1 draft of 34 – do not distribute or cite soil health ... · page 1 draft of 34 – do not...

of 34 DRAFT – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR CITE

DRAFT – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR CITE

SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE 1 ACTION PLAN ONE – v. 12-22-16 2

3 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 4

5 Soil health can be defined as the capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains 6 plants, animals, and humans (e.g., https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/). In 7 2013, the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation and the Farm Foundation, NFP, convened leaders from 8 agricultural industry, farms, ranches, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations to 9 examine the current state of our world’s soil health and its roles in a vibrant, profitable, and sustainable 10 ecosystem. As the group identified diverse and complex issues regarding soil health, it became clear 11 that a collaborative-oriented organization was needed to spearhead accurate, science-based 12 information, create a sense of urgency and coordinate change leadership. 13 14 Thus, the Soil Health Institute was created to provide that leadership through its mission to “Safeguard 15 and enhance the vitality and productivity of soil through scientific research and advancement.” 16 17 As the independent, non-profit organization charged with coordinating and supporting soil stewardship 18 and advancing soil health, the Soil Health Institute (SHI) is focused on fundamental, translational, and 19 applied research and ensuring its adoption. We recognize that soil health must emerge as the 20 cornerstone of land use management decisions throughout the world during the 21st century because 21 healthy soil is the foundation of life and society. Enhancing soil health allows us to improve water 22 quality, increase drought resilience, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve farm economies, 23 provide pollinator habitat, and better position us to feed the nine billion people expected by 2050. 24 25 The SHI program is designed to move knowledge and technology from the research laboratory to the 26 farm field by bringing together traditional and non-traditional agricultural industry partners, farmers, 27 ranchers, government agencies, scientists, and consumers to focus on one common, clear goal: 28 protecting and enriching our soils, our environment, and indeed, our lives. The SHI is committed to 29 working with all partners to enhance key soil processes that increase productivity, resilience, and 30 environmental quality; and identify research gaps, coordinate national partnerships to address those 31 gaps and help drive the transformational changes needed for the betterment of soil health and 32 ultimately society. 33 34 This Action Plan lays out the SHI’s priorities and direction beginning in 2017. The Plan has no specific 35 end date. Instead, it is a living document that will be extended and changed as our understanding of soil 36 health evolves, we achieve our objectives, and our stakeholders advise us. 37 38 The Plan is organized to reflect how the Institute achieves its mission through creating new knowledge 39 and technologies and converting them into actions that can be adopted by land managers (Figure 1). The 40 SHI works with leaders from the industry, government, independent research organizations, academic 41 institutions, and producers’ groups to identify gaps in soil health research. The Institute ensures that 42 knowledge and information generated from scientific research on soil health is promptly and broadly 43 disseminated to all stakeholders. Numerous yet focused partnerships are developed to facilitate 44 adoption of new knowledge and technologies. 45



46 Figure 1. The Soil Health Institute will achieve its mission through application of improved 47 measurements and standards, economic analyses, communications and education initiatives, 48 and support for policy development to validate and move new knowledge and technologies 49 through to adoption and effective implementation on the land. 50

51 To advance soil health, scientific research – basic, translational, and applied – will be supported to 52 generate new knowledge about biological, chemical, and physical soil functions. The SHI will work with 53 industry leaders, government, independent research organizations, academic institutions, and 54 producers to identify and prioritize gaps in soil health research and to develop strategies for funding the 55 research needed to resolve the most pressing soil health issues. The SHI will then ensure that 56 knowledge and information generated from science-based soil health research is promptly and broadly 57 disseminated to all stakeholders. Numerous yet focused partnerships will be developed to facilitate 58 adoption of the new knowledge and technologies. 59 60 Our work with many public and private partners on measurement and standards reflects one of the 61 Institute’s key objectives: establish, coordinate, and oversee a national soil health assessment based on 62 measurement standards that reflect regional soil characteristics. The SHI recognizes the importance of 63 and promotes the use of standardized soil testing measurements validated through soil testing and 64 research as well as by working with agricultural communities to benefit producers and promote soil and 65 water conservation. Working with partners, the SHI envisions that a National Soil Health Assessment will 66 provide a baseline for quantifying the current state of soil health, as well as a marker for measuring 67 future changes. 68 69 The SHI will strive to increase awareness of the costs and benefits associated with using practices that 70 maintain or enhance soil health. By including economic analysis as an integral part of our soil health 71 research programs, the Institute will provide farmers and ranchers information they need to adopt 72 positive soil health practices, increase agricultural productivity and conserve natural resources with 73 confidence. 74



75 The Soil Health Institute is also committed to serving as a central hub for communications and 76 education regarding soil health research and soil-related information. Informing policymakers, the 77 scientific community, producers, industry leaders, and consumers underscores and emphasizes each of 78 the Institute’s primary activities and is critical to cultivating healthy soils for a healthy future. 79 80 Finally, recognizing that American agriculture is the backbone for food security, strong economies, and 81 innovation worldwide, the SHI will work closely with experts on public policy to enhance an agricultural 82 system where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish. The Institute will promote soil 83 health as a cornerstone of well-informed policy. 84 85 Based on Institute goals and extensive multi-partner organizational efforts to date, this Action Plan is 86 organized into five sections reflecting the Institute’s general priorities: 87

Research 88 Measurement, Standards and Assessment 89 Economics 90 Communications and Education 91 Well-Informed Policy 92 93

We welcome your comments. Even more, we invite you to join our journey to make soil health the 94 cornerstone for managing natural resources throughout the nation and around the world. 95 96



97 RESEARCH 98

99 I. Introduction 100

101 The overall goal for the Soil Health Institute’s research program is to address strategic, high priority 102 needs of the scientific and stakeholder communities for advancing soil health. The research 103 developed under this plan will collectively contribute to enhancing productivity, resilience and 104 environmental quality through soil health. Results will increase the scientific knowledge base that 105 will allow soil health management systems to be designed and implemented across a wide range of 106 soils, climates, and cropping systems to increase a given soil’s capacity to provide water and 107 withstand drought, suppress diseases, and provide nutrients; and will expand the role of soils for 108 improving water quality, increasing carbon sequestration, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and 109 improving human health. The following priorities and Actionable Steps are provided to achieve 110 these goals. Additional research priorities are included in the Measurements and Standards section 111 of this Action Plan. 112 113

II. Specific Goals and Priorities 114 115

Goal A: Enhance Productivity and Resilience through Soil Health 116 117 Desired Outcomes 118 This research will enhance soil productivity and resilience to extreme weather by increasing 119 available water holding capacity, increasing water infiltration into soils, suppressing soil-borne 120 diseases, and enhancing nutrient availability. 121

122 Information Gaps and Management Needs 123 It is fairly established that improving soil health can enhance available water holding capacity, 124 infiltration, and nutrient availability. However, the relationships between soil organic carbon 125 and water holding capacity, along with the relationships between soil organic carbon and water 126 infiltration, differ among soils. Research is needed to quantify, understand and predict these 127 differences in order to make field-level management recommendations and decisions. The 128 mechanisms and processes for developing soil-borne disease suppression are largely unknown, 129 and a wide array of biological, chemical, and physical variables and processes make nutrient 130 availability an elusive and dynamic property to measure. For these and other reasons, it is 131 currently very difficult to employ soil health practices/systems to achieve a quantitatively 132 predictable, targeted result. Consequently, fundamental knowledge of these processes and 133 relationships is required to enhance productivity and resilience through soil health. 134

135 Specific Research Priorities 136 137

Research Priority A.1. Optimize Available Water Holding Capacity in Important Agricultural 138 Soils 139

140 Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 141 Research is needed to quantify the relationships between soil organic carbon (SOC) and 142 available water holding capacity (AWHC). Because these relationships vary among soils, 143 research is also needed to identify the variables influencing those relationships and to 144



determine the limits within which accurate predictions can be made. Information is also 145 needed on the current state of AWHC for major agricultural soils and the levels that may 146 be reached. This information must be combined into a Decision Support System that 147 will allow farmers to make science-based decisions to enhance AWHC for their specific 148 soils. 149 150 Anticipated Product(s) 151 Decision Support System for farmers that allows them to make well-informed decisions 152 on using soil health management systems for achieving a targeted AWHC in their soils. 153 154 Intended Impact 155 Farmers and ranchers will be given the science-based tools they need to employ soil 156 health-promoting principles and practices to achieve a targeted level of resilience to 157 drought by enhancing their soils’ available water holding capacity. This will allow soil 158 health to serve as an effective risk management tool by farmers/ranchers, which will 159 significantly increase adoption of soil health-promoting practices and systems. 160

