	4.6	6.1
Penn State Plant tissue analysis	Pb ppm	23.91		unknown		Unknown

i. Be.wilder

A. 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

B. 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

ii. Soil Sisters

A. pXRF results Analysis

28	# of samples decreased in ppm pb
67%	% of samples decreased
14	# of samples increased in ppm pb
33%	% of samples increased
0	# of samples decrease from high risk
10	# of samples decrease from med risk
3	# of samples decrease from low risk
39.64	Overall site average ppm pb change
39.64	Average change in ppm pb per sample
13	# of samples with decrease of >100 ppm
31%	% of samples with decrease of >100 ppm

B. Overall, the average soil lead level dropped from 324.95 ppm in 2025 to 285.31 ppm in 2026. This is a decrease of about 40 ppm, or 12.2%. Although this looks like an improvement, the statistical test showed that the difference was not statistically significant (t(41) = -1.61, p = 0.114). This means we cannot say with confidence that the decrease was due to a real change in soil lead levels. Lead levels varied quite a bit from one sampling spot to another. Some spots had much lower lead levels in 2026, while others had higher levels. Because of this variation, it is difficult to know whether the overall decrease reflects a true improvement or normal year-to-year differences. Even so, the lower average lead level is a positive sign. Continuing to test the same sampling spots in future years will help determine whether soil lead levels are continuing to decrease over time.

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means	Variable 1 (post)	Variable 2 (pre)
Mean	285.3095238	324.952381
Variance	9617.828688	20676.77816
Observations	42	42
Pearson Correlation	0.1753613843
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	41
t Stat	-1.613658202
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.0571364929
t Critical one-tail	1.682878002
P(T<=t) two-tail	0.1142729858
t Critical two-tail	2.01954097

iii. Rebecca Ave. Community Garden

A. pXRF Results Analysis

16	# of samples decreased in ppm pb
76%	% of samples decreased
5	# of samples increased in ppm pb
24%	% of samples increased
9	# of samples decrease from high risk
5	# of samples decrease from med risk
0	# of samples decrease from low risk
346.71	Overall site average ppm pb change
356.76	Average change in ppm pb per sample
15	# of samples with decrease of >100 ppm
71%	% of samples with decrease of >100 ppm

B. On average, soil lead levels dropped from about 845 ppm in 2024 to about 488 ppm in 2026 across 21 plots. A statistical test (paired t‑test) shows this reduction is very unlikely to be due to chance (p ≈ 0.008), which means the remediation project produced a real and meaningful decrease in soil lead.

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means	Variable 1 (post)	Variable 2 (pre)
Mean	487.9047619	844.6666667
Variance	54082.39048	248044.0333
Observations	21	21
Pearson Correlation	-0.03820017246
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	20
t Stat	2.931738162
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.004123816597
t Critical one-tail	1.724718243
P(T<=t) two-tail	0.008247633195
t Critical two-tail	2.085963447

b. Discussion: Following implementation of the Urban Soil Health Remediation project, average site soil lead content observed through pXRF screening decreased across all three sites, lowering associated risk of soil lead exposure at all three sites. Although this decrease was statistically significant at only two of the three sites, be.wilder and Rebecca Ave Community Garden, pXRF screening of total elemental soil lead demonstrates that the objective "to reduce soil lead concentration on three urban farm sites using a standardized remediation plan that prioritizes soil health Best Management Practices (BMPs)” was absolutely achieved. PXRF screening results also revealed that the highest individual soil lead result, or hot spot samples, were reduced at all three sites as well. Laboratory testing of 1 representative sample per site from Penn State Ag Analytics Lab for environmentally available lead shows a decrease at both Soil Sisters and Rebecca Ave Community Garden. In addition to the measured reduction in the sites’ average soil lead content via pXRF screening, lab testing also shows an increased soil pH and increased phosphate content across all three sites, providing evidence that lead bio-availability has been reduced. Above and beyond the achievement to reduce risk of exposure to soil lead across all three sites, an overall improvement in soil health was also observed evidenced by the increased soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) and organic matter percentage across all three sites. The Cornell CASH soil tests also reflect this soil health improvement through increase score at two out of the three sites, with all three sites’ post remediation scores categorized as “very high.” These results give ACCD and Technical Assistance partners confidence that the Urban Soil Health Remediation (USHR) succeeds as “a standardized remediation plan that prioritizes soil health Best Management Practices (BMPs)” to reduce risk of exposure to soil lead.

