Sample report
What a LandBenchmark report actually contains
This is a real report on a real parcel in Blanco County, TX (52.8 acres), rendered with the same components a user sees after analyzing land. The verdict is WALK-AWAY, from 36 measured signals, 6 of them flagged. Every value states what was observed, how, from which source, and when — most recent observation 2026-07-07. Nothing is estimated to fill a gap: what could not be measured is listed at the bottom, with the reason.
Verdict
Expert review advised
Several signals were flagged. Before proceeding, we'd have a qualified professional review this parcel in person.
- Prime farmland — possible agricultural zoning / tax constraints
- High shrink-swell soils (foundation / slab risk)
- Shallow bedrock/restriction (excavation, septic, foundation cost)
- 3 contamination records near the parcel
- Frequent extreme heat (≥ 30 days/yr at or above 35 °C — screening cutoff)
- Parcel lies on USGS-mapped karst / soluble-rock terrain (sinkhole, cover-collapse and groundwater-vulnerability considerations)
What needs attention
6 flagged signals — these drive the verdict. Flags arrive open, with their method and trust limits.
Farmland & land capabilityBuildability6land capability class (1 best … 8) flagged
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
- How
- SSURGO farmland classification + nonirrigated land-capability class (niccdcd)
- Evidence
- USDA-NRCS SSURGO; USDA Land Capability Classification (Klingebiel & Montgomery 1961)
- Trust
- US only; 'prime farmland' status can carry agricultural zoning / tax (e.g. Williamson Act) implications worth checking
Expansive-soil potentialBuildability13.4% linear extensibility (LEP) flagged
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)
- How
- SSURGO linear extensibility percent (LEP) of the dominant component → shrink-swell potential
- Evidence
- USDA-NRCS SSURGO (LEP)
- Trust
- Screening; LEP > 6% ≈ high shrink-swell → a foundation-design consideration, not a determination
Depth to bedrock / restrictionBuildability38cm to restrictive layer flagged
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)
- How
- SSURGO depth to the shallowest restrictive layer / bedrock (corestrictions.resdept_r)
- Evidence
- USDA-NRCS SSURGO
- Trust
- US only; shallow bedrock raises excavation, septic and foundation cost — confirm with a site investigation
Environmental records nearby (EPA)Surroundings3contamination records near the parcel flagged
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
- How
- Proximity query against EPA's mapped facility registry (Brownfields, TRI toxic releases, RCRA hazardous-waste handlers, permitted water dischargers, permitted air emitters) and EPA UST Finder (reported storage-tank releases [LUST] and registered tank facilities) within 3 km of the parcel centroid, with geodesic distance to each. Records are tiered by severity: a brownfield, reported chemical release, or leaking storage tank within 1.6 km flags; a hazardous-waste handler or tank facility flags only within 500 m (RCRA registers every auto shop and dry cleaner); permitted air and water dischargers are reported for awareness and never flag.
- Evidence
- US EPA Facility Registry Service (TRI, RCRAInfo, ACRES Brownfields, NPDES, ICIS-Air); EPA UST Finder (LUST/UST)
- Trust
- A proximity screen over EPA's MAPPED records — not an ASTM E1527 Phase I ESA. It does not cover historical facilities that closed before these registries existed, state-agency files, or any on-parcel history. Absence of records here is NOT evidence that a parcel is clean. Distances are to a record's registered coordinate, which is often an office or a street address rather than the release point.
Extreme heat daysHazard45days/yr Tmax ≥ 35 °C flagged
~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
- How
- Mean days/yr with Tmax ≥ 35 °C (and ≥ 40 °C) from ERA5 daily maxima
- Evidence
- ERA5 (Hersbach et al. 2020, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146:1999)
- Trust
- The ≥ 30 days/yr ≥ 35 °C flag cutoff is a screening convention, not a health or crop standard; 9 km grid smooths local extremes
Karst / soluble-rock terrainHazardCarbonate rocks at or near the land surface in a dry climateUSGS karst type flagged
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)
- How
- 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
- Evidence
- USGS Open-File Report 2014-1156 (Weary & Doctor)
- Trust
- Small-scale national compilation — a regional soluble-rock screen, not a site sinkhole survey; volcanic/piping pseudokarst layers are not screened here; layer is hosted by Esri (not usgs.gov), schema-verified against the USGS publication
Water
Wetlands (NWI)WaterNone mappedNWI wetland type
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.
