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 · Parcel report
30.27310, -98.42400 · 52.77 acres · generated 2026-07-23
Blanco County, TX · FIPS 48031
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)
The verdict
Pro reportVerdict
Some signals were flagged — understand each one before you put money down.
Higher is cleaner · 100 = nothing flagged
Each signal we measured in this category counts once. A hard flag removes its full weight; a context flag removes half. The score is the share of weight remaining. It is absolute — not benchmarked against other parcels or a regional average, because LandBenchmark has no such baseline to compare against.
The short version — expand any section for the full working.
Needs attention
Before you commit
The five questions that end land deals. Confirm each before money changes hands.
Want the detail?
52 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 analyzed: 2024-12-09 → 2026-07-14. Satellite observations are point-in-time, not current conditions.
This report leads with the signals that matter most when you build a home. Nothing is hidden or skipped — every signal was measured, and the verdict counts them all the same way regardless of what you told us you intend to do with the land.
power ~3569 m; no water infra within radius (searched within 5327 m of the parcel)
Why
Utilities look distant — budget for grid extension or off-grid, and confirm water supply.
Grid power >2 km away (connection / extension cost)
Overpass nearest power=line|substation or man_made water infrastructure within radius of centroid (haversine)
Tarpley (70% of map unit): max LEP 13.4% (high shrink-swell)
Why
High shrink-swell soils (foundation / slab risk)
SSURGO linear extensibility percent (LEP) of the dominant component → shrink-swell potential
Tarpley (70% of map unit): restrictive layer at ~38 cm
Why
Shallow bedrock/restriction (excavation, septic, foundation cost)
SSURGO depth to the shallowest restrictive layer / bedrock (corestrictions.resdept_r)
trend declining, significant (tau=-0.62, p=0.000)
Why
Significant vegetation decline
When
Observed 2024-12-09 · Sentinel-2 L2A · window 2019-01-01→2024-12-31 · 20m
NDVI = (NIR−Red)/(NIR+Red); trend via Theil-Sen slope + Mann-Kendall significance
Reliable as relative trend given adequate archive
None of the five flagged — see the full report below
You still have to: Have a title company or attorney confirm a recorded easement or deeded access — not just a road you can see on the map.
You still have to: Check the state water rights database and ask neighbors what they drilled to, and what it cost.
You still have to: Order a perc test ($300–1,850) before you close, or make the sale contingent on it passing.
You still have to: Call the county planning office with the parcel number and ask what is permitted by right — get the answer in writing.
County record found (APN 5558)
You still have to: Close through a title company with title insurance. Never wire funds against a deed you were emailed.
A clean row means nothing we measured raised a flag — not that the question is settled. Two of these five can only be answered by a person reading a record, and no satellite will ever change that.
10 flagged signals — these drive the verdict. Read them first, with their method and trust limits.
trend declining, significant (tau=-0.62, p=0.000)
Why
Significant vegetation decline
When
Observed 2024-12-09 · Sentinel-2 L2A · window 2019-01-01→2024-12-31 · 20m
NDVI = (NIR−Red)/(NIR+Red); trend via Theil-Sen slope + Mann-Kendall significance
Reliable as relative trend given adequate archive
southerly-ness index -0.46 (−1 N … +1 S); 5% of parcel is near-flat
Why
Slopes mostly face north — cooler, lower solar gain, later snow-melt.
Predominantly north-facing (reduced solar gain / colder)
Why
Much of the parcel sits near local drainage level
power ~3569 m; no water infra within radius (searched within 5327 m of the parcel)
Why
Utilities look distant — budget for grid extension or off-grid, and confirm water supply.
