HomeMy Public PortalAbout2004 - State of Missouri - Environmental Assessment Community Supervision Center - Department of Corrections - Metro Drive and Merchant DriveBob Holden
Governor
Jacquelyn D. White
Commissioner
Monday, August 23, 2004
State of Missouri
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
Post Office Box 809
301 West High
Jefferson City
65102
Ms. Melba Fast, Assistant City Administrator
City of .Jefferson, City Hall
320 East McCarty Street
Jefferson City, Missouri 65109
Re: Public Comment Period
Environmental Assessment tor:
Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
State Project C030 1-0 I
Dear Ms Fast:
REC EIVED
AUG 2 3 REC'D
OffiCG of the City Clerk
City of Jefferson
Randall G. Allen, AlA
Director
Division of Design and Construction
573-751-3339
Please find enclosed a copy of the dratl environmentCll assessment of the site on Metro Drive Clt
the intersection of Metro Drive and Merchant Drive for the Jefferson City Community
Supervision Center.
As required by the Department of .Justice, the report must be on file for public comment for a
period of thirty (30) days. We will begin advertising that the report is available for review at the
City Hall and a t our Office in the Truman State Office Building. The advertisement will run in
your local paper for three consecutive publications starting August 27,2004. A copy of the
public notice is attached for your use and we would request that it be posted in City Hall.
Thank you for your attention to this step tn the process of creating the Jefferson City Community
Supervision Center. And should you have any questions, or comments on the report, please direct
them to the writer.
R espcc tfu~y.
/1 /;/· ~~ ;>;/z~V
··-.Tim W~ber, Project Manage r
Division of Design a nd Constmction
CC; Paul Caspari, Probation and Parole
.lay Edwards, Department of Corrections
Jeff Fleenor, Program Manager
Larry Burkhardt, PMIJ. Section B Leader
File-Environmental Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
Project C030 1 01
August 11, 2004
Prepared For:
The U.S . Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington D .C . 20 531
I ·~-~~
. '
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Supervision Center of Jefferson City (CSCJC) is a 21 ,000-square-f<.k)t, 30 -·
person dormitory/office building proposed for a five-acre site east of the intersection of Metro
and Merchant Drives in Jefferson City, Missouri. Construction would consist of a dormitory,
cafeteria, meeting rooms, and office space. The site is presently undeveloped.
This NEPA Environmental Assessment addresses the potential environmental impacts from the
construction and operation of the CSCJC. This project is jointly funded by the Mi ssouri
Department of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice.
With only 30 residents, the impact of the CSCJC facility on the unemployment conditions,
poverty rates, and racial minority population in Jefferson City and Cole County would be
negligible. The public and community facilities and services (schools, churches, health care, fire
protection, etc.) in the Jefferson City area would not be impacted. The population of the
surrounding community would not be significantly altered by the proposed project.
N E PA ENVIRONMENTAL A SS F SS MFNT
C OMMUNITY SUPl'R\'ISION CENTER Or JEfFERSON CITY
Aug ust 11 , 2004
Pa ge i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r~e
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 4
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSID.ERED ...................................................................................... 6
2 . I Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................................................. 6
2.2 Alternative 2 (preferred): Construction of the CSCJC on the Proposed Site ..................... 6
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................... 8
3 .1 Environmental Resources Considered and Dismissed ........................................................ S
3.2 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Farmland Protection Policy Act.. ................................................................................ 9
3.2.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Land Use .......................................................... :: ................................................................. 9
3.3.1 Zoning ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 .2 Floodplain Encroachment, EO 11988 ....................................................................... 10
3.3 .3 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ I 0
3.3.4 hnpact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Traffic ............................................................. , ................................................................. II
3.4.1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 11
3.5 Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................... 11
3 .5.1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12
3 .6 Socioeconomic .......................................................................................... : ....................... i2
3.6.1 1-luman Population .................................................................................................... 12
3.6.2 Environmental Justice, EO 12898 ............................................................................. 13
3.6.3 hnpact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14
3.7 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 14
3. 7.1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14
3.8 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 14
3.8.1 hnpact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14
3.9 Public Services and Utilities I Energy Impacts ................................................................. 15
3.9.1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15
3 .10 Water Resources I Water Quality ..................................................................................... 15
3.1 0.1 hnpact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 16
3.11 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 16
3.11 .1 Wetlands, EO 11990 ................................................................................................. 16
3.11.2 Threate ned or Endangered Spe cies ........................................................................... 17
3 .11 .3 Impact Ana lysis ........................................................................................................ I 7
3 .12 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ I 7
3.12.1 Historic Properties .................................................................................................... 1 X
3.12 .2 Archaeological Resources ......................................................................................... 18
NEPA ENVIRONM ENTAL A SS ESS MENT
C OM MUNITY SUI'ERVISl ON CENTER OF .I EFFERSO N CITY
Augus t 11 . 200 4
Page 1
3.12.3 ln1pact Analysis ........................................................................................................ \ g
3.13 Cu1nulative hnpacts .......................................................................................................... 18
3.14 Coordination and Permits ................................................................................................. 18
3.15 Summary of lmpacts ......................................................................................................... 19
4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Persons and Agencies Consulted ...................................................................................... 21
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................... 23
TABLE J: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CENSUS DATA FROM 1990 AND 2000
APPENDIX A: FIGURES AND MAPS
l Site Location Map
2 Building Plan
3 Building Elevations
4 Site Map
5 Site Plan
APPENDIX 8: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX C: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
APPENDIX D: FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM AD1006
APPENDIX E: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY SUI'ERYISION C'ENTF.R OF JEFFERSON Cll1
August 11, 2004
l'agc 2
_.I
}
'
GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
DOC
EA
EO
EIS
EPA
FONSl
HPP
MDNR
NEPA
NRI
SHPO
CSC.IC
USDOJ
USGS
Missouri Department of Corrections
Environmental Assessment
Executive Order
Environmental Impact Statement
U.S . Environmental Protection Agency
Finding of No Significant Impact
Historic Preservation Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
National Environmental Policy Act
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
State Historic Preservation Officer
Community Supervision Center of Jefferson City
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S . Geological Survey
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUI'ITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF .JEFFERSON CITY
Aug;.tsl II. 2004
Page 3
l.O INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal decision-makers to consider the
environmental consequences of their proposed actions and to incorporate this consideration into
their decisions. In order for federal decision-makers to consider environmental consequences,
NEPA requires that environmental information be available to the decision-maker prior to
initiating a proposed action. This infmmation can take the form of either an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS). The EA is typically a simpler
document that provides enough information for a federal agency to detennine if an EIS is
required, or if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) may be issued.
This NEP A EA addresses the potential environmental impacts from the construction and
operation of the Jefferson City Community Supervision Center (CSCJC) proposed in .Jefferson
City, Missouri. This project will be funded jointly by the Missouri Department of Corrections
and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The proposed CSCJC project is a 30-bed dormitory building that would include a cafetnia,
meeting rooms, and office space, as well as associated parking and landscape areas. The
proposed site is a five-acre parcel located east of the intersection of Metro and Merchants Drives
in the western portion of Jefferson City, Missomi . The site is currently undeveloped.
l.l Purpose and Need
The Community Supervision Centers were conceived as an alternative to building new
prisons. They represent an offender-management strategy that provides community-based,
short-term intervention options in areas of Missouri that produce the most offenders.
At present, the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) admits 3 .33 more offenders to its
prisons than it releases each day. This rate of growth in the prisoner population would result
in the need for a new medium-security prison by April of 2005. As an alternative to building
new prisons, the DOC proposes to reduce the prisoner growth rate by working to insure that
only chronic, violent, and repeat offenders are incarcerated in the existing secure facilities.
A new 2,000-bed prison would cost an estimated $135,000,000 and four years to complete,
from date of authorization. In addition, a new facility would cost over $26,000,000 per year
to operate. The DOC believes that the need for a new prison can be delayed or avoid ~d with
community-based intervention alternatives. The Community Supervision Centers would
assess, stabilize, and monitor offenders at risk for revocation (of parole).
Two Community Supervision Centers now exist, in St. Louis and Kansas City. The DOC
proposes to eventually construct 17 additional Centers in other areas of the State that
contribute significantly to prison admissions and revocations. The Jefferson City
Community Supervision Center would be one of seven pilot Centers throughout the State that
would demonstrate the effectiveness of this local alternative to prison. Ninety percent of the
estimated $4,395,991 in construction costs for each facility would be funded by ayailable
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
C'OMMUNlTY SUPERVISION CENTER OF ]FI'f'ERSON CITY
Augu st II . 2004
Page 4
federal Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing (VOl!TIS) funds. The one-time
cost to equip each facility would be an estimated $390,000.'
On-going annual operational costs for each facility is estimated at $998,000, including
employee salaries, food, utilities, assessment and drug testing, and substance-abuse
intervention.2
The DOC estimates that each 30-bcd facility could divert sufficient new admissions and
revocations of offenders to equal 115 prison facility beds each year. The cost avoidance in
diverting offenders from a future prison to the Community Supervision Center could equal
$1 ,500,000 per year. Annual reimbursements from the CSCJC offenders to the Inmate
Revolving Fund are estimated at $61,600, which would offset General Revenue fund
expenses. Including space for the local probation and parole district offices in the
Community Supervision Centers should provide an annual average cost savings in lease
payments of $68,000 per center.~
1 Wehcr, James M. Project Manager, Missouri Division of Design and Con·cction. E-mail correspondence and
telephone interview, tl/11/04.
2 Ibid.
~ Ibid.
NEP A ENVIRONMENTAl. ASSESSMENT
CoMMUNITY SurER VISION CENTER OF JEFFER SON CITY
August II, 2004
Page)
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives analyzed by this EA include (I) not building the CSCJC (the "No-Action"
alternative) and (2) building the CSCJC on the proposed site. Initial screening completed by the
Missouri Department of Design and Construction has identified the proposed site as the best
suited for construction of this project in the Jefferson City area .
2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative
The CSCJC would be one component of a system of Community Supervision Centers
throughout the State that would provide an alternative to new prison construction. By
providing community-based, short-term intervention options in areas of the State that
contribute a large percentage of the annual prison admissions and revocations, the DOC can
delay or avoid the need for new prisons. Given the cuiTent rate of growth in the prison
population, if the Community Supervision Centers are not built, the DOC \Vould need to
build an additional male, medium-security prison by April of 2005 .
2.2 Alternative 2 (preferred): Construction of the CSCJC on the Proposed Site
The site is currently undeveloped and is immediately accessible to utilities.
Figures 2 and 3 present the plan view and exterior elevations of the proposed building,
respectively. The location and orientation of the building on the proposed site would be
determined during the final design phase.
The CSC.IC would include an administrative area to accommodate the existing probation and
parole district offices in addition to program/classroom areas and dormitory housing space
for 30 offenders in need of structured residential supervision. The CSCJC would provide
short-tenn residential services for offenders who would otherwise have to be housed in
prisons or local jails, including:
• Offenders convicted of class C and D felonies with no previous criminal convictions
that are in need of short-tenn deterrence or substance abuse treatment.
• Offenders at risk for revocation by the courts for technical violations of probation.
• Offenders approved for release from prison by the Parole Board, but who do not have
an appropriate home plan in the local community.
• Offenders at risk for revocation by the Parole Board for technical violations of parole.
Offenders assigned to the CSCJC would be required to accept increased personal
responsibility in finding and maintaining employment, obtaining medical care and obtaining
educational or vocational opportunities through the Work Release Program. Work Re\case
offenders are required to place 50% of their gross pay in a savings account and are charged a
daily fee to offset the cost of their room and board. The Substance Abusl! Treatment
Program provides assessment and treatment including individual and group sessions provided
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM ENT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CE"'TER Of JEI'FERSllN CITY
Augu st II, 2004
Page 6
by certified substance abuse specialists. The treatment sessiOns are sch~duled during
offenders' otT-hours from work.4
4 Missouri Department of Corrections, httv.P.www.doc.missouri.gov/division/pro[Jicomm.htm
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY SUI'ERVISION CENTER OF .IErrERSON CiTY
August II, 2004
Page 7
J •
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The proposed CSC.JC site is located within Jefferson City, which is the county seat of Cole
County and the Missouri State Capital. Jefferson City is located near the center of the state,
along the Missouri River, and at the northern boundary of Cole County. Callaway and Boone
Counties are immediately nm1h of Jefferson City across the Missouri River. Much of the
commerce of Cole County and Jefferson City centers on State government, which employed
17,000 in 2000.~ Aside from Jefferson City, the county is primarily agricultural. Cole County
has a land area of 257,139 acres. Jn 2002, 72% of the land was used for farming, including
pastureland. The main cash crops are com, soybeans, hay, wheat and sorghum. Be.ef and dairy
cattle and pigs are also important to the agricultural economy.1
' Much of the remaining land is
deciduous and evergreen woodland, primarily oak and red cedar.
The climate of the region ranges from cold winters to hot summers. The average temperature in
winter is 33.4 degrees F; the average temperature in summer is 77.3 degrees. A.nnual
precipitation averages 38 .3 inches, with about 72% falling in April through October.7
Based on 2000 Census data, the population of Jefferson City was around 39,600, about 56% of
the population of Cole County. The civilian labor force consisted of 62% of Jefferson City's
over-sixteen population. The median household income was $39,600, and 11.5% of the
population lived below the poverty levcl.8 The unemployment rate for Cole County in June 2004
was 3.1% of the labor force.9
3.1 Environmental Resources Considered and Dismissed
The following table lists the environmental resources that were considered but dismissed
because the proposed action would have either no or negligible impact on the resource.
