Due-diligence report
Informational only — not a survey, flood determination, or substitute for on-site inspection. This is an automated Phase-1 desk screen from satellite and public records. It is not a survey, a flood determination, or a substitute for on-site inspection by a licensed professional.
LandBenchmark · Land intelligence report · Lite scan
30.27310, -98.42400 · 52.77 acres · generated 2026-07-11
Blanco County, TX · FIPS 48031
Appears to be an individual
Your drawn area was 52.77 acres — computed from the county boundary, not county-stated.
TX publishes parcel and owner records as open data, and LandBenchmark reads them directly for Blanco County, TX. Ownership is shown to confirm we identified the right parcel; LandBenchmark does not export or resell it.
Source: FCC Census Block API / US Census Bureau Geocoder (2020 Census geography) · Texas Geographic Information Office — StratMap Parcels (2019)
36 measured signals — each carries its method, the source it's based on, and the imagery date observed. We only show values we actually measured; factors we can't yet measure live are on the methodology page, never shown here as numbers.
Imagery analysed: 1975-01-01 → 2026-07-11. Satellite observations are point-in-time, not current conditions.
This parcel reads as developed (built-up). LandBenchmark and vegetation signals describe the existing structures/surface, not the land beneath — so they're shown but excluded from the verdict. For underlying-land questions rely on the location, hazard, and soil-survey signals, plus the human-verify checklist (a Phase I / geotechnical review sees what a satellite can't).
6 flagged signals — these drive the verdict. Read them first, with their method and trust limits.
Tarpley (70% of map unit): Not prime farmland; capability class 6
Why
Classified as prime farmland — productive ground, but check for ag-zoning, conservation easements or tax programs that can limit development.
Prime farmland — possible agricultural zoning / tax constraints
Tarpley (70% of map unit): max LEP 13.4% (high shrink-swell)
Why
Soils shrink and swell markedly with moisture — a foundation-design issue (slabs, footings, drainage) to engineer for.
High shrink-swell soils (foundation / slab risk)
Tarpley (70% of map unit): restrictive layer at ~38 cm
Why
A restrictive layer sits shallow — expect harder excavation, tougher septic siting and possible blasting/ripping cost.
Shallow bedrock/restriction (excavation, septic, foundation cost)
Within 3 km: 9 leaking storage tank (lust), 4 hazardous waste (rcra), 35 storage tank facility, 11 permitted water discharge. Of concern: JCB PLAZA (leaking storage tank (lust)) ~1225 m; AFB MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (leaking storage tank (lust)) ~1273 m; PILGRAM BUSHNELL NEWMAN WATER WELLS (leaking storage tank (lust)) ~1273 m.
Why
3 records of known or reported contamination sit close to this parcel. Off-site contamination migrates through groundwater and soil vapour, so this alone justifies a Phase-1 environmental records review before you commit. This is a proximity screen over EPA's mapped records, not a Phase-1 records review. It does not cover facilities that closed before these registries existed, state-agency files, or anything ever done on the parcel itself. No records found here does not mean the land is clean.
3 contamination records near the parcel
~45 days/yr ≥ 35 °C; ~1 days/yr ≥ 40 °C (ERA5 2015–2024)
Why
Around 45 days per year reach 35 °C and 1 reach 40 °C — weigh heat stress on crops, livestock, workers and cooling load; the flag threshold is a screening convention, not a health standard.
Frequent extreme heat (≥ 30 days/yr at or above 35 °C — screening cutoff)
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
USGS karst polygon: Carbonate rocks at or near the land surface in a dry climate — Glen Rose Limestone, Early Cretaceous, limestone
Why
This land sits on mapped soluble bedrock — sinkholes, voids and rapid groundwater pathways are possible; budget a geotechnical/karst survey before siting structures, wells or septic.
Parcel lies on USGS-mapped karst / soluble-rock terrain (sinkhole, cover-collapse and groundwater-vulnerability considerations)
No NWI wetland polygon intersects the parcel
Why
No mapped wetland at the point — but NWI can miss small or forested wetlands, so a field check still governs any Clean Water Act permitting.
baseline water stress: Medium - High (20-40%) for Pfafstetter basin 751810, United States (withdrawals vs available supply)
Why
Baseline water stress here is Medium - High (20-40%) — limited regional competition for water, but this is a basin-level indicator, not a legal water right; confirm local availability and permits.
max 0 months/yr of standing water; permanent (12-month) water on 0% of parcel (JRC seasonality layer 2020)
Why
Little to no seasonal open water mapped on the parcel — corroborates a low standing-water signal.
