Soil testing

Hi Kath, Interesting question... on the one hand, the soil testing requirement is listed in the Further Explanation section under the "Fertilizer and herbicide use" criteria, so it seems reasonable to say that if you won't have any fertilizer or additives than the soil testing wouldn't be necessary. On the other hand, I could also see a reviewer questioning that exclusion and saying the soil testing requirement is there to allow on-going monitoring of the soil health by assessing the baseline soil conditions. In Further Explanation, Changes from 2009 it says:    "Soil testing completed for this credit can be used to inform the long-term objectives of the site improvement plan for the related credit. For example, the result of soil testing can influence selections for the site plant palette."  On a practical level, I've heard from our in-house landscape architect that soil testing is useful and inexpensive, and something we do on most projects, even when there is all native/ adaptive landscaping. For costs typically in the "low- to mid-three digits" we get info on clay/ sand/ organic mix, pH, and available nutrients that's useful in guiding the planting selection and seeing if any natural amendments might be useful.   So there's one argument that soil testing would be useful for both design and for monitoring the effectiveness of *any* landscape maintenance activities, including natural pest control measures that aren't currently needed but may be necessary down the road.  But since this is EBOM, not Design & Construction, and you mention there's "no maintained turf area," is the rest of the landscaping maintained at all? To what extent is the landscaping managed and maintained or existing, established, and left to it's own devices? (Can we call it "feral" landscaping? ;-)  Seems like there's a big difference between, oh, let's say, something like a Lady Bird Johnson Center versus grass and sagebrush around an airport...