[Amended 6-17-2008]
The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA)
System has been designed to provide a rational process for assisting
local officials in making farmland conversion decisions through the
local zoning process. The system will be used by the staff of McLean
County, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the
McLean County Soil and Water Conservation District when reporting
to local hearing bodies and elected officials concerning petitions
to allow the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The system
contains two separate but related reports as follows:
[Amended 6-17-2008]
The system has been designed to provide for
the assignment of a maximum of 300 points, which would indicate maintaining
land for agricultural use, to zero points, which would indicate conversion
of land to other uses is acceptable. The following breakdown should
be used in evaluating land for rezoning from agriculture to other
nonagricultural related uses. The higher the point value the more
viable is the site for agricultural retention.
|
Number of Points
|
Viability for Agricultural Retention
|
|---|---|
|
230 and above
|
Very high for agricultural land protection
|
|
220 through 229
|
Moderate for agricultural land protection
|
|
219 and below
|
Low for agricultural land protection
|
The factors to be considered and the points
assigned to each factor are listed below:
A.
Land evaluation. The land evaluation section of the
system is designed to provide an average site value based on a maximum
number of 100 points. This value is determined by:
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(2)
Calculating a relative value of each soil group by dividing the highest productivity index of the groups found in the County into the productivity index for each soil group (see § 350-89).
(3)
The average site value is then calculated in accordance
with the following example:
|
Soil Group
|
Relative Value
|
Number of Acres in Site
|
Product of Relative Value
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
100
|
4
|
400
| |
|
2
|
95
|
8
|
760
| |
|
3
|
84
|
12
|
1,008
| |
|
4
| ||||
|
5
| ||||
|
6
| ||||
|
7
| ||||
|
Totals
|
24
|
2,168
|
(4)
Formula.
|
Product of Relative Value
Acres in Site
|
=
|
Average Site Value
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2,168
24
|
=
|
90.33
|
B.
Site assessment.
(1)
The agricultural economic viability of a site cannot
be measured in isolation from existing and impending land use needs
of McLean County. The site assessment process provides a system for
identifying important factors other than soils that affect the economic
viability of a site for agricultural uses.
(2)
This section describes each of 14 site assessment
factors to be considered when a change to another land use is proposed
in an area zoned A Agriculture under the provisions of this chapter.
C.
Other considerations. The National Flood Insurance
Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), as established by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), shall be considered, as
shall any adopted local land resource management plan, when assigning
points to LESA factors.
A.
Location and land use considerations.
(1)
Land area in an agricultural use within one mile of
the site.
|
Percentage
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
90% to 100%
|
15
| |
|
75% to 89%
|
12
| |
|
50% to 74%
|
9
| |
|
25% to 49%
|
6
| |
|
10% to 24%
|
3
| |
|
0% to 9%
|
0
|
(a)
This factor is a major indicator of the agricultural
character of an area. Areas in the County that are dominated by agricultural
uses are generally more viable for farm purposes. The definition of
"agricultural land uses" should be interpreted to mean all agricultural
and related uses that can be considered to be part of the farm operation.
This would include farmland (cropland), pasture lands, or timberlands,
whether or not in current production, and farm residences, barns,
and outbuildings.
(b)
The one-mile area of consideration for this
factor was selected because, in McLean County, a one-mile radius is
a reasonable and manageable area when analyzing the land use and overall
characteristics of the area.
(c)
Since this factor is a major indicator of the
agricultural character of an area, it has a maximum value of 15 points.
(2)
Land in an agricultural use adjacent to the site.
|
Percentage of Total Frontage
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
90% to 100%
|
20
| |
|
75% to 89%
|
16
| |
|
50% to 74%
|
12
| |
|
25% to 49%
|
8
| |
|
10% to 24%
|
4
| |
|
0% to 9%
|
0
|
(a)
In order to limit potential nuisance complaints
and other forms of conflict, preexisting adjacent land uses should
be evaluated in all cases. Since this factor is also a major indicator
of the agricultural character of an area, it has a maximum value of
20 points.