-----· -------~ Environmental Resource Discussion
Coastal Zone Management Act No coastal zones were within the project area.
Coastal Barrier Resources No coastal barrier resources were within the projec ~ _J area.
State Environmental Policy Act Missouri has no State Environmental Policy Act.
'----------__\
3.2 Geology and Soils
Jefferson City is situated at the northern edge of the Ozark Dome, an area of uplift that
extends across southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. The city is located on loess-
covered bluffs overlooking the Missouri River and its floodplain. Bedrock in the area
generally consists of Ordovician-age dolomite of the Jefferson City fom1ation.1n
; Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce. http :ll11ww-icchamber.or~lecolecodE·v.htm
6 University of Missouri Agriculture Statistics Servi ce . Cole County Agri-facts. http://agehb.missouri.ed11 /
mass/agri(act/Co le/illdex.htm
7 US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Cole County. Missouri, 2 003 .
K Missouri Census Data Center, Demographic Profile 3 Trend Report; 2000 US Census. MCDC Wcbpage.
9 Missouri Department of Economic Development. Economic Research and Information Center.
wwwded.state.mo.us!businesslresearchand!Jlanning/indicators!ullemp/current-rate.shtml.
10 MDNR, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Geologic Map of Missouri . 1979 .
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMFNT
COMMlii'ITY Suri'RVISION CENTER OF .IHTFRSON Cnv
August II , 2004
PageR
... . ,,
No known springs, caves or sinkholes exist on the site. Ground surface at the site slopes
gently from northwest to southeast. The elevation ranges from approximately 660 feet above
mean sea level (msl) along Metro Drive at the northwest comer, to approximately 615 msl at
the N01th Branch of Wears Creek along the southern boundary.11 The creek is an intennittent
stream that flows eastward to join with Wears Creek, which flows into the Missouri River
about three miles east of the CSCJC site.
The soil in the northern half of the site is classified as urban land, featuring slopes with very
high runoff rates. The soil in the southern half of the site is classified as Freeburg series,
which is typically brown silt or clay loam, about 60 inches thick, featuring poor drainage .~~
Two small, inactive nmlts are known to exist about 4 miles southeast of the CSCJC site.13
The New Madrid fault system is located about 200 miles southeast of Jefferson City.
According to the United States Geological Survey, Cole County lies within a zone that h~ts a
3% probability of exceeding peak horizontal acceleration in the next 50 years.14
3.2.1 Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to "minimize the extent to which Federal
programs contribute to the unnecessary conver..c;;ion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.''1''
The five-acre plot proposed for the CSCJC is in a commercial and industrial area. The
property is not currently used for agriculture and does not contain soil considered by U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to constitute prime farmland .16
3.2.2 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.3 Land Use
The proposed CSCJC site is situated within a commercial and industrial district in the
western portion of Jefferson City. A creek separates the site from a residential area to the
southwest. The site is currently undeveloped, and no structures exist on the property. The
northern half of the site is covered by grass and low brush, with a few clumps of trees along
the western boundary. The southern half of the site is wooded, with dense undergrowth.
Merchants Drive, an east-west city street ends at its intersection with Metro Drive cast of the
·site.
Commercial buildings and warehouses located north and west of the site are occupied by
state agencies and private businesses. Ameren UE owns a 20-acre tract east of the site that is
used as a storage yard containing materials and a propane tank farm, which is currently being
11 USGS Topographic Map: Jefferson City-MO 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. July 198 I.
12 US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Cole County, Missouri. 2003
1.1 McCracken, Mary H. Structural Features of Missouri . Missouri Geological Smvcy and Water Resources. 1971 .
14 National Atlas of the United States. Seismic Hazard for Missouri Map.
http:ll11ationafatf as .gol'l natf as/pri nf. dm? bgofl"= F
1 ~ Farmland Information Library. Fannland Protection Policy Act Fact Sheet.
http://www.[armfandin[o.or-g/{idtasl ta[s-fvpa.htmf.
;r. Fam1land Conversion Impact Rating Form ADI006 completed by Keith Davis, District Conservationist, Natuml
Resource Conservation Service (sec Appendix D).
NEI'A ENV\1\0NMENTAI. ASSI'SSMI'NT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CF.NTI'R OF JEFFERSOI'. CITY
August II. 2004
Page 9
dismantled. A utility easement separates the proposed site from the Ameren UE yard. The
area southeast of the site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. Old Gibler and Sterling Price
Roads, located southwest of the site, are residential streets in the Shell Ridge neighborhood.
DOC plans to locate the Community Supervision Center in the northern half of the proposed
site, leaving a 200-foot-wide wooded buffer between the parking area and the creek at the
south end of the property.
3.3.1 Zoning
The site is currently zoned for industrial use, which does not include group living. If the
State of Missouri purchases the property, it will not be subject to local zoning laws.17
3.3.2 Floodplain Encroachment, EO 11988
Executive Order 11988 requires a Federal agency to avoid constmction or management
practices that would adversely affect floodplains unless that agency finds that; (1) there is
no practical alternative, and (2) the proposed action has been designed or modified to
minimize hann to or within the floodplain. Federal agencies musi act to reduce the risk
of flood loss; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and V'elfare; and
restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains when
carrying out the agency's responsibilities for:
Acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities;
Providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements;
and
Conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not
limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.
According io FEMA maps, 1M the site is designated Zone C, an area of minimal flooding.
An area of 1 00-year flooding begins 300 feet east of the site, extending eastward along
the North Branch of Wears Creek, which forms the southern boundary of the CSCJC site.
Storm drainage plans for the new facility must be designed to prevent or minimize impact
on the flood zone area east of the site.19 The nearest upgradient storm sewer is located
several hundred feet north of the site, so potential runoff from the properties immediately
north of the site will be considered during development of the final plans for site
development.
3.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers
The CSCJC site is located in the Lower Missouri-Moreau Watershed (USGS ~ataloging
unit 10300 l 02), which straddles the Missouri River, extending inio surrounding
counties.211 No streams or creeks in the watershed are included in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System or designated for poteniial addition to the system. None of the
17 McMilla n, Janis. Jcflcrson City Deputy Director of Community Development, Planning and Transpo11ati or..
T elephone interview, 7/2 3/04.
IK FEMA Community Flood7.one Map No. 2901080003C.
19 Luebbert, Christine. Stormwater Divi s ion , Jefferson City. Telephone interview. 7/23 /04.
211 US Environmental Protection Agency, Surf Your Watershed .
hffp:l!oasvuiJ.epa.gov/waters!l-tate re pt.col1frol ?v statc =MO
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL i\SSESS MFN r
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF .IFITERSON CITY
Ang us! II , 2004
Page 10
watershed streams and rivers are listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRl), a
listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are
believed to possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural value~
judged to be of more than local or regional significance. 21
3.3.4 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.4 Traffic
The proposed CSCJC site is located east of the intersection of Metro and Merchants Drives
in the western section of Jefferson City. Merchants Drive ends at the western boundary of
the site. The City retains the right-of way for Merchants drive to extend eastward through
the site to join Jaycee Drive. The right-of-way would be vacated prior to development of the
property. 22
Metro Drive intersects with State Highway 179 about 1/8-mile north of the site. Merchants
Drive intersects with Commerce Drive about 1/8-mile west of the site. Commerce Drive
intersects with US Highway 50, a major east-west artery, about one mile south of Mercha nts
Drive. The nearest interstate highway is 1-70, located 33 miles north of Jefferson City.
No rail or river transportation facilities are available near the CSCJC.
3.4.1 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.5 Public Health and Safety
Midstate Waste is contracted to collect and dispose of municipal solid waste in Jefferson
City. Midstate takes collected waste to the Jefferson City Landfill, which is owned and
operated by Allied Waste, and has a remaining capacity of approximately 7 years. Alli ed
Waste plans to open a new landfill when the existing one reaches capacity.23 Other area
landfills are operated by the cities of Columbia and Fulton. Solid waste generated at the
CSCJC should not significantly affect the capacity of the landfill. The CSCJC is not
expected to generate hazardous waste. No incineration or on-site treatment of wastes would
occur.
The Jefferson City Fire Department has a full-time staff of 70, providing tire-fighting and
emergency services. The nearest fire station is about one mile from the proposed site, and
water supply in the vicinity of th e site is sufticient for fire-fighting purposes. The Fire
Department is adequately equipped and trained to serve the proposed facility .24
21 Na tional Parks Service. Nationwide Rivers Inventory, Na tional Wild and Scenic Ri v ers S y ste m.
http :/!l~wlv.nps.gov/n crc/programs/rtcalnri
21 Smith. Britt. Jefferson City, Director of Streets and Parking. Telephone inter\'iew, 7/23/04.
2-' Phillips, All e n . Manager, Allied Waste -.J e fferson City Landfill. Telephone interview 8/3/04.
24 Re nnick. Robe rt . Fire Chief, Je fferson C ity Fire Depa rtment. Telephone inte rview , 7/29/04 .
NEPA ENVIRONMENT,\!. ASSI'SSM EN r
COMMUNITY S UPERVISION CENT ER OF .l f'r-FE RSC\N CITY
Au gus t l l . 2004
Pa ge I t
3.5.1 Impact Analysis
Neither altemative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.6 Socioeconomic
The hiring of five to ten new employees at the CSC.IC facility may require the relocation of
some personnel to the Jefferson City area and may create a few new jobs for area residents.
The facility can be expected to house up to 30 residents, some of whom would need to find
employment in the area.
3.6.1 Human Population
According to the 2000 US Census, fifty-six percent of the population of Cole County
resides in Jefferson City. The populations of both Jefferson City and Cole County grew
by about 12% during the decade between 1990 and 2000. This compares to a statewide
increase of 9.3%. Table 1 provides comparisons of socio-economic factors for Jefferson
City and Cole County from the 1990 and 2000 Census. The table also includes data from
the 2000 Census for both the State of Missouri and for the area within a one-mile radius
of the proposed CSCJC site. The table shows a significantly smaller percentage of
minority population in the one-mile radius than in JetTerson City as a whole, 4.0%
compared to 18.9%. Median household income is $16,000 higher in the one-mile radius
compared to Jefferson City. Retirement income in the one-mile radius is 10.5% of
aggregate income compared to 6.3% for Jefferson City.
Most economic indicators for Jefferson City and Cole County arc slightly better or
comparable to those for Missouri. The June 2004 unemployment rate in Cole County 'vas
3.1% of the labor force total of 43,374. This rate was unchanged from the 2003 average.
ln June 2004, the statewide unemployment rate was 5.4%, and the nation's
unemployment rate was 5.6%. June 2004 unemployment rates in sutTounding counties
-ranged from 2.5% in Boone County, north of Cole County, to 5.4% in Miller County,
south of Cole County.25
According to the 2000 Census, the racial minority percentage in Jefferson City was
18.9% of the total population, an increase of 7.3% since 1990. The percentage of racial
minorities in Cole County rose by 4.4% to 13.5%. Statewide, the percentage of total
population belonging to racial minorities in 2000 was 16.2%.
The percentage of Jefferson City residents living below the poverty level in 2000 was
11.5%, an increase of 1.8% from 1990. For Cole County, the percentage was 8.7% in
2000, an increase of 0. 7% from 1990. Also in 2000, the percentage of Missouri residents
living in poverty was 11.7%, and the percentage of the population within one mile of the
proposed CSCJC site that were living in poverty was 3.2%.
25 Missouri Department of Economic Development. Economic Research and lnfonnation Center.
Wl\'W.ded.state.mo.us!business/researchandplanning/indicators/ui1CIIIIJ!cun·ent-rate.shtml.
NEP t\ ENVIRONMENTAl. ASSESSMENT
COMMl:NITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF JEFFERSON CITY
August ! I, 2004
-Page 12
The median family income in Jefferson City in 2000 was $52,627, a rise of 6.5% since
I 990. This compares to $53,4 I 6 median family income in Cole County, and $46,044 in
Missouri.2(' The median family income within one mile of the CSC.IC site was $65,880.
Residents of the CSCJC would be required to accept personal responsibility in finding
and keeping employment, obtaining medical care and obtaining educational or vocational
opportunities through the Work Release Program . Top employers in the county are state
govemment, hospitals, schools, distributors of books and learning products,
manufacturers, transportation and utilities, hotels and retail sales.27
Continuing education is available through a number of schools and training centers in
Jefferson City and nearby communities. Nichols Career Center, located on Union Road
in Jefferson City, is operated as an extension of the Jefferson City Public School System.
Nichols offers programs for adults that include auto technology, electronics, computer
technology, building and construction trades, heating and air conditioning, welding, and
health-related training.28 Lincoln University, located on Chestnut Street in Jefferson City
offers Associate degrees in office management, computer science, drafting, and nursing
science.2
Q Linn State Technical College, located in Linn, Missouri, about 25 miles east of
Jefferson City, has programs in civil techpology, construction and industry-related
technology, computers, automotives. heavy equipment operations and technology,
aviation, and machine tool technology.311 Training programs are also offered by the
Columbia Career Center, located in Columbia Missouri, about 35 miles northwest of
Jefferson City.31
The Jefferson City region is served by two full-service medical centers and over two-
dozen medical, dental, and mental-health clinics
3.6.2 Environmental Justice, EO 12898
Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to idet}tify disproportionately high
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations
caused by their programs, policies, and activities . The effects to be identified include
interrelated social and economic effects.
