DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 107 415 RC 008 543

AUTHOR Kendrick, Elise F., Ed.; And OthersTITLE 1974 Annual Report of the Appalachian Regional

Commission.INSTITUTION Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, D.C.PUB DATE 31 Dec 74NOTE 131p1; For related documents, see ED 093 512

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$6.97 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Annual Reports; Child Development; *Developmental

Programs; *Economic Development; Education;Employment Trends; Federal State Relationship;Financial Support; Health; Housing; Human Services;Income; Natural Resources; Planning; *PopulationTrends; Public Facilities; Research; *Rural Areas;Tables (Data); Transportation

IDENTIFIERS *Appalachia; Appalachian Regional Commission

ABSTRACTCreated via the Regional Development Act of 1965, the

Appalachian Regional Commission documents its contributions toAppalachian socioeconomic development in this 1974 annual report.General areas of concern are identified as: (1) extension of publicservices to outlying areas; (2) improvement of public service qualityand quantity; (3) promotion of responsible energy development; and(4) extension of local developmental responsibilities. Detailed dataare provided for the following specific areas of concern: The Regionand the Appalachian Experiment; The Federal-State-Local Partnership;The New Subregions; Population, Income, and Employment; Finances;Transportation; Supplemental Grants; Health; Child Development;Ed117:ation; Community Facilities and Housing; Energy, Environment, andNatural Resources; and Research and Planning. Among some of the morenoteworthy accomplishments cited for 1974 are: a shift fromoutmigration to inmigration; completion of 150 corridor miles ofhighway construction; acquisition of funding for comprehensive healthservices in 389 counties; operation of 233 child development projectsand vocational education facilities with a capacity for 310,000students; and appropriation of $37,000,000 for supplemental grants tovocational education schools, sewage treatment plants, colleges,libraries, ant. other public facilities. (JC)

AIW

ED

ITO

RIA

L ST

AFF

Elise F. K

endrick, editor -Judith F. M

aher, technical editorM

ercy H. C

oogan, writer

AR

TIST

Johan G. M

icidelthon

1974 AN

NU

AL

:RE

POR

T O

FT

HE

APPA

LA

CH

IAN

RE

GIO

NA

L C

OM

MISSIO

N

vs

I lifitic

.lV

ashingirm, 1).C

. 2023.1

TH

E A

PPAL

AC

HIA

N R

EG

ION

AL

CO

MM

ISSION

'1666 C

ON

NE

CT

ICU

T A

VE

NU

EW

ASH

ING

TO

N, D

.C. 20235

Decem

ber 31, 1974

The President

The W

hite House

Washington, D

.C.

Dear M

r. President:

Pursuant to Section 304 of the Appalachian R

egional DevelO

pment A

ct of 1965,w

e respectfully submit to you, for transm

ittal to the Congress, a report on the

activities carried out under this Act during Fiscal Y

ear 1974.

The report outlines the w

ork of the Appalachian R

egional Com

mission w

ith thethirteen states that m

ake up the Appalachian R

egion.

Respectfully yours,

-7>..40e

DO

NA

LD

W. W

HIT

EH

EA

DFederal C

ochairman

CO

GE

OR

GE

C. W

AL

LA

CE

Governor of A

labama

States' Cochairm

an

11

APPA

LA

CH

IAN

RE

GIO

NA

L C

OM

MISSIO

NJune 30, 1974

FED

ER

AL

CO

CH

AIR

MA

ND

onald W. W

hitehead

AL

TE

RN

AT

E FE

DE

RA

LC

OC

HA

IRM

AN

,

Orville H

. Lerch

'

STA

TE

S' CO

CH

AIR

MA

N'

Gov. John C

. West

STA

TE

S' RE

GIO

NA

LR

EPR

ESE

NT

AT

IVE

John D. W

hisman

ASSIST

AN

T ST

AT

ES'

RE

GIO

NA

L R

EPR

ESE

NT

AT

IVE

Richard M

. Hausler

STA

TE

ME

MB

ER

S AN

D ST

AT

E R

EPR

ESE

NT

AT

IVE

S

AL

AB

AM

AM

AR

YL

AN

DN

OR

TH

CA

RO

LIN

ASO

UT

H C

AR

OL

INA

Gov. G

eorge C. W

allaceG

ov. Marvin M

andelG

ov. James E

. Holshouser, Jr.

Gov. John C

. West

R.C

. (Red) B

amberg

William

A. Pate

Ron Ingle

James M

. Whitm

ire, Jr.

GE

OR

GIA

MISSISSIPPI

OH

IOT

EN

NE

SSEE

Gov. Jim

my C

arterG

oY. W

illiam L

. Waller

Gov. John J. G

illiganG

ov. Winfield D

unnJam

es T. M

cIntyre, Jr.Z

ack Stewart

Dr. D

avid C. Sw

eetD

r. Pat Choate

KE

NT

UC

KY

NE

W Y

OR

KPE

NN

SYL

VA

NIA

VIR

GIN

IAG

ov. Wendell H

. FordG

ov. Malcolm

Wilson

Gov. M

ilton J. ShappG

ov. Mills E

. Godw

inD

r. Charles F. H

aywood

Richard A

. Wiebe

A. E

dward Sim

onL

ynn H. C

urrey

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

Gov. A

rch A. M

oore, Jr.R

ichard D. Frum

EX

EC

UT

IVE

DIR

EC

TO

RD

EPU

TY

EX

EC

UT

IVE

DIR

EC

TO

RG

EN

ER

AL

CO

UN

SEL

Harry T

eter, Jr.Francis E

. Moravitz

Robert M

cCloskey

'John J. Gilligan. G

in ernor of Ohio. coned as S

ues Cochairm

an ft mn loly

1 untilD

IA oldie) 31. 1973

Table of C

onte' As

1. The A

ppalachian Program and Its A

ccomplishm

entsin 1974

1

2. The R

egion and the Appalachian E

xperiment

4

3. The Federal-State-L

ocal Partnership8

4. The N

ew Subregions

11

5.Population, Incom

e and Em

ployment

14

6.Finances

27

7. Transportation

33

8.Supplem

ental Grants

40O

9.H

ealth43

O

10.C

hild Developm

ent47

11.E

ducation49

12. Com

munity Facilities and H

ousing53

13. Environm

ent, Energy and

Natural R

esources56

14. Research and Planning

61

Appendix A

(Fiscal Year 1974 Projects)

65

Appendix B

(Local D

evelopment

Districts)

119

1.,;),.,INof C

ongress Catalogue (

d Num

bet 613.61155

iii

Cover photograph by K

enneth Murray

.-rIra.

ai

I

4'.)-t

The A

ppalachianProgram

andIts

Accom

plishments

in 1974

he Appalachian R

egional Com

mis-

sion is nearing the end of its first decade.T

he time is appropriate for taking stock

of a unique experiment. T

hrough theC

omm

ission's development program

, thepeople of A

ppalachia and their local, stateand federal governm

ents have undertakenan unprecedented cooperative effort tobilild a better future for a rem

arkable areaof the nation

part of its heart, part ofits spine. For that is A

ppalachia, a vastm

ountainous region that comprises all of

West V

irginia and portions of 12 otherstates

Alabam

a, Georgia, K

entucky,M

aryland, Mississippi, N

ew Y

ork, North

Carolina. O

hio, Pennsylvania, South Caro-

lina, Tennessee and V

irginia.A

fter nearly ten years. how far have the

Com

mission and its developm

ent programcom

e? What lies ahead?

Tw

o major accom

plishments, both of

which C

ongress stated as purposes of the1965 A

ct that established the Com

mission,

stand out:o T

o promote the econom

ic and socialdevelopm

ent of' the Region, the C

omm

is-sion's program

has effectively treated many

of the most urgent needs in the R

egion.A

ppalachia has made giant strides tow

ardcatching up w

ith the rest of the nation. But

the job is not finished.gap rem

ains,and

it is a very sizable gap in certain areasparticularly in the provision of hum

an ser-vices.o T

o provide a "framew

ork for jointfederal and state efforts," w

hich the Appa-

lachian legislation mandated, a process of

regional partnership has emerged in w

hichdevelopm

ent decisions reflect a continuinggive-and-take am

ong all levels of govern-m

ent. This process of' com

bining theaccountability of' each unit of governm

entw

ith continuing negotiation among vat :ous

interests insures that projects undertakenby the C

omm

ission are those which have

local-area priority, utilize the strength andresponsibility of other agencies of govern-m

ent and, at the same tim

e, fit into boththe planned approaches of each of the 13A

ppalachian states and the overall regionalprogram

strategy.T

his process is a newand effective w

ay of spending government

monies responsively and responsibly.M

ounting a step -by -step attack on theR

egion's problems, the C

omm

ission con-centrated in its first years on building afoundation for developm

entthe physi-

cal facilities, basic service programs and

institutional arrangements w

hich are pre-requisites to the direct provision of hum

anservices and enduring econom

ic growth. It

began the construction of a coordinatedsystem

of highways, supplem

entingthe

Interstate system, w

hich was designed to

open up the isolated Region

and to providea fram

ework that w

ould facilitate trans-portation of goods to m

arkets and peopleto services and jobs. A

t the same tim

e theC

omm

ission and the state governments

planned systems of public facilities

schools, hospitals, libraries, water and

sewer plants.

In the first decade, too, the Com

mission

emphasized the pioneering approach of

demonstration .program

s in human ser-

vices: comprehensive health care, child

development program

s and job-relatededucational courses. Poor health andeducation had been m

ajor barriers todeveloping a healthy regional econom

ykey delivery system

s suited to Appalachian

areas did not exist in many cases

butm

uch of this has now been changed.

Today m

any public facilities, which are

basic to the accomplishm

ent of the tasksw

ith which C

ongress charged the Com

mis-

sion, are in place. The C

omm

ission is there-fore shifting its em

phasis to the criticalareas of need that rem

ain:

o It is working to extend health, educa-

tional and other public services to segments

of the population in outlying areas who

have been too isolated to take advantageof these services before.o It is w

orking to improve the quality and

quantity of all public services.o It is w

orking to help the Region prosper

from the nation's increased need for

energy, which A

ppalachiancoal can

supply, and to use this prosperity to attaindevelopm

ental goals, while at the sam

e time

avoiding the damage to the environm

entthat m

ight result from this coal boom

.o It is w

orking to continue its institution-building role by increasing the responsibil-ity of the states and their local developm

entdistricts for the m

anagement and adm

inis-tration of the A

ppalachian program.

1

Ate

°r0.

*4"

.If

41.1111":".

r".

" T

Ame

N Op

Much rem

ains to be done. The R

egioncould not be expected to catch up w

ith thenation overnight, or even over

a decade.B

ut it is catching up, and every year seesnew

evidence of this. Some of the note-

worthy changes during 1974:

The, t- w

as an estimated net inm

igration intothe R

egion of over a quarter of a million

peoplefrom 1970 to 1973 (3 IA

years). This

was a dram

atic shift from the net outm

i-gration of nearly 350,000 in the 33/4 -yearperiod from

1966 to 1970, an annualrate

ofover 90,000.