161 Actionable Steps 162 a. Quantify current levels of AWHC for important agricultural soils. 163

1. Develop equations for describing the quantitative relationships of variables 164 influencing AWHC. Primary variables to be evaluated should include soil particle 165 size and Soil Organic Carbon (SOC), but others should also be evaluated if 166 needed (e.g., soil mineralogy). 167

2. Establish the limits of each quantitative relationship. Evaluate the utility of the 168 “similar soils index” developed by NRCS for establishing these limits. 169

b. Quantify attainable levels of AWHC for important agricultural soils. 170 1. Based on the above, develop the equations predicting changes in AWHC (e.g. as 171

a function of particle size, SOC, etc.). 172 2. Calculate the current levels of AWHC for selected soils by combining the above 173

equations for predicting AWHC as a function of particle size and SOC with soon-174 to-be released soil C analyses from NRCS’ Rapid Carbon Analysis project. 175

3. Determine each selected soil’s capacity to store SOC, based on published 176 typifying pedon analyses and/or published models (e.g., Century). 177

4. From the above, calculate the attainable AWHC for each soil selected. 178 c. Develop a Decision Support System for farmers that provides soil health 179

management system options for achieving a targeted level of resilience to drought 180 and heavy precipitation. 181 1. Combine relationships among SOC, particle size, and AWHC (established above) 182

with existing models of plant-soil C dynamics (e.g., Century DNDC) to 183 accommodate wide ranges of temperature, water, organic material chemical 184 composition, and management practices (e.g., cover crops, manure, no-tillage) 185 to develop the Decision Support System. 186

2. Conduct field evaluations to validate/calibrate the Decision Support System 187 across the range of variables influencing the above relationships. 188

189 Research priority A.2. Optimize Water Infiltration in Important Agricultural Soils 190

191 Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 192



Research is needed to quantify the impact of numerous variables (e.g. soil particle size, 193 aggregate stability, porosity, bulk density, mineralogy, antecedent water content, and 194 others) on water infiltration rates and the ability to alter infiltration rate through soil 195 health practices and systems in a predictable and accurate manner. 196 197 Anticipated Products 198 Decision Support System for farmers that incorporates research-based information on 199 inherent soil properties and alternative soil health management practices for increasing 200 water infiltration into their soils. 201 202 Intended Impact 203 Farmers and ranchers will be given the science-based tools they need to employ soil 204 health-promoting principles and practices to enhance resilience to drought by increasing 205 water infiltration into their specific soils. This will significantly increase adoption of soil 206 health-promoting practices/systems. 207 208 Actionable Steps 209 a. Conduct meta-analysis of research literature to analyze and generalize the drivers 210

influencing water infiltration rates and the ability to change those rates through 211 management practices. 212

b. From the above meta-analysis, develop the equations for predicting changes in 213 infiltration rate for a wide range of soils (particle size, mineralogy, SOC, C inputs, 214 etc.) and management practices (no-tillage, cover crops, etc.). 215

c. Conduct field validation studies to validate/calibrate the above predictions across a 216 wide range of agricultural soils and soil health management systems. 217

d. Develop a Decision Support System for farmers that incorporates inherent soil 218 properties and alternative soil health management practices for increasing water 219 infiltration into their specific soils. 220

221 Research priority A.3. Optimize Suppression of Soil-borne Diseases through Soil Health 222 Management Systems 223 224

Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 225 Disease suppression can result from alteration of soil microbial communities, 226 biofumigation (e.g. through rotation crops), and other mechanisms. In addition, soil 227 health management systems that influence soil water dynamics, microbial activity, and 228 overall biodiversity of soils can impact soil-borne disease suppression. Such 229 complexities arising from multiple components and interactions of the phytobiome 230 must be better understood at a basic level in order to design soil health management 231 systems to enhance disease suppression. 232 233 Anticipated Products 234 Foundational knowledge of the mechanisms and drivers for suppressing soil-borne 235 diseases through soil health will be enhanced and the resulting knowledge, practices, 236 and systems will be transferred to producers. 237 238 Intended Impact 239



The scientific knowledge base on the mechanisms and drivers for attaining disease 240 suppressive soils is expanded to such an extent that soil health management systems 241 can be designed and employed to control soil-borne diseases and reduce pesticide 242 requirements. 243 244 Actionable Steps 245 a. Analyze the current state of process-level knowledge of the mechanisms, pathways, 246

drivers, and other variables imparting disease suppression through soil health 247 management systems/practices. 248

b. Conduct research to contribute fundamental knowledge of the roles and processes 249 by which different soil microbial species and communities impact disease 250 suppression. 251

c. Conduct research to determine how different management practices can be used to 252 promote and maintain favorable physical, chemical, and biological (e.g. soil 253 microbial species and communities) properties and processes to suppress soil-borne 254 diseases. 255

d. Determine the effectiveness and persistence of soil health management practices 256 and systems in controlling soil-borne diseases. 257

e. Determine the current state of adoption of practices and systems imparting disease 258 suppression. 259

f. From all of the above, develop predictions on the potential levels of disease 260 suppression that may be attained through soil health management and the 261 associated pesticide reductions potentially possible. 262

g. Transfer the information/technology developed to producers through Cooperative 263 Extension, SARE, NRCS, ag retailers, and others. 264

265 Research priority A.4. Optimize Plant Nutrient Availability in Important Agricultural Soils 266

267 Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 268 New mixes of multiple plant species are increasingly used as a cover crop by farmers, 269 with little known about the plant-to-plant interactions, their impact on soil microbial 270 communities, and the significance of that impact on microbial-mediated processes 271 influencing nutrient availability. With increased interest in enhancing soil health also 272 comes increased need for understanding the processes and drivers influencing nutrient 273 availability from manure and other organic sources so that such amendments can be 274 managed for achieving multiple production and ecosystem benefits. Much of this 275 information is only known for limited experimental conditions. In general, many of the 276 field-based studies upon which Land Grant Universities have relied for providing farmers 277 with nutrient recommendations were largely conducted using management practices 278 (e.g. moldboard plow tillage) and cultivars either no longer in existence, or not 279 consistent with a soil health management systems approach for production. 280 281 Anticipated Products 282 Basic and applied knowledge of nutrient availability dynamics for contemporary 283 practices used in soil health management systems will be developed and transferred to 284 farmers. 285 286 Intended Impact 287



Farmers will be provided nutrient recommendations that are relevant to and calibrated 288 for contemporary soil health management systems. 289 290 291 292 Actionable Steps 293 a. Conduct meta-analysis to establish the current state of knowledge on the impacts of 294

soil health management systems on macro- and micronutrient availability. This 295 includes analysis of, among others, rotations, cover crops, different cover crop 296 mixes, and animal manures with different characteristics, as well as the impacts of 297 climatic drivers and chemical composition on process rates (e.g. mineralization, 298 leaching) and how these components influence soil microbial species and 299 communities that drive many of the processes. 300

b. From the above analysis, determine and document the generalizations that can be 301 established regarding the impact of soil health management systems on the total 302 amounts and temporal/spatial dynamics of nutrient availability. 303

c. From the above meta-analysis, identify and document research gaps, including the 304 role of soil health management systems on microbial ecology and genes promoting 305 root growth, nutrient uptake, and drought tolerance, as well as macro- and 306 micronutrient availability influencing human health. 307

d. Calibrate Land Grant University nutrient recommendations for production systems 308 employing soil health management systems/practices. The calibration should make 309 optimal use of the measurements and standards identified by the Soil Health 310 Institute’s Measurements and Standards Working Group, ensuring that those 311 particular indicators and methodologies are included as part of the Land Grant 312 calibration field studies. 313

314 Goal B: Quantify and Enhance Environmental and Human Health Benefits that Result from 315

Improved Soil Health 316 317 Desired Outcomes 318 This research will result in improved water quality through increased nutrient use efficiency and 319 reduced nutrient losses, increased climate change mitigation through reduced greenhouse gas 320 emissions and increased carbon sequestration, and will establish the current state of knowledge 321 on the relationships between soil health and human health. 322 323 Information Gaps and Management Needs 324 Numerous research studies have addressed management impacts on nutrient use efficiency, C 325 sequestration, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, those individual studies need to be 326 evaluated in a way that allows prediction of soil health practice impacts across multiple scales, 327 climates, and management systems. In addition, while it is recognized that soils are important 328 for human health, a paucity of research exists on these relationships, especially when 329 considered in light of the potential benefits likely to be realized. 330 331 Specific Research Priorities 332 333