(3)
Size of the site to be converted.
|
Acreage
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
20 or more
|
20
| |
|
10 to 20
|
15
| |
|
5 to 10
|
10
| |
|
3 to 5
|
5
| |
|
0 to 3
|
0
|
B.
Public policy considerations.
(1)
Land area zoned for agricultural use within one mile
of the site.
|
Percentage
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
90% to 100%
|
15
| |
|
74% to 89%
|
12
| |
|
50% to 74%
|
9
| |
|
25% to 49%
|
6
| |
|
10% to 24%
|
3
| |
|
0% to 9%
|
0
|
(a)
This factor is important since zoning regulations
derive from the police power. When land is zoned other than A Agriculture
District, the potential exists for nonagricultural uses which may
be incompatible with agriculture. The one-mile radius is a reasonable
and manageable area in McLean County when analyzing the land use and
overall characteristics of the area.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 15 points.
(2)
Land area zoned for agricultural use adjacent to the
site (percentage of site boundary).
|
Percentage
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
90% to 100%
|
20
| |
|
74% to 89%
|
16
| |
|
50% to 74%
|
12
| |
|
25% to 49%
|
8
| |
|
10% to 24%
|
4
| |
|
0% to 9%
|
0
|
(3)
Land area adjacent to the site proposed for agricultural
use on the Land Use Plan.
|
Percentage
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
90% to 100%
|
20
| |
|
74% to 89%
|
17
| |
|
50% to 74%
|
12
| |
|
25% to 49%
|
8
| |
|
10% to 24%
|
4
| |
|
0% to 9%
|
0
|
(a)
This factor is important because the Land Use
Plan adopted by the County Board constitutes the County's policy regarding
the preservation of prime farmland for agricultural use and the identification
of other areas for residential, commercial, industrial use and other
nonagricultural uses.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 20 points.
(4)
Availability of other development sites in the vicinity
of the site.
|
Available Sites
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
Other properly zoned sites available
|
10
| |
|
Limited other sites available
|
6
| |
|
No other sites available
|
0
|
(a)
This factor can be used for site comparison
where it may be essential to convert land to a nonagricultural use.
Often, with a little investigation, sites for development on less-productive
agricultural land can be identified as alternatives. The total points
assigned to one site can be compared with the total points determined
for any number of other sites.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
(5)
Environmental considerations (flood hazards, wetlands,
aquifer recharge area, wild life habitat and unique community values).
|
Impact
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
Major negative impact
|
10
| |
|
Substantial negative impact
|
6
| |
|
Minor negative impact
|
2
| |
|
No negative impact
|
0
|
(a)
This factor addresses whether the proposed use
or zoning change will have impact on neighboring properties from surface
runoffs. This factor is also concerned with environmentally sensitive
areas such as floodplains and wetlands and takes into account whether
reasonable provisions have been made to collect and divert surface
runoff in order to reduce the likelihood of damage to adjoining properties.
The selection and design of measures will depend on varying local
conditions such as soils, topography, physical features and the extent
of impervious surface. Refer to the McLean County Zoning Ordinance
for the range of permitted uses in the proposed zoning district. The
McLean County Regional Comprehensive Plan and the County Greenways
Regional Plan should provide guidance for this section.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
C.
Public service and community facility considerations.
(1)
Access to adequate transportation.
|
Points Assigned
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(1)
|
Frontage on a County highway, a township road,
or a city street building to rural standards
| |||
|
Poor surface condition and pavement width of
less than 22 feet
|
20
| |||
|
Good surface condition and a pavement width
of less than 22 feet
|
12
| |||
|
Poor surface condition and pavement width of
more than 22 feet
|
9
| |||
|
Good surface condition and pavement width of
more than 22 feet
|
6
| |||
|
(2)
|
Frontage on a city collector street built to
urban standards
|
3
| ||
|
(3)
|
Frontage on a city major street built to urban
standards
|
0
| ||
(a)
Access to transportation is a consideration
in the location of all types of uses. The location of industrial,
commercial, and residential uses within one mile of existing municipalities
results in a more efficient movement of goods and people. The location
of nonagricultural uses along rural roads may necessitate the upgrading
and widening of rural roads, which results in a further loss of farmland.