Construction w

as completed or under w

ayon a total of 1,316 corridor m

iles of theA

ppalachian development highw

ay system.

01 this, 150 corridor miles w

ere finishedin 1974, w

hich completed 912 m

iles of thehighw

ay corridor system.

A total of $1,259 m

illion km been com

-m

itted in federal AR

C funds to the A

ppa-lachian highw

ay corridors since 1965; thisis m

atched by $1,029 million in state funds.

The $37 m

illion approved for supplemental

pants during the year prorated for Appa-

lachians vocational education .schools, sew-

age treatment plants, colleges, libraries,

health facilities and many other types

of pub-lic M

eanies.

Com

prehensive health-planningagencies

ale now funded in 389 out of the 397

counties in Appalachia.

The C

omm

ission invested $3.4 million

in70 pom

my tote health proiects serving

approvimately three - quartet s of a

million

people.

.t

The C

omm

ission's 233 child development

projects now deliver services to 103,000

Appalachian children and their fam

ilies.

Vocational education facilities funded by

the Com

mission w

ill be adequate to enroll310,000 students w

hen fully operational.

All 13 A

ppalachian states now have

cooperative areawide education agencies

which m

ake available to mem

ber school dis-tricts a w

ide range of shared services.Individually these districts could not affordto offer these services to their students.

900 Appalachian teachers received in-:th-

ing courses in reading and career educationbeam

ed via satellite.

The C

omm

ission approved housing plan-ning loans and site developm

ent grantsw

hich will generate approxim

ately $11.6m

illion in new low

- and moderato-incom

ehousing construction.

Eleven A

ppalachian states have passedlegislation perm

itting the creation of statehousing finance agencies; the rem

ainingtw

o are drafting such legislation.

In addition to the financial support givenby the C

omM

ission to all local development

districts for administrative purposes, special

demonstration grants w

ere made to ten

1.1)Ds in this year for pilot program

s which

illustrate innovative services I.DD

s canrife, their com

munities.

3

4

The R

egion andthe A

ppalachianE

xperiment

History a the R

egion

Stretching from southern N

ew Y

ork tonorthern G

eorgia, Alabam

a and Missis-

sippi, Appalachia follow

s the spine of theA

ppalachian Mountains, the only m

ajorm

ountain range in the East and the oldest

mountains in the nation. Punctuated by

high rolling hills and deep valleys, Appa-

lachia is both one of the most beautiful and

most rugged regions in the U

nited States.In the early days of this country, the

Appalachians posed a barrier to settlers.

But as the eastern seaboard becam

e more

and more heavily populated, those w

hoshunned tow

ns for the freedom of the

wilderness m

oved to the mountains. T

hew

estward m

ovement brought O

ther set-tlers, too, people w

ho found the beauty,bounty and seclusion of the hills to theirliking.

Only rarely did the settlers cluster into

towns. Instead they tended to settle, a fam

-ily or tw

o, in the narrow valleys. G

ame w

asplentiful and the land tillable enough toraise needed vegetables. T

he only industryto speak of w

as timbering of the dense for-

est that covered the hills.L

ater, when coal w

as discovered, thedescendants of these early settlers w

ere stillliving in the sam

e narrow "hollow

s," By

then, game w

as less plentiful and the landless adequate to support the needs of apopulation that had grow

n steadily overthe years.

With the discovery of coal cam

e the landspeculators and coal com

panies, which

quickly bought land and mineral rights.

Many A

ppalachiaris, unaware of the value

of the coal deposits, traded potential for-tunes for a few

cents an acre. But the coal

industry brought new m

eans of livelihoodthousands of jobs in the m

ines. In time

Appalachia w

as to become a one-industry

region as livelihood based upon farthingand tim

bering became m

ore and more

marginal.W

hile coaland to a lesser degree, lum

-bering

provided jobs, state or localgovernm

ents benefited little from the

extraction of these two resources. B

othabsentee ow

nership and failure to levytariffs on coal leaving the R

egion deniedstate coffers w

hat could have been anithportzat source of incom

ea typical

occurrence in natural resource extractionareas.

Because of the high cost of road building

in the Appalachians, m

ajor highways

skirted the Region, and the individual

States lacked the money to construct ade-

quate roads. The inadequacies of the trans-

portAtion system

, in general, constitutedthe m

ajor deterrent to many industries.

Manufacturers could not risk the tim

e and

money that w

ould have been necessary toget their products to m

arket. The low

taxbases resulting from

the scarcity of industryalso affected the grow

th (if education,health care system

s and other public ser-vices. W

hile the rest of the nation pros-pered, A

ppalachia barely maintained the

status quo.In the 1950s the dem

and for coaldecreased. M

any mines closed, and others

cut back on production. Mechanization of

the mines also affected em

ployment. C

on-tinuous m

ining machines that could do the

work of several m

en, more sophisticated

heavy equipment that m

ade it possible todig coal from

the surface and otherim

provements in m

in:ng technologyreduced even further the num

ber of men

needed in the mines. W

ithout alternativeindustry to take up the slack, unem

ploy-m

ent soared. By the late 1950s the situation

was critical. L

ack of economic opportunity

was forcing thousands to outm

igrateannually. Isolated culturally as w

ell as eco-nom

ically and lacking the skills necessaryto com

pete in the modern w

ork force, thesem

igrants proved ill equipped to cope with

the cities, where the lifestyle w

as in many

ways the antithesis of life in the m

ountains.A

ppalachia was a region w

ithout hope.In spite of its abundant natural resources,its beauty and its proud people w

ith theirrem

arkable culture and heritage, Appa-

lachia seemed to have no future.

The A

ppalachian Program B

eginsIn 1960, at a point w

hen all optionsappeared to have been exhausted, theG

overnors of ten Appalachian states

gathered at the call of J. Millard T

awes,

Governor of M

aryland. Faced with severe

recession and frustrated by their lack offinancial resources on a state-by-state basis,the G

overnors formed the C

onference of

Appalachian G

overnors, electing Governor

Bert T

. Com

bs of Kentucky tv, its first

chairman. T

heir aim: to w

ork together inlaying the foundation for

regional ap-proach to solving their com

mon problem

sand building a better econom

y for theentire R

egion.In the m

eantime, the presidential elec-

tion of 1960 had focused public attentionupon the problem

s, of the Region. W

est Vir-

ginia, whose presidential prim

ary the polit-ical experts cited as the m

ost important in

that election year, became the scene of

intense campaigning. A

s a result of thatcam

paign, the people of the United States

got a first-hand look, viatelevision and the

press, at he kindof problem

s many did

not know existed in A

merica.

In 19f,3 the Governors m

et with the Pi es-

ident to discuss their proposals fora specialregional developm

ent organization andprogram

. At the request

of the Governors

the President established the President'sA

ppalachian Regional C

omm

ission(PA

RC

:), which com

bined the resources ofnine A

ppalachian states and ten federal:igencies and departm

ents. After eight

months

ofextensive

researchand

evaluation, the PAR

C in 1964 subm

ittedits report and recom

mendations to the

President.T

he PAR

C recom

mendations w

ereendorsed by the C

ongress, and in March

1965 the P-resident signed the Appalachian

Regional D

evelopment A

ct. So began what

has come to be know

n as the "Appalachian

experiment." a program

of development

based upon concerted federal-state plan-ning and action.

"It should be noted that we have not

created a complete plan for A

ppalachiaa docum

ent setting forth in great detail acom

plete range of actions needed. Rather,

we have felt that there w

ere two concurrent

steps essential to form the basis upon w

hichthe com

plete program could be created.

These tw

o basic actions would provide for:

"An im

mediate, or short-run, investm

entto provide basic

and programs not

provided in the past but which are essential

to the growth of the R

egion and opportu-nity for its people.

' A regional organization to allow

max-

imum

use of both existing and new.s-

-.

.-l

.17.^40

7

resources in a continuing development

effort."... T

hese program recom

mendations

are not to be regarded as providing adefinitive solution for the m

any-sidedA

ppalachian problem. T

hat solution cancam

e about only with the full engagem

entof the free enterprise potential in this largeR

egion so rich in human and natural

resources. Moreover, progress can be

ft

4

5

6

FederalC

ochairman

The A

ppalachian Regional C

omm

ission

Governors of the 13 A

ppalachian States

and Their D

esignated State R

epresentativesS

tates'C

ochairman

Federal

Cochairm

an

Federal S

taffE

XE

CU

TIV

E C

OM

MIT

TE

E

Federal

States' R

egionalC

ochairman

Representative

Executive D

irector

Executive D

irector's Office

States' R

egionalR

epresentative

States' S

taff

General C

ounsel

Division of

Finance and A

dministration

Division of

Program

Implem

entation

Ech of I N

I Cove/oafs for vim

sin mooch fom

es Stater C

ocksitman

Division of

State and LD

D Liaison

Division of

Program

Developm

ent

...D

ivision ofH

uman R

esources

realized only through the coordinatedeffort of a regional developm

ent organiza-tion w

orking with the state and local

development units, w

ith research anddevelopm

ent centers, and with m

ultiplestate and federal agencies."

.:.-.The PA

RC

Report

The C

omm

ission Is Established

The first step in im

plementation of the

Act w

as establishment of the A

ppalachianR

egional Com

mission. E

leven states hadbeen included in the original bill; C

ongressadded N

ew Y

ork during the bill's passage,and M

ississippi was added in a later am

end-m

ent. The R

egion today contains 397counties and five independent cities' in the13 states.

Congress set up the C

omm

ission on thefollow

ing basis: a federal cochairman

appointed by the President with the advice

and consent of the Senate, and the Gover-

nor or his representative from each of the

13 states. Serving as counterpart to thefederal

cochairman

isthe

states'co-

chairman (the G

overnors each serve a six-m

onth term in this position). T

he Act also

providesfor an alternate

federalco-

chairman appointed by the President.

Each G

overnor names an official state

representative, along with an alternate, to

assist him w

ith duties relating to the Appa-

lachian program and to represent him

atC

omm

ission meetings.

Although not specified in the A

ct, duringthe first C

omm

ission meeting the G

over-nors created the position of states' regionalrepresentati., to give them

a continuingvoice in program

administration and policy

making.

In the state of Virginia. cities has c goscruntcnts separate

and independent from that of the counts in w

hich then arclocated

11-44

Both the federal cochairm

an -and thestates' regional representative m

aintainsm

all staffs to assist them w

ith their duties.T

he federal staff is supported entirely byfederal funds, the states' staff by statefunds.