Research priority B.1. Improve Water Quality by Increasing Nutrient Use Efficiency and 334 Reducing Nutrient Losses 335



336 Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 337 Both process level and watershed level evaluations are needed to determine the 338 increases in nutrient use efficiency and reductions in nutrient losses that can be 339 attained. At the process level, meta-analyses are needed to evaluate the research 340 literature with a focus on effects of soil health-promoting practices and systems. Meta-341 analyses are also needed at the watershed level, as many of the individual research 342 projects measuring conservation practice impacts on edge-of-field nutrient losses have 343 been independently conducted. Integrating this information across scales and 344 developing farmer-friendly tools to aid in practice adoption will then substantively 345 contribute to achieving the water quality improvement levels determined to be 346 attainable. 347 348 Anticipated Products 349 Producers, natural resource professionals, and the public will be provided with 350 predictions of the levels of water quality improvement that can be attained from 351 implementing soil health-promoting practices and systems. A farmer-friendly Decision 352 Support System based on validated and calibrated models of nutrient availability, 353 uptake, and transport will be developed for implementation across a range of soils, 354 cropping systems, and soil health management systems (including 4R nutrient 355 management). 356 357 Intended Impact 358 Ground and surface water quality will be improved through increased adoption of soil 359 health management systems. 360 361 Actionable Steps 362 a. Determine the attainable increases in nutrient use efficiency and attainable 363

reductions in nutrient losses through soil health. 364 1. Process Level Evaluations: 365

i. Conduct meta-analysis of soil health management system effects on the 366 dynamics of soil properties (e.g., bulk density, aggregation, porosity), drivers 367 influencing their rates of change, and how those changes impact nutrient 368 uptake by plants. 369

ii. Conduct meta-analysis of research on nutrient uptake and nutrient use 370 efficiency for different soil health management systems (e.g., cover crop 371 mixes, rotations, manure and other biological amendments). 372

iii. Conduct systematic analysis of research on soil health management system 373 impacts on runoff and leaching. 374

iv. Based on the above analyses, identify research gaps in our knowledge of key 375 processes influencing nutrient use efficiency, nutrient uptake, and nutrient 376 transport through runoff and leaching; and develop a corresponding 377 strategic plan for addressing those gaps. 378

2. Watershed Scale Evaluations: 379 i. Conduct meta-analysis of “edge-of-field” studies evaluating soil health 380

practices/systems for their impacts on soil and nutrient losses. 381 ii. Incorporate information from the above process level meta-analyses into 382

watershed scale models of nutrient uptake by plants and transport through 383



runoff and leaching that account for changes in soil properties (e.g. root 384 distribution, nutrient mineralization) resulting from soil health management 385 systems (including 4R nutrient management) and which influence nutrient 386 uptake, leaching and runoff. 387

iii. Employ watershed scale models of nutrient uptake by plants and transport 388 through runoff and leaching that account for changes in soil properties (e.g. 389 root distribution, nutrient mineralization) resulting from soil health 390 management systems (including 4R nutrient management) which influence 391 nutrient uptake, leaching and runoff. 392

iv. Determine current adoption levels of soil health management systems (i.e. 393 through the National Soil Health Assessment, NASS, and NRCS-CEAP). 394

v. Based on the above data and watershed scale models, calculate the 395 attainable reductions in nutrient losses through soil health management 396 systems and identify key watersheds/sub-watersheds where adoption 397 would have its greatest impact. 398

b. Achieving the Attainable 399 1. Develop farmer-friendly Decision Support System based on validated and 400

calibrated models of nutrient availability, uptake, and transport across a range 401 of soils, cropping systems, and soil health management systems (including 4R 402 nutrient management). 403

404 Research priority B.2. Increase C Sequestration and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 405 406

Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 407 Evaluations and applications are needed to interpret existing research information on 408 management impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, with a specific focus on 409 practices/systems that improve soil health. Research is also needed to establish 410 achievable, targeted levels of SOC for important agricultural soils, quantify potential 411 increases to be attained, and develop decision support tools for producers to help them 412 achieve those SOC increases and associated benefits. 413 414 Anticipated Products 415 Producers, agribusiness, conservation organizations, and policy-makers will be provided 416 estimates on the ability of important agricultural soils to sequester C and reduce 417 greenhouse gas emissions using soil health-promoting practices and systems. 418 419 Intended Impact 420 Estimates of C sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions that can be attained 421 through soil health improvements will significantly enhance adoption of soil health-422 promoting practices, leading to enhanced productivity, drought resilience, climate 423 change mitigation, water quality, wildlife habitat, and soil and water conservation. 424 425 Actionable Steps 426 a. Determine the attainable increases in C sequestration and reductions in greenhouse 427

gas emissions on U.S. cropland and pasture/grazing lands through adoption of soil 428 health management systems. 429 1. Conduct systematic analysis of GRACENet and other research project results to 430

establish field-measured decreases in greenhouse gas emissions for different 431



production systems, soils, and climates employing soil health-promoting 432 practices/systems. 433

2. Evaluate “typifying pedon” SOC analyses published by NRCS for each important 434 agricultural soil as an indicator of the highest SOC level to be attained for each 435 soil (i.e. to provide a targeted goal). Combine SOC analyses in the soon to be 436 published NRCS Rapid C Analysis project with the “typifying pedon” data to 437 calculate potential increases in SOC that can be attained. 438

b. Achieving the Attainable 439 1. Determine plant biomass inputs and characteristics for different soil health 440

management systems (e.g., from NASS, CEAP) to model C dynamics and SOC 441 levels (e.g., from CENTURY model) to predict the impacts of different soil health 442 management systems on achieving those SOC increases and the time, resources, 443 and management systems required to do so. 444

2. Widely distribute and employ the same Decision Support System developed for 445 achieving a targeted level of available water holding capacity by increasing SOC. 446 As part of this deployment, communicate the achievable increases in SOC and 447 available water holding capacity for specific soils and soil health practices to 448 enhance adoption. 449

450 Research priority B.3. Establish and Expand the Current State of Knowledge on the 451 Relationships between Soil Health and Human Health 452 453

Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 454 Many soil health-promoting practices and systems influence soil microbial ecology and 455 activity, root proliferation and distribution, soil-borne pathogen suppression, air-borne 456 particulate matter, and water quality. Interdisciplinary research (ranging from soil 457 scientists to dieticians) is needed on how soil health management systems influence 458 sustainable nutrition by impacting plant (and thus animal) nutrient availability and 459 uptake, and therefore the nutritional quality of food (including dairy products). 460 461 Anticipated Products 462 A comprehensive analysis describing the known and unknown relationships between 463 soil health and human health will be developed that establishes the current state of 464 knowledge and prioritizes key questions requiring additional research for enhancing 465 human health through soil health. 466 467 Intended Impact 468 The role of soil health for improving human health will be authoritatively established, 469 and the additional research needs for expanding human health benefits through soil 470 health will be identified and prioritized. This will open new and significant resources for 471 enhancing soil health. 472 473 Actionable Steps 474 a. Assemble and commission an interdisciplinary team of scientists covering the full 475

breadth of soil health X human health interactions to conduct a comprehensive 476 evaluation of the known and unknown relationships between soil health and human 477 health. 478

b. From the list of unknown relationships, prioritize key gaps in research. 479



c. Obtain resources to address those gaps, and widely distribute the results. 480 481

MEASUREMENTS and STANDARDS, and the NATIONAL SOIL HEALTH ASSESSMENT 482 483

I. Introduction 484 485

The overall major goals for the Institute’s work on measurements and standards are to 1) establish a 486 suite of methods and standard operating procedures that will provide accurate, precise 487 measurements of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties having known relationships to soil 488 health; 2) develop a series of priorities and procedures for pilot studies to demonstrate proof of 489 concept for a National Soil Health Assessment (NSHA); and 3) initiate an ongoing, long-term NSHA to 490 track the status and trends of the health of the Nation’s soils in a way that provides actionable 491 information for land managers and decision makers at all levels who wish to improve soil health. The 492 activities developed under this plan will select, evaluate, and improve measurements and standard 493 operating procedures (SOPs) to increase the number of reliable standards used routinely and widely 494 for the NSHA. Activities will include evaluation and comparison for accuracy and precision among 495 measurements not currently considered adequate for this application. The specific measurements 496 and SOPs will then be applied in a series of scaled pilot studies developed over time, as resources 497 permit, leading to an ongoing NSHA. 498 499


