The CEMA 216 Final Report: A Deliverables and NRCS Review Checklist
Part 5 of the CEMA 216 Farmer’s Guide: assemble a traceable final package, audit every required cover-page, map, result, interpretation, monitoring, privacy, and delivery item, and resolve omissions before NRCS administrative review.
A CEMA 216 laboratory report is one component of the completed deliverable. The Qualified Individual must document the work, prepare the required cover page, include site-visit notes and relevant correspondence, provide a general location map and a sampling map with the PLU polygon and WGS84 sampling points, report the sampling strategy and sample IDs, attach laboratory results and interpretations, and include a schedule for additional testing or monitoring. The QI prepares two complete sets, one for the participant and one for the local NRCS office, and may transmit the office copy only with participant authorization. Numerical results may be withheld from NRCS under the current FAQ when the participant provides sufficient evidence of completion. Audit traceability from map to sample to method to result before asking for acceptance.
: follow three fictional samples from the map through laboratory results, interpretation and handoff. Includes an annotated example PDF and an explanation of what the QI supplies and reviews.
Version note. This checklist was checked against the national CEMA 216 standard listed as 04-2026, the April 10, 2026 FAQ, and the CEMA 216 Job Aid 4-2026. Verify the current national document, state instructions, and contract before delivery [1][2][3].
A laboratory report alone is incomplete
CEMA 216 requires documentation showing completion of its general, technical, and deliverable requirements. The final package must connect the conservation objective and sampling strategy to mapped samples, laboratory methods and results, interpretations or observations, and a schedule for additional monitoring [1][2].
Build one traceable evidence chain
A reviewer should be able to begin with the participant objective, locate the planning land unit (PLU), identify the three representative composite samples, follow each sample ID into the laboratory report, confirm the selected analytical method, find the interpretation, and locate the record needed to repeat the work. If a link in that chain is missing, the result may be scientifically difficult to interpret even when the laboratory analysis was sound [1][4].
The CEMA 216 evidence chain
Stage
Evidence
Traceability question
Objective and scope
Participant goal, PLU, contract and instance
What was tested, where, and why?
Sampling
Strategy, map, WGS84 points, depth, date and sample IDs
What soil does each bag represent?
Laboratory
Qualification route, exact methods, units and reporting basis
What was measured and how?
Interpretation
Texture, pH, field context, model outputs and limitations
What can and cannot be concluded?
Monitoring
Return schedule and repeatability record
How will the baseline be repeated?
Use stable identifiers across the map, field log, chain of custody, laboratory report, interpretation, and final index [1][2].
1. Audit the cover page
The cover page identifies the activity, participant, contract, land, and professional responsible for the work. It also carries the QI certification, participant acceptance, and space for NRCS administrative review [1].
CEMA name and number.
Participant name, Farm Bill program, contract number, and land identification such as state, county, farm, and tract.
QI name, address, telephone number, and email.
A statement explaining how the QI currently meets the qualification requirements; supporting documentation is encouraged.
The QI certification statement confirming the delivered work meets applicable requirements and the participant's conservation objectives, followed by signature and date.
A participant acceptance statement, signature, and date.
Space for NRCS administrative review with signature, title, and date.
Qualification evidence should be current
A certification number, license, business affiliation, degree-and-experience statement, or other concise evidence can support the QI statement. The cover page should describe the qualification route that applies when the work is delivered, not only when the quote was prepared [1][2].
2. Include notes, correspondence, and site-visit records
CEMA 216 calls for documentation of every site visit, its participants, the field activity completed, and the results of the visit. Include correspondence between the QI and participant that records sampling goals, decisions, changes, and completion, along with observations, data, or tests prepared during the activity [1].
Records that resolve common questions
Question
Useful record
Why were these locations chosen?
Pre-work notes, sampling-strategy explanation and map
Why did one point move?
Dated deviation note, new coordinates and reason
Which laboratory method was ordered?
Written laboratory confirmation and chain-of-custody form
Why is one value missing or flagged?
Laboratory correspondence, condition-on-receipt note and amended report
Who approved a scope change?
Correspondence among the participant, QI and field office
3. Review both required maps
The package includes a general location map that helps locate and access the sampling area and a soil-sampling map showing the PLU polygon and WGS84 latitude-longitude point data. Add other maps when they are needed for interpretation [1].
Map title.
Client name or business name.
Assisted By identification for the QI.
Date prepared.
Map scale and north arrow.
Appropriate symbols and a legend on the map or as an attachment.