A program

or project proposal can bebrought before the C

omm

ission only by thestate m

ember involved. N

o projects can beoriginated at the federal level. A

ll formal

actions require the affirmative vote of the

federal cochairman and a m

ajority of thestate m

embers. T

o facilitate continuing pol-icy adm

inistration, however, the C

omm

is-sion has given authority, including projectapprovals, to an executive com

mittee com

-posed of the federal cochairm

an and thestates' regional representative as votingm

embers and the executive director of the

Com

mission supportive staff as a nonvot-

ing mem

ber.T

he Com

mission supportive staff, w

hichtotals approxim

ately 110 persens, was fi-

nanced for its first two years entirely by

federal funds. In 1967 the states assumed

50 percent of the Com

mission's operating

costs. Com

mission staff m

embers are thus

neither federal nor state employees but

employees of an independent public body

governed and financed jointly by thefederal governm

ent and the 13 Appa-

lachian states.T

he primary responsibilities of the staff

are to assist the states and the Com

mission

indeveloping on a continuing basis

comprehensive and coordinated plans and

programs for the developm

ent cf the Re-

gionimplem

enting these plans throughfinancial assistance, provided under theA

ct, for the appropriate programs and

projects

providing technical assistance to thestates and local developm

ent districts inim

plementing the A

ppalachian programserving as a focal point for coordination

of federal and state efforts in Appalachia.

In the last months of fiscal year 1973

and throughout fiscal year 1974, the Com

-m

ission, through the collaborative effortsof subcom

mittees headed by state represen-

tatives and AR

C staff m

embers, devoted par-

ticular attention to the first of these respon-sibilities.

This effort, term

ed programdesign, concentrated on eight areas inw

hich there clearly remained great needs

throughout the Region:

transportationhealth and child developm

enteducationcom

munity developm

ent andhousing

tourismindustrial developm

entenvironm

entinstitutional m

anagement

In each of these areas, the subcomm

itteesbegan to evaluate the past developm

entefforts of the C

omm

ission and draw up

recomm

endations, with the help of con-

sultants expert in particular fields, as tow

hat future directions the Appalachian

program should take. Plans w

ere made to

seek suggestions and comm

ents on the firstprelim

inary recomm

endations from the

Appalachian people them

selves, through aseries of m

eetings to be held throughoutthe R

egion in the fall of 1974.In addition to its A

nnual Report, the

Com

mission publishes a bim

onthly journal,A

ppalachia, whose function is to describe

current development efforts in the R

egion.T

his journal is available without charge

upon request to the editor at the Com

mis-

sion address.

8

The Federal-State-L

ocalPartnership

The goals of the A

ppalachian programare com

prehensive. They include social,

economic, institutional and physical

development. B

roadly defined, these goalsare to provide the people of A

ppalachiaw

ith the health and the skills they need tocom

pete for opportunities wherever they

choose to live and to develop a self-sustain-ing regional econom

y and environment

capable of supporting a population with

rising incomes, im

proving standards of liv-ing and increasing em

ployment opportu-

nities.I

The A

ppalachian Regional developm

entA

ct mandates certain actions and proce-

dures with respect to investm

ent place-m

ent. Congress directed the C

omm

issionto concentrate its investm

ents "in areas with

a significant potential for future growth,

where the return on the public dollars

invested will be the greatest." In determ

in-ing w

hat areas would grow

and what w

ouldm

ake them grow

, the Com

mission has

attempted to identify both geographical

4

and subjective factors and use these as abasis for investm

ent priorities.R

esponsibility for identifying these fac-tors and areas, how

ever, rests with the

states. They m

ake two types of investm

entsw

ith respect to growth areas: (1) those

intended to enhance the development of

a geographic area; and (2) those designedto m

eet priority needs in program areas

so that the labor force in outlying areasis upgraded sufficiently to be able to com

-pete for the new

jobs being developed innearby grow

th areas or elsewhere.

The Im

portance of PlanningA

prerequisite to making sound invest-

ments, how

ever, is planning. Planning, to

be effective, must be responsive to the

needs and desires of the people. In orderto achieve this responsiveness and to en-courage planning that w

ould result in econ-om

ies of scale in the provision of publicfacilities and other investm

ents, theindividual states have created a netw

ork oflocal developm

ent districts (LDD

s).

The R

ole of the LD

Ds

The adm

inistration of the Appalachian

Regional C

omm

ission program in the states

has placed increasing emphasis upon local

development districts as the logical exten-

sion of the Com

mission concept to local

governments. T

he local development dis-

tricts provide the means through w

hichlocal governm

ents, planning and working

together, can participate directly in theA

ppalachian program. T

he President's

Appalachian R

egional Com

mission

(PA

RC

) report recognized the need tobridge the span betw

een the "bigness ofthe total R

egion, the smallness of the local

jurisdiction." PA

RC

suggested that theapproach and structure m

ust includeassistance for the local districts concerned

with the day-by-day w

ork of development.

Congress confirm

ed this need in the Act

by authorizing financial support to districtsand directing the C

omm

ission to encour-age the form

ation of local development dis-

tricts. Provision is m

ade for the certificationby the state G

overnors of districts qualifiedfor assistance.

The form

and function of these develop-m

ent districts are determined by each

state's own institutional traditions and legis-

lative direction. The states have a large

number of alternatives ()P

en to them in

deciding if any one local development dis-

trict will be a council of governm

ents, non-profit developm

ent comm

ission or jointplanning and developm

ent agency. Most

state authorizing legislation establishes thedevelopm

ent district as a public agency.H

owever, all the districts have in com

mon

a multicounty, m

ultifunctional approachw

ith provision for the participation of localgovernm

ents and citizens from their area.

The C

omm

ission feels that to assure rep-o resentation

and accountability in localdevelopm

ent, the development districts

should be public agencies qualified to takeaction and m

ake recomm

endations regard-ing public policies. w

ith at least a majority

of their mem

bers being elected public offi-cials or their appointees. T

hese officialshave the responsibility for m

aking the pub-lic decisions w

hich are necessary to imple-

ment the plans and proposals of the

development districts. T

he remaining

mem

bership should include representa-tives having special fam

iliarity with

comm

unity issues and representatives of allinterests in the area, including low

-income

and minority groups.

Every county in the A

ppalachian Region

is now in or being served by a certified

local development district (see the list on

page 119 and the map on page 120). M

any.

of the districts have been functional fornearly as long as the C

omm

ission. As they

have matured and becom

e of more value

in the individual substate system for plan-

ning and development, m

any have become

involved in sophisticated programs w

hichfar transcend the early coordination roleof the districts.

The local developm

ent districts carry on 'a range of activities, including planning forareaw

ide development; assistance to local

governments and others in the develop-

ment of proposals for joint undertakings

and assistance in obtaining grant-in-aidsupport for them

; research and studies ofareaw

ide resources, problems and poten-

tials; technical planning and researchassistance to participating local govern-m

ents; review of grant-in-aid proposals

and coordination with local governm

ents,including the developm

ent of priorities ofA

ppalachian-assisted projects; encourage-m

ent for companies and industries seeking

to locate in their area. The districts serve

9

10as vehicles to encourage areaw

ide coopera-tion and local cost-sharing of services. T

heC

omm

issionbelieves

thatm

ultijuris-dictional cost-sharing is one of the feww

ays rural jurisdictions with sm

all popu-lations w

ill be able to afford to provide theirpeople w

ith quality services in the future.

State, Local and

Federal Responsibilities

While it is the state governm

ent's roleto help accom

plish the aims of the A

ppa-lachian program

by translating general re-gional plans and inform

ation into specificpriorities and action program

s each year,it is the role of the m

ulticounty develop-m

ent districts through the state representa-tive's office to prepare advisory plans forthe state, indicating local needs and desires.T

hese plans are, in turn, submitted to the

Governor to be considered in developing

a state Appalachian developm

ent plan inaccordance w

ith the overall development

goals and policies of the state. The state

plans then go to the Com

mission for review

and approval. Once approved, the plan

becomes the "road m

ap" followed by the

Com

mission and the state in policy deci-

sions and in the actual implem

entation ofprojects and program

s.T

his system of decision-m

aking andim

plementation has the effect of building

up the state and local capabilities to make

the kinds of decisions that must be m

adeto use com

bined federal, state and localrevenues m

ost effectively. The A

RC

struc-ture encourages the grow

th of state poten-tial for conducting program

s in many

areas. It emphasizes the L

DD

s as a vehiclefor coordinating a num

ber of federal pro-gram

s, of which the A

ppalachian programis only one. T

he result is that the decisions

on investments, instead of being arbitrarily

imposed by a federal bureaucracy, are

more and m

ore made by the people w

homthey m

ost affect. And these people find

themselves better equipped all the tim

e tom

ake the decisions intelligently.

Activities of the L

DD

sT

he local development districts w

ithin Ap-

palachia have taken an increasingly activerole in the adm

inistration of the program.

They have responded to state and C

omm

is-sion program

s and priorities by working

with local governm

ents in developing jointhospital and m

edical facilities projects, vo-cational and technical institutes, w

ater andsew

er projects, libraries, industrial parksand access roads and housing projects. T

hedistricts have participated in the develop-m

ent of new program

s such as manpow

ertraining, fuller utilization of publicfacilities, integrated hum

an resource pro-gram

s, regional education service agencies,solid w

aste disposal projects and coor-dinated urban or com

mercial develop-

ments.D

irect and valuable services to localgovernm

ents are typical. The FIV

CO

Area

Developm

ent District in northeastern K

en-tucky, for exam

ple, has formed a five-

county health department w

hich performs

for FIVC

O's five counties all of the services

that a county health department norm

allydoes but w

ith obvious economies of scale.

FIVC

O is also sponsoring a project to

demonstrate how

such currently under-used com

munity facilities as schools and

buses can be used after normal hours in

programs like high-nutrition m

eals for theelderly, adult education and classes in artsand handicrafts.

The Southern A

lleghenies Planning andD

evelopment C

omm

ission in south central

Pennsylvania, to cite another example, has

formed a consortium

of its six counties forthe purpose of becom

ing a prime sponsor

for Departm

ent of Labor m

anpower pro-

grams. Since

consortiums lessen the bur-

den of paper work by offering one focal

contact point instead of many, the D

epart-m

ent of Labor aw

ards bonuses in certainprogram

s for forming consortium

s. South-ern A

lleghenies is therefore receiving forits counties 10 percent m

ore money for

these programs than they otherw

ise would

have had. The program

s involved include( I) training program

s in institutions likevo-tech schools for jobs w

hich are expectedto be open and (2) tem

porary or transi-tional jobs in public service, such as fillinga vacancy in a m

unicipality or nonprofitagency for w

hich funds are not availableor refurbishing buildings for the com

ingbicentennial.