Goal A: Determine the appropriate measurements to initiate a national soil health assessment 502 and to assess soils at specific locations, including a framework for comparing new measurements 503 with established ones. 504 505 Desired Outcomes 506 Widely accepted measurements for routine, national-scale use to quantify physical, chemical, and 507 biological properties and processes in soils will have valid relationships to soil health. The suite of 508 routine and widely used measurements will be open to new and improved measurements and 509 methodologies. 510 511 Information Gaps and Management Needs 512 Members of the soil health scientific and practitioners’ community are not uniform in their views of 513 the usefulness and readiness of different indicators of soil health. Several approaches to developing 514 a consistent method to assess soil health have been developed, e.g., Haney et al. (2008), Moebius-515 Clune et al. (2016). Few have been used widely for large-scale assessments of soil health, largely 516 because of shortcomings with data variability and interpretation (e.g., 517 landresources.montana.edu/soilfertility/documents/PDF/reports/NutDigSu2015.pdf) or limitations 518 of the procedures and interpretation beyond specific regions and soils. One approach that has been 519 used in diverse locations around the world is the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF), 520 which was designed as a user-friendly spreadsheet for indicator selection, interpretation, and 521 integration into a series of unitless indices based on pre-tested algorithms or scoring functions 522 (Andrews et al., 2004). These individual physical, chemical, biological, and nutrient index scores can 523 be further combined to produce an overall soil health index. 524 525 Perceived gaps in information required to use and interpret indicators and subsequently manage 526 soils vary with indicators under consideration. The following is illustrative of different gaps and 527



needs for indicators currently considered for development of readily available, reliable applications. 528 Over time, other measurement/indicators will be evaluated for immediate use and possibly 529 developmental status, as determined to be improvements to the ongoing assessment. 530 531 Measurements are indicators of soil health that can be categorized into Tiers defined as follows. 532

Tier 1: An effective indicator of soil health, defined regionally and by soil groupings across the 533 nation. There are known thresholds to indicate (at minimum) "Poor", "Adequate", "Good" that 534 are outcome based (yield, environmental goals, etc.), and specific management strategies can 535 be suggested to improve soil functioning. 536

Tier 2: An effective indicator of soil health that is known to be related to improvements or 537 degradation of soil. Potential ranges may be known in some regions but not nationally, but 538 research is needed to establish thresholds to meet a relative standard of a healthy soil in various 539 regions. There is some knowledge of management practices that can change measured values 540 and the soil processes that affect observed measurement results. Further development of a Tier 541 2 indicator may make it useful for Tier 1. A Tier 2 indicator may be tested alongside Tier 1 542 indicators in local, regional, or national assessments. 543

Tier 3: An indicator that has potential to add significant information about soil health in specific 544 locations or on large scales, but specific relationships among measured values, soil processes, 545 and effects of land management are not fully understood. Tier 3 indicators are promising 546 enough to warrant research on these relationships, as well as development of SOPs for 547 production laboratory implementation and interpretation, in support of eventually considering 548 them in Tier 1. 549

550 Measurements and protocols will be chosen as the “current best available” indicators recognized by 551 a majority of the scientific soil health community, and accompanying service lab appropriate 552 methodologies, based on the following criteria: 553 sensitivity to changes in soil and crop management systems 554 representational of soil processes relevant to agricultural production and environmental 555

outcomes 556 indicative of agriculturally significant changes within 1 to 5 years 557 available for use in commercial production laboratories (easy, inexpensive, and reproducible; 558

directionally interpretable for agricultural management decisions). 559 560

Specific measurement, standards, and assessment (MSA) priorities 561 562

MSA priority A.1. Specify Tier 1 measurements to be used in the NSHA. 563 A likely suite of measurements taken on samples to initiate the NSHA include the following. This 564 selection needs to be validated by the scientific community. 565

Physical: Texture, water-stable aggregation (3 sieves), bulk density, penetrometer, visual 566 rating of erosion 567 Chemical: Normal chemical analysis (N, P, K, micros, pH, CEC, %BS, EC), soil organic C, 568 protein 569 Biological: Respiration (3-4 day) 570

571 MSA priority A.2. Evaluate measurements currently considered Tier 2 and develop consensus 572 for measurement procedures and interpretation. 573



Specific evaluation needs address information gaps for Tier 2 measurements. There is high 574 likelihood that some or all of the following measurements and laboratory protocols can be 575 refined for inclusion as Tier 1 measurements, or tested in the field along with Tier 1 576 measurements to determine adequacy for widespread application. 577

578

Measurement Indicator of Information Need

Actionable Steps and Desired

Outcomes/Product(s)

Intended Impact

B-glucosidase activity

Mineralizable Carbon (General Biological Activity)

Reduce uncertainties related to how measurements are affected by sampling time and incubation parameters, as well the range of values, interpretation.

Meta-analysis of literature to relate mineralizable carbon to other soil properties, especially soils under different management practices. Establish SOPs and costs.

Acceptance of measurement, SOP, and interpretation

Micro-aggregate stability

Water partitioning

Ease of measurement and value of data for three methods; quantitative relationship between aggregate stability and water partitioning; change in values obtained in different conditions, correlations with management, soil type, mineralogy, organic matter, infiltration, water storage

Review of literature; SOP for methods; comparison of results

Selection and acceptance of one method and SOP

Permanganate oxidizable carbon

Carbon food source, active carbon

Determination of detection ranges; how to

Meta-analysis of literature; SOPs for soils of widely

Determination of SOP(s) required for different



measure high-carbon samples; covariates that affect measurements; range in measurements in different environments; determination of the portion of the carbon pool being extracted; response relationships between carbon measured versus microbial community structure and activity.

different carbon concentration; estimates of how other soil properties affect analytical outcomes

soils; data interpretation

Soil protein vs Illinois Soil Nitrogen Test/Solvita Labile Amino Nitrogen Test vs CO2 flush

Bioavailable nitrogen

Ease of measurement and value of data for three methods. Estimates of sampling error, variability among soils and regions.

Data from samples analyzed by the different methods within and among analytical laboratories. Meta-analysis of literature. Relationship between management and values obtained.

Selection and acceptance of one method and SOP; interpretation of data.

Ester-linked fatty acid methyl ester; phospholipid fatty acid test

Microbial community structure and diversity

Sampling error, variability among soils, variability within soil profile, variability among analytical labs, data interpretation with respect to directionality as

Data obtained from comparisons among location, management practices, depth, time, collection method, conditions during shipping and storage.

Selection and acceptance of one method and SOP; interpretation of data.



affected by management.

MSA priority A.3. Evaluate existing methods and frameworks for soil health assessment and 579 assessment reporting. 580 581 Specific Research Needs to Address Information Gaps 582 Indicators, methods of summarizing data, and reporting frameworks that already exist have not 583 been subject to side-by-side comparisons in a wide variety of environments to determine which, 584 if any, offer the broadest applicability. 585 586 Anticipated Products 587 Data to support developing summary documentation as decision aids for choosing indicators 588 and reporting methods in the NSHA. 589 590 Intended Impact 591 A framework for summarizing and reporting data from soil health assessments that takes 592 advantage of methods that have already been developed and have been demonstrated in 593 specific environments, with specific soils, etc. 594 595 Actionable Steps 596 a. Collect soil samples and analyze, summarize, and report assessment-style outputs according 597

to protocols described for different assessment approaches that have been published in the 598 scientific literature and applied in different regions, on different soils (e.g., SMAF, Haney, 599 others). 600

b. Prepare a report making a side-by-side comparison of methods, laying out the pros and cons 601 of each method and making a recommendation for a method expected to be applicable on 602 the widest scale possible. 603

604 Goal B: Design and conduct pilot studies to evaluate approaches to large scale assessments of soil 605 health 606 607 Desired Outcomes 608 Data from measurements chosen for pilot assessments will be used to establish a national dataset that will 609 eventually include national assessment data, and will represent management systems from a range of 610 poor to excellent soil health status nationwide, such that they provide information on the functioning of 611 essential biological, physical, and chemical soil properties and processes: 612 General biological activity 613 Microbial community structure and diversity 614 Carbon food source 615 Biological N supply 616 Water partitioning 617 Nutrient availability 618 Carbon storage 619 Compaction 620

