Post on 03-Aug-2020
JAIL SITE ASSESSMENT For PICKETT COUNTY, TENNESSEE MARCH 2016 JAMES C. HAILEY & COMPANY Consulting Engineers 7518 Highway 70 South Suite 100 Nashville, Tennessee 37221 (615) 883-4933
JAIL SITE ASSESSMENT For PICKETT COUNTY, TENNESSEE MARCH 2016
JAMES C. HAILEY & COMPANY Consulting Engineers 7518 Highway 70 South Suite 100 Nashville, Tennessee 37221 (615) 883-4933 JCH Project No.: 15181
TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION BEGINNING PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE & NEED OF PROJECT ............................................................... . 1 2.0 DESCRIPTON OF POTENTIAL SITES .......................................................... . 1 2.1 Mitchell Property .................................................................................. 1 2.2 Fitzgerald Property .............................................................................. 2 2.3 Sutton Building ...................................................................................... 2 2.4 Winningham Property ........................................................................... 2 2.5 EMS Lot ................................................................................................ 3 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 3 3.1 Land Use .............................................................................................. 3 3.2 Floodplains ........................................................................................... 3 3.3 Wetlands ............................................................................................... 4 3.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 4 3.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................... 4 4.0 NEGATIVE SITE CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................... 5 4.1 Mitchell Property .................................................................................. 5 4.2 Fitzgerald Property .............................................................................. 5 4.3 Sutton Building ...................................................................................... 5 4.4 Winningham Property ........................................................................... 6 4.5 EMS Lot ................................................................................................ 6 5.0 POSITIVE SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................... 6 5.1 Mitchell Property .................................................................................. 6 5.2 Fitzgerald Property .............................................................................. 7 5.3 Sutton Building ...................................................................................... 7 5.4 Winningham Property ........................................................................... 7 5.5 EMS Lot ................................................................................................ 8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................... 8 7.0 EXHIBITS ......................................................................................................... 10 Location Map Farmland Classification Map Flood Insurance Rate Map Wetlands Inventory Map Site Characteristics Table Site Photos
i
1
1.0 PURPOSE
This report was written in order to convey to the Pickett County Corrections
Partnership and the Board of Commissioners of Pickett County findings from an
assessment of five (5) properties cited as potential locations for the future Pickett
County Jail. It is the intention of this report to address current site conditions and
potential obstacles associated with the acquisition of property, as well as the
construction and operation of the proposed facilities.
Please note that though there are some aspects presented in this report that are
similar to that of an Engineering or Environmental Report, this document does
not constitute an in-depth Engineering or Environmental analysis. If the County
requires further Engineering or Environmental analysis, similar to what is
required for federal funding of projects, James C. Hailey & Company would be
happy to coordinate with the County. Please note that James C. Hailey &
Company does not provide design services for jail or criminal justice facilities.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL SITES
2.1 MITCHELL PROPERTY
The Mitchell property consists of two (2) parcels totaling approximately 35
acres located near the intersection of North Main Street, Parker Road
(State Route 325), and State Route 111. This property has approximately
1,250 linear feet of road frontage along Parker Road and approximately
1,550 linear feet of road frontage on North Main Street. According to
water system maps provided by the Town of Byrdstown, there is a 6”
water main that parallels Parker Road, adjacent to the Mitchell property.
Byrdstown’s sewer system maps indicate that sewer service is available
at the southwestern most property corner. Current use of the property
appears to be agricultural. The elevation across the site appears to vary
by almost 100 feet from the center of the property to the northeastern
most edge. It is estimated that roughly 25% of the property is covered
with trees and shrubs. There currently exist multiple structures in various
locations on the property, including what appear to be mobile homes,
barns, and sheds. A small pond exists in the southwestern most property
corner.
2
2.2 FITZGERALD PROPERTY
The Fitzgerald property consists of approximately 3.5 acres and is located
just west of the intersection of Olympus Drive and State Route 325. This
property has approximately 215 linear feet of road frontage along SR 325.
According to water system maps provided by the Town of Byrdstown,
there is a 6” water main that parallels SR 325, adjacent to the Fitzgerald
property. Byrdstown’s sewer system maps indicate that sewer service is
available at the northern most property line, along SR 325. It appears that
the current use of the property may be the fill or borrow of soil. The
elevation across the site appears to slope from front to back and back to
front, forming a bowl which retains water at the center of the property.