As presented above, the population growth and economic conditions in the area are
generally ahead of state averages. The economy of the Central Region of the state, which
includes Cole and ten other counties, is, in many cases well ahead of the economy of
Missouri as a whole.32 The percentage of Jefferson City residents living in poverty was
slightly lower than the statewide percentage in 2000, while per capita income was $2000
26 Missouri Census Data Center, Demographic Profile 3 Trend Report; 2000 US Census Data . MCDC Webpagc.
27 Missouri Department of Economic Development. Central Region Industry and Employment.
httv:llwww.ded.mo.gov/re gional!central/c e/indemp details fitll.shtml
2R Nichols Career Center. http:l/www.jcps.kl2.mo.us/lts/ncc/IMPORTAN.HTM
~9 Lincoln University School of Graduate Studies and Continuing Education . www.linconu.edu/--gsc ilcontedu.htm .
.1n Linn State Technical College. http:// uww.linnstate.edul academic/division.asp
-'1 Columbia Career Center Adult Education. http://www.career-center.org!adultlcareeertech.htm
32 Central Re g ion Economic lntormat ion . Missouri Dept. of Economic Developme nt.
http://wwv.·.dcd.mo.gov/regionallce ntl ·allcelindemp details fitll.shtml
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME NT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF JEITERSOI': CITY
August 11, 2004
Pa ge 13
higher than the state average:'~ The unemployment rate for Cole County was the lowest in
the Missouri's eleven-county Central Economic Region, with the exception of
neighboring Boone County.34 Compared to Jefferson City as a whole, the area within a
one-mile radius of the CSCJC site has significantly lower percentages of the popuhtion
belonging to racial minorities.
With only 30 residents, the impact of the CSCJC facility on the unemployment
conditions, poverty rates, and racial minority population in Jefferson City and Cole
County would be negligible. The public and community facilities and services (schools,
churches, health care, fire protection, etc.) in the Jefferson City area would not be
impacted. The population of the surrounding community would not be significantly
altered by the proposed project.
3.6.3 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.7 Air Quality
Cole County, Missouri is an attaimnent area for all six criteria pollutants under the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. These pollutants include lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.3' No MDNR air quality monitors are in
operation near the CSCJC.
Particulate matter emissions may exist during construction of the CSC.IC. lf necess:.uy,
appropriate measures would be utilized during construction to reduce particulate air
emissions.
3.7.1 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environme1~1.
3.8 Noise
No excessive noise should be created from either the construction or operation of the CSCJC,
a 30-bed residential facility. For comparison, records of noise complaints were checked for
one other Missouri correctional center. No noise complaints have been received from the
community around the Potosi Correctional Center.36
3.8.1 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
33 Missouri Census Data Center, Demographic Profile 3 Trend Report; 2000 US Census Data. MCDC Wehpage.
34 Missouri Department of Economic Development. Economic Research and lnfmmation Center.
\VWw.dcd.state.mo.usllntsinesslresearchandvlanninglindicatorsl uncmplcurrent-rate.shtml.
35 Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Green Book-Nonattainment Area Map
httv:llwww.eva.gov/cbtvageslairairguanonattainment.html
36 McCondicchie, Donna. Assistant Superintendent. Potosi Correctional Center. Telephone interview .
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAl. ASS ESS~II'NT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION Cl'NTER or .IEFFI'RSON CITY
Aug:Jsl II . 2004
Page H
3.9 Public Services and Utilities I Energy Impacts
Water service to the site would be provided by Missouri-American Water Company. which
obtains water directly from the Missouri River. The water company has a storage capacity of
3.5 million gallons. The water system has an existing six-inch water main running along the
east side of Metro Drive. The system has good water quality and can easily meet the water
needs of the CSCJC.37
The CSCJC site would be served by the Jefferson City sanitary sewer system. The system
operates one wastewater treatment plant, and development of a new plant, designed to l1a.ndle
current and future growth, is currently underway. Sanitary sewers are located along the east
and south boundaries of the site :'~
Electrical power and natural gas would be supplied to the CSCJC site by Ameren UE, which
has distribution systems in place in the area.
Telephone service would be provided by Sprint.
3.9.1 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.10 Water Resources I Water Quality
The affected environment for water resources and water quality include the effects of the
project on existing water supply resources, wastewater treatment resources, and effects on the
surface water and groundwater resources in the region. The site does not fall within or affect
a sole-source aquifer recharge area as defined by the EPA.
Missouri-American Water Company supplies water to the Jefferson City area. Water is
drawn directly from the Missouri River. A six-inch water main is in place east of the site.
The operation of the CSCJC is not expected to significantly impact the capacity of the
system.)q No wells registered with MDNR Wellhead Protection Division are located on the
proposed site.40
Surficial storm water on the CSCJC site would flow south into North Branch of Wears Creek,
which runs along the southern boundary of the site. The North Branch joins with other
tributaries before joining Wears Creek approximately 2.5 miles east of the site. Wears Creek
then flows about 0.25 mile northeast before draining into the Missouri River. Wears Creek
does not appear on the EPA or MDNR Section 303(d) lists of impaired streams.
The CSCJC site is located in the Lower Missouri-Moreau Watershed (USGS cataloging tuiit
10300102), which straddles the Missouri River, extending into surrounding counties. Two
streams located in the Cole County portion of the watershed are included on the MDNR
Section 303( d) impaired waters list. The entire length of the Missouri River is impaired due
to habitat loss caused by habitat alterations. Water from the North Branch of Wears Creek
37 Evclcr, Kevin. Operations Supervisor, Missouri-American Water Company. Telephone interview, 7/27i04 .
.1K Luebbert, Christine. Stormwatcr Division, .ldfcrson City.Tclcphone interview, 7/23/04 .
.1'1 Evclcr, Kevin. Operations Supervisor, Missouri-American Water Company. Telephone intcrvil'w, 7/27/04.
40 Well Registration Records obtained from Wellhead Protection Divi3ion. t-.IDNR.
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF JEHERSON CITY
Au gus! II, 2004
Pag~ 15
eventually drains into the Missouri River, as described above. Erosion control measures
would be employed during construction of the CSCJC facility to avoid contributing to the
impairment of the Missouri River. The project will not impact an impaired segment of North
Moreau Creek, which is located at the western Cole County line and extends westward into
Moniteau County.41
The five-acre facility site would be either paved or graded and grassed, with the application
of some pesticides and herbicides for general landscaping. Best management practices for
storm water and erosion control from the Missouri Department of Design and Construction
statewide NPDES permit for ground disturbances, along with any specific measures required
by Jefferson City for erosion control, would be followed during construction of the proposed
facility.
3.10.1 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.11 Biological Resources
Evaluation ofbiological resources involves an assessment of the direct and indirect effects of
the project on the flora and fauna of the region.
The northern portion of the site was a field with sparse, scattered clusters of trees and shrubs.
The southern portion of the site was wooded and North Branch Wear Creek, an intermittent
stream, crossed the site at the southern edge of the property. Vegetation on the northern
portion of the site consisted primarily of fescue, other grass species, queen ann's lace, poison
ivy, eastern red cedar, and honey locust. Vegetation on the southern portion of the site
included cottonwood, sycamore, redbud, black walnut, elm, buckbrush, and rye. A11imal
species observed during the site visit included a few common varieties of birds. Other
species likely to exist on the site indude small mammals such as squirrels, rabbits, and field
mice; small aquatic and amphibious species such as minnows, frogs, crayfish, and
salamanders; and some snakes. In addition, larger species such as white-tailed deer may use
the site for grazing. Deer bedding areas were observed during the site visit. To the extent
possible, construction of the proposed facility would be completed in the open field,
minimizing potential impacts to the flora and fauna on the site. Construction of the proposed
facility will destroy a pottion of the existing habitat; however, the habitat was 11either unique
nor unusual, and impacts from construction of the proposed facility would create no
significant impacts.
3.11.1 Wetlands, EO 11990
Executive Order 11990 requires that a Federal agency avoid construction or management
practices that would adversely affect wetlands unless that agency finds that (I) there is no
practicable alternative, and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to the wetlands. In addition, all Federal agencies must work to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and preserve and enhance the natural
beneficial values of wetlands in the conduct of the agency's responsibilities tor:
41 E PA -Surf Your Watershed. hltp://c{pub .epa.gov!wrf!huc:.dm?huc code=/0300102
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
·coMMUNITY SUP ERVISION CENTER OF J EFFE RSON CITY
August II , 2004
Page 16
Acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities;
Providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements;
and
Conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not
limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.
ln addition, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the U.S." unless exempted or authorized by the U.S . Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Section 404 is the primary Federal statute that implements
federal regulatory policies concerning the protection of wetlands and other waters of the
U.S. as specified in various orders and regulations.
A preliminary jurisdictional wetland determination was completed on the site by Shannon
& Wilson personnel on June 29, 2004. Wetland determination was completed using the
procedures described in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Ddermination
Manual dated 1987 and subsequent guidance memorandum . Other sources of
information reviewed included aerial photography; USGS maps; national wetlands
inventory (NWI) maps; and the hydric soils list for Cole County.
No wetlands were identified on the subject site.
3.11.2 Threatened or Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires the protection of plants and animals that
arc threatened with extinction. This protection extends to the ecosystems that support an
endangered species. Federal agencies must consider the effect of their acti<.,ns on
endangered species and their habitats prior to any action.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the project proposal and determined that
no federally listed threate ned or endangered species, or designated critical habitat occurs
within the project area.42 The Missouri Department of Conservation has no known
sensitive species or communities on or near the project site. The project area occurs in a
region of karst geology, in which features such as caves, springs and sinkholes are
common. Cave fauna are influenced by water pollution and othe r changes to water
quality. 43 However, no karst features are known to exist on the subject site.
3.11.3 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.12 Cultural Resources
The Archaeolog ical Research Center of St. Louis , Inc. completed an archaeologic al survey
for the proposed project location on June 10, 2004 . The archeolog ical survey was comple ted
in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations for
implementing Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The report identified no
adverse effect and recommended project clearance. A letter dated June 25, 2004 from th e
41 Hansen, Rick L. Fi e ld Supervisor; U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Se rvice . Letter to the authors . 5 M ay 2004 .
4·' Cave, Shannon . Public Involveme nt Co ordinator, Mi ssouri Departme nt of Con servation . Le tter to the autho rs. 18
May, 2004.
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL A SS ESSMENT
COMM UNITY SUPERVISION CrNTER or JEFFERSON CITY
Aug u,;t II , 2004
Page 17
,..
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Program (SHPO Log
Number 021-C0-04) concurred with the Archaeological Research Center conr.:lusions. A
copy of the report is included in Appendix(.
3.12.1 His to ric Properties
Historic prope11ies were addressed in the Archaeological Survey completed on June 10,
2004. No historic properties were located at the site, and no adverse effects from the
project were identified.
3.12.2 Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources were addressed in the Archeological Survey completed on June
10, 2004. No archaeological resources were located on the site and no adverse effects
from the project were identified.
3.12.3 Impact Analysis
Neither alternative would create a significant impact to this environment.
3.13 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts address incremental impacts of this project in conjunction with other
past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region. No past, present or
reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified that would create a cumulative impact
from construction of the CSCJC project. The No-Action alternative may accelerate the need
for construction of additional prisons in the state.
3.14 Coordination and Permits
Selection of the site for the CSCJC and creation of the development plans \Vas a coord)nated
effort between the Missouri Department of Corrections, Jefferson City. and the Missouri
Department of Design and Construction. The only federal agency involved with this project
is the U .S. Department of Justice.
Permits required for the construction and operation of the CSCJC include various
construction and building pern1its and occupancy pennits. The City right-of-way for
Merchants Drive through the property will have to be vacated prior to developme nt of the
site.
N E PA ENVIRONMENTAL A SSESS MENT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF JEI'I'f'RSON CITY
August 11 , 20G4
Page lR
,.
3.15 Summary of Impacts
The following table summarizes the environmental resources that were evaluated above and
the impacts resulting from the alternatives considered.
Resource Alternative l:
No-Action
Geology and Soils No significant impact
Land Use No significant impact
Traffic No significant impact
Public Health and Safety No significant im_Qact
Socioeconomic No significant impact
Air Quality N~ significant impact
Noise No significant impact
Public Services and Utilities No significant impact
Water Resources/Water Quality No significant impact
Biological Resources No significant im~act ,____.
Cultural Resources No significant impact
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAI ./\SSESSMENT
COMMUNITY SUPEifVISION CENTER OF JEFFFRSON CITY
Alternative 2:
Construction of the MCS
No significant im~act
No significant impact
No significant imQact
No significant impacf
No significant imQact
No significant imQact
No significant im12act
No significant impact
No significant impact
No signifi~ant impact
No significant impact
---
--
--
-
-----~
---_=j
August 11, 2004
P;~gr 19
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1 Literature Cited
Columbia Career Center. bJ!p:l/'n'·w.career-ccnter.orgladultlcareeertech.htm
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., EDR Radius Map with Geocheck. Inquiry Number:
01183683.1 r, May 3, 2004.
Farmland Information Library. Fannland Protection Policy Act Fact Sheet.
http:/ lwww. {armlandin(o. org/fic/tas/ta{s-{vpa. h tml.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Floodzone Map No. 2901080003C.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Section 404.
Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce. http://www.jcchamber.org/ecolecodev.htm
Lincoln University. www.linconu.edu/~gsci/contedu.htm.
Linn State Technical College. http:// '.1'\'v'w.linnstate.edu/academic/division.asp
McCracken, Mary H. Structural Features of Missouri; Missouri Geological Survey & Water
Resources. RI No. 49. 1971.
Missouri Census Data Center, Demographic Profile 3 Trend Report; 2000 US Census Data.
MCDC Webpage.