621 Information Gaps and Management Needs 622



For field sampling and analyses of soil samples collected for soil health assessment, indicators 623 developed as described in the previous section must be used to compare samples strategically 624 collected from fields with different combinations of soil type and management to establish accuracy, 625 precision, and uncertainty related to each indicator. As these become known for a given indicator 626 on increasing geographic scales, sampling schemes and analytical SOPs can be established, leading 627 to a plan for a national soil health assessment. 628 629 Intended Impact 630 Measurements taken according to SOPs that meet criteria described in Goal A will demonstrate the proof 631 of concept for soil health assessment and be used in a series of pilot studies at increasing geographic 632 scales, eventually leading to an ongoing NSHA. Data obtained in pilot studies will begin to provide a 633 background against which an assessment in a specific location can be interpreted. At all scales, a wide 634 range of metadata will enable soil measurements to be interpreted in an environmental and management 635 context. Sampling guidelines, statistical rigor (within and among sampling points for individual soil or 636 management types and conditions), accuracy and precision of Tier 1 indicators, the potential usefulness of 637 Tier 2 and Tier 3 indicators, and data for initial assessments all will be outcomes of these pilot studies. 638 639 Actionable Steps 640 Each pilot study will: 641 • Involve qualified statisticians to ensure statistical validity 642 • Focus on private lands in food production systems, including cropland and grazing lands (limits 643

for inclusion to be defined) 644 • Include sampling sites encompassing a range of perceived soil health from “bad” (degraded) to 645

“good” (productive) 646 • Provide data that are publicly available for inspection and analyses by the scientific community, 647

while ensuring confidentiality of the sources 648 • Enable definition of baselines (for the sites included in any particular pilot) and scoring functions 649

(for purposes of comparisons among management practices, environments, etc.) 650 • Be based on a hierarchical, priority-based, stratified design to support interpretation across 651

scales, such as: 652 o Land use 653 o Region or MLRA 654 o Production system 655 o Soil type 656 o County 657 o Management practices 658 o Rainfall 659

660 At each pilot study’s scale, metadata will be documented to provide a context for interpreting soil 661 health indicator data with respect to management practices, environmental conditions, and 662 changes. Metadata will include: 663

Location metadata 664 GPS coordinates 665 Historical weather (3 yr. minimum) 666 Typical number of Growing Degree Days (GDD) 667 Farm Service Agency maps 668



Google maps 669 Soil survey maps 670 671 SSURGO data 672 Sampling time (to account for temporal variability 673 674 General soil information 675 Soil classification 676 Texture 677 Landscape position 678 Aspect/slope 679 Previous soil tests 680 Surrounding watershed features 681 682 Management metadata 683 Owned/leased 684 Previous land uses (pasture, cropland, etc.; 10 yr minimum) 685 Stocking rate (if applicable) 686 Historical yield (3-5 yr minimum) 687 Fertilization history (10 yr) 688 Manure application history 689 Irrigation 690 Residue management 691 Cropping history/rotation (3 yr minimum) 692 Record of cover crops 693 Tillage history (as many years as is available) and timing (fall vs spring) 694 Tillage implements (chisel, disc, etc.) 695 History of interaction with service providers 696 697 Visual metadata 698 Visual rating of soil condition 699 Visual rating of plant condition 700 Weed cover 701

702 The initial pilot study will be based on sampling State Soils. A State Soil is identified on the Natural 703 Resources Conservation Service website 704 (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=stelprdb1236841) as “….a soil 705 that has special significance to a particular state. Each state in the United States has selected a state 706 soil, twenty of which have been legislatively established…. Areas with similar soils are grouped and 707 labeled as soil series because their similar origins, chemical, and physical properties cause the soils 708 to perform similarly for land use purposes….Each series consists of soils having major horizons that 709 are similar in color, texture, structure, reaction, consistence, mineral and chemical composition, and 710 arrangement in the soil profile.” State soils are geographically widespread (often the series having 711 the largest land area among soils in that state) and often agriculturally important. 712 713

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=stelprdb1236841



714 715 716

717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738

739 The initial pilot study will sample the state soils from all 50 states. Exact sampling points on 740 these soils will be selected on the basis of available metadata (above) and an established 741 geospatial sampling framework (or a framework modeled on one), e.g., the Natural Resources 742 Inventory, NASS sampling framework, or other. Soil will be collected on at least three sites for 743 each state soil. Sampling protocol, including soil depth and composite samples, will be defined 744 by a blue-ribbon panel of experts convened by the Institute. 745 746 This initial pilot study may be augmented subsequently by additional sampling of state soils at 747 sites where state soils occur on locations contained within locations of the USDA Long-Term 748 Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) network or the NSF National Ecological Observatory (NEON) 749 network. Locations within these networks, and on other sites such as long-term research plots 750 (e.g., Morrow plots at the University of Illinois, USDA-ARS GRACEnet, university and USDA 751 experimental watershed sites) or other research networks are data-rich and can add further 752 interpretive value to the pilot study. 753 754 The initial pilot study will be expanded in scale as resources permit by increasing the number of 755 sampling points on each state soil to include a wider variety of environmental conditions, 756 production systems, and management systems. Increasing scale will permit analyses of within- 757 and among-field variation; establish baseline values for indicators in different soils; begin to 758 illustrate how land management practices can affect soil health; and provide data to strengthen 759 the statistical design of soil health assessments at increasing scales. 760



761 Subsequent studies at increasing scales may involve increasing coverage of states (e.g., other 762 soil series covering large areas within each state); increasing varieties of production and 763 management systems within states; and alternative sampling frameworks to improve statistical 764 inferences. 765 766 Progress and timelines for pilot studies and their specific designs will depend on resources 767 available for measurement/SOP development, evaluation, selection, and subsequent 768 deployment in the field. 769 770

Goal C: Conduct a full National Soil Health Assessment 771 772 Desired Outcomes 773 The full NSHA will: 774 • establish baselines for soil health at regional to national scales; 775 • identify trends in changes in soil health; 776 • establish a context to interpret soil health information obtained for individual land managers and 777

local decision makers; 778 • support selection of land management practices that will lead to improvements in soil health and 779

the resulting benefits to agricultural production and natural resources; and 780 • provide information to policy makers responsible for public policies in agriculture and natural 781

resources. 782 783 Information Gaps and Management Needs 784 Initiation of the NSHA depends on fulfilling two needs. 785 • Selection of specific measurements of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties having 786

known relationships to land management practices and soil health. Scientific consensus is 787 required to select the suite of measurements that can be conducted to give the necessary 788 accuracy, precision, and information value in an economically feasible way on a national scale. 789 Tier 1 and possibly some Tier 2 measurements (as described above) will be used. 790

• Creation of a sampling design and protocols that can be deployed in a statistically rigorous way 791 that will enable valid conclusions to be drawn from the data. This is required to conduct field 792 proof-of-concept for the NSHA, followed by increasing the scope and scale of these studies over 793 several years to reach the full NSHA. 794

795 Actionable Steps 796 a. Conduct the NSHA across a diverse array of soil series, environments, agricultural production 797

systems, and management strategies, reflecting the stratified design described above. There 798 are 3,142 counties and county equivalents in the United States. The NSHA will include those 799 only in all 50 states, however, not all counties will be sampled because not all contain land that 800 meets metadata and design stratification criteria described above, e.g., some counties do not 801 include lands involved in food production, or the food production areas are arid rangelands used 802 for livestock grazing but are not conducive to determining or improving soil health. 803

804 The exact sampling design, indicators, and analytical SOPs will be determined from the activities 805 described above, in consultation with expert panels convened by the Institute. The NSHA is 806 expected to be an ongoing activity based on a rotational sampling framework. There will be a 807



set of samples collected yearly from a standardized set of locations (most likely from the State 808 Soils) to provide a common dataset across years. Collections will be made from most sampling 809 sites in not all years but revisited on a schedule, e.g., 5 years, to permit the entire national 810 sampling frame to be repeated on that schedule. The exact rotational duration will be 811 determined by the resources available and the statistical power desired, i.e., more resources 812 permitting more analyses can enable the rotation to be shortened in lieu of collecting more 813 samples in a given year if sample number is considered statistically adequate for the inferences 814 desired. Thus, data will reflect temporal variability and provide some indication of the 815 “direction” of soil health trends regionally and nationally. Individual land managers who are 816 interested in the health of soil on their land, and how management practices affect it, will be 817 able to compare results from their soils to the national database and draw contrasts for similar 818 soils, similar crop or livestock production systems, similar management practices (e.g., tillage, 819 irrigation), etc. 820 821 The design, scale, and rate of implementation of the NSHA will depend on the resources 822 available to the Institute’s scientific partners. 823 824

b. Create a database that is publicly accessible from the Institute’s website. Analytical data and 825 accompanying metadata will be available on this site. The Institute will consult with the USDA 826 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to establish procedures that will permit access, 827 aggregation, and analyses but protect the confidentiality of the source of specific data and 828 metadata, in the same way that NASS collects and analyzes national data without compromising 829 data security and sampling location anonymity. Researchers and laboratories who receive 830 funding support from the Institute to develop analytical methods, SOPs, and statistical designs 831 must also deposit their data on the Institute website. Data collected for methods development, 832 pilot studies, and the NSHA must be posted on the website within 6 months of collection. 833

