JAIL SITE ASSESSMENT PICKETT COUNTY, TENNESSEE. For MARCH 2016

Transcription

1 JAIL SITE ASSESSMENT For PICKETT COUNTY, TENNESSEE MARCH 2016 JAMES C. HAILEY & COMPANY Consulting Engineers 7518 Highway 70 South Suite 100 Nashville, Tennessee (615)

2 JAIL SITE ASSESSMENT For PICKETT COUNTY, TENNESSEE MARCH 2016 JAMES C. HAILEY & COMPANY Consulting Engineers 7518 Highway 70 South Suite 100 Nashville, Tennessee (615) JCH Project No.: 15181

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION 1.0 PURPOSE & NEED OF PROJECT BEGINNING PAGE 2.0 DESCRIPTON OF POTENTIAL SITES Mitchell Property Fitzgerald Property Sutton Building Winningham Property EMS Lot ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Land Use Floodplains Wetlands Cultural Resources Biological Resources NEGATIVE SITE CHARACTERISTICS Mitchell Property Fitzgerald Property Sutton Building Winningham Property EMS Lot POSITIVE SITE CHARACTERISTICS Mitchell Property Fitzgerald Property Sutton Building Winningham Property EMS Lot CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION EXHIBITS Location Map Farmland Classification Map Flood Insurance Rate Map Wetlands Inventory Map Site Characteristics Table Site Photos i

4 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. 1

5 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, 2

6 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 3

7 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 4

8 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 5

9 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 6

10 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. 7

11 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 8

12 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. 9

13 7.0 EXHIBITS Location Map Farmland Classification Map Flood Insurance Rate Map Wetlands Inventory Map Site Characteristics Table Site Photos 10

14

15 85 9' 45'' W Farmland Classification Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee (Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland) 85 6' 41'' W 36 35' 23'' N 36 33' 47'' N ' 23'' N 36 33' 47'' N 85 9' 45'' W N Map Scale: 1:21,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS ' 41'' W Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2016 Page 1 of 5

16 Farmland Classification Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee (Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Rating Polygons Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Soil Rating Lines Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of local importance Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of local importance Soil Rating Points Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Water Features Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of local importance Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2016 Page 2 of 5

17 Farmland Classification Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee (Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland) MAP INFORMATION Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial 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 map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 8, 2011 Oct 22, 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2016 Page 3 of 5

18 Farmland Classification Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland Farmland Classification BeB CbD2 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 Bewleyville-Dickson complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Christian-Baxter complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes, eroded Gu Guthrie silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, depressional SnB SuF ubouf uhadf Sullivan-Sequatchie- Egam complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, rarely to occasionally flooded Sulphura channery silt loam, 20 to 75 percent slopes (20-50%) Bouldin very cobbly fine sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes, very stony Hayter-Donahue complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes, very rocky All areas are prime farmland % Not prime farmland % Not prime farmland % All areas are prime farmland % Not prime farmland % Not prime farmland % Not prime farmland % W Water Not prime farmland % WaC2 WaD2 Waynesboro-Etowah complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Waynesboro-Etowah complex, 12 to 20 percent slopes, eroded Not prime farmland % Not prime farmland % Totals for Area of Interest 1, % Description Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the 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 farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2016 Page 4 of 5

19 Farmland Classification Fentress and Pickett Counties Area, Tennessee Jail Site Assessment Prime Farmland Rating Options Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Tie-break Rule: Lower Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2016 Page 5 of 5

20

21 Wetlands Exhibit 1 of 2 Mar 2, 2016 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. User Remarks:

22 Wetlands Exhibit 2 of 2 Mar 2, 2016 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. User Remarks:

23 SITE CHARACTERISTICS PROPERTY NAME TAX MAP PARCEL ACREAGE 3 PHASE POWER GAS WATER SEWER STATE HWY ACCESS PRIME FARMLAND FLOODPLAINS WETLANDS Mitchell Property YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES Sutton Building YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Fitzgerald Property NO YES YES YES YES NO NO YES Winningham Property NO NO YES YES YES YES NO NO EMS Lot YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO

24 SITE PHOTOS MITCHELL PROPERTY, LOOKING EAST (FROM N. MAIN STREET) MITCHELL PROPERTY, LOOKING SOUTHEAST (FROM N. MAIN STREET)

25 FITZGERALD PROPERTY, LOOKING SOUTH (FROM S.R. 325) WINNINGHAM PROPERTY, LOOKING NORTH (FROM DRIVEWAY IN FRONT YARD)