Readable PLU boundary and unique labels for every representative composite location.
WGS84 coordinates that agree with the field log and laboratory sample IDs.
A screenshot is not automatically a complete map
A satellite image with pins may help orientation, but it still needs the required map elements and a clear PLU polygon. Check coordinate format, datum, point labels, scale, north arrow, symbols, and legend before delivery [1].
4. Audit the evaluation or monitoring report
At minimum, the report describes the sampling strategy, identifies the samples, provides the laboratory results, includes interpretations or observations and any applicable soil-health model or tool outputs, and gives a schedule for additional testing or monitoring at the frequency determined by the conservation plan [1][2].
Minimum report audit
Required component
Quality-control check
Sampling strategy
Random, stratified, problem-area or combined design is named and explained
Sample identification
Every result traces to one mapped composite and five-collection group
Laboratory results
All contracted indicators, methods, units and reporting bases are present
Interpretation
Texture, pH, method, field context and limitations accompany the values
Model or tool output
Tool name, version, input mapping and limitations are retained when used
Monitoring schedule
Target timing, responsible person and repeatability controls are stated
The CEMA 216 standard does not set a national raw-number passing threshold or require statistically significant improvement. Administrative review should confirm that the contracted work and documentation are complete; interpretation should explain the evidence without converting a value into an invented compliance cutoff [1][2][4].
5. Reconcile privacy, delivery, and authorization
The standard directs the QI to prepare two sets of the completed work: one for the participant and one for the local NRCS office. The QI may transmit the office set only when the participant authorizes transmission, and NRCS recommends offering the field office an opportunity to review the deliverables before asking for acceptance [1].
The April 2026 FAQ clarifies that NRCS cannot require a participant to provide numerical soil-health laboratory results as a condition of program participation. A participant who withholds the values must still provide sufficient evidence that CEMA 216 was completed. The FAQ identifies two routes: provide laboratory reports with the numerical data redacted, or show the results to NRCS staff without allowing NRCS to record, copy, photograph, or retain them [2]. Coordinate the selected route with the local field office and document it.
SHAPE data submission is separate and optional
Participants may choose to submit laboratory results and sampling coordinates to SoilHealthTest@usda.gov to help improve SHAPE. A QI or field office needs written participant authorization to submit on the participant's behalf. The optional submission is distinct from providing evidence that the contracted CEMA was completed [1][2].
6. Resolve omissions before requesting acceptance
A laboratory package name appears, but one or more exact analytical methods are missing.
The laboratory report contains one combined field sample instead of three distinct composites.
Map labels, field sample IDs, and laboratory IDs do not match.
The PLU polygon, WGS84 points, scale, north arrow, symbols, or legend are absent.
Depth, tool, season, conditions, recent management, handling, or shipment is undocumented.
Texture or pH is missing, replaced by Soil Survey texture, or not used in interpretation.
A result lacks units, reporting basis, incubation length, or method-specific context.
The interpretation states that a higher value is always better or treats SHAPE as percent healthy.
The monitoring schedule does not preserve the locations, laboratory, methods, season, and handling.
The QI certification, participant acceptance, transmission authorization, or NRCS review space is incomplete.
A ten-minute final audit
□ Cover-page identities, statements, signatures, and dates are complete.
□ Site visits, correspondence, observations, deviations, and laboratory communication are indexed.
□ Both maps contain the required elements, PLU polygon, WGS84 points, and matching sample IDs.
□ Three composites remain separate throughout the field record and laboratory report.
□ Every contracted indicator has the correct method, units, reporting basis, result, and interpretation.
□ The final-year team can reproduce the baseline from the retained record.
□ The participant's privacy and transmission choices are documented.
□ Two complete sets or the agreed privacy-compliant evidence package are ready for handoff.
Soil Health Exchange Team (2026). The CEMA 216 Final Report: A Deliverables and NRCS Review Checklist. Soil Health Exchange. https://soilhealthexchange.com/blog/cema-216-final-report-deliverables-checklist
More citation formats
MLA
Soil Health Exchange Team. "The CEMA 216 Final Report: A Deliverables and NRCS Review Checklist." Soil Health Exchange, 2026-08-08, https://soilhealthexchange.com/blog/cema-216-final-report-deliverables-checklist.
Chicago
Soil Health Exchange Team. "The CEMA 216 Final Report: A Deliverables and NRCS Review Checklist." Soil Health Exchange. Published 2026-08-08. https://soilhealthexchange.com/blog/cema-216-final-report-deliverables-checklist.
Discussion
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!