834 c. Transfer new information about soil health to the public. Data, metadata, methods 835

descriptions, and SOPs will be available publicly through the Institute’s website. The Institute’s 836 Action Plan includes strategies to communicate the availability of data, etc., to the agricultural, 837 research, education, and policy communities. The Institute will assess no fees for access to data, 838 etc., available on the Institute website. Publications and other communications that make use 839 of these data, etc., must cite the Institute website as the source. Whenever possible, such 840 publications and other communications will be deposited in the Institute’s Soil Health Research 841 Landscape Tool, also available on the Institute website. 842

843 844

845 846

847



848 ECONOMICS 849

850 I. Introduction 851

Farmers and ranchers are business owners and managers. Consequently, economics is a primary 852 driver influencing adoption of all land management practices, including soil health-promoting 853 practices and systems. Accordingly, to realize the environmental benefits of soil health 854 management systems, the economics of such practices must be assessed, demonstrated, and 855 communicated to increase adoption. Potential profitability and investment risk are two key 856 measures for assessing the economics of soil health management systems. The following objectives 857 and approaches are proposed to address these issues. 858

859 II. Specific Goals and Priorities 860 861

Goal A: Quantify Economic Risk of Soil Health Management Systems 862 863

Desired Outcomes 864 The resilience-promoting aspects of soil health management systems will result in increased 865 yield stability and reduced economic risk, thereby providing a key incentive for farmers and 866 ranchers to adopt soil health management systems. 867 868 Information Gaps and Management Needs 869 Although the benefits of soil health practices to water quality, carbon sequestration, and others 870 are well documented, very little research is available on the impact of these practices on 871 economic risk. Not only must this information be obtained, but it must then be communicated 872 to producers so it becomes incorporated into their management decision process. 873 874 Specific priorities 875 876

Economics Priority A.1. Quantify and communicate soil health management system 877 impacts on economic risk in agricultural production. 878 879

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 880 Evaluations are needed to quantify the relationships between soil health-promoting 881 practices and economic risk for a wide range of production systems, management 882 practices, climates, and soils. Variables influencing those relationships must also be 883 identified, and the information must be transferred to producers to assist in their 884 management decisions. 885 886 Anticipated Products 887 Fact sheets describing the role of soil health on economic risk will be developed for a 888 farmer audience and distributed by government agencies, crop commodity 889 organizations, agri-businesses and cooperative extension. A scientific paper describing 890 the approach, analysis, and findings will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific 891 journal to document the scientific merit of the approach used and conclusions drawn. 892 893 Intended Impact 894



Adoption of soil health management systems determined to reduce economic risk will 895 increase because producers will be provided technically authoritative evidence that soil 896 health practices reduce yield variability and investment risk. 897

898 Actionable Steps 899

a. Conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature that evaluates the 900 impact of such soil health-promoting practices on economic risk, yield, and/or 901 yield variability. 902

b. Summarize the information analyzed in a comprehensive assessment that not 903 only includes available measures of economic risk (i.e., from actual measured 904 economics data or yield variability), but that also documents and evaluates the 905 influence of all pertinent parameters/practices on the results obtained. Analyze 906 all data to determine conclusions and generalizations that can be drawn on such 907 co-variates as cropping system, climatic zone, soil properties, etc. 908

c. Develop 1-2 page fact sheets for farmer audiences that summarize impacts of 909 soil health management systems on economic risk. Field-test draft fact sheets 910 with a subset of farmers across a range of production systems and climatic 911 zones and revise final fact sheets accordingly to optimize message effectiveness. 912 Distribute fact sheets to partners who work directly with farmers, including 913 USDA-NRCS, The Nature Conservancy, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Ag. 914 Retailers, and Land Grant Cooperative Extension. Develop and distribute press 915 releases to assist with message distribution and adoption. 916

d. Enter all literature summarized for assessing economic risk into the existing 917 Research Landscape information system so all users can search and find 918 information on specific research projects pertinent to soil health practice 919 impacts on resilience, yield variability, and economic risk. 920

921 Goal B. Develop partial budgets useful for assisting producers in evaluating profitability of soil health 922 management practices and systems. 923 924

Desired Outcomes 925 Educational materials developed for and distributed to farmers will inform decision making related 926 to the impacts of soil health management systems on potential profitability. This is expected to 927 increase adoption of soil health-promoting practices. 928

929 Information Gaps and Management Needs 930 Producers need more information on the potential profitability of soil health-promoting practices 931 relevant to their particular production systems. Such information is generally not available for the 932 wide range of cropping systems, climates, soils, and management practices required. The best 933 specific sources of information for developing these partial budgets must also be identified and 934 used. 935 936 Specific Priority 937 938

Economic Analysis Priority B.1. Develop and distribute partial budgets for producers that 939 allows them to determine potential profitability of soil health practices in crops and 940 geographies relevant to their particular production system. 941 942



Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 943 Development of partial budgets requires community consensus around the format desired and 944 most useful to producers, data needs, and production systems of interest for analysis. 945 946 Anticipated Products 947 Fact sheets will be developed that include example partial budgets comparing with and without 948 soil health-promoting practices for major production systems (crop and livestock) and 949 geographic regions. 950 951 Intended Impact 952 Soil health management systems and practices determined to be profitable will be identified 953 and communicated, thereby resulting in significantly greater adoption of soil health practices. 954 955 Actionable Steps 956

a. Identify and assemble a balanced mix of soil health scientists, farmers, and economists 957 to determine the type, availability, and sources of data needed for developing partial 958 budgets for producers with and without soil health management systems; and to 959 determine the key production systems/geographies on which to focus. 960

b. Develop and populate a template for the agreed upon partial budget format that can be 961 used across a range of production systems and inputs (e.g. manured and non-manured). 962

c. Construct and distribute educational materials for farmers on the impacts of soil health 963 management systems on potential profitability based on alternative soil health 964 management practices (e.g., cover crops, manure/biosolids amendments, no-tillage, 965 different rotations, options for utilization of cover crops/rotations). 966

967 Goal C. Establish Approaches for Monetization of Soil Health 968

969 Desired Outcomes 970 The economic values of soil health will be established from both producer and public perspectives. 971 972 Information Gaps and Management Needs 973 Little is known about the economic value of healthy soil to the producer, and even less is known 974 about the economic value of healthy soil to the public. Establishing economic values from each 975 perspective would by necessity be contextual (e.g. From the producer perspective, the context may 976 include type of crops grown, their market value, and potential yield increases possible through soil 977 health practices. From the public perspective, the context may include nutrient runoff potential to 978 surface water (depends on such factors as soil drainage/infiltration properties, landscape 979 characteristics, climatic zone, and distance to water body). 980 981 Specific Priority 982 983

Economics Priority C.1. Estimate the economic value of soil health from producer and public 984 perspectives. 985 986 Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 987 Information is needed on the current state of soil health for predominant soils, the attainable 988 levels that are possible, and the potential increases in productivity and ecosystem services that 989



may be expected if soil health is increased from the current state to that higher, attainable 990 state. 991

992 Anticipated Products 993 White papers and/or models of current and potential economic values of soils will be developed 994 for major agricultural soils in the U.S., with considerations given to producer and public 995 (ecosystem service) benefits. 996 997 Intended Impact 998 Adoption of soil health management systems will significantly increase as a result of the 999 realization that such investments have yield and ecosystem service benefits. 1000 1001 Actionable Steps 1002 a. Convene working groups of producers, soil scientists, agronomists, economists, and 1003

ecologists/modelers to design the detailed path forward. 1004 b. Coordinate assessments of the current state of soil health and estimates of attainable levels 1005

with working groups leading the Measurements, Standards, and Assessments activities. 1006 c. Calculate potential productivity increases and ecosystem services (e.g. reduced nutrient 1007

losses through leaching and runoff) from published data or estimates from models. 1008 d. Apply monetary values to those productivity increases and ecosystem service 1009

enhancements within a place-based, system-based context. 1010 e. Write and distribute white papers documenting the approaches used and findings made. 1011