High-volume/high-speed traffic may not be compatible with agricultural
uses.
(b)
The type of road providing access to a site,
whether existing or to be provided by a developer, and the availability
of transportation modes are major factors in determining suitability
of the planned use or proposed rezoning.
(c)
The factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 20 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(2)
Availability of a public sanitary sewer system.
|
Availability of System
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
Sewer system not available
|
10
| |
|
Sewer system more than 1,500 feet from site
|
8
| |
|
Sewer system between 750 feet and 1,500 feet
from site
|
6
| |
|
Sewer system over 750 feet from site
|
4
| |
|
Sewer system less than 750 feet from site
|
2
| |
|
Sewer system available at site
|
0
|
(a)
The availability to a site of a central sewer
system with sufficient capacity encourages growth and reduces the
long-term viability of a site for agriculture. According to the Illinois
Private Sewage Disposal Act and Code, "new or renovated private sewage
disposal systems shall not be approved where a public sanitary sewer
is located within 200 feet of the property and is available for connection."
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
(3)
Availability of a public water system.
|
Availability of System
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
Public system not available
|
10
| |
|
System more than 1,500 feet from site
|
8
| |
|
System between 750 feet and 1,500 feet from
site
|
6
| |
|
System over 750 feet from site
|
4
| |
|
System less than 750 feet from site
|
2
| |
|
System available at site
|
0
|
(a)
This factor recognizes that the existence of
a central water system encourages growth and reduces the long-term
viability of a site for agriculture. As a central water system is
extended into an agricultural area, the character of the area may
change and more nonagricultural development occur.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(4)
Public protection classification (fire insurance rating).
|
Classification
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
9 and 10
|
10
| |
|
8
|
8
| |
|
7
|
6
| |
|
6
|
4
| |
|
5
|
2
| |
|
1 through 4
|
0
|
(a)
Fire protection requires a combination of equipment, manpower, and availability and supply of water. This factor is also related to distance between a fire station and proposed development. Fire insurance ratings in McLean County are determined by the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, published by the Insurance Services Office of Illinois, 101 North Wacker Street, Chicago, IL 60606. These ratings are based on the fire-fighting capability of the rural fire protection districts serving the unincorporated areas of McLean County and are listed in § 350-90.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(5)
Availability of elementary school space.
|
Distance from Site
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
Over 30 minutes from site
|
10
| |
|
15 minutes to 30 minutes from site
|
6
| |
|
Less than 15 minutes from site
|
2
| |
|
Walking distance of site
|
0
|
(a)
Availability of elementary school space allows
new students to be accommodated without increasing the cost of public
education to the entire community. The lack of elementary school space
is a signal that the school system is not able to keep up with the
growth and student overcrowding may be caused by any further development.
This factor is important when reviewing a Zoning Map amendment or
a site development proposal that will result in an increase in the
school population.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(6)
Distance to shopping and employment centers.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
|
Distance
(miles)
|
Points Assigned
| |
|---|---|---|
|
5 and over
|
10
| |
|
3 to 5
|
8
| |
|
2 to 3
|
6
| |
|
1 to 2
|
4
| |
|
1/2 to 1
|
2
| |
|
Less than 1/2
|
0
|
(a)
A site near existing shopping and employment
centers is more viable for urban development than a site located many
miles from urban areas. Because urban uses are generally considered
to be incompatible with agricultural pursuits, the impact on agricultural
and rural areas will be minimized when development occurs close to
established urban development.
(b)
This factor has been assigned a maximum value
of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
As used in this article, the following terms
shall have the meanings indicated:
Land in farms regularly used for agricultural production.