2. Objective 2

a. Results

	Be.wilder	Soil sisters	Rebecca Ave	AVERAGE
AOI sq/ ft	8,400	4,200	2,200	10,000

Total Expense	$13,124.88	$11,410.79	$4,639.39	$21,300
Supplies	5752.13	5062.79	904.80
Equipment	1203.75	0	58.85
Contract Labor	5719	5898	3225.74
Lab Testing Services	450	450	450
Cost per sq/ ft	$1.56	$2.72	$2.12	$2.13

Value of Farmer Labor ($15/hr)	$1680	$2,415	$525	$3,450
Total Hours	112	161	38	230
Hours per sq/ ft	0.013	0.038	0.017	0.023

Total Revenue	$170.10	$95	$997.05
Value of cash crop	$0.70/ stock	$0.70/ stock	$0.85/stem
Harvest total	243	136	1173

b. Discussion: Supplies costs, primarily soil amendments, varied widely across the three sites based on research area square footage. Equipment costs vary across the three sites based on farmers’ access to personal equipment as well as research area size. For example, be.wilder as a for-profit specialty crop farm already had access to a walk behind tractor to complete soil amendment incorporation or cash crop mow down as green manure. In contrast, Rebecca Ave. Community Garden, a site fully managed by volunteers, did not have access to equipment for tilling and thus was required to rent a small tiller. Finally, due to be.wilder’s large site and lack of volunteer manpower, renting a miniature skid steer to spread woodchips efficiently to stay on track with project timeline was a valuable adaption. Double dig work to incorporate woodchips, remove debris, and mimic deep tillage for decompaction was contracted out instead of lead farmer renting equipment and tackling this independently. This was essential to success; using the backhoe required heavy operator skills on these sites. This cost also varied widely based on amount of rubble discovered during double dig and size of rubble; whether rubble was hauled away and disposed of or kept on site; and whether farmer had access to equipment (ex. walk behind tractor) to seed bed or if this needed to be added to contractor scope of work. Hours spent implementing the Urban Soil Health Remediation project varied widely across all three sites as result of difference in research area square footage, as well as the lead farmers’ access to personal equipment or tool lending options to efficiently complete tasks independently compared to need to complete tasks by hand with volunteers. Farmers expressed that the guaranteed stipend allowed them to prioritize this project without worrying regarding lost income. The cash crops that were selected to investigate “viability for non-edible crop sales to support a portion of [the Urban Soil Health Remediation] work” included broomcorn and cut flowers. At both be.wilder and Soil Sisters, tassels of broomcorn were harvested to and supplied to a local artisan to make hand brooms, while the cut flowers, grown at Rebecca Ave. Community Garden where beautification is prioritized by neighboring residents, were made into market bouquets and donated to the local food pantry. At all three sites, the selected cash crops performed well despite anticipated challenges including lack of irrigation, lack of deer protection, uncertainty regarding macro-nutrient mobility due to carbon dense soil amendments, lack of post-harvest infrastructure, lack of established market channels, and more. While harvests of tassels and cut flowers were strong, in all cases the revenue potential was significantly less than the expense costs combined with the value of labor needed to implement the Urban Soil Health Remediation projects.

3. Objective 3

a. Results: See attached “USHR Guide” and “USHR Case Studies”

b. Discussion: Farmer feedback and guidance on development and distribution of these case studies has been essential. Peer to peer education and outreach through workshops, farm tours, and conference presentations have proven to be the most fruitful form of outreach, with farmer voices taking center stage and leading conversations.

Research conclusions:

Objective 1: pXRF screening results from all three Urban Soil Health Remediation sites demonstrate a reduction in site average soil lead concentration, while improving general soil health indicators alongside properties, such as pH and phosphorous, that contribute to reducing lead bioavailability. Therefore, these projects demonstrate that the USHR framework did reduce the risk of exposure to soil lead while prioritizing soil health.