The M

uscle Shoals Council of L

ocalG

overnments in A

labama provides to its

five counties a regional administrator/fiscal

coordinator who helps keep the counties

informed on new

federal and state legisla-tion and provides assistance in the planningof public im

provements. For exam

ple, hehas recently analyzed the feasibility andcosts of setting up an L

DD

-wide com

putersystem

to perform a num

ber of time-con-

suming tasks for local governm

ents andschool system

s.T

he districts arc helping to achieve con-tinuing im

provement in the econom

ic andsocial developm

ent of the Region, pro-

viding 14 a concerted attack on the con-tinuing problem

s of the Region, establish-

ing a comm

on base of knowledge and a

set of programs that can be used by federal

and state agencies for the development of

the Region, and increasing the effective-

ness of federal and state programs for

Appalachia.

The N

ew Subregions

In the early years of the Appalachian

program. the 13 m

ember states recognized

that although all of Appalachia shared

many com

mon problem

s and potentials,there w

ere identifiable social, economic

and geographic differences in the Region.

This perception led originally to the iden-

tification of four subregions. The differ-

ences among these subregions produced

different development potentials in each

area and necessitated some variation in the

specific approach to development adopted

by each subregion. In 1974, the Com

mis-

sion and the states undertook an examina-

tion of alternative ways to m

anage programallocations and investm

ent strategies. This

analysis resulted in revision of the originalfour subregional boundaries to definethree new

subregions: Northern A

ppa-lachia. C

entral Appalachia and Southern

Appalachia, and a fourth subregion, the

Highlands C

onservation and Recreation

Area, w

hich overlays parts of the otherthree and extends to eleven states.

New

Boundaries

The new

subregional boundaries (see them

ap on page 12) are not markedly dif-

ferent from those draw

n back in the earlyyears of the C

omm

ission. The m

ajor reasonfor the realignm

ent was to sim

plifyadm

inistrative procedures by insuring,w

herever possible, that each local develop-m

ent district (LD

D) w

ould lie entirelyw

ithin one subregion, rather than beingsplit betw

een two subregions, as had for-

merly been the case. In the realignm

entprocess, it w

as discovered that a number

of LD

Ds had split personalities. T

heir over-all resources and econom

ies clearly tiedthem

to one or the other of the three major

subregionsbut at the sam

e time these

LD

Ds also included som

e Highlands

counties whose assets derm

iwly m

arkedthem

as potential recreation areas. If these

LD

Ds w

ere simply placed in toto in their

appropriate major subregions, the H

igh-lands w

ould lose areas in which L

DD

s were

currently following a strategy, supple-

mental to their m

ain subregional strategy,of developing recreation resources. T

hesolution to this problem

was to distribute

all of Appalachia's L

DD

s among the three

basic subregions according to a county-by-county analysis of population density,incom

e and other socioeconomic charac-

teristicsand then to give special recogni-

tion to counties with a significant potential

for recreation and tourism developm

ent byincluding them

in a specially created High-

lands area overlay and providing specialfunding for projects w

hich would help

utilize this potential. Only four of the 69

LD

Ds are split betw

een two subregions;

each of the remaining 65 lies entirely w

ithinone subregion.

p;

11

00C.)

O

12T

he Three

Appalachian

Subregionsw

ith the Highlands A

reaO

Northern A

ppalachiaO

Central A

ppalachiaO

Southern Appalachia

O H

ighlands Area

;

4-

4,

cif,7y,

Developm

ent Strategiesof the Subregions

With adoption of the new

subregionalboundaries by the C

omm

ission, basicde%

elopmental strategies have been

worked out to fit the needs of each specific

area. Northern A

ppalachia, includingA

ppalachian New

York, P

ennsylvania,O

hio, Maryland and part of W

est Virginia,

needs to emphasize the long-term

modernization of an old and outm

odedindustrial-based econom

y in order todevelop a grow

ing diversified economy.

Jobs in new industries m

ust be created toreplace those lost through years of eco-nom

ic stagnation and decline. In address-ing these dual needs, public investm

entm

ust be directed toward replacing out-

moded infrastructure w

ith modern

facilities capable of offering expanded ser-vices to the grow

ing populations expectedaround new

ly vigorous areas. Located be-tw

een the great markets of the E

ast andM

idwest, the N

orthern subregion has greatpotential as a center for industrial expan-sion and m

anufacturing.C

entral Appalachia extends diagonally

across the middle portion of the A

ppa-lachian R

egion, including all of Appa-

lachian Kentucky and parts of A

ppalachianT

ennessee, Virginia and W

est Virginia.

Developm

ent opportunities in this subre-gion m

ust emphasize the creation of new

urban service centers and movem

ent away

from an econom

y based primarily on coal

mining to a m

ore diversified employm

entbase offering expanding job opportunities.Increased investm

ent in comm

unityfacilities such as industrial sites, housing,recreation and w

ater and sewer system

will

be necessary to facilitate industrial diversi-fication and balanced grow

th in urbanareas as w

ell as in related clusters of smaller

comm

unities. The rugged terrain of

Central A

ppalachia makes access into the

area difficult; residents are mostly concen-

trated in densely settled pockets along rivervalleys and up m

ountain hollows, pre-

venting large-scale urban and industrialdevelopm

ent in many areas. T

he develop-m

ent of Central A

ppalachia's human

resources, through provision of the healthand skills necessary to com

pete effectivelyin a m

odern economy, is the first step in

providing a firm foundation for econom

icgrow

th. In combination w

ith improved

comm

unity facilities and with the em

er-gence of strong com

munity leadership,

great improvem

ent in the quality of lifecan be m

ade in an area now experiencing

much of the greatest distress in A

ppalachia,C

entral Appalachia rem

ains an area ofabundant natural resources, especially coaland tim

ber. These can be used, in an

environmentally sound m

anner, to gener-ate new

income and new

jobs for the peopleof the C

entral subregion.T

he third subregion, Southern A

ppa-lachia, is m

ade up of the Appalachian por-

tions of Alabam

a, Georgia, M

ississippi,N

orth Carolina, S

outh Carolina and parts

of Appalachian T

ennessee and Virginia.

This area is now

moving from

an agricul-tural-based econom

y to a modern, indus-

trial economy. T

his transition can beassisted by m

aking available the skills,facilities and services necessary to stim

ulatethe developm

ent of new and diverse

industries and jobs. Southern A

ppalachiaholds great potential for future econom

icdevelopm

ent and has already experiencedm

uch industrialization and urbanization.F

uture development efforts w

ill seek toprom

ote more balanced grow

th between

urban and rural areas and further diversifyem

ployment opportunities to protect local

areas against serious downsw

ings in a singleindustry.

13

14

Population,E

mploym

ent andIncom

ePopulation C

hanges

The R

egion as a Whole

Populationofthe A

ppalachian Region

reached 18,821,000 in mid 1973 based on

preliminary estim

ates of the Bureau of the

Census -an increase of 107,000 since July

1972. Revised C

ensus data gave the Region

a population of 18.714,000 as of July 1,1972.

Over the three-and-a-quarter-year

period fromA

pt it1, 1970, to July 1, 1973.

the Region's grow

th rate was exactly the

same as the nation's, 3.3 percent. T

his was

a considerable change ft om the average

growth rate over the preceding three-

and-t h ree-quart er- year period between

1966 and 1970, when the nation's rate w

as3.9 percent, %

% hereas A

ppalachia's was on I

0.6 percent. It is an even greater contrastfrom

the ten-% ear period from

1960 to

1970, when the nation grew

at an averagerate of 13..3 percent, com

pared to Appa-

lachia's 2.7 percent, or from the preceding

decade, 1950-60, when the nation's popu-

lation grew by 18.5 percent, com

pared toA

ppalachia's 2.0 percent (see Table 1).

Population resident in a given areachanges in only tw

o ways: by natural

change (births and deaths) and by mi-

gration (into or out of the area). The R

e-gion's grow

th of over 600,000 in the 31/4years since the 1970 census, w

hich exceedsthe entire gain (487,000) of the 60s, has

occurred despite the progressive diminish-

ing since 1960 of the annual increase fromnatural change. A

s the birth rate has fallen,the difference betw

een births and deathshas dropped to a rate (in 1973) of only4.3 per thousand per ear (births - 14.7:deaths - 10.4).

The m

ost important reason for the

change in population since 1970 has beenthe reversal of net m

igration from outflow

to inflow. N

et innugration to the Region

accounted for 42 percent of total popu-lation grow

th: estimated im

migration for

Table 1

Average G

rowth R

ate of Populationin A

ppalachian Subregions, Appalachia and U

nited States

1950-601960-701

1966-7021970-733

Appalachian R

egion2.0%

2.7%0.6%

3.3%

Subregion

Northern A

ppalachia2.8

0.30.0

1.8

Central A

ppalachia-13.5

-7.2-3.9

5.5

Southern A

ppalachia6.6

9.72.8

5.0

United S

tates18.5

13.33.9

3.3

10 years: April 1, 1960, to A

pril 1, 1970.23.%

years: July 1, 1966, to April :

1970.33.Y

. years: April 1, 1970, to July 1, 1973.

ti

1970-73w

as 254,000 persons (see Table 2).

This w

as a dramatic shift from

the netoutm

igration of 345,000 persons in the1966-70

period. If trends of the 1966-70period in m

igration had continued to 1973,the R

egion's population would have been

about 550,000 less than the 1973 estimate,

and barely above its 1970 level.T

able 2 indicates that there has been aprogressive reduction in outm

igration forthe R

egion from an annual average of

219,000 (1950-60) to 123,000 (1960-66)and thence to 92,000 per year in the

1966-1970 period. T

he shift to annual inmi-

gration of 78,000 per year in 1970-73 isthus actually a shift of 170,000 in theannual rate of change through m

igration(a cessation of the outm

igration of 92,000added to the inm

igration of 78.000), andis a m

uch larger shift than those between

the other periods measured here.

Since 1970, there has been a parallel shiftin net m

igration patterns in the nation.T

abulations of data published by the U.S.

Bureau of the C

ensus ior 1973 and 1970,for

all counties, by 1974 metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan definition, indicate' that

net migration into nonm

etropolitancounties in the U

.S. in 1970-73 amounted

to inmigration of 1.15 m

illion, in sharp con-trast to a 3-m

illion outmigration in the

1960s. Metropolitan areas, on the other

hand, had only 0.5-million total net inm

i-gration in the m

ost recent period, while

in the 60s they accounted for 6-million net

inmigration.