The term includes all land devoted to crop or livestock enterprises,
for example, the farmstead lands, drainage ditches, water supply,
cropland, pasture land, or timberland (whether or not in current production),
and grazing land of every kind in farms.
The devotion of land to the growing of farm or truck garden
crops, horticulture, viticulture or pasturage as a principal use,
together with accessory animal and poultry husbandry, dairying, apiculture
and other common accessory uses, including farm dwellings as defined
herein and other buildings and structures for agricultural purposes
upon such land.
Broad groupings of soil mapping units that have similar potentials
and/or limitations and hazards. These classes are useful as a means
of introducing the map users to more detailed information on a soils
map. The classes show the location, amount and general suitability
of the soils for agricultural use. The national capability classification
shows soils groupings in eight classes:
[Amended 6-17-2008]
CLASS 1Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.
CLASS 2Soils have moderate limitations that restrict the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices.
CLASS 3Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.
CLASS 4Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.
CLASS 5Soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
CLASS 6Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
CLASS 7Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
CLASS 8Soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or aesthetic purposes.
This land is of statewide importance for the production of
food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops. Generally, additional
farmland and that economically produce high yields or crops when treated
and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce
as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable.
Land that is best suited to food, feed, forage, fiber, and
oilseed crops. It may be cropland, pasture, woodland, or other land,
but it is not urban and built-up land or water areas. It either is
used for food or fiber or is available for those uses. The soil qualities,
growing season, and moisture supply are those needed for a well-managed
soil economically to produce a sustained high yield of crops. Prime
farmland produces the highest yields with minimum inputs of energy
and economic resources, and farming it results in the least damage
to the environment. Prime farmland has an adequate and dependable
supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation. The temperature
and growing season are favorable. The level of acidity or alkalinity
is acceptable. Prime farmland has few or no rocks and is permeable
to water and air. It is not excessively erodible or saturated with
water for long periods and is not frequently flooded during the growing
season. The slope ranges mainly from 0% to 6%.
Productivity indexes for grain crops express the estimated
yields of the major grain crops as a percentage of the average yields
obtained under basic management. Soil productivity is strongly influenced
by the capacity of a soil to supply the nutrient and soil-stored water
needs of a growing crop in a given climate. Source: Soil Productivity
in Illinois, Optimum Crop, Pasture, and Forestry Productivity Ratings
for Illinois Soils, Bulletin 811, August 2000, University of Illinois,
College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Office.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
|
Group
|
Mapping Unit Symbol
|
Mapping Unit Name
|
Land Capability Class
|
Productivity Index
|
Prime Important Farmland
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LE Group 1; Ag Value: 100; Acres: 141,665;
Percent of County Land: 18.72%
| |||||
|
1
|
51A
|
Muscatune silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
147
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
154A
|
Flanagan silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
144
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
902A
|
Ipava-Sable complex, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
143
|
Prime 2
|
|
1
|
198A
|
Elburn silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
143
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
43A
|
Ipava silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
142
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
199A
|
Plano silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
142
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
59A
|
Lisbon silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
141
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
86A
|
Osco silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
141
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
149A
|
Brenton silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
141
|
Prime
|
|
1
|
715A
|
Arrowsmith silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
140
|
Prime
|
|
LE Group 2; Ag Value: 95; Acres: 288,104;
Percent of County Land: 38.06%
| |||||
|
2
|
199B
|
Plano silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
141
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
86B
|
Osco silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
140
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
171B
|
Catlin silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
137
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
152A
|
Drummer silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
144
|
Prime 2
|
|
2
|
721A
|
Drummer and Elpaso silty clay loam, 0% to 2%
slopes
|
2w
|
144
|
Prime 2
|
|
2
|
68A
|
Sable silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
143
|
Prime 2
|
|
2
|
8077A
|
Huntsville silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally
flooded
|
2w
|
143
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
8451A
|