1012 1013



COMMUNICATIONS AND EDUCATION 1014 1015

I. Introduction 1016 1017 The overall goal of the Institute’s Communications and Education effort is to increase adoption of 1018 soil health promoting practices through effective communications and education by serving as a 1019 central hub for soil health information. The activities developed under this plan will broaden the 1020 depth of knowledge regarding the critical nature of soil health. Focused messages will be delivered 1021 through the Institute’s active network of contributors and researchers using a variety of 1022 communication media. The Institute’s primary activities in research, measurements & standards, 1023 economics and public policy will be emphasized. In addition, the Institute will strengthen and 1024 support the communications and educations efforts of partners’ soil health initiatives, facilitate a 1025 common language about soil health, and systematically address gaps in outreach. Results of these 1026 activities will engage the public, farmers and ranchers, scientists, policymakers and industry in a 1027 conversation about soil health’s impact on water quality, food security, resilience to climate change, 1028 climate change mitigation, human health, air quality, and pollinator and wildlife habitat. Through 1029 this open communication, the Institute will seek to increase the adoption of soil health management 1030 systems. 1031 1032


Goal A: Establish and Strengthen the Institute’s Online Presence 1035 1036 Desired Outcomes 1037 The Institute’s diverse audience, consisting of funders, scientists, farmers and ranchers, 1038 policymakers, educators, landowners and managers, industry, and the public at large, will have 1039 ready access to useful soil health information. This audience will have heightened awareness 1040 and interest in soil health and will understand the opportunities for environmental and 1041 socioeconomic benefits arising from soil health. Demonstration sites, workshops, and 1042 conferences will be announced and new and existing soil health programs will be promoted. 1043 1044 Information Gaps and Management Needs 1045 Significant information gaps exist among the Institute’s audiences regarding the connection 1046 between soil health and its impact on water, climate, environment, productivity, and food 1047 security. There is a lack of a comprehensive organization communicating the efforts and 1048 successes of organizations and individuals working in soil health. There is also a lack of a 1049 comprehensive online repository of updated soil health research literature. 1050 1051 Specific Communications and Education (C&E) priorities 1052 1053

C&E Priority A.1. Develop Materials and Processes for Active Outreach Online. 1054 1055

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 1056 Software automation will facilitate outreach by the Institute. Customer Relationship 1057 Management (CRM) tools are needed to target communications at specific audiences. 1058 Subjects for news kits need to be prioritized. A calendar of events needs to be designed 1059 and established on the Institute’s website as a service to the broad soil health science 1060 and applications community. 1061



1062 1063 Anticipated Products 1064 A range of communications, education, and outreach products will be developed, 1065 including: 1066 1. Drip email to Institute partners and others who have expressed interest in the 1067

Institute; 1068 2. Trigger email to those who click-through or respond to a specific topic or article; 1069 3. News Releases, Exclusive Articles, and Media Relations; 1070 4. Event-based News Kits and Support for specific topics (e.g., hypoxia); 1071 5. Collaboration with others (i.e., partner features); 1072 6. A calendar of conferences, speaking opportunities and partnership opportunities; 1073 7. Website links to government agencies, foundations, nonprofits, and corporate 1074

partners, e.g., Land Grant Universities, USDA agencies, selected research facilities, 1075 environmental organizations and other organizations with interests in soil health, 1076 water quality, agricultural sustainability, and science-based climate information, 1077 agricultural media, and sources of information about major soil health events. The 1078 Institute’s website will also feature a prominent link to the Soil Health Research 1079 Landscape tool. 1080

1081 Intended Impact 1082 SHI audiences and partners will find the soil health information they seek through the 1083 Institute’s website. Institute audiences and partners receive the information relevant to 1084 their interest(s) and/or mission(s) via email and news media. Institute audiences’ depth 1085 of knowledge is broadened regarding the critical nature of soil health. Institute 1086 audiences are aware of the Institute’s activities and those of its partners. 1087 1088 Actionable Steps 1089 a. Re-design and continually improve the Institute’s website to communicate soil 1090

health related information to a range of audiences. Measure online visibility via 1091 website actionable inquiries, organic search, media exposure, awareness growth, 1092 and standard social media metrics. 1093

b. Develop event based news for important topics related to soil health (e.g. water 1094 quality, drought) 1095

c. Develop and post a calendar of soil health related events, conferences, and 1096 opportunities 1097

1098 Goal B: Facilitate Collaboration Among the Institute’s Committees & Partners 1099 1100

Desired Outcomes 1101 Outcomes include an internal communication platform that facilitates conversations and helps 1102 to increase synergies and awareness among the Institute’s Committees and partners. An overall 1103 “systems approach” to soil health will incorporate ideas from research, measurements and 1104 standards, economics, and public policy to enhance the Institute’s mission. The Institute’s 1105 partners and the public will understand the rationale behind essential, tiered soil health 1106



indicators and measurement practices because the Institute’s leaders in communications and 1107 education will collaborate with scientists leading the measurements and standards efforts. 1108 1109 Information Gaps and Management Needs 1110 The Institute’s committees and major work are comprised of volunteers who may not be fully 1111 aware of important and connected activities in other parts of the Institute. Awareness, 1112 engagement, and idea-sharing need to be enhanced among the Institute’s committees and 1113 volunteers. 1114 1115 Specific C&E Priorities 1116 1117

C&E priority B.1. Enhance Institute effectiveness by increasing communication and 1118 collaboration among volunteers working within the operational structure. 1119 1120

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 1121 Full establishment of committees is needed to ensure consistent communication among 1122 Institute partners. Institute staff need to initiate regular communications with 1123 committee co-chairs to establish goals and functions of the Institute’s committees. 1124 1125 Anticipated Products 1126 Products include a quarterly summary of each committee’s activity and progress, 1127 prepared by the committee co-chairs. A platform via Altus will be provided to 1128 committees to interact and engage in conversation. 1129 1130 Intended Impact 1131 Clear and regular communication will establish direction forward and consensus among 1132 individual committees working collaboratively to fulfill the Institute’s mission. 1133 1134 Actionable Steps 1135 a. Institute staff will select committee co-chairs. 1136 b. Each committee co-chair will prepare a slate of 5-10 potential committee members 1137

and submit it to the Institute for review, discussion, modification, and approval. 1138 c. The Institute will convene regular conference calls of the committee co-chairs. 1139 d. Committee co-chairs will convene regular conference calls of the committee 1140

members. 1141 e. Committee co-chairs will submit quarterly reports to the Institute, and other reports 1142

on specific projects as needed. 1143 f. Each committee will have at least one co-chair attend all Institute annual meetings. 1144 1145

Goal C: Increase Education of Potential Partners and Audiences About Soil Health’s Key Areas of 1146 Impact 1147

1148 Desired Outcomes 1149



The Institute’s impact will be bolstered by strategic government, foundation, non-profit, and 1150 corporate partnerships. Messages developed with partners will show unity and clarity as to how 1151 soil health benefits water, climate, environment, productivity and food security. As a result, soil 1152 health will be elevated to a national and international priority. 1153 1154 Information Gaps and Management Needs 1155 Currently, no organization is responsible for coordinating public and private efforts focused on 1156 enhancing soil health. Communication is lacking among public and private organizations 1157 focused on enhancing soil health. Increased unity and synergy and elimination of redundancies 1158 are needed among soil health. 1159 1160

C&E Priority C.1. Establish Partnerships with Key National and International 1161 Organizations. 1162 1163

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 1164 There are many organizations interested in communicating about agriculture and the 1165 environment, but the connection with soil health is not always apparent. Organizations 1166 need to be aware that the Institute is a source of information that is valuable for 1167 developing messages about the benefits of soil health to the environment, agriculture, 1168 and society. 1169 1170 Anticipated Products 1171 Educational materials and lists of experts appropriate for developing important 1172 messages about soil health. 1173 1174 Intended Impact 1175 The visibility and importance of soil health will be elevated and strengthened by 1176 providing organizations with ready access to information and expertise about soil 1177 health. Such organizations may include agribusinesses; international scientific 1178 organizations; international conservation organizations; international government 1179 agencies; key countries that have similar organizations; and international 1180 manufacturers, academia, foundations, and media outlets. 1181 1182 Actionable Steps 1183 a. Ensure that the Institute’s website has information and links available for 1184

organizations pertinent to their needs and opportunities. 1185 b. Create a list of experts at academic institutions and government agencies who are 1186

interested in serving as sources of technical information. 1187 c. Support organizations in their messaging and outreach by working with them to 1188

develop materials to communicate about soil health. 1189 d. Develop joint opinion-editorials regarding the Institute’s key areas of impact. 1190 e. Enhance collaborations to increase adoption of soil health promoting practices in a 1191

particular region. 1192 1193



1194 C&E Priority C.2. Educate the broader public about the principal benefits of soil health 1195 1196

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 1197 Educators in most settings are not aware of soil health, let alone knowledgeable about 1198 it. Readily available information is lacking as a foundation for lesson development in 1199 schools. Educators who may be interested in the topic do not know where to go for 1200 reliable information about the subject. 1201