- How
- USFWS National Wetlands Inventory wetland polygon at the point (ArcGIS REST)
- Evidence
- USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
- Trust
- US inventory flag only — a jurisdictional wetland delineation requires a professional; NWI can miss small/forested wetlands
Water stress (WRI Aqueduct)WaterMedium - High (20-40%)baseline water-stress category
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.
- How
- Baseline water stress (ratio of withdrawals to available supply) of the WRI Aqueduct 4.0 sub-basin containing the parcel
- Evidence
- WRI Aqueduct 4.0 (Kuzma et al. 2023)
- Trust
- Basin-level indicator of regional water competition — NOT a legal water-right; confirm actual rights/permits in local records
Surface-water seasonality (JRC)Water0% of parcel with water ≥1 month/yr
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
- How
- JRC Global Surface Water `seasonality` layer: per-pixel count of months (1-12) with open water in the layer year; parcel stat = % of pixels with water ≥1 month/yr (max months and permanent 12-month share reported in detail)
- Evidence
- Pekel, Cottam, Gorelick & Belward 2016 (Nature 540:418) — JRC Global Surface Water v1.3
- Trust
- 30 m Landsat-derived (archive 1984-2020; seasonality layer = calendar 2020). Detects OPEN water only — misses water under canopy and channels narrower than ~30 m
Current drought status (USDM)WaterD0 Abnormally DryUSDM category (None, D0 Abnormally Dry … D4 Exceptional)
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
- How
- Current US Drought Monitor category for the parcel's county (dominant D0–D4 class by exclusive area share; county FIPS via the FCC census-block API)
- Evidence
- US Drought Monitor (NDMC/USDA/NOAA)
- Trust
- Weekly national product at county scale — current conditions, not a long-term water-supply determination
Buildability
Soil drainage classBuildabilityWell drainednatural drainage class
Tarpley (70% of map unit): Well drained
Why
Dominant soil is well drained — generally workable drainage (confirm on site).
- How
- USDA-NRCS SSURGO natural drainage class of the dominant map-unit component (Soil Data Access)
- Evidence
- USDA-NRCS SSURGO
- Trust
- US only; map-unit generalisation (not a site boring) — on-site soils vary
Septic suitability (perc screen)Buildability1.3µm/s Ksat (indicative perc)
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.
- How
- Indicative percolation from SSURGO saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the dominant component
- Evidence
- USDA-NRCS SSURGO (Ksat)
- Trust
- Screening only — a certified percolation/perc test is required for any septic permit; Ksat is a lab-derived proxy
Soil productivity (NCCPI)Buildability20/100 (NCCPI v3.0)
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.
- How
- USDA-NRCS National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI v3.0), 0–1. Component values (cointerp.interphr at ruledepth 0) are aggregated to the map unit weighted by each component's share of it (component.comppct_r), for the map unit under the parcel centroid.
- Evidence
- Dobos, R.R., Sinclair, H.R., Robotham, M.P. (2012) National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) User Guide. USDA-NRCS.
- Trust
- US only (SSURGO coverage). A map-unit generalisation sampled at the parcel centroid, not a soil test of your building site or field. NCCPI rates inherent commodity-crop capability — it does not account for irrigation, drainage improvements, or management history.
Access
Road access & distanceAccess54m to nearest road
nearest road (service) ~54 m from parcel boundary
Why
A mapped road runs close to the parcel — access is plausible (confirm legal frontage).