Vegetation appears to consist of mostly grass, with the southernmost
portion of the property being barren due to earthwork. It appears that the
only structure present on the property is a small 16’ x 16’ brick utility
building assumed to belong to Volunteer Electric.
2.3 SUTTON BUILDING
The Sutton Building consists of approximately 5.4 acres and is located
just south of the Pickett County Courthouse on South Main Street. This
property has approximately 1,300 linear feet of road frontage along South
Main Street. According to water system maps provided by the Town of
Byrdstown, there is a 6” water main that runs through the parcel that the
Sutton Building is located on. Byrdstown’s sewer system maps indicate
that sewer service is available at the northern and eastern most property
lines, along SR 325. The ground appears to slope from the southwest to
northeast approximately 60’ across the property. According to the County,
the property is not currently being used for anything other than storage.
An abandoned 42,000 square foot factory building exists onsite. Outside
of the factory building, the site is predominantly covered with trees and
shrubs.
2.4 WINNINGHAM PROPERTY
The Winningham Property consists of approximately 4.38 acres and is
located on State Route 325, between Tulip and Highland Avenues. This
property has approximately 540 linear feet of road frontage along SR 325.
According to water system maps provided by the Town of Byrdstown,
3
there is a 6” water main that runs along SR 325, adjacent to the
Winningham Property. Byrdstown’s sewer system maps indicate that
sewer service is available at the southernmost property lines, along SR
325. The site appears to slope from north to south, with a change in
elevation of about 40’. The property is currently considered residential,
with one house and one barn located onsite. Vegetation at the site is
mainly comprised of grass, with a few trees dotted throughout the
property.
2.5 EMS LOT
The EMS Lot consists of approximately 3.5 acres and is located on State
Route 111, just north of Beason Boulevard. This property has
approximately 200 linear feet of road frontage along SR 325. According to
water system maps provided by the Town of Byrdstown, there is an 8”
water main located within the vicinity of the site. Byrdstown’s sewer
system maps indicate that sewer service is available at the southeastern
most property line, along SR 111. The EMS Lot appears to slope from
northwest to southeast with an elevation change of approximately 20’
across the site. Multiple structures are located onsite including buildings
for County fire and ambulance services. It is estimated that approximately
50% of the site is covered with pavement, stone, or concrete. There are
small areas of densely populated trees at the north and west sides of the
site.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Land Use
Developments are often evaluated on their likelihood of converting “Prime
Farmland” to alternate classifications. The National Resources
Conservation Service Web Soil Survey was used in order to produce a
map which illustrates that, of the sites being considered, only the
Winningham Property is anticipated to affect an area considered “Prime
Farmland”.
3.2 Floodplains
A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was generated from the Federal
4
Emergency Management Agency’s website and included in this report.
According to the FIRM, none of the sites being considered are within a
significant flood risk area. The closest property to any flood risk area is
the Sutton Building, located near Town Creek. Please see the FIRM,
located in the Exhibits section of this report.
3.3 Wetlands
According to information gathered from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, there is only one
site which boasts a true emergent wetland. At the southern corner of the
Mitchell property, there exists a pond which is considered a wetland by
USFWS. This is not anticipated to be a problem, since the site is so large
and the wetland appears to only affect an area that is less than 1 aerial
acre. Please see the Wetlands Inventory Maps, located in the Exhibits
section of this report.
Even though it is not shown on the National Wetlands Inventory, a site
visit made to the Fitzgerald property revealed what appears to be a pond
or low area that retains water. A review with the appropriate State and
Federal officials should be made regarding whether the County would be
allowed to fill in this area, particularly if federal funds are used in the
construction of the jail facility. Additionally, because the site is relatively
small, this could create a foundation problem for any structure built in the
vicinity of the area that retains water.
3.4 Cultural Resources
There are not anticipated to be any cultural resources affected regardless
of which site is ultimately chosen. It is recommended that the Town work
with the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) in order to
determine if there will be any effect on historical or cultural resources prior
to committing to the purchase of any of the sites.