Objective 2: All three sites demonstrate that the cost of USHR is high and it is unlikely that a non-edible cash crop could cover both expenses and labor costs associated with implementation. While revenue from high value cash crops like cut flowers have the potential to support a fraction of this work, this assumes the farmer has established channel for marketing and sales to maximize the return. Although the cost is steep, the return of previously vacant and heavy metal contaminated land to productive use has great benefit, particularly in urban environments. Thus, these three pilot projects indicate that Urban Soil Health Remediation would rely on a farmer’s investment, a significant burden after an assumed high cost of securing urban land in the first place, or, alternatively, could be subsidized by a technical assistance agency or grant making entity. These three pilot projects inform an average cost and labor estimate by square footage that can be used to anticipate cost of future project sites, supplies estimate on square footage. Finally, the pilot projects exhibit a need for contingency funding in that, although there is sufficient information to inform a project cost projection, there is no way to know degree of rubble removal required, and thus increased cost of contractor labor, until the double dig work begins.

Objective 3: Urban farmers desire transparent resources that plainly discuss successes, challenges, and costs of this work; the USHR guide and case studies are a great starting place. For future outreach and collateral ACCD learned that centering farmers and their peers is necessary to continue learning across the region. Additionally, the Urban Soil Health Remediation Guide should be flexible enough to adapt to different scales and types of urban agriculture sites. The Case Studies should dig into specifics while proving insight on unique challenges and solutions. The Case Studies also provide an avenue to keep this body of work as a continually evolving or “living” documentation of Urban Soil Health Remediation projects.

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

4 Tours

3 Webinars / talks / presentations

2 Workshop field days

1 Other educational activities: Jr. Green Corps Youth Education Series at Soil Sisters

Participation summary:

15 Farmers/Ranchers

5 Agricultural service providers

Education/outreach description:

ACCD staff, alongside 3 participating farmers and Technical Assistance Partners, developed the Urban Soil Health Remediation Guide (see attached), creating a digestible resource that outlines the methodology in an easy-to-follow format. Alongside the Urban Soil Health Remediation Guide, case studies were created for each of the three sites (see attached) to reflect the progress and impact of this project over time, at a variety of scales and types of operations. As ACCD continues with this research, additional case studies will be developed and added to the portfolio. These resources are intended for an urban farmer audience, but it is relevant to anyone in the region interested in reducing risk of exposure to soil lead and field-based research.
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.
Between August 1, 2024 and June 30, 2026, ACCD hosted 14 Soil Lead Screening Pop-up Events for resident backyard gardeners, exceeding the original goal of 50 participants engaged with a total of 57 residents engaged during these events.
Over the course of the SARE Partnership Grant, ACCD completed 43 site visits to complete heavy metal micro-mapping for urban farmers across Allegheny County.
ACCD has convened partner agencies including Cornell University, University of Buffalo, and Pasa Sustainable Agriculture in an Urban Soils Regional Roundtable to share best practices on programming that utilizes pXRF for heavy metal soil screening. With continued input from these partner agencies, ACCD has made significant progress on developing a Model Urban Soils Program Guide, intended for an agency audience. Partner PASA Sustainable Agriculture has already piloted the use of this resource in establishing urban soils programming in Erie, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia modelled after ACCD’s program.
ACCD staff are working to share the long-term impact of the Urban Soils Program through the development of an interactive, virtual story map that sensitively explores ACCD’s urban soils data gleaned over the past ten years of the program’s operation.

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:

Producer surveys
1. All three farmers completed a reflection survey upon completion of the Urban Soil Health Remediation Project at their site. 100% of farmer participants “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that, because of participation in this project, knowledge of (or skill in) the following topics has improved: soil health properties, urban soil challenges and contaminants, strategies to reduce risk of exposure to soil lead. Two out of three farmer participants “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that, as a result of participation in this project, knowledge of (or skill in) the following topics has improved: best management practices (BPMs) for improving soil health and government agencies, institutions, or community organizations that provide technical assistance to urban growers. Finally, all three farmer participants “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that “I have changed or adopted a practice as a result of my participation in this project.” 100% of farmer participants rated “attitude, skills and/or awareness gained as a result of the project” as either “good” or “very good.” When asked how likely participants were “use the knowledge, attitude, and/ or skills gained as a result of this project moving forward,” 100% responded either “likely” or “very likely.” Finally, all three farmer participants rated their “overall satisfaction with the project” as “very good.”
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. National Association of Conservation Districts Annual Meeting
  2. PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference
  3. Urban Soil Institute NYC Symposium: HHoch 11_22_25 USI 2025 Symposium (presentation given at the 2025 Urban Soil Institute Symposium in NYC; this was prior to having the final results for case study 2 and 3)
4. Articles
  1. ACCD's article regarding Secretary of Ag's visit to USHR sites: https://www.accdpa.org/blog/pennsylvania-ag-secretary-joins-accd
  2. Pittsburgh Post Gazette interview with Megan Gallagher, farmer from case study 1. A note that ACCD was not asked to participate or review this article, so information regarding the full scope of project and support is incomplete: https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/insight/2026/03/08/be-wild-er-farm-wilkinsburg-urban-lead-remediation-kenedy-sanchez/stories/202603080025