Southern Appalachia received the bulk

of net inmigration in the period 1970-73:

132,000 since the Census date, w

hileC

entral and Northern A

ppalachia eachreceived about 50.000. T

he shift toward

inmigration w

as very sharp inall

three

.tiout(eA

kin Beale. t' 5 Ihp.ofm

nt of gitcollore

Table 2

Com

ponents of Population Change in A

ppalachia1950-1973

(in thousands)

Period

Population

at Beginning

of Period

Natural

Change

Net

Migration

Total

Change

Population at

End of P

eriod

1950.6017,378

+2,537

2,189+

34817,727

1960.6617,727

+1,144

764+

38018,1061

1966-7018,1061

+ 453

345+

10818,214

1970.7318,214

+ 353

+ 254

+607

18,8211

11966and 1973 population data are estim

ated.

subregions, however, as the N

orthern andC

entral subregions had much heavier

outmigration in 1966-70 than did Southern

Appalachia. C

entral Appalachia, because

of its small population, had the highest

estimated rate of inm

igration in 1970-73.Several factors m

ay account for thischange in trend in the R

egion:1. R

eturned service personnel. Betw

een 1970and 1973, the net m

ovement from

Arm

edForces to civilian population in the U

.S.w

as estimated at 928,000. T

his was partly

offset by a decline in military personnel

stationed inside the U.S. of 414,000. Since

the Appalachian R

egion had a very small

military com

plement stationed in it (23,000

in 1970), the returnees produced an

estimated net population gain of 91,000 for

the period 1970-73, or 36 percent of thetotal net inm

igration into the Region. T

hism

ovement w

as concentrated in the 1970-72period, and probably accounts for thehigher inm

igration during these two years.

2. Direct and indirect im

pacts of Appalachian

development program

s. Though these

impacts, as far as total population m

i-gration is concerned, could not heseparated from

other factors involved, itis clear w

hen migration is m

apped thatsom

e areas of inmigration follow

highway

corridors, or cluster around strong growth

poles. How

ever, many rural counties also

have experienced marked inm

igration.

163. Substantial increases in transfer paym

entsinto the R

egion, notably Social Security andblack lung paym

ents.4. R

eturn flows from

large metropolitan areas.

Higher unem

ployment and housing short-

ages in areas which have previously

attracted Appalachian °m

illigrams have

probably caused some m

igrants to returnto the R

egion.5. T

he continuing growth of labor force and

employm

ent in the Region. T

his is strongestin the South, w

here net inmigration has

held the highest sustained level since 1970.T

he upsurge in coal mining activity has

without doubt changed population trends

in Central A

ppalachia. where it accounts

for a larger segment of em

ployment than

in the other subregions.6. G

rowth of recreation and retirem

ent housingin the R

egion.7. T

he MO

VPM

Illi 01 young people back to coun-hT

living. Though there are no data readily

available covering this phenomenon, there

are numerous instances reported in the

press.

The S

ubregionsN

orthern Appalachia

With the largest population (9.9 m

illion)and land area (83,600 square m

iles). thegreatest population density and the sm

al-lest share (one-sixth) of its population inrural counties w

ith Appalachia, N

orthernA

ppalachia showed the slow

est rate ofpopulation grow

th (under 2 percent) in the1970-73 period. O

nit the rural countieshad recent population grow

th rates similar

to the Region's.

Betw

een 1960 and 1970 Not there A

ppa-lac hia experienced the largest total netoutm

igration of ant subregion (653,000),and ac «H

inted for .59 pen ent of regionalout m

igration. As a result, the total popu-

lation of Northern A

ppala( hia %%

as practi-

Figure 1N

orthern Appalachia

Annual Population C

hange1970-73

(in thousands)

+ 79.2

wilm

emep +

71.4

+ 27,9

+ 51.3

+ 32.0

+ 39.4

0

+ 28

1970-711971-72

-- 28

1972-73

Natural Increase

lnmigration

Outm

igration

Total C

hange

rally stationary for the decade. The outm

i-gration w

as distributed among all county

groups; in the rural counties it was suf-

ficient to cause a population loss.Population increased in N

orthernA

ppalachia by over 178,000 between 1970

and 1973: however, if m

ilitary returneesare subtracted, m

ere was a sm

all civiliannet out m

igration for the 1970-73 period(see Figure

1and T

able 3). Ohio and

Northern W

est Virginia had the m

ostm

arked inmigration m

ovements; in

Pennsylvania. the heavy out migration front

metropolitan Pittsburgh offset inm

igrationgains in other areas. T

he population coreof the subregion, the Pittsburgh-W

heelingcom

plex of ten metropolitan counties, w

ith2.7 m

illion population in 1973, is estimated

to have lost some 32,000 since the census

(aI .2-percent loss); other m

etropolitancounties gained over 49,000 (a I.9-percentincrease); urban counties increased by84,000 (3.0 percent); and rural counties,w

ith an estimated grow

th of 76,500, hadthe highest rate of increase (4.8 percent).T

he growth of population since 1970

appears to be inversely related to popu-lation density; though the average grow

thrate for the subregion (1.8- percentincrease) in 1970-73 w

as little more than

half the national and regional averages, therates of grow

th for northern urbancounties w

ere almost up to the U

.S. andR

egion growth of 3.3 percent, and the rural

counties grew m

uch faster.C

entral Appalachia

Central A

ppalachia has by far the smal-

lest population (1.84 million in 1973) and

land area (31,906 square miles) of any

subregion. Tw

o decades of population loss(1950-70) reduced its

population from2.17 to 1.74 m

illion; net outmigration for

these 20 years was estim

ated at 1.0 million,

of which tw

o-thirds took place in the 50s.T

he Central subregion is the dom

ain ofthe rural county and the sm

all town; only

11 percent of the population resides in thefive m

etropolitan counties, all of which are

on the subregional bordersIn the 1960-70 decade, C

entral Appa-

lachia experienced by far the greatest citeof outtnigration (a m

ean rate of over 18percent) am

ong the subregions. With a

natural increase rate of II percent, the net

population loss was over 7 percent for the

decade. Out m

igration was less than one -

half' of the rural rate itt the metropolitan

Table 3

Estim

ated Populationin A

ppalachia and the Appalachian Subregions

(in thousands)

April 1, 1970

July 1, 1971July 1, 1972

July 1, 19731

Northern A

ppalachia9,733

9,8329,904

9,904

Central A

ppalachia1,745

1,7911,828

1,836

Southern A

ppalachia6,736

6,8756,982

7,080

Appalachia

18,21418,498

18,71418,8201

1973 preliminary C

ensus estimates have been adjusted to assum

ed 1973 revised estimates consistent

with C

ensus revised state totals

and urban cou m /es: how

ever, t h es ecounties had such a sm

all share (just overone- f ourth) of the subregional populationthat the, rural outm

igration rate (22 per-cent) dom

inated the pattern.B

etween 1970 and 1973, the population

movem

ent of Central A

ppalachia hasturned sharply around from

net out- toinm

igration. Its population increased by anestim

ated 95.500 in 3IA

years: net mi-

gration acc minted lot over one-half of total

growth

(seeFigure 2 and T

able3).

Curiously. the m

etropolitan countiescontributed alm

ost nothing to this growth

(a mete 1.800). and all experienced net

otamigration excepting C

lark County,

Kentucky (a part of the L

exington meto-

politan area).B

oth In ban and rural «moat.%

grew at an increase of 6 percent for the

period, and both groups had averageannual inm

igration estimated at over 1 per-

cent annually! There is som

e evidence fromrecent population estim

ates that the rateof inm

igration may be slow

ing down. K

en-tucky had the greatest

amount

of inmi-

gration, Central A

ppalachian Tennessee

had thehighest

rate during the 1970-73period.

Southern Appalachia

Southern Appalachia (79,384 square

miles) had an estim

ated population growth

of 5 percent since the 1970 census.In

the30s and 60s, the Southern sublegion hadby 14 the highest rate of population grow

thand accounted for m

ole than the total net

Figure 2C

entral Appalachia

Annual Population C

hange1970-73

(in thousands)+

37.2

+23.1

+36.6

4. 23.1+

8+

14.1+

135+

12

1970-711971-72

41972-73

Natural Increase

Inmigration

Outm

igration

Total C

hange

regional increase (as Central A

ppalachialost population and N

orthern Appalachia

grew slow

ly). How

ever, Southern Appa-

lachia experienced relatively heavy outmi-

gration (a net rate of 10 percent) in the50s; this slow

ed sharply in the 60s, and inthe 1966-70 period both A

ppalachianG

eorgia and South Carolina had net inm

i-gration.

In the 1970-73 period (see Figure 3 onpage 18 and T

able 3), all state parts had popu-lation increase, but Southern V

irginia showed

net outtnigration and the inmigration rates

for Alabam

a and Mississippi w

ere verylow

. The other state parts have had siz-

able net in-movem

ent, with G

eorgia lead-ing (1.7 percent annually).

17

18Figure 3

Southern Appalachia

Annual Population C

hange1970-73

(in thousands)

+ 111.2

+ 49.3

+ 107.5

+ 61.9

+ 98

+ 51.8

55.7

+48

+ 50

1970-711971-72

1972-73

Natural Increase 0

Inmigration 1:3

Total C

hange ri

Population grow

th rates are similar

among all three

groups,m

etropolitan,urban and rural counties, but the urbanS

outhern counties had the highest rate ofnatural increase and the low

est net inmi-

gration. The rural counties w

ere opposite,w

ith the lowest natural increase and the

highest inmigration for the 31/4 years

(1970-73). Metropolitan counties contrib-

uted about one -half the total increase (arate of' 4.9 percent) w

hile urban counties(also 4.9 percent) and rural counties (5.2percent)

eachcontributed about

one-fourth during the latest period. T

here were

wide variations am

ong growth rates in the

different state areas; the most rapid grow

thw

as in the middle of the subregion, in E

astT

ennessee and the Southern P

iedmont,

and in some of the m

ountain counties.T

he shift in Southern A

ppalachia fromnet outm

igration to significant inmigration

has accelerated population growth despite

the decline in rates of natural increasebetw

een the 60s and the 70s. In addition,the m

arked shift in growth tow

ard the ruralcounties (w

hich had the heaviest net outmi-

gration in the 60s) resembles the pattern

in Central A

ppalachia.

Em

ployment, U

nemploym

entand Incom

e

The R

egion as a Whole

Econotnic conditions in the, R

egionhave been im

proving.E

mploym

ent.B

etween 1965 and 1972 busi-

ness activity increased significantly.E

mploym

ent in Appalachia increased by

744,500 jobs, many of them

in new and

expanding areas of manufacturing, service

industries and wholesale and retail trade.

The rate of grow

th in employm

ent for theperiod in the R

egion was over 12 percent,

compared to the national rate of nearly i 5

percent (sec Figure 4).

Unem

ployment. U

nemploym

ent ratesshow

ed improvem

ent relative to the nationas a w

hole. In the latter half of the 60s,A

ppalachian unemploym

ent fell from 5.1

percent of the work force in 1965 to a low

of3.9 percent in 1969 (sec F

igure 5 on page 20).R

eflecting the recession conditions character-istic of the nation as a w

hole, unemploy-

ment rose again in 1970 and 1971 to a high

t

ay.