Missouri Department of Corrections. http:!/www.doc.missouri.gov/division/prob/comm.htm
Missouri Department of Economic Development. Central Region Economic lnfonnation.
http://www.ded.mo.govlregional/central/ce/indemp details {ull.shtml
Missouri Department of Economic Development. Economic Research and lufonnation
Center. http :I lwww. ded.statc. mo.1tslbusi nesslresearchmldpl ann ing/i ndicatorsluneiJJ.Jl _
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Geojogic
Map of Missouri, 1979.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Wellhead Protection Division; Well Registration
Records.
National Atlas of the United States. Seismic Hazard for Missouri Map.
http: 1/nationalatlas. go vlnat las/print. dm? bgoft;"' F
National Parks Service. Nationwide Rivers Inventory, National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. http://www. nps.gov/ncrc/programslrtca/n ri.
:National Wetlands Inventory Map, Jefferson City, MO Quadrangle.
Nichols Career Center. http:l!u'Ww.jcps.kl2.mo.us/hslncc/IMPORTAN.IJTM
United States Census, 2000.
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER 01' JFI'FFRSON CITY
August II, 2004
Page 20
US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Manual, 1987.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Cole
County, Missouri. 2003.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, Section 404.
United States EPA. Surf Your Watershed; The Lower Missouri-Moreau Watershed {USGS
cataloging unit 1 OJOO 1 02). http://oaspub.epa.gov/watersl.state rept.control?p state= MQ
United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Green Book-Nonattainment Area
Map http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairquanonattainmen.html
United States Geological Survey. Topographic Map: Jefferson City-MO 7.5-Minute
Quadrangle. July 1981.
University of Missouri Agriculture Statistics Setvice. Cole County Agri-facts.
http:!! agebb. missouri. edulmass/ agri [act/Cole/index. ht1n
4.2 Persons and Agencies Consulted
Ms. Sharon Beistel, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Wellhead Protection
Division. Geological Technician.
Mr. Shannon Cave. Missouri Department of Conservation. Public Involvement Coordinator.
Mr. Keith Davis. Natural Resource Conservation Service. District Conservationist.
Mr. Kevin Eveler. Missouri-American Water Company. Operations Supervisor.
Mr. Rick L. Hansen. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish & Wildlife Service, Missouri
Ecological Services Field Office. Field Supervisor.
Ms. Christine Luebbert. Jefferson City, Missouri. Stormwater Division,
Ms. Debra Magruder. Archaeological Research Center of St. Louis. Archaeologist.
Ms. Donna McCondiechie. Potosi Correction Center. Assistant Superintendent.
Ms. Janis McMillan. Jefferson City, Missouri. Deputy Director of Community De\'elopment
(Planning and Transportation).
Mr. Mark A. Miles. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. St~te Historic Preservation
Office. Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
Ms. Kathleen A. Montalte. U.S. Environment Protection Agency. Region 7 Freedom of
Information Officer.
Mr. Allen Phillips. Allied Waste-Jefferson City Landfill. Manager.
Chief Robert Rennick, Jefferson City Fire Department. Fire Chief.
Mr. Britt Smith. Jefferson City, Missouri. Director of Streets and Parking.
--------------------------------------
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL Assrss;,tFNT August II, 2004
CoMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF .IEITERSO!\: CiTY f'age 2!
Mr. James Weber. Missouri Division of Design and Construction. Project Manager.
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMEN T
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION CENTER OF JEFF ERSON CITY
August II, 2004
!'age 22 ·-
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Mr. Russell Schwab
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63146
(314) 392-0050
Ms. Patricia A. Nichols
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63146
(314) 392-0050
Mr. Murray Meierhoff
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
St. Louis. Missouri 63146
(314) 392-0050
Mr. James Dutt
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63146
(314) 392-0050
NEPA ENVIRON M ENTAL ASSESS MFNT
COMMUNITY S UPERVISION C ENTER O f' JITF F.R ~ON C IT Y .
Aug ust II , 2004
Page 23
-----------------------------------------------------------~ . .
TABLE 1
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CENSUS DATA
I
TABLE 1
Socio-economic Census Data from 1990 and 2000*
Variable Jefferson City Cole Count'
1990 2000 %Change 1990 2000
Total Population 35,481 39,636 11.7 63,579 71,397
Race-White 88.4% 81.1% -7.3 90.8% 86.5%
Race -Minority 11.6% 18.9% 7.3 9.2% 13.5%
Institutionalized Pop. 2,692 3,999 48.5 5,040 5 ,010
Number of Households 14,275 15,870 11 .2 23,067 27,064
Median Household Income $ 36 ,004 $ 39,628 10.1 $39,612 $ 42,924
Poor Persons (4) 9.7% 11.5% 1.8 8.0% 8.7%
Civilian Labor Force (1) 62.5% 61.9% -0.7 65.2% 67.1%
Unemployed (1) 4.8% 4 .9% '0.1 4.2% 3.1%'*
Employment: (2)
M<lnufact•.;ring 3.7% 7.1% 3.4 4.5% 8.0%
Retail Trade 14.6% 9 .8% -4 .7 14.7% 9.7%
Education 8.9% 8 .6% -0.2 7.3% 7.9%
Health & Social Service 8.3% 10.8% 2.5 7.8% 10.1%
Other 64.6% 63.7% -0.9 65.7% 64.3%
Work in Cole County (3) 90.2% 91.3% 1.1 90.3% 90.5%
Income by Source:
Wage or Salary 69.8% 72.8% 3 74 .3% 75.4%
Social Security 6.4% 6 .1% -0.3 5.4% 5.1%
Public Assistance 0.4% 0 .1% -0 .2 0 .3% 0.1%
Retirement Income 4.4% 6.3% 1.9 3.7% 5 .9 %
Other 19.0% 14.7% -4.3 16.3% 13.5%
Other Income Measures:
Median Family Income $ 49.397 $. 52,627 6.5 $ 48 ,323 $ 53 ,416
Per Capita Income $ 20,484 $ 21,268 3.0 $ 18,158 $ 20.739 . ~--•• ,_--· ·-' _,.... ______ 1""'\-lo.-,..... __ ... __ ,""\ ___ g . ' ................ . -. ................. ,, ., -• ,.,, . r •
•• In June 2004. Source: Mossouri Depao1ment of Economic Development. Economic Research and Information Cen!er
(1) Percentage of persons over 16 years of age.
(2) Percentag~ of civilian iabor force .
(3) Workers 16 and over.
(4 ) Persons fer whom povertv status is determined , based on Office of Budget aOid Management definition.
Missouri Within 1·Mile of CSCJC
%Change 2000 2000 %
12.3 5,595,211 3,745 100°/c
-4.4 83.8% 3 ,545 96.0°/c
4.4 16.2% 200 4.0°/c
-0.01 1.6% 0 0 .0°1<
17 .3 2,197,214 1,662
8.4 $ 37,934 $ 56,0 19
0.7 11.7% 3 .2%
1.9 64 .8% 60.3%
-2.0 5.4%** 3 .0%
3 .5 14.8% 4 .0 %
-5 .0 11.9% 10.4%
0.6 8 .5% 9 .2%
2.3 11.9% 7 .0%
-1.4 52 .9% 69.4%
0.2 92.6%1
I
1.1 73.6% 60.9 %
-0.3 6.2% 8.9%
-0.2 0.2% 0.1%
2.2 5.3'% 10.5%
-2 .8 14.7% 19.6 %
10.5 $ 46,044 $ 65,880
14.2 $ 19,936 $ 29,446
Community Supervision Ce11ter-Jefferson City
~.
..
---------------------------·., Kii __ _,~J&I::~~ .. ..... I
·APPENDIX A
FIGURES AND MAPS
L.....---------------------------------··-----
I
I
I
~,..._-,.., -... ----·-·-~·---· -·---.. ···: -·.,...-,..=.,-,..;-,.,.,------·-·------. -: .,. . ~...,.,~=-"'" .. ------
Q)
.2!
0 .!:
<D -
OJ
-0
(ij
l>
U)
..... ~ .............................................................................. l~~)iliU?~mil
tU Z c
~· oc 0 •
:)_O
C9rc -· <( 0
u.. > :<zi w >
_J a; wg-
<.9 (/)
Z_c
0 "§
:::::! E
::J E r:n8
Q)
"0
0
~
0 75 150 300 450 600 i.•o•i.:::..-.:=:=:::::11--Feet
-r'
1'--
0
0
I co
lO
1'--
lO
"? ...-
' ...-
'<t
~
0
~
lO
w a:
::>
CJ
u::: --(/)
w a:
::>
CJ
u:::
6 z
E
<( a:
0
f(
0
0
>-f-
0
z
0
(/) a: w
lL
lL w
::J
0
(/)
0
co
l{)
1'--
l{)
0 50 100 200
Scale, in feet
~s BVFf?;
Approximate
Site f3oundary
FIGURE 5
Proposed Site Development Plans
Community Supervision Center
Q_~ :111 §a~.!~~!~~
~----------------------------------------------------------------------~
235 Metro Drive
Jefferson City, Missouri
----------
. -r
APPENDIXB
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
··---:---·--. -----:--.:-
' -r
. EPA Region 7
FOIA Home
FOIA Contacts
Submit a
FOIA Request
Reading Room
Reference Guide
Annual Reports
Reference Materials
Related Programs
EPA Resources
Related Links
. ----··¥--·····-······--..---···---·--~~--,--~...,..--.,..,.~_.;·...;;.,· ..;.;;,···.;....· _:;-~-··-·.--.·-·-··-···-····---· --·-·---·· ...... ·+_ .. _,· ... _.·--·. ·----· ----..... -··--·-·---·--
Paget of2
U.S. Environmental PtOteetlon Agency
Region 7 Freedom of Information Office
Serving Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and 9 Tribal Nations
QQD~lll P~~Q.U Search: J .. : li!J
EPA Home > Region oz > CJ!j~ > .EQ!A >FOIA Request
FOIA Request
CAUTION: Any information you submit is not secure, and could be observed by at
party.
Electronic FOIA requests should contain the following information (in order to be et
into the FOIMATS database)
Name !Patricia Nicllols
Company/Organization ll?ha~nc:>n _& ~ils~n . __ lnc
Type of Requestor I (;~mm~~i(ll . . . . ... i@
Mailing Address l~q~~-Y"~~~-of1_Center. pri~~.
City lst L~~i_s .
State IMo
ZIP Code r-~6-3-14-6-----------....,
E-mail Address jpan@shanwil.com
Phone Number 1314~392...()050
. '
Fax Number r-13-1-:-~--3-92~.~~00~5~1-_ ---------. i
Please provide the full and complete name(s) of the site(s)/facility(ies) you are inqL
about with the complete address(es).
Five -acre undeveloped site at 235 Metro Drive in Jeff erson C.
MO. 65109. Site is east of Metro Drive and straddles Mercha1
Drive . (northeast and southeast quadrants of intersection o :
Metro and Merchants Drives)
Many facilities are regulated under more than one federal environmental law (CAA
TSCA, RCRA, SUPR, FIFRA.) Please provide any information which will enable th
to perform a more comprehensive record search .
'Site is undeveloped
Select amount you are willing to re imburse the agency for fees incurred which exc1
$25.00
1$25-$50 a
You will be informed if the estimated costs will exceed this lim it.
http://www .epa.gov/region7 /citizens/foialrequest.htm 5/3/2004
L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
-.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 lQ04
JUN 0 9 2004
SHANNON & WILSON, lNC.
Pat Nichols
Shannon and Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
St. J,ouis, Missouri 6314 6
Dear Ms. Nichols:
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Number 07-RIN-00395-04
This is in response to the above-mentioned request for
information pertaining to violations of environmental laws
with respect to a "5-Acre Undeveloped Site," 235 Metro Drive,
Jefferson City, Missouri 65109.
The enclosed document represents all records known to exi.st
in the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, office as of
this date that relate to your request.
If you have any questions about this record, please contact
Lisa Haugen, RCRA Enforcement and State Programs Branch, 913-551-
7877.
Review of our CERCLIS and Incident Notification Report
database indicates no information for this address.
You may wish to contact the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources in Jefferson City and local/county health departments
for additional information.
The fees incurred in processing your request were less than
$14.00; therefore, there is no charge.
Sincer~~·~. 1rw~
Kathleen A. Montalte
Freedom of Information Officer
Enclosure
RECYCLE~
RCRARep Handler List -3 liner
ID/Location ... Nam-I Addreu .· ..
MOP0.00023168 A C I CONTRACTORS INC
MO 526 CHEYENNE DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD0298~0702 AL SCBEPPBRS MOTOR CO
MO 1722 SOUTrlRIDGE DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985811686 APACHE MUFFLER
MO 6021 HWY 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985773431 ·ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY
MO MEMORIAL AIRPORT HWY 94
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP000010520 CAPITAL QUARRIES INC
MO 2229 CHRISTY DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP000016717 CARSON PRODUCTS CO
MO JCT OF HWY 50 54 63
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000018176 CASEYS GENERAL STORE 1060
MO 6825 W HWY 50
ST MARTINS MO 65109
ZIP CODE 65109
···· ..• Cont~¢t Ii:lfo~ation
JOHN POLLITT (660)827-5955
117 E 3RD ST
SEDALIA MO 65301
ALAN WAGNER (573)636-3810
PO BOX 104223
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65110-4223
: ..