Grid power >2 km away (connection / extension cost)
Overpass nearest power=line|substation or man_made water infrastructure within radius of centroid (haversine)
Tarpley (70% of map unit): Not prime farmland; capability class 6
Why
Prime farmland — possible agricultural zoning / tax constraints
SSURGO farmland classification + nonirrigated land-capability class (niccdcd)
Tarpley (70% of map unit): max LEP 13.4% (high shrink-swell)
Why
High shrink-swell soils (foundation / slab risk)
SSURGO linear extensibility percent (LEP) of the dominant component → shrink-swell potential
Tarpley (70% of map unit): restrictive layer at ~38 cm
Why
Shallow bedrock/restriction (excavation, septic, foundation cost)
SSURGO depth to the shallowest restrictive layer / bedrock (corestrictions.resdept_r)
Why
3 contamination records near the parcel
~45 days/yr ≥ 35 °C; ~1 days/yr ≥ 40 °C (ERA5 2015–2024)
Why
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
Mean days/yr with Tmax ≥ 35 °C (and ≥ 40 °C) from ERA5 daily maxima
Why
Parcel lies on USGS-mapped karst / soluble-rock terrain (sinkhole, cover-collapse and groundwater-vulnerability considerations)
USGS 'Karst in the United States' (OFR 2014-1156) carbonate/evaporite karst polygon at the point, served from an Esri-hosted copy of the USGS digital dataset
peak 0% of parcel wet on 2024-12-09; 24 clear scenes 2019–2024
Why
No recurring surface water detected over the period — low observed flood signal.
When
Observed 2024-12-09 · Sentinel-2 L2A · window 2019-01-01→2024-12-31 · 20m
Reliable (open water); corroborated by the Sentinel-1 SAR signal (cloud-robust)
median TWI 6.5, max 11.0; 0% of the parcel exceeds TWI 15 (saturation-prone)
Why
Topography sheds water fairly evenly — no strong ponding tendency observed.
No NWI wetland polygon intersects the parcel
Why
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory wetland polygon at the point (ArcGIS REST)
Why
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 2026-07-14)
Why
When
Observed 2026-07-14 · US Drought Monitor
buildable (<8%) 99% of parcel; p90 slope 5%
Why
Gentle gradients across most of the parcel — favourable for building.
elevation 379–393 m, median 385 m (USGS 3DEP seamless DEM (bare-earth))
Why
Modest local relief — straightforward siting.
Local relief = max−min elevation, plus median absolute elevation, over the parcel from the GLO-30 DEM
~4 m vertical accuracy; surface (DSM) not bare-earth — prefer 3DEP LiDAR in the US
TRI mean 1 m over the parcel (Riley classes: <80 level … >959 extremely rugged)
Why
Smooth terrain — low ruggedness, easy to work.
LandBenchmark Ruggedness Index (Riley et al. 1999): TRI = sqrt(Σ(z_neighbour − z_centre)²) over the 8-cell neighbourhood, mean over parcel
Screening index; correlates with slope. VRM (Sappington 2007) decorrelates if needed
Why
54.54 of 54.7 acres (99.7%) remain usable at the 12% slope convention after flood and wetland exclusions.
Screening estimate, not a site plan. The DEM is a gridded surface model (indicative, not survey-grade), NWI mapping is not a jurisdictional wetland determination, and FEMA zones are regulatory maps rather than observed flooding. Setbacks, easements, and local grading rules are not subtracted. Confirm with a licensed surveyor before relying on acreage.
median LS 0.3; 0% of parcel LS>10 (steep/long slopes)
Why
Gentle, short slopes — low terrain-driven erosion potential.
11% valley, 12% ridge, 78% mid/flat (TPI ±1σ, 7-cell window)
Why
Clay Loam: clay 29%, sand 30%, silt 41% (0–30 cm)
Why
USDA soil texture class from SoilGrids 2.0 clay/sand/silt fractions, 0–30 cm depth-weighted mean
0–30 cm mean pH ~7.2 (near-neutral)
Why
Soil pH in water from SoilGrids 2.0, 0–30 cm depth-weighted mean
0–30 cm mean SOC ~15.6 g/kg (~1.56% organic carbon) — moderate for topsoil
Why
Soil organic carbon content from SoilGrids 2.0, 0–30 cm depth-weighted mean
Global 250 m model; a fertility/organic-matter proxy, not a nutrient test
nearest road (service) ~54 m from parcel boundary
Why
A mapped road runs close to the parcel — access is plausible (confirm legal frontage).