Anticipated Products 1202 Qualified expert partners willing to work with teachers will be identified at agricultural 1203 centers, vocational schools and community colleges in rural areas. Existing soil-related 1204 curricula and programs will be identified and made available for use in both formal and 1205 informal educational settings for youth. An inventory of existing community education 1206 programs will be developed for home and community lawn and gardens. Key messages 1207 and partnerships will be developed with organizations identified through an inventory of 1208 programs to encourage incorporation of soil health principles into existing curricula and 1209 programs. Coordinated efforts with national awareness campaigns will target outreach 1210 to the youth community and community educators to promote the soil health 1211 movement in education. A clearinghouse of available soil health resources, identified 1212 through an inventory and compilation, will be developed and promoted with educators 1213 in the field. 1214 1215 Intended Impact 1216 Educators have ready access to information and experts to enable development of 1217 lesson plans and demonstrations on soil health and its benefits to the environment, 1218 agriculture, and people everywhere. Students have an increased appreciation and 1219 understanding of these topics and can explain, engage in, and advocate for soil health 1220 issues. 1221 1222 Actionable Steps 1223 a. Ensure that the Institute website has information and links useful to teachers. 1224 b. Create a list of experts at academic institutions and government agencies who are 1225

interested in working with teachers. 1226 c. Support teachers and soil health experts in developing materials and lesson plans to 1227

teach about soil health. 1228

1229

C&E Priority C.3. Engage the Media and Develop Communications Material 1230 1231

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 1232 Journalists depend on subject matter experts and expert-developed information to help 1233 craft public messages but may not know who those experts are in the area of soil health. 1234 1235 Anticipated Products 1236



Media kits to address information and outreach needs specifically developed for media 1237 use. Possible topics may include societal benefits and case studies that appeal to wide 1238 audiences and can generate interest and support; and the relationship of soil health to 1239 important topics such as food security, the environment, climate, agricultural 1240 productivity, plant and animal health, agricultural markets and retail, and human health. 1241 1242 Intended Impact 1243 Through well-planned and factual media stories, key audiences are engaged in a 1244 conversation about the priorities, benefits, and opportunities to have an impact through 1245 soil health. The adoption of soil health-promoting practices will be increased. 1246 1247 Actionable Steps 1248 a. The Institute will identify and work with broadcast, print, and social media 1249

developers and reporters to stimulate interest in communications about soil health. 1250 b. Create and distribute media kits and useful information to support widespread 1251

communications. 1252 1253 1254 1255

1256 1257

1258 1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273



1274

WELL-INFORMED POLICY 1275 1276 I. Introduction 1277 1278 The Soil Health Institute advocates the use of information from peer-reviewed scientific and socio-1279 economic analyses as a foundation for land management and natural resources decision making, 1280 especially that involving the long-term condition of the soil. Accordingly, the Institute seeks to provide 1281 to decision makers a firm foundation of soil health related scientific and socio-economic information 1282 and analyses that enable policy driven actions that will: 1283

• Increase soil health through voluntary, non-regulatory, business-oriented mechanisms; 1284 • Increase awareness and understanding of the benefits attributed to soil health, along with the 1285

corresponding public value of incentives for adopting soil health practices; and 1286 • Increase public investment of resources in soil health to achieve widely available public benefits 1287

to food production and natural resource management that can be achieved by implementing 1288 soil health related science and technology. 1289

1290 Policy makers are supported by the Institute’s scientific, technical, and economic work and its 1291 communication, education, and outreach initiatives that can relate reliable measurements of soil 1292 properties to specific land management practices, environmental conditions, and socio-economic 1293 incentives and obstacles to implementing soil health-enhancing practices. Results of the Institute’s work 1294 on policy will help decision makers allocate public resources to sustain and enhance soil health as a 1295 primary mechanism to achieve desired environmental and socioeconomic goals related to land 1296 management and natural resources. 1297 1298 II. Specific Goals and Priorities 1299 1300

Goal A: Make Soil Health the Cornerstone of Natural Resources Management Policies Throughout 1301 the Nation 1302 1303

Desired Outcomes 1304 Natural resources policies include a clear role of incentives in implementation of the policy (e.g., 1305 supporting cover crops to reduce nutrient leaching, not plant cover crops for their own sake). 1306 Disincentives are minimized (e.g., removal of incentive payments, thus establishing a 1307 disincentive to plant cover crops and stop planting them, obviating the benefits to soil health 1308 and other desirable environmental benefits). Non-monetary incentives, such as policies that 1309 value ecosystem services, erosion control, nutrient retention, etc., are successful. 1310 1311 Information Gaps and Management Needs 1312 The positive and negative impacts, intended or not, of existing policies on soil health have not 1313 been thoroughly assessed. Planned or inadvertent impacts of policies in development, e.g., the 1314 next Farm Bill, rarely if ever take soil health into consideration, even though managing soil 1315 health has broad benefits to natural resources and agricultural systems. 1316 1317 Specific Policy-Related Priorities 1318 1319



Policy priority A.1. Assess Current Policies for Positive and Negative Influences on Soil 1320 Health 1321 1322

Specific Needs to Address Information Gaps 1323 Analyses are needed to examine a wide range of national and perhaps state and even 1324 local policies for their intended and unintended consequences on soil health and 1325 subsequent broader impacts on the environment and agriculture. 1326 1327 Anticipated Products 1328 White papers developed for policy makers describing the actual impacts of existing 1329 policies, to be used as case studies as new or updated policies are developed. Papers 1330 may be suitable for publication in appropriate policy-oriented journals. 1331 1332 Intended Impact 1333 The Institute is considered widely as a primary source of reliable information about soil 1334 health for policy makers and is valued as an unbiased source because it does not engage 1335 directly in policy development. Policy makers know that they have readily available, 1336 neutral, factual bases for decision making via the Institute’s sponsorship of research and 1337 methods development, including analyses of economic costs and benefits of soil health-1338 improving practices on all scales and socio-economic incentives and barriers to adoption 1339 of such practices. The Institute website, including the Soil Health Research Landscape 1340 tool and information about Institute-funded projects, is readily available to policy 1341 makers and their staffs as a key resource for new findings, analyses, experts, 1342 practitioners, laboratories, and stakeholders in the soil health community. Public 1343 policies related to agriculture and natural resources management routinely make soil 1344 health a primary consideration in evaluating intended and unintended consequences. 1345 1346 Actionable Steps 1347 a. Develop case studies evaluating the positive and negative effects of policies on soil 1348

health. For example, the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) is an example of 1349 a positive policy that has the potential to be even more effective in promoting soil 1350 health. Oregon has had success with CSP contracts having specific soil health 1351 promoting practices. Programs such as this will be easier to support relative to soil 1352 health if metrics or indices to help justify adoption of beneficial practices based on 1353 measurable outcomes can be developed as a part of the Institute’s research and 1354 measurement activities. Big data, or data collected via the NSHA, could be utilized to 1355 create the index, which could also serve as a risk profile for land by the acre. The 1356 index could be especially useful in contracts between landowners and renters. In 1357 contrast, certain land lease agreements are detrimental to the longevity required of 1358 certain soil health management practices. Policies that integrate land owner 1359 incentives into lease agreements could promote better management. Negative 1360 impacts may be offset by incentives directed at the producer, who may not see the 1361 short-term costs of planting cover crops, for example, as a worthwhile investment 1362 on rented land. 1363

b. Identify existing policies and policy making opportunities that can enhance the 1364 application of soil health concepts in policies. Examples include soil health research 1365 grants, soil health improvement in natural resources conservation programs, and 1366 soil health as a consideration in innovation grants programs. 1367



c. Create a database and document archive to serve as a clearing house for 1368 information regarding successful adoption of soil health management strategies 1369 employed by states and other countries. 1370

d. Communicate resource needs for advancing the science and adoption of soil health 1371 systems. 1372

1 draft of 34 – do not distribute or cite soil health ... · page 1 draft of 34 – do not...

Documents