LONNIE SIMMONS (573)893-5116
6021 HWY 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
BUGENB G SANDBOTHB (573)751-9792
1717 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MIKE KUFROVICH (573)634-4800
822 W STADIUM BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
HENRY COBB {912)651-3400
PO BOX 22309
SAVANNAH GA 31403
GLENN NORGART (515)965-6238
PO BOX 3001
ANKENY IA 50021-8045
MOD008906588 CENTRAL ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE MARX NEWBOLD {314)634-2454
PO BOX 269 MO 2106 JEFFERSON ST
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP000007435 COLE COUNTY PUBLIC WORXS
MO 5055 MONTICELLO RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985808690 CULTURED MARBLE PRODUCTS
MO 5216-A BUS 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD981714777 OBLONGS INC
MO 301 DIX RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985797620 DIX ROAD CLEANERS
MO 404 DIX RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109-1455
MOD029808581 FABICK & CO
MO 2009 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
LARRY BENZ (573}636-3614
5055 MONTICELLO RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
JOSEPH WINGE JR (573)893-6601
5216 A BUS 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
ANTHONY L WILSON 5736356121 264
PO BOX 479
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
STEVB DINOLFO (573}635-2711
1009 FAIRt-10UNT BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101
NA SERVICE MGR (573}636-3184
2009 rUSSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
Page 1
••
Report nm on: May 7, 2004 7:48AM
·. Rece'ipt : Date Regulated A<eti'vities
06/25/98-Not
07/23/99-Not
08/21/86-Not
05/16/97-Not
04/14/92-Not
03/22/01-Not CG
05/22/90-Not
01/22/97-Not
11/13/97-Not
01/04/01-Not
10/08/97-Not
02/01/95-Not SG
09/04/96-Not
02/10/92-Not SG
02/06/02-BRS LG
02/18/00-Not
06/12/95-Not SG
05/14/91-Not
08/19/02-:rfot SG TR uo -----
10/06 /86-Not I
I
RCRARep Handler List -3 liner
ItJ/ Locatioo · .· Name . IA4dr.ss
MOD985773795 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
MO 606 HILDA ST
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985803287 FLORSBEIM SHOE CO
MO 312 WILSON
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
M00000331900 GENCO J:
MO 2601 INDUSTRIAL DR STE A
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000005009 J: M C PRJ:NTING CO
MO 2010 REAR MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD00650151~ IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
MO 2217 ST MARYS BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP000006536 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
MO 2704 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP000002063 JEFFERSON CITY ARMORY
MO 801 ARMORY DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109-1484
MOR000010199 JEFFERSON CITY AUTO SUPPLY
MO 704 VIRGINIA
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000505735 JEFFERSON CITY CARQUEST
MO 621 CONRAD ST
·JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD038900569 .JEFFERSON CITY MFG CO
MO 3 1723 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
ZIP CODE 65109
Cootact In.fol:Jaation .···· ·
RAY COX (573)634-4652
606 HILDA ST
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
RICX LOTT (573)334-5051
1600 SW END BLVD
CAPE GIRARDEAU MO 63703
JOHN MCVICKER (800)677-3110
100 PAPERCRAFT PK
PITTSBURGH PA 15238
GENE MBYER (573)636-2613
2010 REAR MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
GREG NYXES (573)556-2004
2217 ST MARYS BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
GARY HENLEY (573)634-1820
2211 ST .MARYS BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
RONALD BBNWARD (573)526-9011
2302 MILITIA DR
JEFFERSON .CITY MO 65101-1203
ROBERT TU~BR (573)634-2928
PO BOX 535
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101
HOWARD XUNZ (573)636-6625
621 CONRAD ST
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
KAREN ROTTBR 5736343700 217
1723 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD131588162 JOHNSON CONTROLS INC PAULA MORGRET (573)893-4443
MO 2730 W MAIN ST 2730 W MAIN ST
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109 JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD981725898 K C S ENTERPRISES INC DBA EDDIE GRI. EDDIE GRAY (573)893-5637
MO 4514 W HWY 50 4514 W HWY 50
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP000030627 K L I K RADIO STATION
MO 3605 COUNTRY CLUB DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
STEVE MORRIS (573)893-5100
3605 COUNTRY CLUB DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
Page 2
Report run on: May 7, 2004 7:48AM
Receipt. Date Regulated Ac.tiv:itiee
06/20/90-Not CG
08/09/99-Not LG
09/17/9 1 -Not
06/18/96-Not LG ... ----
05 /12/94-Not
08/ll/99-Not
11/02/95-Not
05/13/99-Not SG
09/29 /86-Not
04/U/97-Not
06/07/96-Not
08/3l/95-Not
11/06/96-Not SG
05/H/02-Not CG
11/07/03-Not CG
OS /25 /88-Not
01 /01/79-PtA
08/23/96-Not SG
06/17 /88-Not
01/11/02-Not
07 /18/88-Not
03/04/99-Not
•' .
•·
RCRARep Handler List -3 liner
.ID/Locatlon ··Name I .Address.··
MOD98581t359 K MART #7018
MO 2304 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
M00000092361 K W LUETKEMEYER PAINTING
MO 4506 HWY 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD040l23275 XNAPHEIDB TRUCX EQUIPHBNT CO
MO 6603 HWY 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000518365 LOWES HOME CENTER f1077
MO 3441 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD9858170l4 M 0 D N R EllVIR SERVICES PROGRAM
MO 2710 W MAIN
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD029809787 MCKAY MOTORS INC
MO 905 STADIUM
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985819192 MID STATE WASTE
MO 722 DIX RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD981120579 MIXE XBBOE FORD INC
MO 807 SW BLVD
ZIP CODE 65109
coptac;t .. Il;lfe>J;m&t~on : .
DENNIS LOCKWOOD (573)636-5633
2304 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MIKE LUBTXBMBYER (573)893-7196
4506 HWY 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY
RICBARD GREEN
6603 HWY SO W
JEFFERSON CITY
MO 65109
(573)893-5200
MO 65109
DAMON CHAPPELL (704) 758-6005
8015 W KENTON CIR STE 130
HUNTERSVILLE NC 28078
JAMBS H LONG (573)526-3344
PO BOX 176
JEFFERSON CITY
BRUCE MCKAY
PO BOX 104148
JEFFERSON CITY
RICX GRAHAM
PO BOX 1007
JEFFERSON CITY
VIRGIL JCREMER
807 SW BLVD
MO 65102
(573)635-7201
MO 65110-4148
(573)635-8805
MO 65102
(573) 634-4444
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109 JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
(573)751-8320 MOP00002H47 MISSOURI DEPT OP AGRICULTURE FBED I DAVID JBFPRESS
MO 115 CONSTITUTION DR PO BOX 630
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD985819499 MISSOURI DEPT OF CONSERVATION
MO 2901 W TRUYAN BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109-4999
MOD981702954 MISSOURI NATIONAL GUARD OMS #9
NO 1715 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOT300010964 MO DNR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MO 2010 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOROOOOC9803 MO ·STATE PRINTING CTR
MO 2733 HERCHANTS DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
XEITB BRAUN (573)751-9694
1717 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
LONG JIM (573)751-3241
PO BOX 1368
JEFFERSON CITY MO 651Q2
TERENCE GRONER (573)751-3307
PO BOX 809
JEFFERSON CITY t10 651 0 2
Paye 3
Report run on: May 7, 2004 7:48AM
.R.,ceipt Date Regulated ?>c.~ijrities
03/12/02-Not
06/05/92-Not
Ol/30/96-Not
12/03/93-Not
11/13/97-Not
01/30/89-Not
04/14/04-Not
08/17/92-Not
12/18/01-Not
06/17/87-Not
04/15/02-Not
01/12/93-Not
09/30/85-Not
05/24/02-Not
02/11/99-Not
07/25/96-Imp
02/10 /93-Not
09/22/86-Not
07/08/03-Not
03/:!.7 /81 -Not
12/23/99-Not
09/26/96-Not
SG
SG
SG
SG TR
CG
CG
SG
CG
SG
TR
SG
·'
I
I
!
I
-·
il il
!
~
I
RCRARep Handler List -3 liner
ID/Lo¢ation Naille f Addre~a.
MOD000610816 HODL~ HFG CO
MO 3 1502 S COUNTRY CLUB DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109-5465
M0000008213l OKLAHOMA INSTALLATION CO
MO 3600 COUNTRY CLUB DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOROOOOOS31t ONB HOUR MARTINIZING DRY CLEANERS
MO 1922 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109-4715
MOD0986fl848 PHILLIPS PIPELINE CO
MO 3 2116 IDLEWOOD RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD981698699 PORITK JEFFERSON CORP
MO 1535 FAIRGROUNDS RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000005769 PROFESSIONAL WASTE SYSTEMS INC
MO 5002 BUS 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD981717515 REAGAN HONDA
MO 3215 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOP00004l558 RICHMOND HILL BUILDING
MO 630 W MAIN
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
HOD981706874: RILEY OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC TOYOTA
MO 3205 MISSOURI BLVD
ZIP CODE 651 09
co~ta.c~ :;tnfc:i~tiqn
EDWARD L BESAW (262)636-1396
1500 DEKOVEN AVE
RACINE WI 53403
RANDY DILLMAN (918)272-1899
PO BOX 740
OWASSO OK 74055
JOHN FREDERI~ON (573)761-4687
1922 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109-4715
D 0 BAYES (573)636-4984
3B11 ADAMS BUILDING
BARTLESVILLETY OK 74004
XEVIN XOLB (573)893-2445
1535 FAIRGROUNDS RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
CARL WEBER (573)893-9190
5002 BUS 50 W
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
DANNY CRAWFORD (573)893-7676
3215 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
LONNIE THOMPSON (573)751-2283
PO BOX 809
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
DANNY ROUSH (573)893-3100
3205 MISSOURI BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109 JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000014282 SEARS ROEBOCX AND CO 2331/6850/713] XATHLEEN FLFAHERTY (847)286-7199
MO 3600 COUNTRY CLUB DR 3333 BEVERLY RD A2-238A
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOD029811197 TAMBKR BODY SHOP
MO 2421 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000505248 TAMBKE BODY SHOP
MO 3209 S TEN MILE DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR00000ll98 TANK SYSTEMS LLC
MO 617 APACHE TRAIL
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
HOFFMAN ESTATES IL 60179
JAMES TAMBKE (573)636-3254
2421 INDUSTRIAL DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
JIM TAMBKE (573)636-3254
3209 S TEN MILE DR
JEFFERSON CITY
JAY BARNHILL
MO 65109
(573)893-7601
617 APACHE TR.Z\.IL
JEFFERSON CITY t-10 65109
Pa ge 4
Report run on: May 7, 2004 7:48AM
Receipt .Date · Regu~ate~d Activj,t:i,es
02/19/02-BRS LG
07 /26 /99-Not
Ol/07/02-Not CG
11/05/93-Not
04/12/02-Not
11/27/95-Not
07/03/96-Not
08/18/80-Not
08/14/02-Not
09/04/86-Not
05/13/96-Not
CG
06/07/01-Not CG
09/24/87-Not
10/16/00-Not SG
09/26/96-Not
10/14/86-Not
08/20/01-Not
08/10/95-Not
06/07/88-Not
04/24/03-Not
02/04/02-Not
03/29/99-Not
04 /13/95-Not
CG
SG
SG
TR
TR
,,
;I~
II :
l l !
'
i
··f
t
j:
. I
i
l
I
: . .
• i
1
'::
. '
ji :
~: ,
~ r
rt
~:
i ________________________________________________ ;.
RCRARep Handler List -3 liner
IIi/ Location ·· ~~e ./ Addr~iu~
MOD043510056 UNILBVER HPC
MO 3 2900 W TRu"MAN BLVD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 651C9
MOR000007849 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
MO 714 HEISIGNER RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
MOR000010355 WBITBCO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
MO 3101 S TEN MILE DR
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
ZIP CODE 65109
Contact Information··
STBPBBN N SLAUGHTER 5738933040 2380
PO BOX 1047
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
JEFF MOORE {573)635-0547
714 HEISIGNER RD
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65109
CHARLES AMOS (816)364-3668
3812 S LEONARD
ST 'JOSEPH MO 64506-6338
Page 5
Report run on : May 7, 2004 7:48AM
.R4ilceipt Da,te Regulated Activities
02/15/02 -BRS SG
07/17/97-Not
11/19/80-PtA
06/17/96-Not CG
04/23/02-Not
11/08/96-Not
I·:;
I· .j
'I
'i
i
·I
f
!•
·-· ••.•. ,. '':"-· ............... -·--· "!" ........... :.: .. -. <.~~J • •• ~~-;.·,-:;::."'' ·:-;::.::.·-.. -·.:.:-:·.-& -•••• "
Re: Proposed Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
in Cole County, MO
REC'D MAY 0 s 2004
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has been retained by the Missouri Division of Design and Constmction
to prepare an environmental assessment for the above referenced site.. The 5-acre site is located
within a residential and commercial area, at Metro and Merchants Drives, in the northwest
portion of Jefferson City, Missouri, Township 44, Range 12, Section 3 (USGS Jefferson City,
MO Quadrangle). The site is currently undeveloped, but is under consideration for development
of a 21,000 square-foot facility, plus associated parking and landscaping, to be operated by the
Missouri Department of Corrections .
I am requesting infonnation on federally-listed plant and animal species (including species
proposed for listing and likely to be proposed in the near future), which are known to occur in the
project area. Also, please include areas in the vicinity of the project area that are listed as critical
habitat and significant natural features.