3.5 Biological Resources
USFWS was contacted in order to request information regarding any
threatened and/or federally listed endangered species. USFWS noted
that Indiana Bats (a federally listed endangered bat species) have been
5
observed within the vicinity of the Town of Byrdstown. The more trees on
a site, the greater the probability of finding Indiana Bats.
There appear to be more trees on the Mitchell property than any other,
but it is likely that this will not be a problem since there is a vast amount
of open area as well. Conversely, there is a large percentage of the
Sutton Building site which is covered with trees, and it is anticipated that a
large percentage of them will require removal in order to utilize the site.
There are not a significant number of trees on the remaining properties
considered in this study.
4.0 NEGATIVE SITE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 MITCHELL PROPERTY
Potential cost: Because the Mitchell property is much larger than the
other properties being considered, cost could be an important factor in its
feasibility.
Difference in elevations across property: These differences could
make site work and utility installation difficult. Similarly, access and travel
across the site could be more difficult for this site than others.
4.2 FITZGERALD PROPERTY
Slope on property: The site slopes form a bowl near the center. The
slope causes ponding of water which could be difficult to mitigate.
Similarly, this ponding could cause foundation issues for any structures
built on the site if fill is not properly compacted.
4.3 SUTTON BUILDING
Building on site: The factory building onsite would have to be
demolished in order for this property to be feasible. It is anticipated that
the proper demolition and disposal of the factory building would cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars, since there are hazardous materials
that will require abatement. It is not anticipated that there will be any
portion of the factory building that will be usable for the construction of a
jail facility (i.e. walls, foundation, slab, etc…). It is expected that the stone
base under the existing building’s floor could be
6
used for parking or as the initial grade to build a foundation on, but
geotechnical testing is recommended.
Dense trees: The trees located onsite could be home to the Indiana Bat
which could require mitigation prior to tree removal and site preparation.
Location: This site is the farthest from any state highway, which limits
access. Also, the site is very near to a residential area which could
receive some criticism from residents.
Potential flooding: Even though the FIRM shows that the site is just
outside the 100 year flood zone, it is still the closest to a flood zone.
4.4 WINNINGHAM PROPERTY
Location: This site located in the heart of a residential area, and it is
anticipated that it would be difficult to obtain community support.
Access: The site has ample road frontage on SR 325, but sight-distance
is affected with hills in the road located on the east and west side of the
property. It is anticipated that there could be some concerns associated
with traffic when vehicles are pulling into and out of the highway.
4.5 EMS LOT
Buildings on site: The EMS Lot has the least available space to be
converted to other uses. In order for a jail to be constructed on this site, it
might be necessary to demolish some structures.
Odd property shape: The shape of the property is long and narrow.
With the other buildings on the site, the shape of the property makes
finding a good location for a jail facility difficult.
5.0 POSITIVE SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 MITCHELL PROPERTY
Property size: Because the property is large, it is expected that this
would allow several different possibilities for the placement and
configuration of jail facilities. It is also expected that with all the open
7
space, minimal damage to trees would be required in order to build a jail
facility.
Access: This property is located at the intersection of SR 295, North
Main Street, and SR 111, which provides the best access of any site
considered.
Low residential population: The site is located in an area that is less
populated than the other sites considered. It is expected that County and
Town residents would be more supportive of this site than any other.
Future use: The property would allow the County the ability to locate
other County facilities (e.g. future EMS, Fire, Transportation, etc…) or
industrial facilities on the remaining property if desired in the future.
Proximity to emergency services: County emergency service facilities
are located nearer to this site than any other (besides the EMS Lot). In
the event of a medical or fire emergency, the location of this site would be
highly beneficial.
5.2 FITZGERALD PROPERTY
Open space: The majority of the clearing has already been performed at
this site. This means that the chance of disturbing trees that could provide
a habitat for the Indiana Bat is low.
Low residential population: The site is located in an area that has a
similar residential population density to that of the Mitchell Property.
5.3 SUTTON BUILDING
Ownership: The County already owns this site, so acquisition would not
be an issue.
5.4 WINNINGHAM PROPERTY
Open space: Similar to the Fitzgerald Property, the majority of the
clearing has already been performed at this site. This means that the
chance of disturbing trees that could provide a habitat for the Indiana Bat
is low.