0

Figure 4G

rowth T

rends in Total E

mploym

entin the U

nited States, Appalachia and the A

ppalachian Subregions1965-72

120

118

116

114

112

110

108

106

104

102

100

Southern A

ppalachia (119.1)

Central A

ppalachia (116.0)U

nited States (114.9)

"....Appalachia (112.3)

19651966

19671968

19691970

1971

Index: Base year =

1965 = 100.

Base year total em

ployment for:

United S

tatesA

ppalachiaS

outhern Appalachia

Central A

ppalachiaN

orthern Appalachia

Source N

ational data from B

ureau of Lebo( Statistics

Regional data from

State B

ureaus of Em

ployment S

ecurity.Indices for 1972 are based on prelim

inary data

Northern A

ppalachia (107.1)

1972

71,088,0006,075,1002,277,100

440,6003.357,400

for the period of 5.8 percent and only be-gan to decline as general econom

ic con-ditions becam

e favorable in 1972. Average

unemploym

ent in the Region during 1972

totaled 5.6 percent of the work force. It

issignificant

thatin

1972the

un-em

ployment rate in A

ppalachia was the

same as the national figure a substantial

improvem

ent over the late 50s and theearly 60s, w

hen the Appalachian rate w

asoften 3 to 4 percentage points higher.Incom

e. Directly related to the increased

business activity in the Region w

as a risein per capita incom

e. From 1965 to 1972,

regional average per capita income rose

fro.n $2,160 to $3,640an

increase of69 percent (see Figure 6 on page 21).W

hereas in 1965 the average per capitaincom

e in Appalachia had been only 78

percent of the national figure, by 1972 ithad risen to 81 percent.

Accom

panying the rise in per capitaincom

e, the incidence of poverty declinedin the R

egion from 31 percent of the popu-

lation (5.4 million people) in 1960 to 18

percent (3.2 million people) in 1970.

Poverty in Am

erica, as defined by theSocial Security A

dministration, is tied to

the ability of a household to purchase anadequate diet. It m

easures the percentageof households w

ith a yearly income less

than three times the cost of a m

inimally

adequate diet. The cost of this diet

andtherefore the yearly incom

e line beloww

hich a family is classified as living in

povertynaturally varies from

year toyear, from

family size to fam

ily size andfrom

urban to rural areas. As an exam

ple,in 1969 a nonfarm

family of four w

asdefined as living in poverty if the annualfam

ily income w

as less than $3,715.A

s in Appalachia, the incidence of

poverty in the United States dropped from

1960 to 1970from

22 to 14 percent of

19

20Figure 5

Average A

nnual Unem

ployment R

atesin the U

nited States, Appalachia and the A

ppalachian Subregions1965, 1969, 1972

1965U

nited States

Appalachia

Northern A

ppalachia

Central A

ppalachia

Southern A

ppalachia

1969U

nited States

Appalachia

Northern A

ppalachia

Central A

ppalachia

Southern A

ppalachia

1972U

nited States

Appalachia

Northern A

ppalachia

Central A

ppalachia

Southern A

ppalachia

0% 1%

2% 3%

4% 5%

6% 7%

8% 9%

10%

4.4%

3.5%

13.9%3.8%

3.4%

6.8%

5.6%

5.6%6.5%

4.1%

Source N

ational data from B

ureau of Labor Stat,sbcs.

State and regional data from

State B

ureaus of Em

ployment S

ecurity.

7.4%

9.1%

JA.

Figure 6

'800

1600

1 .1 001'65t

`infect,B

ureau of Econom

ic Analys,s

196c.

II

4I

19611',68

19691970

1971

United S

tates ($4490)

Northern A

ppalachia ($3890)

Appalachia ($3640)

Southern A

ppalachia ($3530)

Central A

ppalachia ($2700)

1972

21

22the population. H

owever, the rate of

decline in Appalachian poverty w

as more

rapid than the nation's. Yet w

ith 9 percentof the U

.S. population in 1970, Appalachia

had 12 percent of its poverty population.

The A

ppalachian Subregions

Although, as indicated, econom

ic growth

has been occurring in Appalachia, this

growth has not been evenly distributed

throughout the Region because of the w

idevariation in econom

ic structure, naturalresource characteristics and stage ofdevelopm

ent in different parts of the Re-

gion.N

orthern Appalachia

Northern A

ppalachia has in some w

aysthe m

ost satisfactory economic conditions

in Appalachia. It contains the m

ost popu-lation, the largest m

anufacturing sector,the best-quality housing, the highest percapita incom

e and the lowest incidence of

poverty. How

ever, over the latter half ofthe 60s and into the early 70s, the grow

thtrend experienced by N

orthern Appa-

lachia has been generally less satisfactorythan the experience of the other tw

o subre-gions or the nation as a w

hole.E

mploym

ent. From 1965 to 1972, total

employm

ent in Northern A

ppalachiaincreased by m

ore than 7 percent (an addi-tion of 239,300 jobs). T

his rate of growth

was substantially less rapid than the

national average and the lowest of the three

subregions. Figure 7, which show

s theshare each subregion had of the total re-gional em

ployment in 1965 and in 1972,

illustrates this. Northern A

ppalachia'sshare of the total num

ber of jobs in theR

egion dropped in this period by nearly3 percentage points. A

s Figure 8 shows,

Northern A

ppalachia received only 32 per-cent of the grow

th in jobs in the Region

Figure 7D

istribution of Em

ployment in the A

ppalachian Subregions

Southern A

ppalachia(2,277,100 jobs)

Southern A

ppalachia(2,711,700 jobs)

1965N

orthern Appalachia

(3,357,400 jobs)

1972

Central A

ppalachia(440,600 jobs)

Northern A

ppalachia(3,596,700 jobs)

Central A

ppalachia(511,200 jobs)

Source N

ational data from B

ureau of Labor Statistics

Regional data from

State B

urea.s of Em

ployment S

ecurity

Figure 8D

istribution of Appalachian E

mploym

ent Grow

tham

ong the Subregions from 1965 to

1972

32.1% (+

239,300 jobs)

9.5% (+

70,700 jobs)

58.4% (+

434,600 jobs)

IAppalachian grow

th=

100% (+

744,500 jobs)

I

Totals m

ay not add exactly because of rounding.S

ource. National data from

Bureau of Labor S

tatistics.R

egional data from S

tate Bureaus of E

mploym

ent Security

from 1965 to 1972, although it had over

55 percent of the employed w

orkers in1965.

Annual em

ployment grow

th trendsw

ithin the period (shown in Figure 4, page

19) clearly demonstrate a second m

ajorcharacteristic of N

orthern Appalachia's

economy: responsiveness to change

inoverall national conditions. From

1965 to1969, a period of strong national expan-sion, the subregion produced approxi-m

ately 90 percent of its total employm

entgrow

th over the entire eight-year period.D

uring the 1970-71 national economic

recession, Northern A

ppalachia was the

only one of the three subregions to experi-

ence a net loss in total employm

ent, fromw

hich it did not recover until 1972, when

the nation's economy again began to m

oveupw

ard.T

he heavy concentration of manufactur-

ing characteristic of Northern A

ppalachiaprovides m

uch of the explanation for theem

ployment grow

th trend produced bythis subregion. D

uring 1972, for example,

manufacturing accounted for 40 percent

of all major industrial group em

ployment

in the subregion. (Major industrial group

employm

ent does not include all employ-

.m

ent but dc,es include the major econom

icforces in the econom

y.) The m

ost strikingcharacteristics of N

orthern Appalachia's

manufacturing sector have been its ten-

dency to follow national econom

ic trendsand its persistence in rem

aining below the

annual U.S. rate of grow

th in manufac-

turing. These tw

o characteristics are notunexpected given the type and tech-nological age of m

anufacturing in thissubregion. N

orthern Appalachian m

an-ufacturing

isrelatively heavily concen-

trated in the production of capital goodsand interm

ediate industrial products(products used as com

ponents in the pro-duction of final consum

er goods and capi-tal goods), both of w

hich tend to be highlyresponsive to shifts in national econom

ictrends. In addition, m

anufacturing hasbeen heavily concentrated in N

orthernA

ppalachia for a relatively long period oftim

e. Consequently, it is likely that the

subregion contains a number of firm

s usingrelatively old and inefficient technologies.Such firm

s are the first to decrease outputin an econom

ic recession and the last toexpand in a recovery. T

his factor providesa partial explanation for N

orthern Appa-

lachia's relatively slow expansion in the late

60s, the sharp decline during the 1970-71recession and the lagging response to ageneral trend of national econom

ic expan-sion in 1972.

As a result of its large size and relative

importance in the N

orthern Appalachian

economy, the m

anufacturing sector hasbeen highly influential in determ

ining therelatively slow

growth of em

ployment in

the other major industrial groups (such as

services, wholesale and retail trade and

transportation).

Unem

ployment. T

hroughout the period1965-72, N

orthern Appalachian unem

ploy-m

ent rates generally exceeded the nationalaverage, although never by m

ore than 1percentage point. A

gain following the

23

=CD

24national trend, unem

ployment in this

subregion fell from .5.0 percent in 1965 to

a low for the period of 3.8 percent in 1969,

rising again throughout the next threeyears to a high of 6.5 percent in 1972 (seeF

igure 5, page 20).

Income and P

overty. Average

per capitaincom

e in Northern A

ppalachia was the

highest in the Region throughout the

period 1965-72, a result primarily of the

relatiy ely moderate levels of unem

ploy-m

ent and high-wage industry characteristic

of this area (see Figure 6. page21). F

urther,this subregion's rate of grow

th in per capitaincom

e was approxim

ately the same as the

average national growth. w

ith the resultthat in N

orthern Appalachia, average per

capita income in 1972. w

hich was S

3,890.w

as approximately 87 percent of the U

.S.

average, just as it had been in 1965. How

-e%

et% this subregion produced a less rapid

expansion in per capita income over the

latter half of the 60s and early 70s thaneither of the other subregions. A

gain, thisrelativel. slow

growth perform

ance can belargely attributed to N

ot them A

ppalacslow

expansion in total employm

ent andthe declines experienced in the m

anufac-turing sector in .1970-72.

As m

ight he anticipated from the above

discussion, Northern A

ppalachia has alsobeen characterized by a relatively low

inci-dence O

f poverty oy et the decade of the60%

. In 1960. approximately 22 pet cent of

this subregion's household population was

characterized as living in poverty. This m

a%significantly helm

. the averages for theother tw

o subregions and approximately

the same a%

the national average. Ft om

1960 to 1970. the incidence of poverty inN

orthern Appalachia declined. follow

ingnational and tegional new

ts. mit h the

result that, by 1970. 13 percent of this

subregion's population was living in

poverty. Again, this w

as substantially belowthe averages in the other tw

o subregionsand approxim

ately the same as the national

average.

Central A

ppalachiaE

conomic conditions in C

entral Appa-

lachia remain the m

ost critical in the Re-

gion. Unem

ployment and the incidence of

poverty are higher than in any other subre-gion, per capita incom

e is significantlylow

er and, although recent estimates

indicate a reversal of this trend, net outmi-

gration was substantial during the 60s.