I have enclosed a USGS Topographic Map detail, an aerial photograph, and a street map all
showing the subject site. If the location of the site is unclear and/or additional information is
needed, please contact me at 800-899-8170, ext. 205.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
~41~
Patricia· A. Nichols
Geologist
PAN:RWS
2043 WESTPORT CENTER DRIVE
SAINT LOUIS. MISSOURI 631116•3564
314•392•0050 FAX 314•392•0051
"T!w l i.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the
s.ubject project proposal and detennined that no federally
hsted spcc1es or designated critical habitat occurs within
the project area; consequently this concludes section 1
consultation. Please contact the Missouri Department of
Conservation (573115i-411S) for state listed species of concern."~ ft. ..P. tSf-7... ·
~~=~~~~~·~~~~------5~e2200(~
Field Supervisor ~
41-1-35758-007
--wa::s::=z;.u .s:.s ... z:: ·'"·'·· :, ....: ........... -= .. .,.--.-r -........ ·-··......._... .. .
April 28, 2004
Mr. Shannon Cave
Missouri Department of Conservation
Resource Science Division
2901 West Truman Boulevard
PO Box 180
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180
Re: Proposed Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
in Cole County, MO
Dear Mr. Cave:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc . has been retained by the Missouri Division of Design and Construction
to prepare an environmental assessment for the above referenced site .. The 5-acre site is located
within a residential and commercial area, at Metro and Merchants Drives, in the northwest
portion of Jefferson City, Missouri, Township 44, Range 12, Section 3 (USGS Jefferson City,
MO Quadrangle). The site is currently undeveloped, but is under consideration for development
of a 21,000 square-foot facility, plus associated parking and landscaping, to be operated by the
Missouri Department of Corrections .
lam requesting information on state-listed plant and animal species (including species proposed
for listing and likely to be proposed in the near future), which are known to occur in the project
area. Also, please include areas in the vicinity of the project area that are listed as critical habitat
and significant natural features.
l have enclosed a USGS Topographic Map detail, an aerial photograph, and a street map all
showing the subject site. If the location of the site is unclear and/or additional infonnation is
needed, please contact me at 800-899-8170, ext. 205.
Sincerely,
~4~ •.
Patricia A. Nichols
Geologist
PAN:RWS
'i->"L) \.'·J[ST Pr_lf "i"l" I ~E:·JTLH Dt~\VF
:-;rdfH LOUt~>. f.1fS!~OlJRI h~ll-1G0:!5f·H
:ll-1·:1~~2·011'>') lA:' 11-1·3\12·00~11 41 -1-357 58-007
:r ·-·-·----: o .
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
May 18,2004
Ms. Patricia A . Nichols
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
H cadqu.artm-s
2901 West 1\uman Boulevard, P.O. Rox 180, .T r.fferson City, Missouri 65102-0H\0
Tr:lcphone: 573/751-4115 JJ. Missouri Rela y Center: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD)
JOI 1N D. HOSKINS, Director
RECEIVED
MAY 2 1 2004
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
St. Louis, Missouri 63146-3564
Dear Ms. Nichols:
Re: Proposed Jefferson City Community Supervision Center in Cole County, MO
Thank you for your letter of April 28, 2004, regarding species of conservation concern within the
proposed project area .
A review of our records shows that sensitive species or communities are not known to exist on
or near the above referenced site. This reflects information we currently have in our database .
Please be advised this is not a site clearance letter. Rather, this letter provides an indication
of whether or not public lands and sensitive resources are known to be (or are likely to be)
located close to the proposed project.
The project area occurs in a region of karst geology. These areas are characterized by
subterranean water movement. Features like caves, springs, and sinkholes are common. Cave
fauna are ·influenced by water pollution and other changes to water quality. Every effort should
be made to protect groundwater in the project area.
Incorporating information from our Heritage Database into project plans is an important step that
can help reduce unnecessary impacts to Missouri's sensitive natural resources. However. the
Heritage Database is only one reference that should be used to evaluate potential adverse
impacts. Other types of information, such as wetland and soils maps and on-site inspections or
surveys, should be considered. Reviewing current landscape and habitat information and
species biological characteristics would additionally ensure that species of conservation concern
are appropriately identified and addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. SinL-L
:UNNONCAVE
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR
SDC:js
STE PHEN C. BRA DFORO
Cape Ciran.leau
ANITA B. GORMAN
Kansas City
COMMISSION
CYNTli!A I\1ETCALfE
St. Louis
LOWELL i\\OHLER
Jefferson City
~-----------------------------------------------------
APPENDIXC
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
----------------------------------
V'~ f""f•rr;~~~~7''~~~~:~~~']~.·'71"fJ'f'-.;~j~~l!.._~f"Vr~:e1£t">$.:~.fiji!i•l.;iK(\!l1 Mf!¥Eii!!f!lll!i 4t \fi 6ri£!!ii!Q.,Q _i£ij; .. \$i$4 i~~~~-•
. ' !
I
I
FRCI'I : • ARC
June 25, 2004
Russell Schwab
Shannon and Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63146-3564
FAX NO. : 314 4262599 Au g~ 0 9 2004 02:47PM P2
rfJ3/
-
Re: Jefferson Cly Community SUpervision Center (USDOJ) ca. County, Missouri
Oaar Mr. Sdlwatr.
Thank you for submitting lnfonnatlon on the above raferencect project for our review purwant to Section 106 at
the National Historic Preservation Ad. (P.L 89-685, as amended} and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's regulation 36 CFR Part 800, which ~$quires identification and evaluation of cultural resources.
We have l'e\liewed the Section 106 Survey Memo entitled Cultural ResoUI'l» SUtvey of the Propossd Jefferson
City Community Supervision Clmtw, Cole Cotny, MiUcuri by the An:ttaeologfcal Research Center of St. Louis,
Inc. Based on this review it is evident that a thorough and adequate cullund resources survey has bHn
conducted of the proJect arM. We ccncur wllh the investigator's recommendatiOn that theta win be no historic
properties affected and, tharefcn, we have no Objection to the Initiation of prefect actiVIties.
Please be advised that. should proJect plans change, information doamentlng the revisionS should be
submitted to this office for further review. In the event 1hat cultural materials are encountered during project
activities, all oanstruction should be halted. and this office notified as soon as possible In order to determtna the
appropriate course of action.
If you have any questions, please write Judith Oeelat Stale Htstoric PrwerwtiOn Office, P.O. Box 178.
Jefferson Ctty, Missouri BS102 ~ ~ 5731751·7862. P~ be sure to Include tha SHPO Log Number (021-
CO~) on all future ~nd8nce or inquiries relating to this project
Sincerely,
__ STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
~~~
Mark A. Mites
Director and Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
MAM:jd
c Jayoe Saginaw, USDOJ
··Jim Weber. OA ..
\....... Joa Har~ ARC
lnufrity nntl arJlmce in all wt dtl
G
~,.....
•
SECTION 106 SURVEY MEMO
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
Historic Preservation Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176
(573) 751-7858
1) HPP 106 Project# Not Yet Assigned
Location Information and Suryey Conditions:
2) County(s): Cole County
3) Quadrangle: Jefferson City (1967) 7.5' USGS
R~BNER ____________________ __
Date SHPO Log# ___ _
_____ Accepted Rejected
SHPO USE ONLY
4) Project TypefTitle: Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
Archaeological Research Center of St. Louis. Inc .• Research Report #331
5) Funding/Permitting Federal Agency(s):~De=p~art:.!:m::.!e~nt~o~f J~u~s:l::tice~---------------------
6) Section:_,3:...._ ____ _ 7) Township:_44=N"--------8) Range:_1~2:.!.,W:__ _____ _
9) U.T.M.:_,1""5 __ ,N,.o"'rth,i"'ng..,:-"4""2.!...71"'4"'90""----'=E""'as~t!!.!inga:c.,0,56~n:..:4!!'0:..__ __________________ _
10) Project Description: Phase I archaeoloaical survey of approximately five acres for the prooosed Jefferson City Community
Suoervision Center in Jefferson Citv Missouri
11) Topography: The proposed project area is located in an urban area on a ridge slope north of an unnamed aeel< (Figure 1).
12) Solis: The soils within the proied area consist of Urban land-Freeburn complex with 0 to 3% slopes. Freeburg is verv deep.
somewhat poorly drained 1ilty alluvium. Ita surface laver Is typically 1 0 inches of a friable 1 OYR 413 brown silt loam over 5 inches
of a friable 10YR 513 brown silty loam. Subsoil can typically be found 15 to 80 Inches below surface as 10YR 4/4 dark. vellowish
brown silty clay loam (Davis).
13) Drainage: Missouri 2 Watershed of the Central Missouri Drainage Basin <Weston and Welchman 1987)
14) Land Use/Ground Cover (Including %Visibility): The proposed prolect area is bordered by Metro Drive on the west. a __ _
gravel lot on the east. and a creek on the south. The northern half of the project area is c;;overe<t by mowed and tall grass.
a!fQrdina 0 to 30% visibii!tv. The southern half is primarily covered by trees. also affording 0 to 30% visibility (Fiaure 2).
15) Survey limitations:~N:::.o!!.!n-"'e.,__ ______________________________ _
Historical Background Information:
_x_ 16) HPP-Cultural Resource Inventory
__ 17) Archaeological Survey of Missouri
_X __ 18) GIS Database
ASM lc!entif!CatiOn 1: ---------------
19) Historic Plats/Atlases/Sources:~G'-lle=xo.u.me~A~:... ::oa~l~e_,1 ... 91""4'-'C.!...F!q,.,..ure""-"'3"-l -------------------
20) Previously Reported Sites: There are four previously recorded sites within a mite of the proposed project area. See
attached (Figure 4).
21) Previous Surveys: Seven within one mile of the proposed projed area. See attached (Figure 4).
22) Regional Sources Utilized: State Historic Preservation Office. Jefferson City; Missouri Historical Societv. St. Louis
23) Master Plan Recommendation: . ...:.NA!!::...----------------------------
24) Investigation Techniques: Transects were walked at 10 meter intervals and shovel tests were excavated on a 10 meter grid.
In bare patches of the vegetation. the ground was directly observed for artifacts.
25) Time Expended: _8 __ Person Hours
26) Sites Located:...!.N~o~n~e-------------------------------
L._ _____________________________________________________ _
•.
2~Cu~~~~=·~~~--------------------------------------------------
28)CuratectAt:....:.;a.....-------------------------------
29) Collection Tectlnlquet:...:;NA=-----------------------------
30) AlU Surveyed (Acree and Square Metera):._,1.::2·a.:OOO=.;!Q=WIAI=.:.:;meten==-----------------
31) Results of Investigation and Rewmmendations:
X a) No CIMini Resources Located.
b) No National Register Eligibfe Cultural RHOUI'Ce$ Located.
c) National RegiSter Eligible Cultural Resources Located.
d} Resources May Meet Requirements For National Register Eligibility; Phase II Testing Is Recommended.
~~·-------------------------------------------------
Cultural Resource Management Contractor lnfonnation:
32) Archaeological Contractor: Archaeological Re8earch Center of St. Louta. Inc.
33)Addrea/Phone: 2812Wood!on Road St. Louil. M063111
Phone 31«26-2577 Fax 311~26-2599 Email archcen@sbcalobal.net
34) Surveyocx{a): Debrl M!!arudel" !!!d Meredith Mc!..lugttlin
35) Survey o.ta(a):..z.k!ne::a=:.a:&..,.. 2004~~----------------------------------------
36) RepOft Compiled sy: . ..!:Qeb~ra~Maol2l:i!ru-'!:dlllie~~..~~~w.Ll.ll!=h-+.....,_-_,_/ ______ 37) Date: June 10. 2004
38) Submitted By (Signature and Trtle):._,...M"--'--Lt-'~f+f..AD.-~~""~"j'----------------
39) Attact!ment Checklist: (Required)
_X __ 1) Relevant Portion of USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle Map(s) Showing Project Location and Any Recorded Sires;
_L_ 2) Project Map(s) Depleting Survey Limits and, when applicable, Approximate Site Umlts, and Concentrations of Cultural
Materials;
__ 3} Site Form(s}: One Copy of Each Fonn;
___ 4) All Relevant Project Conesponden<:e;
__x_ 5} Additional Information Sheets As Necessary.
40} Address of O«ner/lqenfJA!Jency to Whom SHPO Comment Should Be Mailed:
Shannon and Wilson. Inc
2043 Westport Center Drlye
st· Loufl. MIIIOUI! 63116-3564
41) Contact Person: . ..1Ryue!!~cc..Sdw!!~=b=:...-___________ _
42} Phone Number: 31+392-0049 X2Q6
INTRODUCTION
Representatives from Shannon & Wilson have devised plans to construct a Communjty
Supervision Center within Jefferson City, Missouri (Figure 1 ). The proposed work could result
in the inadvertent destruction of potentially significant cultural resources. In order to prevent the
potential loss of these resources, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. requested that a cultural resource study
be performed prior to construction. Among the legislation providing the legal mandates for this
study are the National Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665, amendments PL91-243, 93-
442, 94-458, and 96-665), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL91-190), and the
Executive Order 11593 of 1971. In addition, registered graves are protected by state statute
214 .131-132, and unmarked human graves and burial mounds are protected by state statute
RSMo 194.400-401 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990.
The cultural resource survey consisted of a records and literature search to identify any
previously recorded cultural resources that exist within the proposed construction area and one
mile around it. In addition, a pedestrian survey was performed on June 9, 2004.
CULTURAL SEQUENCE
Regional Prehistory
Although the area was likely inhabited during the Paleoindian Period (10,000 to 8,900
B.C.), there is little known about the early settlement patterns or subsistence strategies of this
time. This is likely the result of very few documented archaeological investigations of the
region. People were likely to have been nomadic, utilizing a wide range of resources.