- How
- Overpass nearest highway=* distance from the parcel centroid (haversine)
- Evidence
- OpenStreetMap contributors; Overpass API
- Trust
- highway class = importance, NOT surface quality; legal/deeded access needs a title search
Gas transmission pipeline proximityAccess—
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.
- How
- Distance to nearest EIA-mapped natural-gas interstate/intrastate transmission pipeline within ~3 km (ArcGIS FeatureServer distance query + local point-to-segment distance)
- Evidence
- US EIA Natural Gas Interstate & Intrastate Pipelines (via HIFLD Open)
- Trust
- Transmission-level network only — a nearby line does NOT mean connectable gas service (that is the local distribution utility); close proximity is a safety/easement consideration, and our <300 m flag is a screening cut in the spirit of PHMSA consultation zones, not a regulatory determination
Hazard
Seismic design demandHazard0.05g (S_DS design acceleration)
S_DS 0.05 g; Seismic Design Category A
Why
Moderate-to-low seismic design demand for standard construction.
- How
- 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
- Evidence
- USGS Seismic Design Web Services; ASCE 7-16
- Trust
- US & territories; design-level ground motion for code compliance — not a site-specific fault or liquefaction study
Wildfire hazard potential (USFS)HazardLowWHP class (Very Low…Very High)
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.
- How
- USFS Wildfire Hazard Potential 5-class at the point (FSim + LANDFIRE fuels)
- Evidence
- USFS Wildfire Hazard Potential 2023 (270 m)
- Trust
- US only at 270 m — regional context, not a site-level fire assessment
Radon zone (EPA)HazardZone 3EPA radon zone (1 highest–3 lowest)
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.
- How
- EPA Map of Radon Zones — predicted county radon potential (Zone 1 ≥4 pCi/L … Zone 3 <2)
- Evidence
- EPA Map of Radon Zones (EPA-402-R-93-071)
- Trust
- County-level screen only — indoor radon varies house to house; only an in-home test confirms actual levels
Earthquake history (observed)Hazard0M≥4.5 events within 100 km since 1975
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
- How
- 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)
- Evidence
- USGS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat), FDSN event service
- Trust
- Observed catalog — completeness varies by region/era; hazard DESIGN values need the national code (US: ASCE 7 signal)
Volcanic proximityHazard807.6km to nearest Holocene volcano
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.
- How
- Haversine distance from the parcel centroid to the nearest Holocene volcano in the Smithsonian GVP WFS (bbox ±3°, widened to ±8° if empty)
- Evidence
- Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program, Volcanoes of the World
- Trust
- Proximity screen to Holocene volcanic centers — actual hazard footprints (ashfall/lahar) need national volcanic-hazard maps
Wildfire burn history (MODIS)Hazard Pro · satellite0distinct burn months in last ~6 yr
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
- How
- MODIS MCD64A1 monthly burned-area: burned pixel = Burn_Date > 0 (day-of-year of burn; 0 = unburned, negatives = water/unmapped fill); parcel stat = distinct burn months over the last ~6 years, plus % of parcel pixels ever burned
- Evidence
- Giglio et al. 2018 (Remote Sens. Environ. 217:72) — MCD64A1 Collection 6.1
- Trust
- 500 m resolution — reliably maps large burns but misses small, patchy or low-intensity fires; read as regional burn history, not a parcel-level burn determination
Climate
Climate normals (~10 yr)Climate20.1°C mean annual temp
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
- How
- ~10 yr of daily 2 m mean temperature and precipitation from ERA5 reanalysis (Open-Meteo Archive) at centroid → mean annual temperature + annual precipitation
- Evidence
- Hersbach et al. 2020 (ERA5)
- Trust
- ~9 km reanalysis grid — regional context, not microclimate; WorldClim/station data refine
Solar PV yieldClimate1579kWh/kWp·yr
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.