Project Outcomes

3 Farmers/Ranchers changed or adopted a practice

10 Grants applied for that built upon this project

6 Grants received that built upon this project

$1,226,273.00 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 Farm Service Agency Technical Assistance staff resulting in construction of a high tunnel funded by 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.
Be.wilder
1. Change in practices: Megan Gallagher, owner operator at be.wilder farm has a better understanding of the risks associated with elevated soil lead levels. It has reframed her understanding of urban soils and the potential they hold for growing food. She feels empowered to have actively reduced the soil lead levels at her site and now can confidently grow in the farm’s remediated soils. Completing this project has made growing on her land possible. That is a huge success for her personally and for the farm business as this is land that I own and can continue to invest in.
2. Continue to promote: “With ACCD's support, we not only made a significant improvement to the soil health at our site but also collaborated with other sites to determine whether the methods we used were replicable and effective. This type of practical, collaborative research is much needed in urban agriculture and being able to participate in it is deeply fulfilling." stated Megan Gallagher be.wild.er farm owner.
3. Success story: Megan 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. It is particularly helpful during the site planning and development phase; the secondary benefits of rubble and debris removal, reduced compaction, and incorporation of organic matter had an immense positive impact on the growing conditions. This work led to connections to NRCS and an EQIP high tunnel.
Soil sisters
1. Change in practices: In terms of Soil Health BMPs, Soil Sisters will continue to incorporate use of organic matter, soil testing, and cover cropping as a result of participationg in the USHR project. Soil Sisters is excited to explore the market of non-edible crops with other entrepreneurs. Being connected to a broom maker was great; they introduced them to other crafters.
2. Continue to promote? Yes. Currently, this is the only practice that Soil Sisters has implemented, and it has been successful. This season (following the testing season) Soils Sisters has volunteer broomcorn growing and they are thankful we already know someone interested.
3. Success story: The results of the lead screening were the first positive indication of the project. Improving the soil so that it is safe for people to just walk through the farm gave us the opportunity to collaborate with Camp FUN to host campers 2x a week for 6 weeks on their property. Additionally, they are now connected to NRCS and EQIP high tunnel opportunities. Raynise Kelly of Soils Sisters stated that “We're grateful for the guidance and resources provided by ACCD to make this project a reality. Using this farm as an educational, hands-on learning space is essential to our vision, and we feel better inviting the community here knowing that we invested in healthier soil."
Rebecca Ave
1. Change in practices: Jess Runco’s site now has increased growing space with nine additional fruit trees for neighbors. Additionally, compaction was reduced and led to improved nutrient access for the gardens’ plants. Finally, they will continue to add organic material to the garden and with their new knowledge they’ll remedy new areas in the future.
2. Continue to promote? Yes, Jess will continue share these successes. She can’t see any reason not to, everything that they tried on the site thus far has worker. Additionally, she and the other gardeners have improved knowledge of the land and soil that they are working with.
3. Success story: Jess recognized that Pittsburgh has so much abandoned space that could be used as green spaces. With this knowledge, many of those spaces can be transformed into something much more beneficial to us and the rest of the ecosystem. “Without support from ACCD, we wouldn't have been able to move ahead with the community orchard. Now our neighbors can safely enjoy this space and the fruit for years to come. It's been a big learning opportunity for everyone who uses the garden."

57 New working collaborations

Assessment of Project Approach and Areas of Further Study:

Assessment of approach or methods
1. Reducing lead levels in a shorter timeframe/one season is critical to this project’s success. It justifies the cost of the project such that farmers only pull their land out of production for one season. Also, with high costs a short timeframe it more approachable.
2. Hiring a heavy equipment operator was a high percentage of the cost. Their work allowed for the quick incorporation of organic matter and reduced rubble. Reduced rubble across the site improved growing conditions for farmers.
3. Organic material incorporation is also a benefit to the approach; reducing pb averages and increasing other soil health benefits.
4. Working directly with other technical service providers was key; collective knowledge supported the success of the work.
5. The approach of this project was meant to be replicated; that has continued with one additional site completed in 2026.
Keys to success
1. Contractor costs are directly related to site history; number of structures, date of demolition, and recent site disturbance. The contractors, Fourth River Workers Guild, developed methods for efficient sorting and debris removal based on size. Further methodology will be shared in future case studies. Fourth River Workers Guild started training other contractors on this method at Hilltop Urban Farm, further expanding the reach of this work.
Challenges
1. Land access for urban growers is often a significant challenge, including Soil Sisters. ACCD needed to wait for the land to be transferred from the Urban Redevelopment Authority to the Kelly sisters; it led to a delay in the soil remediation project.
2. Additionally, the historical land use at the site was a challenge. Soil Sisters site needed to be leveled for urban farming. This would lead to the farm’s long-term success. Without a lot of startup funds, Soils Sisters negotiated a trade in services. A local developer provided heavy equipment operating services to level the site in exchange for site access to stage a different construction project. The soil remediation project was delayed accommodating their work and timeline for a year. Finally, the work introduced contaminated fill and additional debris to the site.
3. Remediation work is disruptive and best done as a first step once land is secured. Be.wilder farm had already started growing some crops at the site and it took additional time and planning for Megan to pause for a season. Additionally, if infrastructure such as fencing or irrigation lines are already present, these may end up being barriers for this disruptive work.
Revisions to methodology
1. All three sites changed the order of remediation plan treatments because of availability of local supplies and labor. Most sites will need someone to advise growers as they have specific business goals and timelines.
2. ACCD is rethinking the use soil lead tissue testing. The organization has submitted multiple types of tissue (leaves, fruit, roots, etc.) samples and it led to mixed results. The lab was unable to provide clear interpretation since these were non-edible crops.
Success of objectives
1. Farmers/Steward Success Assessment of Objective 1
  1. My site made significant progress toward objective 1. The process would have been improved if we could have planned organized debris removal. Next time consider having a mini-skid or other equipment to move heavy debris more intentionally.
  2. Remediating the soil and reducing lead was a number priority. This was accomplished; the process went well and afforded us opportunities to learn alongside other land stewards.
  3. Objective 1 was met on our site. We appreciated the helpful and available support. The teams who worked with us for double digging were very knowledgeable and helpful. Record keeping was presented in an organized and efficient way. The site steward cannot see any place for improvements.
2. Farmers/Steward Success Assessment of Objective 2
  1. The farmer would like this remediation project to be replicated at a site where there is dedicated focus on generating sales of non-edible crops. I think there is much more potential for this to be an income generating approach than we were able to explore at our site.
  2. The steward noted that there were several check-in meetings with supporting organizations and participants at various stages. This gave us a chance to discuss what worked well, what needed improvement, and credible contractors for similar work.
  3. The farmer stated that objective 2 was also met. Receiving the stipend for the work was helpful. Remediation proved to be a lot extra work and the stipend was supportive. After discussing final results and calculating costs, the farmer realized the total cost and brainstormed ways to reduce the price. One thought was to source free wood chips from arborists.
3. Farmers/Steward Success Assessment of Objective 3
  1. One farmer noted that this approach requires major soil disruption that could not be replicated in a wooded urban environment. None of the 3 sites from this project had to work around large trees or established perennial plantings, but that is a challenge some urban growers would face. What approaches could be implemented in a wooded or established perennial farm?
  2. Another farmer stated that the case studies turned out great. They appreciated the before and after photos, budgets, and contractors’ lessons learned.
  3. The third grower highlighted that it was nice talking to other farmers about their remediation experiences. Understanding all of the projects in totality gave us a better insights into their own farms.
4. Continuation: With 3 examples of success, ACCD does plan to continue implementation of USHR projects at a rate of two sites per year pending ACCD’s ability to secure future funding
5. Additional work: First, this research is a great start for understanding soil lead remediation. Completing remediation on additional sites is necessary to firm up the process for lead reduction. Also, Allegheny County and other rust belt regions need a protocol for sites 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. Under basic soil pH conditions, lead is less bioavailable. Under acidic soil pH conditions, arsenic is less bioavailable.
6. Who else would benefit: 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 universities and Extension professionals, NRCS conservationists, and other conservation district staff. ACCD plans to continue to convene interested technical assistance professionals and partners in the Regional Urban Soil Health Roundtable to share best practices, lessons learned, resources, and more.

Information Products

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.