How

ever, Central A

ppalachia has enjoyedconsiderable grow

th in employm

ent andincom

e over the last half of the 60s andthe early 70s.

Em

p/oiment.

annual employm

entgrow

th trend produced by Central A

ppa-lachia has been som

ewhat inconsistent w

iththe national pattern and the experience ofthe other tw

o subregions (see Figure 4,

page 19). From

1965 to 1968, a period offairly strong national expansion. grow

th inem

ployment in this subregion w

as yensluggish. actually declining slightly in oneyear. In 1969, how

ever, employ m

entgrow

th began to accelerate and maintained

a relatively strong trend through the1970-71 national recession and into the1972 expansion. O

ver the period 1965-72as a w

hole. Central A

ppalachia producedgi ow

th of 70,700 jobs. or 16.0 perc entthe second highest rate of grow

th in theR

egion and somew

hat above the ayes agenational experience. It gained 9.5 percentof the grow

th in lobs °vet this period.. al-though its share of A

ppalachian totalem

ployment in 1965 w

as only 7.3 percent(see F

igures 7 and 8 on pages 22 and 23).A

gain, much of the explanation for

Central A

ppalachia's somew

hatconttai'

experience lies in the structure ofem

ployment. T

he mining industry has for

many t

s been a major em

ployer ofC

entral Appalachian labor. C

onsequently.events in this sector have had a profoundinfluence on other areas of em

ployment,

such as trade and services, and on thegeneral econom

ic health of Central A

ppa-lachia. T

he majority of' m

ining in thissubregion is coal m

ining. During the late

50s and continuing into the early 60s,changing technology in m

ining, plus shiftsin dem

and to other energy sources, causedcoal m

ining employm

ent to drop offsharply and exerted a strong depressiveinfluence on the C

entral Appalachian

economy. T

oward the end of' the 60s, the

negative impact of technological change

tape' ed of f' somew

hat.. while coal dem

andstrengthened as a result of' sharp increasesin the dem

and for energy. From

1969 to1971. C

entral Appalachian pining em

ploy-m

ent grew by 21 percent (an addition of

9.600 jobs). How

ever. during 1972,em

ployment dropped off by

approxi-m

ately 10 percent, apparently as a resultof the im

pact of nem environm

ental lams

and implem

entation of the mine health and

safety act (some sm

all and/or older mines

closed as a result of' their inability to meet

the legislated requirements and still rem

ainprofitable).

The net change in m

illing employm

entf row

1965 to 1972 was an increase of only

3 percent. or approximate'. 1,000 addi-

tional jobs. Hom

ever. given current trendsin the dem

and for enetgy, it is reasonableto ante ipate that coal production andem

ployment m

ill accelerate and remain a

primaY

influence on the Central A

ppa-lachian econom

y in the future.M

a nuf acturing accounts for a small

slime of m

aim industrial group em

plot -W

M in C

entral Appalachia com

pared to

7-4C

t,OO

the other two subregions. H

owever, in

recent years. in spite of amational recession.

Central A

ppalachian manufacturing has

shown significant grow

th in a variety of newareas. including the capital goodsindustries. Factors contributing to thisgrow

th include increased accessibility intoand w

ithin Central A

ppalachia, generally

NC

A:1

tqrA'N

fr

improving skill levels of the potential w

orkforce, and the recovery of the m

iningindustry and consequent developm

ent ofnew

firms producing m

ining equipment

and related products. Continuation of this

growth trend w

ill in all likelihood dependon w

hether this subregion can continue toprovide a labor supply w

ith appropriate

4

a

skills, land suitable for industrial sites,pow

er supply adequate for expansion andother requirem

ents for new types of pro-

duction. It will also depend, of course, on

whether the m

arket for the new goods is

adequate to support profitable operation.T

his, in turn, depends not only on the localm

arket. but on the ability of firms to trans-

port their goods easily and profitably toother m

arkets.U

nemploym

ent. Central A

ppalachia's unem-

ployment rate generally follow

ed the1965-72 national pattern in its annual fluc-tuations. A

lthough this rate remained con-

sistently above the national average, thegap betw

een Central A

ppalachian unem-

ployment and the national rate has lessened

significantly (see Figure 5 on page 20).Incom

e and Poverty. From 1965 to 1972.

Central A

ppalachian per capita income

increased by 89 percent (an increase of$1.270 per person)

a rate of growth sub-

stantially higher than the national averageas w

ell as the highest in the Region (see

Figure 6 on page 21). This relatively rapid

growth w

as the result primarily of signifi-

cant growth in C

entral Appalachian

employm

ent and substantial increases inSocial Security benefits. H

owever, in spite

of this very satisfactory growth; C

entralA

ppalachian per capita income w

as still thelow

est by far of any Appalachian subregion

during 1972 and was only 60 percent of

average U.S. per capita incom

e.A

s could be expected from the loss per

capita income and high levels of unem

ploy-m

ent characteristic of this subregion.C

entral Appalachia has also contained the

highest incidence of poverts. In 1960. 54percent of all C

entral Appalachian house-

hold population was characterised as living

in poverty .B

s 1970: this figure haddi opped to 35 percent. A

gain, although

25

26this represents significant im

provement in

this subregion, the incidence of povertyrem

ained the highest in Appalachia and

was approxim

atelytw

o-and-a-half times

theaverage U

.S. figure.

Southern Appalachia

Over the latter half of the 60s, Southern

Appalachia experienced strong econom

icgrow

th, which resulted in the developm

entof a com

plex economic structure charac-

terized by a large and diverse manufactur-

ing sector and increased levels of serviceand trade activities. T

his increase in eco-nom

ic activity was accom

panied by substan-tial grow

th in employm

ent, income, popu-

lation and housing.E

mploym

ent.From

1965 to 1972, totalem

ployment in Southern A

ppalachiaincreased by over 19 percent (434,600 addi-tional jobs)

a rate of growth for the

period significantly higher than that of theother tw

o subregions or of the nation asa w

hole. Like N

orthern Appalachia, the

Southern Appalachian econom

y has beenrelatively responsive to shifts in nationaln ends (see Figure 4, page 19). H

owever,

unlike Northern A

ppalachia, growth in

recent years has generally proceeded at am

ore rapid pace than the national average.In 1972, Southern A

ppalachia had a largershare of A

ppalachian employm

ent than in1965 (see Figure 7, page 22), and, in fact,ac luired w

ell over half of all the new jobs

produced by the Region during the period

(see Figure 8, page 23).O

ver the litter half of the 60s and intothe early 70s, the m

anufacturing sector hasaccounted for approxim

ately 50 percent ofSouthern A

ppalachian major industrial

group employm

ent. Consequently, events

in this sector have had a major influence

on trends in other sectors of employm

ent

and on the general level of economic

activity.From

1965 to 1972, manufacturing

employm

ent increased by approximate:N

.168,900 jobs (an increase of 22 percent)

a very satisfactory performance w

hencom

pared with an average national

increase of 6 percent. Southern Appa-

lachia's rapid growth can be attributed to

a wide variety of factors, including its acces-

sibility to major expanding m

arket areasin the Southern C

rescent (an area of rapideconom

ic growth), an increasingly skilled

and relatively low-w

age labor supply andthe general availability of a w

ide varietyof industrial resources. In addition, an ini-tially heavy concentration of SouthernA

ppalachian manufacturing in the textile

and apparel industry has stimulated

growth in a w

ide variety of relatedindustries, such as chem

icals and textilem

achinery. This has led in turn to expan-

sion into still other types of industry,including a variety of' capital goods, indus-trial inputs, consum

er durables andgeneral consum

er goods.T

he overall expansion in SouthernA

ppalachian manufacturing w

hichoccurred from

1965 to 1972 stimulated

strong growth in a variety of other sectors.

including trade, services, transportationand construction. A

n additional factorinfluencing grow

th in the trade and servicesectors has been the m

ovement of popu-

lation from rural areas into larger, m

oreconcentrated groupings. A

s this relocationprocess occurs, eventually the m

arket sizenecessary to support trade and serviceactivities profitably is attained. and expan-sion occurs.

Unem

p/ovment. Southern A

pp tlichia'S rapidgrow

th in employm

ent opportunities rela-tive to other areas of the R

egion and nation

has resulted in generally lower levels of

unemploym

ent. From 1965 to 1972, this

subregion was characterized by the low

estunem

ployment rate in the R

egion (seeFigure 5, page 20) and had had rates nohigher than the national average in six of'these eight years.

Income and P

overty.A

s might be anticipated

from Southern A

ppalachia's highly satis-factory grow

th in employm

ent over the lat-ter half of the 60s and into the early 70s,this subregion also experienced a relativelystrong rise in per capita incom

e, which

grew by 76 percent (an increase of 51,520

per person) from 1965 to 1972. A

lthoughthis com

pares favorably with an average

national growth of 62 percent, by 1972

Southern Appalachian per capita incom

ew

as still significantly below the national

average (see Figure 6, page 21).O

ver the decade of the 60s this subregionalso experienced substantial im

provement

in the incidence of poverty relative to thenation. In 1960, approxim

ately :39 percentof Southern A

ppalachia's household popu-lation w

as living in poverty, compared to

22 percent throughout the nation.A

l-though the incidence of poverty hasrem

ained higher than the national average,it declined m

ore rapidly in this subregionthan in the nation over the decade.

Rv

1970, approximately 21 percent of the

Southern Appalachian population w

as liv-ing in poverty, com

pared to a U.S. ;IN

erageof 11 percent.

04

Finances

Programs

andprojects

forA

ppalachian improvem

ents are financedthrough com

binations of local, state,federal and private funds. T

o date, stateand local sources have furnished nearlyhalf of the funds for all A

ppalachian proj-ects, w

ith the federal government contribu-

ting the remainder (55.2 percent). T

his siz-able participation on the part of state andlocal bodies is one of the unique featuresof the A

ppalachian program.