1be Dalton Period (ca. 8900 to 7900 B.C.) in the central regions of Missouri represented
the transition from a wide-ranging nomadic subsistence strategy to an intensive fonn of hunting
and foraging limited to a more restricted area. The shift was perhaps precipitated by a climatic
change that, along with over-hunting by Paleoindian hunters, may have contributed to the
extinction of megafaunal species. Utilized during this period were partially fluted points, as well
as Dalton serrated points, lanceolate shaped tools, snub-nosed scrapers, ooncave base drills, and
bone tools.
During the Early Archaic Period (7900 to 6000 B.C.), groups utilized a seasonal round
within a restricted territory, occupying a variety oftopographic settiilgs. Lithics included
lanceolate projectile point types and Dalton serrated blades that lacked the distinctive flute
associated with the previous period (Chapman 1975:127-129). Sites typically are small and used
by only a few families.
In the Middle Archaic Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.), a notable shift towards a drier climate
resulted in fewer resources available in the uplands. For this reason, the focus of prehistoric
settlement shifted to the major river valleys, which offered abundant and diverse resources, as
well as terrace formations suitable for habitation.-Projectile points were becoming gradually
smaller and were commonly side-notched or comer-notched.-
=~_..,_-.. --::,.7':-.• --:-:::-=:o-:-----,:--~~-----:-------:--------------'-~...;..-__;;,~~-=·· ... -----.· --... -
During the Late Archaic Period (3000 to 600 B.C.), settlement patterns remained similar
to those of the Middle Archaic Period. Most sites were located within or near forested river
bottoms. Use of large spear points and knives continued during the first half of this period, but
smaller 'dart' forms had become popular by the end of this time. Other tools included gouges,
plummets and grooved axes. It is during this time that people began experimenting with
domesticating local plants, including sumpweed, sunflower, goosefoot, gourd, and squash. New
technologies and an expanding economy allowed people to trade exotic goods over long distance
and begin to occupy permanent settlements.
The Early Woodland Period (600 to 200 B.C.) was a continuation and refinement of the
Late Archaic cultural traits. The sites, however, are usually temporary and small and were
concentrated on the mainstems of major river ways and their tributaries, although the geographic
range of periodic hunting and gathering activities may have gone unchanged. The first
appearance of ceramics occurs during the Early Woodland Period, however, it has not been
reported in most of Missouri.
The Middle Woodland (200 B.C. to A.D. 300) development in Missouri was greatly
influenced by an interregional communication and exchange network operating along major
rivers. Centers with associated burial complexes were established throughout the Mississippi
and Ohio River valleys. Mounds and ritual centers are typically located at approximately 1 0-mile
intervals on major flood plains. Each is associated with a large bluff-base village having an
adjacent bluff-top cemetery. Contact with these centers brought exotic goods such as pottery,
• projectile points, and raw materials such as hematite and chert.
Rapid regional changes, as well as a reduction in decorated pottery and exotic goods,
marked the beginning of the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 300 to 1000). Mounds continued to be
built, although much smaller in size. Settlements were more dispersed than in the previous
period and were located in a variety of topographic zones, although the majority of these sites
continued to be along major waterways, on river terraces, or on bluff margins when no terrace
fonnations were present. Subsistence strategies were localized and dependent on a wide array of
cultivated starchy seeds (may grass, knotweed, chenopod, and little barley).
During the Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000 to 1300), a hierarchy of settlements
developed, ranging from isolated farmsteads to large civic and ceremonial centers. Larger
settlements, primarily located along the Missouri River, were highly organized and often _
contained a number of different mound types. They probably served as redistribution points, as
well as civic and ceremonial centers. Maize became a part of the diet, although native starchy
seed crops continued to be the primary food sources. Pottery used during this period was often
shell tempered~ small triangular points were utilized, some with side and basal notches.
For various reasons, these large centers began to disintegrate aroood A.D. 1300-1400, and
the large scale trade network in exotic goods appear to have decreased in scale or stopped
altogether. The major influence ofthe Mississippian culture appears to have shifted south.
Groups in this area reverted to a lifestyle similar to that practiced during the Late Woodland
Period, with people living in smaller villages and becoming more localized. Moffat (1985) and
-·--
l
•
·-· --·· ~·. --.. _____ .__.._-..... _·,;-:.-·:· .. : . ..: .. :.·
Woods (1986) found in western Illinois and presumably in eastern Missouri that groups moved
away from the urban centers and up the major stream valleys near the end of the Mississippian
Period, establishing smaller communities in a variety of topographic and environmental settings.
Some groups continued to rely on agriculture for subsistence, while others returned to a
hunting/gathering lifestyle. Central Missouri appears to have had a fairly low population level
during this time.
Local History
At the time of European exploration, the Osage and Missouri tribes were found to be
inhabiting portions of western Missouri. By the start of the 1700s, European traders were
venturing up to the Missouri River to trade with the indigenous people of the area In 1714, the
French-Canadian Etienne de Bourgmond was documented trading with both the Osage and
Missouri near the present-day site ofVan Meter State Park in Saline County (Parrish et. al. 1992:
12). Disease and attacks by the Sauk would later decimate the Missouri who eventually joined .
with allied tribes such as the Otoes in Kansas (Panish et. al. 1992: 12). The Osage initially
profited from this new trade and expanded there hunting territory to include much of the present
day state of Missouri and portions of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Yet, continued pressures
by the influx of American settlers and the growing influence of the U.S. govenunent in the area,
during the early 1800's, resulted in the Osage being forced to relinquish their lands in Missouri
for lands in Oklahoma (Parrish et. al. 1992: 12).
By 1811, there were European settlements along the Missouri River at Femme Osage. La
Charette, !..outre Island, Cote sans Dessein and Boonstick (Foley 1989: 187). Prior to the War of
1812, Boonslick was the westernmost settlement (Foley 1989: 187). Around 1816, only a few
families, having moved from Tennessee and Kentucky, lived in the present boundaries of Cole
County. Originally, Cole County was part of St. Louis County in 1812, then Howard County in
1815, and it was separated from Cooper County in 1818 (Historical Records Survey et. al .
1938:4). Cole County was named for Captain Stephen Cole, an early Missouri pioneer who
founded Cole's Fort, a stronghold erected near Booneville for the protection of pioneers and their
families (Historical Records Survey ct. al. 1938:3).
With the move towards admitting Missouri as a state underway, the first General
Assembly convened on September 18, 1820 in St. Louis and appointed a commission to decide
the location of the state capital (Primm 1990: 120; Parrish et. al. 1992:56). Two years later, the
legislature designated and Governor McNair approved a site on the south bank of the Missouri
River twelve miles west of the mouth of the Osage River as a permanent capital named the "City
of Jefferson" (Primm 1990:120-121). When Missouri was admitted into the Union in 1821, the
future Jefferson City was known as Lohman's Landing and was little more than a trading post
located in the wilderness consisting of a dramshop, foundry and a mission (WPA 1998: 2 26; City
of Jefferson City Clerk: n.d.). Soon after, the capital commissioners laid out a plan for a town of
at least 1,000 lots (Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce 1936: 1 ). According to the Cole
County Missouri State Government Page,
... Daniel M . Boone, son of the famous pioneer and Major Elias Bancroft laid off into lots
under the superintendence of the commissioners in 1822. Boone was paid the sum of
L-..------------------------------------·-··-·-····
-------~--·~-~-----~----------~-----------------------------------------------------
• $4.00 for 120 days of work. The first sale of lots took place in May, 1823, under the
supervision of the State. The average price paid was $32.75. The streets were planned on
a scale which, if followed in later years, would have gone far to alleviate any traffic
problems. They were described as "not more than 120 feet wide or less than 80 feet".
(n.d.)
In 1826, the seat of government of the state was moved from its temporary location in St.
Charles to its new site in Jefferson City. On October 191 of that same year, the first Capitol
building was completed, serving as the executive, legislative and judicial headquarters of the
state (Cole County Missouri State Government Page n.d.) Later in 1837, the Capitol building
burned down in a fire, only to have a new Capitol building begun in 1838 (Jefferson City
Chamber of Commerce 1936: 2). The following year the site was incorporated as a city and
county seat of Cole County.
Although there was a steady flow of Gennan and other immigrants into the area between
1830 and 1860, the city continued to grow slowly, reaching a population of only 3,000 by 1860
(Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce 1936: 1 ). The city was more accessible with the growth
of the steamboat industry on the Missouri River and the expansion of the railroads. In 1849,
cholera reached the city when the Mormon vessel Monroe stopped and discharged its passengers,
sixty-three of which died (WP A 1998:227). For the next two years, cholera devastated the
countryside and paralyzed commerce (WPA 1998:227).
During the Civil War, Jefferson City was divided like the rest of Missouri. On June 13,
1861, the pro-Confederate government evacuated Jefferson City moving to what they believed
was a more defensible position at Boonville {Parrish 1973: 23). Finding the capital deserted, the
Union, under General Lyon, occupied the town for the rest of the war. Recovery from the war
was slow in Cole County until the constitution of 187 5 restored general peace of mind (WP A
1998: 228).
In the following 40 years after the Civil War, the rapid development of the railroad,
machinery, and commerce contributed to the rapid growth of urban centers (Jefferson City
Chamber of Commerce 1936: 1 ). During this time period, electric lights and a waterworks
system were completed in Jefferson City. In the 1890's, Jefferson City's population increased
from 6,732 to 9,664 and could boast five shoe factories, brickyards, flour mills, an overall factory
and five banks (Christensen and Kremer 1997: 93). Additionally, out of necessity, the capitol
building was expanded with the addition of two new wings in 1887 (Jefferson City Chamber of
Commerce 1936: 2).
Around the tum of the century, Jefferson City's growth slowed down, with the town
mainly relying on govenunent expansion for its growth. In 1911, the Capitol building was hit by
lightening and once again destroyed by fire (Historical Records Survey 1938: 6). During this
time and ever since the city was established, a constant fight was carried on by many of the
communities in central Missouri to remove the Capital to their location. This issue was finally
settled when the people voted on a statewide bond issue in 1911 to replace the capitol building.
• A. new capitol building was completed in 1917 at a cost of$4,215,000, forever establishing
Jefferson City as the capital of the state (WPA 1998:228).
The proposed Community Supervision Center is situated on the southwestern portion of
Jefferson City. The earliest available Cole County plat map by Ogle (1914) shows the land
owned by J. H.Gibler (Figure 3). Joseph Gibler served as the superintendent ofthe Cole County
Poor Fann. The 1 00.25 acre tract is bisected by the Missouri Pacific Railroad. A single
residence is shown on the property in 1914, but existed out'iide the proposed development area.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
There are four previously recorded sites and seven previous surveys within a mile of the
proposed project area (Figure 4). Survey CO-O 19 was an archaeological and architectural
investigation performed in November 1981 by the Environmental Research Center. The project
area was located in a field with a long history of agricultural use and it was determined that no
historically significant buildings or districts would have been disturbed. "The pedestrian survey is
stated to have "recovered a few scattered waste flakes which exhibited no spatial context
(Sturdevant 1981a: 25)"and investigators recommended that the project proceed without further
testing.
A Phase l archaeological survey and Phase II testing, C0-022, was performed in April
1985 by the Environmental Research Center. One site (23C0319} was foWJd during the survey
and was the subject of the Phase II testing. Testing revealed Late Archaic biface fragments,
points, and utilized flakes, along with one Middle Archaic point fragment. Four rock clusters
were initially thought to be features, but determined otherwise due to their location in the
plowzone. Sterile soil was said to be "hit at around 30 em below surface" (Sturdevant 1984: 1)
Although no features were confirmed, it was suggested that the 4,500 square meter site "be
considered a Late Archaic site wi.th possible Middle Archaic minor occupation" (Sturdevant
1985: 23). lt was concluded that due to disturbance of the agricultural property, further testing of
the site would not have offered any further cultural information.
In December 1995, the Cultural Resources Unit of the Missouri Highway and
Transportation Department (MHTD) performed a Phase I archaeological survey and Phase II
testing of sites 23C0506 and 23C0514 (Survey C0-048). Fifteen previously unrecorded and
three previously recorded sites were found within the survey area, none falling within one mile of
the proposed Jefferson City Community Supervision Center. Sites found during the survey
include 23C0504, 505, 506, 507, 509, 510,511,512,513,514, 515, 516, 517,518, and 519.
The initial survey involved two routes known a<; the Green route and the Red route. After
selecting the Red route as the preferred alternative, Phase II testing was performed on sites
23C0506 and 23C0514, which revealed the sites to be ineligible for the NRHP. Fifty three
architectural properties were assessed for NRHP eligibility by MHTD. Thirteen were found to be
older than fifty years, but the only two considered eligible for the NRHP were not to be effected
by the chosen route. None ofthe NRHP eligible properties were within a mile of the proposed
Jefferson City Community Supervision Center project area.
• Survey C0-056 was an archaeological and architectural investigation performed by the
Environmental Research Center in November 1981. During the survey, site 23C0316 was
identified as a lithic scatter covering a 300 square meter area. After analysis, the artifacts were
defined as lithic shatter, flakes, a biface fragment, and utilized flakes. The investigator suggested
that the site either be avoided or tested. The records and literature search and field survey did not
reveal any historically significant architecture within the project area. (Sturdevant 1981b)
In July 2000, the Archaeological Research Center of St. Louis conducted an
archaeological and architectural survey, C0-064, for a proposed tower tract north of Highway
179 (Hill 2000). The archival search and archaeological survey indicated that no significant
archaeological resources exist within the tower tract. All of the buildings within the tower view
shed were either less than fifty years old or unexceptional examples and were not considered
eligible for the NRHP. Project clearance was recommended.