Overpass nearest highway=* distance from the parcel centroid (haversine)
highway class = importance, NOT surface quality; legal/deeded access needs a title search
No EIA-mapped gas transmission pipeline within ~3 km
Why
Distance to nearest EIA-mapped natural-gas interstate/intrastate transmission pipeline within ~3 km (ArcGIS FeatureServer distance query + local point-to-segment distance)
S_DS 0.05 g; Seismic Design Category A
Why
Moderate-to-low seismic design demand for standard construction.
USGS ASCE 7-16 seismic design values (S_DS design spectral acceleration and Seismic Design Category) at the point, Risk Category II / Site Class D
USFS WHP 2023 class: Low (class 2 of 5)
Why
USFS Wildfire Hazard Potential 5-class at the point (FSim + LANDFIRE fuels)
US only at 270 m — regional context, not a site-level fire assessment
no M≥4.5 earthquakes within 100 km of the centroid since 1975 (USGS ComCat)
Why
When
USGS ComCat (FDSN event service) · window 1975-01-01→2026-07-23
USGS FDSN event service: count + largest + most recent M≥4.5 event within 100 km of the parcel centroid since 1975 (count endpoint + magnitude-ordered query)
nearest Holocene volcano: Carrizozo, United States at 808 km (last known eruption 3250 BCE)
Why
Haversine distance from the parcel centroid to the nearest Holocene volcano in the Smithsonian GVP WFS (bbox ±3°, widened to ±8° if empty)
Why
When
MODIS Terra+Aqua (MCD64A1 v6.1) · window 2020-07-23→2026-07-23 · 500m
mean annual temp 20.1 °C; annual precipitation ~900 mm (2015–2024, ERA5)
Why
When
Open-Meteo ERA5 · window 2015-01-01→2024-12-31 · 9000m
~10 yr of daily 2 m mean temperature and precipitation from ERA5 reanalysis (Open-Meteo Archive) at centroid → mean annual temperature + annual precipitation
~9 km reanalysis grid — regional context, not microclimate; WorldClim/station data refine
Why
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.
Why
Why
When
USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer · window 2008-01-01→2023-12-31 · 30m
USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer sampled at five points across the parcel (centre + quarter points) in 2008, 2015 and 2023. A tree or vine crop in any sample raises a legacy-residue flag, because orchards and vineyards were historically treated with lead-arsenate insecticide, whose lead and arsenic do not degrade and persist in surface soil.
No designated critical habitat, National Register listing, or air-quality nonattainment area at this parcel.
Why
Why
When
Landsat 5/7/8/9 Collection-2 Level-2 · window 1985-01-01→2026-07-23 · 30m
Landsat Collection-2 Level-2 surface reflectance, 1985–present, sampled in 5-year epochs. Each epoch uses the 3 least-cloudy scenes inside the same peak-canopy window, so epochs are seasonally comparable. Cloud, cloud-shadow, cirrus, snow and fill pixels are masked per-pixel from the Landsat QA band. Per epoch we take the per-pixel maximum NDVI = (NIR−Red)/(NIR+Red) (peak canopy) and the fraction of the parcel whose median MNDWI = (Green−SWIR)/(Green+SWIR) exceeds 0 while peak NDVI stays below 0.2 (standing water is wet AND unvegetated). A step of ≥0.25 NDVI or ≥0.15 water fraction between consecutive epochs is reported as an observed change. The cause is NOT inferred.
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.
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)
For reference only — not professional advice.
This report is an automated, informational screening compiled from public satellite and open-data sources. It is not a survey, title search, appraisal, flood determination, environmental site assessment, or legal, engineering, or other professional advice, and it may contain errors, omissions, or out-of-date information. Do not rely on it as the sole basis for any purchase, financing, or land-use decision — independently verify anything that matters with a licensed professional and the relevant authorities. LandBenchmark makes no warranties and accepts no liability for actions taken in reliance on this report.