- How
- PVGIS PV performance model (optimally-inclined 1 kWp crystalline-Si) → annual specific yield kWh/kWp·yr at centroid
- Evidence
- Huld et al. 2012 (PVGIS SARAH), Solar Energy 86:1803
- Trust
- Modelled from satellite irradiance; on-site shading/soiling need a site survey
Wind resource (100 m)Climate6.2m/s mean @100 m
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
- How
- Mean 100 m wind speed from ERA5 reanalysis (Open-Meteo Archive), multi-year hourly average
- Evidence
- Hersbach et al. 2020 (ERA5, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146:1999)
- Trust
- ~9 km reanalysis → regional resource, not hub-height yield; a met mast or the Global Wind Atlas microscale model refines it before any turbine decision
Growing season (frost-free days)Climate355frost-free days/yr (Tmin > 0 °C)
~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
- How
- Mean count of days/yr with Tmin > 0 °C (frost-free season) plus mean last-spring / first-autumn frost day-of-year, from ERA5 daily minima
- Evidence
- ERA5 (Hersbach et al. 2020, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146:1999); ETCCDI growing-season indices
- Trust
- 9 km reanalysis — local frost pockets vary; on-site microclimate (cold-air drainage, slope, aspect) governs actual planting dates
Snow daysClimate2days/yr with snowfall
~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
- How
- Mean days/yr with snowfall > 0 and mean annual snowfall depth (cm) from ERA5 daily snowfall_sum
- Evidence
- ERA5 (Hersbach et al. 2020, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146:1999)
- Trust
- Snow CLIMATOLOGY only — structural snow LOAD for design needs the local code value (e.g. ASCE 7 ground snow load), not this frequency
Aridity index (UNEP)Climate0.6AI = P / ET0
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
- How
- UNEP Aridity Index AI = mean annual precipitation / mean annual reference evapotranspiration (FAO-56 Penman–Monteith ET0), from ERA5 daily
- Evidence
- UNEP 1992 (World Atlas of Desertification); FAO-56 Penman–Monteith ET0; ERA5 (Hersbach et al. 2020)
- Trust
- AI < 0.20 is the UNEP 'Arid' class (a recognised standard); a 9 km climatology — a well permit/water balance still needs local data
Rainfall seasonality (BIO15)Climate40CV % of monthly precip
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
- How
- Coefficient of variation of the 12 monthly precipitation normals (WorldClim BIO15 construct) over the ~10 yr window
- Evidence
- Fick & Hijmans 2017 (WorldClim 2, Int. J. Climatol. 37:4302); O'Donnell & Ignizio 2012 (BIO15)
- Trust
- Higher CV = more concentrated (seasonal) rainfall; a 9 km grid smooths orographic gradients — treat as regional context
Köppen–Geiger climate classClimateCfaKöppen–Geiger class
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
- How
- Köppen–Geiger climate class computed from the 12 monthly temperature ((Tmin+Tmax)/2) and precipitation normals using the Beck et al. 2018 rules
- Evidence
- Beck et al. 2018 (Sci. Data 5:180214); Köppen–Geiger
- Trust
- Computed from 9 km ERA5 normals with T approximated as (Tmin+Tmax)/2 — class boundaries are approximate at local scale; a full three-letter class is emitted but borderline sites can shift a letter
Land cover (ESA WorldCover)Climate53% of parcel is Tree cover (dominant class)
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
- How
- ESA WorldCover 10 m `map` asset: dominant class % + top-3 class breakdown over the parcel from the verified class table (10 Tree cover … 100 Moss and lichen; 0 = nodata); tree-cover % reported in detail
- Evidence
- Zanaga et al. 2022 (ESA WorldCover 10 m v200)
- Trust
- 10 m single-epoch class map (latest hosted year, 2021 v200) — mixed pixels and parcel edges misclassify; verify the dominant class against recent imagery
Surroundings
Neighbouring land useSurroundings—
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.