Lawson silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally
flooded
|
2w
|
140
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
8107A
|
Sawmill silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally
flooded
|
2w
|
139
|
Prime 2
|
|
2
|
8074A
|
Radford silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally
flooded
|
2w
|
136
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
293A
|
Andres silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
135
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
893B
|
Catlin-Saybrook silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
135
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
199B2
|
Plano silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
135
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
663A
|
Clare silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
134
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
213A
|
Normal silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
133
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
481A
|
Raub silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
133
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
61A
|
Atterberry silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
132
|
Prime 2
|
|
2
|
667A
|
Kaneville silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
128
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
343A
|
Kane silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
125
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
567A
|
Elkhart silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
125
|
Prime
|
|
2
|
236A
|
Sabina silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
1
|
122
|
Prime
|
|
LE Group 3; Ag Value: 84; Acres: 274,967;
Percent of County Land: 36.33%
| |||||
|
3
|
244A
|
Hartsburg silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
134
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
8073A
|
Ross loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
|
2w
|
134
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
86B2
|
Osco silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
134
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
67A
|
Harpster silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
133
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
8720A
|
Aetna silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally
flooded
|
2w
|
131
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
145B
|
Saybrook silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
130
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
171B2
|
Catlin silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
131
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
294B
|
Symerton silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
130
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
56B2
|
Dana silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
129
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
125A
|
Selma loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
129
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
148B2
|
Proctor silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
128
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
614B
|
Chenoa silty clay loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
128
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
667B
|
Kaneville silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
127
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
541B2
|
Graymont silt loam 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
127
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
232A
|
Ashkum silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
127
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
145B2
|
Saybrook silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
125
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
146A
|
Elliot silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
125
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
3107A
|
Sawmill silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes, frequently
flooded
|
3w
|
125
|
Prime 5
|
|
3
|
567B
|
Elkhart silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
124
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
272A
|
Edgington silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
124
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
330A
|
Peotone silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
3w
|
123
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
614B2
|
Chenoa silty clay loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
123
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
687B2
|
Penfield loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
123
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
496A
|
Fincastle silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
121
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
233B
|
Birkbeck silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
|
2e
|
121
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
567B2
|
Elkhart silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
119
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
290A
|
Warsaw loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2s
|
119
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
17A
|
Keomah silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
|
2w
|
119
|
Prime 2
|
|
3
|
233B2
|
Birkbeck silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
116
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
279B2
|
Rozetta silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
114
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
622B2
|
Wyanet silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
114
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
134B2
|
Camden silt loam. 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