When
JRC Global Surface Water v1.3 (Landsat) · window 2020-01-01→2020-12-31 · 30m
Blanco County, TX: D0 Abnormally Dry across 55% of the county (USDM map of 2026-07-07)
Why
Current US Drought Monitor status here is D0 Abnormally Dry — a weekly snapshot of present conditions; long-term water availability needs its own review.
When
Observed 2026-07-07 · US Drought Monitor
Tarpley (70% of map unit): Well drained
Why
Dominant soil is well drained — generally workable drainage (confirm on site).
Tarpley (70% of map unit): mean Ksat 1.3 µm/s → moderate percolation
Why
Permeability is in a workable range for a conventional septic system — a certified perc test still governs.
very low inherent productivity — poorly suited to commodity crops
Why
USDA rates this map unit 20/100 for inherent commodity-crop productivity (very low). This describes the soil's natural capability, not what the land is worth or what you may build on it.
nearest road (service) ~54 m from parcel boundary
Why
A mapped road runs close to the parcel — access is plausible (confirm legal frontage).
No EIA-mapped gas transmission pipeline within ~3 km
Why
No mapped transmission-level gas pipeline nearby — no pipeline easement/safety screen triggered; note this says nothing about local gas distribution service to the parcel.
S_DS 0.05 g; Seismic Design Category A
Why
Moderate-to-low seismic design demand for standard construction.
USFS WHP 2023 class: Low (class 2 of 5)
Why
Wildfire hazard potential is Low — a lower-hazard band regionally, though local fuels, slope and weather still matter.
Blanco County, Texas: EPA radon Zone 3 — lowest predicted potential (<2 pCi/L)
Why
This county is EPA radon Zone 3 (lower predicted potential) — levels still vary house to house, so an in-home test is the only confirmation.
no M≥4.5 earthquakes within 100 km of the centroid since 1975 (USGS ComCat)
Why
A quiet observed record — no M≥4.5 earthquakes within 100 km since 1975. Catalog completeness varies by region, and a quiet catalog is not zero hazard; the national building code still sets the design values.
When
USGS ComCat (FDSN event service) · window 1975-01-01→2026-07-11
nearest Holocene volcano: Carrizozo, United States at 808 km (last known eruption 3250 BCE)
Why
The nearest Holocene volcano (Carrizozo, United States) is 808 km away — outside the typical near-field hazard range, though heavy regional ashfall from a large eruption can travel farther; a proximity screen, not a hazard-zone map.
no burned area detected in 57 monthly composites 2020-2026 (500 m — small burns can be missed)
Why
No satellite-detected burn in ~6 years of monthly burned-area maps — low observed fire history (small burns below 500 m scale can escape detection).
When
MODIS Terra+Aqua (MCD64A1 v6.1) · window 2020-07-11→2026-07-11 · 500m
mean annual temp 20.1 °C; annual precipitation ~900 mm (2015–2024, ERA5)
Why
Regional climate averages ~20 °C and ~900 mm rain/yr — informs crop, heating/cooling and water planning.
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
optimal tilt 29°; 1 kWp crystalline-Si, 14% system loss (PVGIS SARAH)
Why
About 1579 kWh per kWp per year — a solid solar resource for on-site PV.
mean 100 m wind ~6.2 m/s (moderate); ERA5 2021–2023
Why
About 6.2 m/s average wind at 100 m — a moderate resource; informs small-wind potential and exposure/shelter planning.
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2021-01-01→2023-12-31 · 9000m
~355 frost-free days/yr; mean last spring frost ~Feb 18, first autumn frost ~Dec 1 (ERA5 2015–2024)
Why
About 355 frost-free days per year — sets which crops and how many cycles are viable; on-site frost pockets can be shorter, so confirm the local last/first-frost dates.
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
~2 snowfall days/yr; ~2 cm annual snowfall (ERA5 2015–2024)
Why
About 2 snow days and ~2 cm of snow per year — informs access, heating and roof/structure design. This is climatology only; structural snow LOAD must come from the local code (e.g. ASCE 7 ground snow load).
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
AI 0.60 — UNEP 'dry sub-humid' (P ~900 mm/yr, ET0 ~1503 mm/yr; bands: hyper-arid <0.05, arid 0.05–0.20, semi-arid 0.20–0.50, dry sub-humid 0.50–0.65, humid >0.65)
Why
Aridity Index 0.60 places this in the UNEP 'dry sub-humid' class — rainfall broadly meets or exceeds evaporative demand for much of the year (still check seasonal timing).