8
5.5 EMS LOT
Emergency facilities: Facilities located onsite could provide immediate
assistance during a medical or fire emergency.
Ownership: The County already owns this site, so acquisition would not
be an issue.
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Along with the discussion provided in previous sections, a table was developed to
provide additional site characteristics, which includes information regarding utility
service to each site, along with a summary of other characteristics that were
deemed important. Characteristics that are considered desirable for a site are color
coded “green” and those that are not are color coded “red”. This table can be
observed in the Exhibits section of this report.
After careful consideration, and with the information provided in this report, it is
recommended that Pickett County further investigate the Mitchell Property as a
potential site for future jail facilities. The Mitchell Property appears to be the most
viable option, particularly when considering the size and location of the site.
Because the Mitchell Property is large, it would be less costly for designers to layout
a jail site, as the configuration would not be dictated on the shape or size of the
property. Similarly, if the County wished to relocate other facilities (emergency,
transportation, etc…) to this site, there would be space. Further, it is anticipated that
community support for the use of this property would likely be more positive than
others considered, due to the limited number of residential households nearby.
The sites that are believed to be the least viable are the two that are owned by the
County. The Sutton Building site would require a great deal of demolition work to be
performed prior to site layout and construction of a jail facility. Similarly, the size,
shape, and number of existing buildings on the EMS Lot make it a difficult site to
coordinate the placement of a jail facility.
The Winningham and Fitzgerald properties are considered to be more feasible than
the Sutton Building and EMS Lot due to the fact that there are no existing facilities to
contend with. Additionally, both have a decent level of site access, and are
characterized by a majority of open space, meaning that any required clearing
would be minimal. The Fitzgerald property is a little less desirable because water
9
appears to pond at the center of the property. This would not be considered a
problem if the site were larger, but since it is not, the ponding raises concerns. As
discussed previously, the site distances associated with traffic on SR 325 could
cause issues with access to the Winningham Property. Also, the location of the
Winningham Property in a densely populated residential area is expected to raise
concerns with community members.
10
7.0 EXHIBITS
Location Map
Farmland Classification Map
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Wetlands Inventory Map
Site Characteristics Table
Site Photos
Farmland Classification—Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee(Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland)
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
3/2/2016Page 1 of 5
4048
100
4048
500
4048
900
4049
300
4049
700
4050
100
4050
500
4050
900
4048
100
4048
500
4048
900
4049
300
4049
700
4050
100
4050
500
4050
900
664500 664900 665300 665700 666100 666500 666900 667300 667700 668100 668500 668900
664500 664900 665300 665700 666100 666500 666900 667300 667700 668100 668500 668900
36° 35' 23'' N85
° 9
' 45'
' W36° 35' 23'' N
85° 6
' 41'
' W
36° 33' 47'' N
85° 9
' 45'
' W
36° 33' 47'' N
85° 6
' 41'
' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS840 1000 2000 4000 6000
Feet0 300 600 1200 1800
MetersMap Scale: 1:21,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGENDArea of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
SoilsSoil Rating Polygons
Not prime farmland
All areas are primefarmlandPrime farmland if drained
Prime farmland ifprotected from flooding ornot frequently floodedduring the growing seasonPrime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drainedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseasonPrime farmland if irrigatedand drainedPrime farmland if irrigatedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseason
Prime farmland ifsubsoiled, completelyremoving the rootinhibiting soil layerPrime farmland if irrigatedand the product of I (soilerodibility) x C (climatefactor) does not exceed 60Prime farmland if irrigatedand reclaimed of excesssalts and sodiumFarmland of statewideimportanceFarmland of localimportanceFarmland of uniqueimportanceNot rated or not available
Soil Rating LinesNot prime farmland
All areas are primefarmlandPrime farmland if drained
Prime farmland ifprotected from flooding ornot frequently floodedduring the growing seasonPrime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drainedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseasonPrime farmland if irrigatedand drainedPrime farmland if irrigatedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseasonPrime farmland ifsubsoiled, completelyremoving the rootinhibiting soil layerPrime farmland if irrigatedand the product of I (soilerodibility) x C (climatefactor) does not exceed 60