- How
- Overpass proximity query: nearest landuse=industrial|landfill|quarry|farmland or man_made=works within ~500 m of centroid; nearest-nuisance distance (haversine)
- Evidence
- OpenStreetMap contributors; Overpass API
- Trust
- OSM completeness varies by region; absence ≠ confirmed clear. EPA FRS adds US industrial sites
Air quality (PM2.5)Surroundings7.9µg/m³ mean PM2.5 (recent ~90 d)
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).
- How
- Recent-period mean surface PM2.5 from CAMS (Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service) via the Open-Meteo Air-Quality API
- Evidence
- CAMS — Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (ECMWF)
- Trust
- A recent ~90-day mean (not a full annual normal) on a model grid, not a site monitor — treat as regional context
Protected / conservation areasSurroundings541m to nearest protected area
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.
- How
- USGS PAD-US v4 protected-area polygons at the point and within 3 km (GAP status 1-3; Fee, Designation and Easement categories), ArcGIS REST
- Evidence
- USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) v4
- Trust
- US only. GAP status 1-3 is USGS's own definition of land carrying a mandate for protection; GAP 4 (most municipal parks) is excluded because it carries none. Proclamation boundaries are excluded — they enclose private land. Distance is measured to a boundary generalized to ~5 m, so treat sub-10 m distances as adjacency, not survey.
Superfund proximity (EPA NPL)Surroundings—
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.
- How
- Distance to nearest EPA Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) site within ~8 km (EPA ArcGIS)
- Evidence
- US EPA Superfund NPL / Facility Registry Service
- Trust
- US EPA coverage only; nearby ≠ on-parcel contamination and on-parcel history needs a Phase I ESA
Agricultural legacy (orchard/vineyard residue)Surroundingsnone observedorchard/vineyard years in the CDL record
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
- How
- 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.
- Evidence
- USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer; Peryea, F.J. (1998) Historical use of lead arsenate insecticides, resulting soil contamination and implications for soil remediation, 16th World Congress of Soil Science
- Trust
- A screening indicator, never a finding of contamination — only a laboratory soil test can establish that. Five 30 m samples per year, so a small orchard corner can still be missed. The CDL record begins in 2008, while the lead-arsenate era ended around 1950: the period that created the risk is invisible to this dataset. Absence of an orchard here is NOT evidence of no orchard history — historical aerial photography and a records review are what settle that. The USDA CropScape service is intermittently unavailable; when it does not answer, this signal is absent from the report and listed as unavailable rather than reported as 'no orchard'.
Regulatory-review triggersSurroundings0regulatory triggers
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.
- How
- Point-in-polygon and proximity queries against three federal designations: USFWS designated critical habitat (final), National Park Service National Register of Historic Places listings within 500 m, and EPA air-quality nonattainment areas. Each is reported as a possible trigger for environmental review — not as a compliance determination.
- Evidence
- USFWS Critical Habitat (ESA §4); National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; US EPA Green Book nonattainment areas (Clean Air Act)
- Trust
- LandBenchmark FLAGS triggers; it does not certify compliance. Whether a project requires ESA Section 7 consultation, NHPA Section 106 review, or nonattainment New Source Review depends on the project, the federal nexus, and the permitting agency — ask a land-use attorney. Designated critical habitat does not by itself prohibit private activity without a federal nexus. The coastal zone is NOT screened: it is defined state by state and no free national service publishes it.
Not measured this run — and why
A LandBenchmark report never fills a gap with a guess. These signals could not be measured for this parcel; each states its reason.
- drive time — requires an OpenRouteService key (ORS_API_KEY not configured)
- flood zone — source unreachable, or no data coverage at this location, this run
- landslide — the NASA susceptibility service is currently unreachable — this signal ships as soon as the source is back online
- services — source unreachable, or no data coverage at this location, this run
- storm surge — coastal screen — no data inland (not applicable) or the NOAA service was unavailable this run
How the measurements are made: methodology & sources. How often they are right: the Accuracy Ledger. A report is an automated Phase-1 desk screen — not a survey, a flood determination, or a substitute for on-site inspection.