Survey C0-073 was an architectural evaluation and archaeological survey performed by
Markman and Associates, lnc. in July 2001. The forty acre tract was developed and disturbed ,
revealing no archaeological sites. It was also determined that architectural properties within the
surveyed area were not eligible for the NRHP. (Eaton 2001)
An architectural survey for a proposed cellular tower (C0-087) was conducted by SCI
Engineering, lnc in January 2002. Three commercial/industrial buildings were determined to be
over fifty years, but none were considered to be historically significant. Project clearance was
recommended. (Ott 2002)
Two archaeological sites, not associated with any prior survey, were recorded within a
mile of the proposed project area Site 23C0152 was listed as a campsite by Ronald Arney. Site
23CO 159 was listed as an undisturbed, unidentified mound in December 1975 by K.C. Colgan.
Colgan stated that the "mound is approx 4 feet above surface at this date and was approx 6 feet
high in 1955. The reduction in height [is] due to lawn mowing and scalping" (Colgan 1975: 1).
No further information was supplied for these two sites.
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
The proposed project area is located in an urban/industrial area on a slope north of an
unnamed creek (Figure 1 ). The 12,000 square meter project area is comprised of mowed grass
and tall weeds along the northern slope and tall weeds and trees on the southern flat land. The
site is bordered by Metro Drive to the west, a gravel lot to the east, and an wmamed creek to the
south (Figure 2). Visibility ranged from 0 to 30% and the soil was not intact in most areas.
Shovel test were dug in ten meter intervals and the ground was observed for artifacts in areas
with 30% visibility. Sample shovel test were dug in the areas with 30% visibility in order to
confirm soil disturbance. No artifacts were found. Shovel tests revealed that the soils were
disturbed throughout the proposed project area. The northern portion of the project area is sloped
and has a range from 5-10 centimeters of 1 OYR 4/3 brown silt loam over 1 OYR 4/4 dark
yellowish brown silty clay loam. The southern portion has a high concentration of gravel
I
I
L-------------------------------------------·---
.---------~------------------~----------------~------------~--~-----
• mixed with lOYR 4/3 brown silt loam, probably due to an old overgrown road bisecting the
project area from the east to the west.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The archaeological survey did not yield any artifacts and the area has been disturbed by
commercial/industrial use. Project clearance is recommended. However, because cultural
resources could exist near the unnamed creek, it is recommended that construction activities be
confined to the area surveyed. If construction plans change, a determination should be made
regarding additional fieldwork.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anglen, A. Aaron et al
1995 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Route 179 Corridor, Cole County,
Missouri and Phase II Testing of Sites 23C0506 and 23C0514. Cultural Resources Unit
of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department.
Arney, Ronald
n.d. Site form 23C0152 on file at the State Historic Preservation Office.
Chapman, Carl H.
1975 Archaeology of Missouri. Volume 1. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
Christensen, Lawrence 0. And Gary R Kremer
1997 A History of Missouri: Volume IV, 1875-1919. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
City of Jefferson City Clerk
n.d. Jefferson City Visitor's Guide: Historic Jefferson City. www.jeffcity.com. 6/8/04.
Cole County Missouri State Government Page
n.d. Cole County History. www.colecounty .org. 6/8/04.
Colgan, K .C.
1975 Site form 23C0159 on file at the State Historic Preservation Office.
Davis, K.O.
2003 Soil Survey of Cole County, Missouri. USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC.
www.soils.missouri.edu
DeLorme
1999 DeLorme 3-D TopoQuads for Windows 95198
-------------
• Eaton, Melissa A .
2001 Central Office Complex, Jefferson City, Cole County, Missouri: A Phase I Cultural
Resource Survey and Assessment. Markman and Associates, Inc.
Foley, William E.
1989 The Genesis of Missouri: From Wilderness to Statehood. University of Missouri Press,
Columbia .
Hill, Mike
2000 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Memorial Park Tower Tract.
Archaeological Research Center of St. Louis.
Historical Records Survey, Division ofWomen's and Professional Projects and the WPA
1938 Inventory of the County Archives of Missouri, No. 26. Historical records Survey, St.
Louis.
Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce
1936 Progressive Jefferson City: A Capital City. Jefferson City Camber of Commerce,
Jefferson City.
Meinkoth, Michael C.
2000 The Latewood Period in Northeast Missouri. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and
Transfonnation across the Midcontinent. Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and
Andrew Fortier, editors. pp. 241-262. University ofNebraska Press, Lincoln.
Moffat, Charles R.
1985 The Mississippian Occupation ofthe Upper Kaskaskia Valley: Problems in Culture,
History and Economic Orientation. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, University of Illinois-Carbondale.
Ogle, George A.
1914 Standard Atlas ofCole County. Chicago.
Ott, Leonard C.
2002 Cole Junction-5283. SCI Engineering, Inc.
Parrish, William E.
1973 A History of Missouri: Volume Ill, 1860-1875. University of Missouri Press, Cohtmbia.
Parrish, William E., Charles T. Jones, Jr. and Lawrence 0. Christensen
1992 Missouri: The Heart of the Nation. 2nd Edition Harlan Davidson, Inc., Arlington Heights,
Illinois.
-----------------------l
Primm, James Neal
1990 Lion of the Valley: St. Louis, Missouri. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado.
Sturdevant, Craig
1981a An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed City of Jefferson, Cole Junction
Sewer Project, Cole County, Missouri. Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc.
1981 b An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed North Ten Mile Drive F. A. U.
Project Cole County, Missouri. Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc.
1984 Site form 23C0319 on file at the State Historic Preservation Office.
1985 Cultural Resource Survey, Railsback Property Development Project and Phase II Testing
Prehistoric Archaeology Site 23C0319, Cole County, Missouri. Environmental Research
Center of Missouri, Inc.
Weston, Donald E. and MichaelS. Weichman
1987 Master Planfor Archaeological Resource Protection in ML5souri. Missouri Department
ofNatural Resources, Historic Preservation Program, Jefferson City.
Woods, William I.
1986 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence in the Upland Cahokia Creek Drainage.
Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
WPA
1998 Missouri: The WP A Guide to the "Show Me" State. Missouri Historical Society Press, St.
Louis.
Young, R. E.
1997 Pioneers of High, Water and Main: Reflections of Jefferson City. Twelfth State, Jefferson
City.
.,..--..
Figure 1: Location of the Proposed
Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
•·"' 2fHU Ucl.anneo .. Xl'-htplf). Dafa enp)'rlabt ol"contcttt •waer ..
Zn••m l .e,·et: 13..0 Datum~ N ... ~D~'7
7.5 USGS)
.. ;IUS
t"-:z.,ooo n
r~'"=-=':j · -~p;.;:.·:~.lior · ·.;.;,
,. ,.. --.. t1IO
. ..
RE
r·.
.I
•. --...
Figure 2: Sketch Map of the Proposed
Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
****** 300/o Visibility
******
******
00/o Visibility
TaU Weeds
0%
Visibility
Tall Weeds
Gravel Lot
••.•..•.•.••••.......................
t
Not to scale
*Trees
J2C .e.: /
.,
~·
,q.;
•I ,:
.L
Figure 3: 1914 Standard Atlas of Cole County, Missouri
(George A. Ogle and Co.)
.'C ·:.
• .. =t-·'c:• ,._ .... ,._,,.,
t·•., ~~-:··(.'.:-(:;~
-·--· .. ·-------·--------------------------
Figure 4: Previous Investigations for the Proposed
Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
C :%0Cil bel.orme. XJ\.tape .. Dala c:opyl"'ltchl of'~onte.nt own~r. ;r.-,,. J.ev~h Hl..fl P•tam: NAD27
7.5 USGS)
. .'·l~$
r
'.R E
APPENDIXD
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMP ACT RATING
FORM AD 1006
July 14, 2004
Mr. Gary Van de V clde
Natural Resources Conservation Service
1911 Bogg's Creek Road
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Re: Proposed Jefferson City Community Supervision Center
in Cole County, MO
Dear Mr. Van de V elde:
----·-------------------------··-
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has been retained by the Missouri Division of Design and Construction
to prepare an environmental assessment for the above referenced site .. The 5-acre site is located
within a residential and commercial area, at Metro and Merchants Drives, in the northwest
portion of Jefferson City, Missouri, Township 44, Range 12, Section 3 (USGS Jefferson City,
MO Quadrangle). The site is currently undeveloped, but is under consideration for development
of a 21,000 square-foot facility, plus associated parking and landscaping, to be operated by the
Missouri Department of Corrections.
I am sending Fonn AD1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, which has three sections
(Parts ll, IV, and V) that must be completed by the local NRCS field office. TI1e back of the
form contains instructions for filling out the form. I am hoping you can return the form fairly
soon.
I have enclosed a USGS Topographic Map detail and a street map showing the subject site. If
the location of the site is unclear and/or additional information is needed, please contact me at
800-899-8170, ext. 205.
Sincerely,
~{ 0-~ & W~ON, INC. -~ OJ
!d~~ /-1-. ;~JJ
atricia A. Nichols
Geologist
PAN:RWS
2 043 WESTPORT CENTER ORIVE
:5 /\INT LOUIS. MISSOUf{l 63146•3564
114 <192·0050 FAX :114·392·0051 41-J-35758-007
·-·--------.--
•, United States Department of Agriculture
A N RCS Natural Resources ~ Conservation Service
Area Office, 1911 Boggs Creek Road, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
July 19,2004
Ms. Patricia A. Nichols
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
2043 Westport Center Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63146-3564
Dear Ms. Nichols,
USDA --
Phone: 573 761-3105 Ext. 5
I am returning the AD-1 006 fonn you sent me regarding an evaluation of a 5 acre si tc at Metro and
Merchants Drives, in the northwest portion of Jefferson City, T. 44 N., Range 12. W. Section 3. Since
this site is within the city limits, FPP A does not apply.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Keith Davis
Area Resource Soil Scientist
Cc: Gary VanDeVelde, District Conservationist, Jefferson City
The Natural Resources Conservation Service wnr1<s in partnership with the American people
to conserve and sustain natural resources on private lands.
RECEIVED
J u L 2 n ;n11,,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
An Equal Opportunity Employt>r
.?.:
4 U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Fed6ral Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 7/14104
Name or ProJect Jefferson City Community Release Center Federal Agency Involved US Dept. of Justice
Proposed Land Use Correctional Facility County And State Cole County, Missouri
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Re~,..,~~ 4 R:./~ ~¥,_;.
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes~ ·No Acres Irrigated ·1 Average Fann Size
{If no, the FPPA does not apply -do not complete additional parts of this form). o .tX,
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount or Farmland As Defined In FPPA
Acres: .. % Acres: %
Name or Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Retumod By NRCS
PART Ill (To be completed by Federal Agency) A!t~ative Site Rating
Site A SiteB SlteC SiteD
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 5.0 -
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV (To be c:ompleted by NRCS) land Evaluation Information --·---A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland .
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted ·-D. Percentage or Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 0 ~ 0 0 Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum tJ/11 Site Assessment Criteria (These crlterta ore explained In 7 CFR 658.5(b} Points -
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed ·--
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government -
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average --
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10 . On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use --
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 ~ 0 0 0 -
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) -
-Relative Value Of F~rmland (From Part V) 100 p 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment) 160 0 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 21ines) 260 lo 0 -0 0
l Date Of Sel~ction Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Yes [j No [J
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Fonn AD-1006 (10-83)
Thlo !Ofll'l W8S eledronlcaVy produced by National Production Services Slaft
,---....__,....~,...,...,...,---'"=---~-'=""·~· -==----...,.--=-:~ .. ~~--.,.__-__,..____,.,....,.~-~-----------------------
'----------
APPENDIXE
PHOTOGRAPHS
----------
Photo 1
Photo 2
.•. -·-·--·-·-· .... :--•· ... .-. • -.•.. -'"·~="'::-··: ·.• .-·-·· .• ·--·~·
141-1 -35758-00 7\004\IMG _042fi .JPG
View of the northwestern portion of the the subject site . View is to the south along
Metro Drive .
14 1-1 -35758-0071004 \IMG _ 0420 .JPG
Overview of northeastern portion of the subject site a s see n from the northern
prope rty boundary.
Photographs
Photo 3
Photo 4
~· -·------r-·· .... -ll -
View of the subject site as seen from the intersection of Metro and Merchants Drives.
View is to the east, showing vegetation in the central portion of the s ubject s ite .
14 i ·1 ·35756·007\00l',I MG_O~OO JFG
Looking east from within t~e wooded southern portion of the site.
P h.oto. raphs
Photo 5
Photo 6
View to the west along utility corridor at the southern property boundary.
141·1 ·35 7511-007\004 YMG _ 0406.JPG
View of intermittent stream located along the southern boundary of the site, as seen
from the southwest corner of the property.
Photographs
• •
•
Photo 7 View of Ameren UE property located east of the subject property.
141·1 -35751Hl07\004UMG_0416 .JPG
Photo 8 View of Ameren UE property located east of the subject property.
t;,"l ..
·,t.·~
.,. "\."'fl •• .--
I
Photo 9 . i View to the west along the northern property boundary. The subject property is to the
left of the paved area . The building at right is an office building .
~.1:1·'!j.._
.~~
-~ ... 141·1_-35758-007'004UMG_0425.JPG
Photo 10 View of property located west across M~tro Drive as seen from the northwest corner
of the subject site.
.I
I
I
.I
I
Photo 11 View of Merchants Drive (at left} and Metro Drive (foreground} as seen from the
western boundary of the subject site.
141·1·35758-0071004UMG_0432.JPG
*~:·~{
-~-.· "7mnmmta ·~;j~-~.,,__~~
Photo 12 View of building occupied by Tupperware, located adjacent to the southwest portion
of the subject site, as seen from intersection of Metro and Merchants Drives.
-Photogra hs