113
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
290B2
|
Warsaw loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
113
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
60B2
|
La Rose silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
112
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
91B2
|
Swygert silty clay loam, 2% to 4% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
112
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
223B2
|
Varna silt loam, 2% to 4% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
110
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
322B2
|
Russell silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
110
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
27B2
|
Miami silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
106
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
193B2
|
Mayville silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
105
|
Prime
|
|
3
|
327B2
|
Fox silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
2e
|
104
|
Prime
|
|
LE Group 4; Ag Value: 80; Acres: 32,231;
Percent of County Land: 4.26%
| |||||
|
4
|
171C2
|
Catlin silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
128
|
Important
|
|
4
|
56C2
|
Dana silty clay loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
126
|
Important
|
|
4
|
148C2
|
Proctor silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
126
|
Important
|
|
4
|
145C2
|
Saybrook silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
123
|
Important
|
|
4
|
687C2
|
Penfield loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
121
|
Important
|
|
4
|
233C2
|
Birkbeck silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
113
|
Important
|
|
4
|
622C2
|
Wyanet silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
112
|
Important
|
|
4
|
134C2
|
Camden silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
111
|
Important
|
|
4
|
60C2
|
La Rose silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
110
|
Important
|
|
4
|
223C2
|
Varna silty clay loam, 4% to 6% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
108
|
Important
|
|
4
|
322C2
|
Russell silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
108
|
Important
|
|
4
|
27C2
|
Miami silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
104
|
Important
|
|
4
|
193C2
|
Mayville silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
102
|
Important
|
|
4
|
327C2
|
Fox silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
101
|
Important
|
|
LE Group 5; Ag Value: 69; Acres: 10,301;
Percent of County Land: 1.36%
| |||||
|
5
|
60D2
|
LaRose silt loam, 10% to 18% slopes, eroded
|
4e
|
105
|
Important
|
|
5
|
570D2
|
Martinsville silt loam, 10% to 18% slopes, eroded
|
4e
|
101
|
Important
|
|
5
|
27D2
|
Miami silt loam, 10% to 18% slopes, eroded
|
4e
|
100
|
Important
|
|
5
|
224C2
|
Strawn loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
|
3e
|
98
|
Important
|
|
5
|
318B2
|
Lorenzo silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
|
3s
|
98
|
Important
|
|
5
|
964D
|
Miami and Hennepin soils, 10% to 18% slopes
|
4e
|
90
|
Important
|
|
LE Group 6; Ag Value: 41; Acres: 3,911;
Percent of County Land: 0.52%
| |||||
|
6
|
964F
|
Miami and Hennepin soils, 18% to 35% slopes
|
6e
|
67
|
Not Prime
|
|
6
|
224G
|
Strawn loam, 35% to 60% slopes
|
7e
|
50
|
Not Prime
|
|
LE Group 7; Ag Value: 0; Acres: 5,729;
Percent of County Land: 0.76%
| |||||
|
7
|
533
|
Urban land
|
8
|
0
|
Not Prime
|
|
7
|
802B
|
Orthents, loamy, undulating
|
8
|
0
|
Not Prime
|
|
7
|
865
|
Pits, gravel
|
8
|
0
|
Not Prime
|
|
Fire Protection Agencies Serving Rural
McLean County
|
Fire Insurance Rating
| |
|---|---|---|
|
1.
|
Allin Township Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
2.
|
Bellflower Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
3.
|
Bloomington Township Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
4.
|
Carlock Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
5.
|
Chenoa Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
6.
|
Congerville Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
7.
|
Dale Township Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
8.
|
Downs Community Fire Protect District
|
9
|
|
9.
|
Farmer City Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
10.
|
LeRoy Community Fire Protection District
|
7
|
|
11.
|
Lexington Community Fire Protection District
|
7
|
|
12.
|
Mount Hope Fire Protection District
|
8*; 9**
|
|
13.
|
Northern Piat County Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
14.
|
Octavia Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
15.
|
Randolph Township Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
16.
|
Saybrook-Arrowsmith Fire Protection District
|
8*; 9**
|
|
17.
|
Gridley Fire Protection District
|
8*; 9**
|
|
18.
|
Hudson Community Fire Protection District
|
8
|
|
19.
|
Ellsworth Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
20.
|
Danvers Community Fire Protection District
|
8
|
|
21.
|
Towanda Community Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
22.
|
El Paso Fire Protection District
|
8*; 9**
|
|
23.
|
Sullivant Community Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
24.
|
Forrest-Strawn-Wing Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
25.
|
Pontiac Rural Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
26.
|
Wapella Community Fire Protection District
|
8
|
|
27.
|
Gibson City Fire Protection District
|
6
|
|
28.
|
Armington Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
29.
|
Atlanta Fire Protection District
|
8
|
|
30.
|
Little Mackinaw Fire Protection District
|
9
|
|
31.
|
Mackinaw Fire Protection District
|
8
|
|
32.
|
Sangamon Valley Fire Protection District
|
8*; 9**
|
|
NOTES:
| |
|---|---|
|
*
|
Fire insurance rating for residential buildings
|
|
**
|
Fire insurance rating for commercial and industrial
buildings
|