Prime farmland if irrigatedand reclaimed of excesssalts and sodiumFarmland of statewideimportanceFarmland of localimportanceFarmland of uniqueimportanceNot rated or not available
Soil Rating PointsNot prime farmland
All areas are primefarmlandPrime farmland if drained
Prime farmland ifprotected from flooding ornot frequently floodedduring the growing seasonPrime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drainedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseason
Prime farmland ifirrigated and drainedPrime farmland ifirrigated and eitherprotected from floodingor not frequently floodedduring the growingseasonPrime farmland ifsubsoiled, completelyremoving the rootinhibiting soil layerPrime farmland ifirrigated and the productof I (soil erodibility) x C(climate factor) does notexceed 60Prime farmland ifirrigated and reclaimed ofexcess salts and sodiumFarmland of statewideimportanceFarmland of localimportanceFarmland of uniqueimportanceNot rated or not available
Water Features
Farmland Classification—Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee(Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland)
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
3/2/2016Page 2 of 5
MAP INFORMATION
Streams and Canals
TransportationRails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
BackgroundAerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for mapmeasurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercatorprojection, which preserves direction and shape but distortsdistance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as theAlbers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accuratecalculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ofthe version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, TennesseeSurvey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2015
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 8, 2011—Oct 22,2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.
Farmland Classification—Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee(Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland)
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
3/2/2016Page 3 of 5
Farmland Classification
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee (TN701)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BeB Bewleyville-Dicksoncomplex, 2 to 6percent slopes
All areas are primefarmland
56.1 3.5%
CbD2 Christian-Baxtercomplex, 5 to 20percent slopes,eroded
Not prime farmland 695.7 43.9%
Gu Guthrie silt loam, 0 to 3percent slopes,depressional
Not prime farmland 21.1 1.3%
SnB Sullivan-Sequatchie-Egam complex, 1 to 6percent slopes, rarelyto occasionally flooded
All areas are primefarmland
40.6 2.6%
SuF Sulphura channery siltloam, 20 to 75 percentslopes (20-50%)
Not prime farmland 92.1 5.8%
uBouF Bouldin very cobbly finesandy loam, 15 to 40percent slopes, verystony
Not prime farmland 9.1 0.6%
uHadF Hayter-Donahuecomplex, 15 to 40percent slopes, veryrocky
Not prime farmland 63.7 4.0%
W Water Not prime farmland 3.2 0.2%
WaC2 Waynesboro-Etowahcomplex, 5 to 12percent slopes,eroded
Not prime farmland 418.5 26.4%
WaD2 Waynesboro-Etowahcomplex, 12 to 20percent slopes,eroded
Not prime farmland 186.3 11.7%
Totals for Area of Interest 1,586.5 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland ofstatewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifiesthe location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlandsare published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Farmland Classification—Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
3/2/2016Page 4 of 5
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Farmland Classification—Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
3/2/2016Page 5 of 5
Wetlands Exhibit -1 of 2
Mar 2, 2016
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is notresponsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. Allwetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found onthe Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
Wetlands Exhibit 2of 2
Mar 2, 2016
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is notresponsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. Allwetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found onthe Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
PROPERTY NAME TAX MAP PARCEL ACREAGE 3 PHASE POWER GAS WATER SEWER STATE HWY ACCESS PRIME FARMLAND FLOODPLAINS WETLANDS
Sutton Building 24 009.00 5.4 YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO
Fitzgerald Property 23 090.05 3.5 NO YES YES YES YES NO NO YES
EMS Lot 24 080.00 3.5 YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
24
24
047.01
047.0235 YES
014.00
013.004.38 NO
YES YES
NO
YES
YESNO YES
Mitchell Property
Winningham Property YES NO
YES YES NO NO
YES
SITE PHOTOS
MITCHELL PROPERTY, LOOKING EAST (FROM N. MAIN STREET)
MITCHELL PROPERTY, LOOKING SOUTHEAST (FROM N. MAIN STREET)
FITZGERALD PROPERTY, LOOKING SOUTH (FROM S.R. 325)
WINNINGHAM PROPERTY, LOOKING NORTH (FROM DRIVEWAY IN FRONT YARD)