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
monthly-precip CV 40% (WorldClim BIO15); wettest May ~158 mm, driest Jul ~41 mm (ERA5 2015–2024)
Why
Rainfall seasonality CV of 40% — moderately spread across the year. Wettest May, driest Jul.
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
Köppen–Geiger Cfa (humid subtropical); from monthly T & P normals (Beck et al. 2018 rules, ERA5 2015–2024)
Why
Climate class Cfa (humid subtropical) — a compact summary of the temperature/rainfall regime useful for matching crops, vegetation and building practice; computed from a 9 km grid, so borderline sites can shift a letter.
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
top-3: Tree cover 53%, Grassland 36%, Built-up 10%; tree cover 53% of parcel (WorldCover 2021 v200)
Why
Predominantly tree cover (53%), tree cover 53% — informs clearing effort, shading and land use context.
When
ESA WorldCover 10 m (2021, v200, Sentinel-1+2) · window 2021-01-01→2021-12-31 · 10m
no industrial/landfill/quarry/works within 500 m of the parcel (0 land uses seen nearby)
Why
No mapped industrial/waste/extraction land use in the immediate surroundings.
recent 90-day mean PM2.5 ~8 µg/m³ (annual health guidelines: WHO 5, US EPA 9 µg/m³ — this is a seasonal snapshot, not an annual normal)
Why
Fine-particulate levels are in a typical range for the recent period (a seasonal snapshot, not an annual normal).
nearest: Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park (Historic or Cultural Area) ~541 m; 2 PAD-US designation(s) within 3000 m
Why
A protected area is mapped ~541 m away — unlikely to restrict the parcel directly, but check buffer rules.
No EPA Superfund NPL site within ~8 km
Why
No federal Superfund (NPL) site mapped nearby — but on-parcel history still needs a Phase I ESA; the NPL lists only the worst federal sites.
USDA CDL land cover across the parcel, 2008–2023 — 2008: Deciduous Forest, 2015: Shrubland, 2023: Shrubland.
Why
No tree or vine crop appears in the USDA cropland record for this parcel. Note that the record begins in 2008, and the orchard-era pesticides that leave lead and arsenic in soil were applied before 1950 — so this is not evidence that the parcel was never an orchard. Historical aerial photography and a records review are what answer that.
When
USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer · window 2008-01-01→2023-12-31 · 30m
No designated critical habitat, National Register listing, or air-quality nonattainment area at this parcel.
Why
None of the three federal designations we screen appear here. This is not a clearance: state and local overlays, the coastal zone (which has no free national dataset), tribal consultation, and project-specific permits are outside this screen. LandBenchmark flags triggers; it does not certify compliance. Whether your project actually requires review depends on the project, the federal nexus, and the permitting agency — ask a land-use attorney before you rely on this.
Preliminary scan
This was a fast scan of open-data and hazard sources plus JRC satellite surface-water history — enough to screen the parcel. The full report adds parcel-specific, multi-year satellite observation you won't find anywhere else:
These angles are part of the analysis but could not be measured for this parcel this run — we explain absence rather than show a number we didn't observe.
The checks a satellite can't settle — verify these in person or with the county before you commit.
LandBenchmark is an automated Phase-1 desk screen. Every signal here is measured from satellite imagery and public records, with its method and source shown. It is not an ASTM E1527 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, not a survey, and not a flood determination — those require a licensed professional and, in some cases, physically being on the land.
No remote tool can sample your soil. Intrusive testing — borings, test pits, groundwater wells, and laboratory analysis for heavy metals, hydrocarbons, VOCs, or bacteria — is Phase-2 work, performed on site by licensed professionals. Where a signal below suggests it, we say so plainly rather than implying our screen settled the question.
Generated from the signals that flagged above — not a generic list.
Geotechnical engineer
Ask for soil plasticity testing and a foundation recommendation.
Survey data indicates expansive (shrink-swell) soil, which cracks foundations. Foundation design depends on tested soil properties at your building site.
Triggered by: Expansive-soil potential
Environmental professional
Ask for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ASTM E1527), covering the nearby records and the parcel's own history.
EPA-registered contamination records sit close to this parcel. Off-site contamination migrates through groundwater and soil vapour, and our screen covers neither leaking storage tanks nor anything ever done on the parcel itself.
Triggered by: Environmental records nearby (EPA)