The federal governm

ent's financing ofthe

programfirst

requires"authori-

zations,- which are am

ounts provided bylaw

setting a ceiling on funds that may be

appropriated. "these authorizations havebeen stated in

t wo-vear periods for

nonhightvav programs. W

ithin the ceilingsprm

i(led by these authorizations,annual

appropt tattoos are made

for the % ariotts

Appalachian program

s.T

able 4 summ

arizes the appropriationsm

ade under each biennial authorization.T

hese appropriations through fiscal year1974 totaled S2,267.9 m

illion, of which

S1,355 million w

as for the Appalachian

highway program

.T

he highway program

authorization was

initially for an amount of $840 m

illion tocover the period 1965-71. T

his authoriza-tion w

as increased by $175 million in 1967

and $150 million in 1969 and extended

through 1973 at annual rates of $175m

il-lion

from 1970 through 1972, and $170

million for 1973. T

he 1971 amendm

entsto the A

ct further extended authorizationsfor the highw

ay program through fiscal

year 1978. These am

endments also pro-

vided for annual amounts of $180 m

illioneach year in 1973 and 1974 (thereby in-creasing the previous 1973 am

ount by $10m

illion). For the years 1975-77 the amount

is to increase to $185 million each year,

Table 4

Appalachian A

uthorizations and Appropriations

for Highw

ay and Nonhighw

ay Programs and

Adm

inistrative Expenses

(in millions of dollars)

Highw

ayN

onhighway

Adm

inistrativeE

xpensesT

otalA

ppropriations

1965-67A

uthorizations-

250.02.4

Appropriations

300.0163.4

2.4465.8

1968-69A

uthorizations-

170.01.7

Appropriations

170.0130.3

1.6301.9

1970.71

Authorizations

-268.5

1.9

Appropriations

350.0234.5

1.9586.4

1972.73A

uthorizations-

282.02.7

Appropriations

380.0260.0

2.3642.3

1974.75A

uthorizations-

294.02.7

Appropriations

155.0'115.0'

1.5'271.51

1 For 1974 only.

27

28dropping to $180 m

illion in 1978, the finalyear. From

inception of the programthrough 1976 a total of $2,090 m

illion hasbeen authorized.

Table 5 sum

marizes the various highw

ayauthorizations, w

hile Table 6 on page 30

provides authorization and appropriationdata for each of the various A

ppalachianprogram

s.Prior to the 1971 am

endments to the

Appalachian A

ct, authorizations were pro-

vided for each of the nonhighway pro-

grams conducted by the C

omm

ission. Forthe tw

o-year period beginning 1972-73,authorization w

as made in a lum

p sumtotaling $282 m

illion. Actual appropria-

tions for these programs during 1972-73

amounted to $260 m

illion. The 1971

amendm

ents also provided authorizationsfor the 1974-75 period am

ounting to $294m

illion for the nonhighway program

s.For the nine-year period ending June 30,

1974, a total of $903 million w

as appro-priated for other-than-highw

ay programs

of the Appalachian R

egional Com

mission.

The largest am

ounts went to the Section

214 supplemental grant program

($333.5m

illion), the Section 202 health demon-

stration program ($257.9 m

illion), the Sec-tion 211 vocational education program($169.5 m

illion). These three program

sreceived nearly 84 percent of the nonhigh-w

ay funds. Programs w

hich deal primarily

with the environm

ent, such as Section 205m

ine area restoration, Section 203 landstabilization, sew

age treatment and studies

relating to water resources and tim

berdevelopm

ent, accounted for a total of $84.5m

illion or about 10 percent of the funds.T

he remainder of the appropriations w

ere$48.4 m

illion for the Section 302 supportof local developm

ent districts (LD

Ds),

research and technical assistance and $9.5m

illion for the Section 207 housing fund,

Table 5

Appalachian H

ighway A

uthorizations(in m

illions of dollars)

Appalachian

Legislation

1965 Act

1967 Am

endment

1969 Am

endment

1971 Am

endment

Period

Covered

through 1971through 1971through 1973through 1978

Cum

ulative appropriation through 1974: $1.355 million.

Am

ount of Authorization

Added

Cum

ulative

$840.0$840.0

175.01,015.0

150.01,165.0

925.02,090.0

which provided "front m

oney" loans andtechnical assistance to spur low

- and mod-

erate-income housing.

During 1974 appropriations totaling

$115 million w

ere made for nonhighw

ayprogram

s. As before, the bulk of the funds

were for Section 214 supplem

ental grants($34 m

illion), Section 202 health demon-

strations ($43 million) and Section 211

vocational education facilities ($25 million).

In 1974 the other funds were divided

among Section 205 m

ine area restoration(S4 m

illion); Section 302, LD

Ds and

research ($7.5 million); and Section 207

housing fund program ($1.5 m

illion).

Subregional Budgeting

In June 1974, the Com

mission signifi-

cantly changed the manner in w

hichfederal funds are allocated am

ong the 13states in the R

egion. This net approach

is designed to take account of the differ-ences in developm

ent needs, progress andresources am

ong the three subregions.B

eginning in fiscal year 1975, a single allo-cation w

ill be made to each state for the

four main nonhighw

ay programs for w

hich

individual allocations were previously

made: health and child developm

ent, voca-tional education, supplem

ental grants andm

ine area restoration. This single alloca-

tion is composed of tw

o parts: (1) the hoseam

ount, set at 80 percent of the fiscal vear1974 program

level; and (2) the culnegionalam

ount, computed so as to give a pro-

portionately larger share to the Central

Appalachian states. T

his subregionalam

ount is based on a modified version of

the formula previously used to allocate sup-

plemental grants (Section 214) funds to

each state. The Section 214 form

ula takesinto account the population, land area andper capita incom

e of each state and makes

the most m

oney available to states with the

lowest per capita incom

e. To determ

ine thesubregional am

ount for each state, the Sec-tion 214 form

ula was altered to m

ake tallocation for the C

entral Appalachian

states 44 percent higher than it would have

been using the straight Section 214 for-m

ula. This reflects the fact that per capita

income in C

entral Appalachia in 1972 w

asapproxim

ately 44 percent below that of the

Region as a w

hole. The largest share of

the subregional amount, on a per capita

basis, goes to the states in Central

Appalachia

S5.14 per person; the nextlargest to Southern A

ppalachiaS2.29

per person: and the smallest to N

orthernA

ppalachiaS1.47 per person.

It is intended that the subregional por-tion of the single allocation be used hs thestates in conform

ity with a subregional

development strategy developed by and

agreed to by all the states within the sub-

region. If a state belongs to two subregions.

it receives two subregional am

ounts andhelps develop tw

o separate subregionalstrategies.

In addition, the sum of S2 m

illion was

set aside for recreation and conservationprojects in the new

ly defined Highlands

area.T

he method of' allocating highw

ay fundsrem

ains unchanged. This m

ethod hasessentially been proportioned upon therem

aining dollar amounts needed by each

state to complete segm

ents of the highway

corridors needing improvem

ent in thatstate.

No change w

as proposed in the allocationprocess for the $8.5-m

illion program of

research, demonstration and support of

local development districts.

There is no change in the type of projects

eligible for assistance. The chief effect of

the changes will be to give the states m

oreflexibility in determ

ining their nonhighway

funding priorities in a particular year. By

combining the four m

ajor nonhighway

programs into a single allocation, a state

could use all of its base allocation for voca-tional education, for exam

ple, or it might

divide the allocation among the projects for

each of the four program areas in w

hateverproportion best fitted its developm

entstrategy in a particular year.

Sources of FundingA

look at the distribution of total costsam

ong the various sources of funds (Table 7

on page 31) shows that the federal-state part-

nership is reflected in the funding sources asw

ell as in the decision-making process. A

ppa-lachian and other federal funds m

ake upslightly over 50 percent of the total costsof all A

ppalachian projects. The other half

of the money com

es from state, local and/or

private funds, so that the two partners, the

federal government on the one hand and

the state-local-private funds on the other,have invested nearly equally in the pro-gram

.D

uring 1974, the share of federal fund-ing increased slightly. For this fiscal year,federal funding com

prised 57.4 percent,as com

pared to a cumulative percentage

of 55.2 percent since the beginning of theprogram

. Similarly, the federal share of the

nonhighway program

was 60 percent, com

-pared to a cum

ulative federal share of 1.4percent.

29

30T

able 6

Appalachian R

egional Com

mission

Authorizations and A

ppropriations through 1974(in thousands of dollars)

Section

1965.67A

uthori-zations

Appropriations

1968.69A

uthori-zations

Appropriations

1970.71A

uthori-zations'

Appropriations

1965-661967

Total

19681969

Total

197019712

Total

202H

ealth$

69,000$ 21,000

$2,500

$ 23,500$ 50,000

$1,400

$ 20,000$ 21,400

$ 90,000$ 34,000

S 42,000 S

76,00203

Land Stabil.

17,0007,000

3,00010,000

19,0003,300

2,8156,115

15,0003,000

03,0 I1

204T

imber bevel.6

5,000600

-600

2,0000

00

00

0205

Mine A

rea:636,500

Bureau of M

ines15,600

7,00022,600

30,0000

335335

15,0005,000

4,0009,00

Fish &

Wildlife

1,350100

1,4500

00

00

00

f

206W

ater Res, S

urvey5,000

1,5001,500

3,0002,000

2,0000

2,0000

00

207H

ousing Fund

00

00

5,0001,000

1,0002,000

3,0001,000

1,000 N. 2,0 I I

211V

oc. Ed,

16,0008,000

8,00016,000

26,00012,000

14,00026,000

50,00025,000

24,000 C., 49,00

212S

ewage T

reatment

6,0003,000

3,0006,000

6,0001,400

01,400

00

0c-,I

214S

uppl. Grants

90,00045,000

30,00075,000

97,00034,000

32,45066,450

82,50034,000

48,500D 82,50

302R

esearch & LD

D5,500

2,5002,750

5,25011,000

1,6003,000

4,60013,000

5,5007,500

13,0I

Less Limitation

--

--

-78,000-

--

--

--

Total N

onhighway

250,000105,550

57,850163,400

170,00056,700

73,600130,300

268,500107,500

127,000234,50

201H

ighway

840,000200,000

100,000300,000

715,00070,000

100,CJO

170,000350,000

175,000175,000

350,00 4

208A

irport Safety

--

--

--

--

--

_-

Total P

rogram1,090,000

305,550157,850

463,400885,000

126,700173,600

300,300618,500

282,500302,000

584,50105

Adm

in. Expenses

2,4001,290

1,1002,390

1,700746

8501,596

1,9009329

9681,9 1t

Grand T

otalS

1,092,400$306,840

8158,950S

465,790S

886,700$127,446

S174,450

5301,896$620,400

S283,432

S302,968

8586,40,,..1

.1' 1968.69, 1970.71, and 1972.73 authorizations are new

authorizations. Authorizations not appropriated lapsed in 1967, 1969 and 1971.

2 Includes 58 5 million supplem

ental appropriation for airport projects under Section 214.

.3 1 9 7 2 . 7 3 authorizations for other than S

ection 201 Highw

ays and Section 208 A

irport Safety w

ere made as a lum

psum

in P.L. 9265. C

omm

ittee repor:.; indicated the following general

distribution: Health and E

ducation, $155,000; Environm

ent, 615,000; Housing $4,000; S

upplemental G

rants, 690,000; Research and D

emonstrations, $18,000.

4 Includes 516 million supplem

ental for tropical storm "A

gnes," as follows: S

ec. 205-511,000, Sec. 207-51,500; S

ec. 302-53,500.;

31974.75 nonhighway authorizations w

ere made in a lum

p sum in P

.L. 9265. Com

mittee reports indicated distribution as: H

ealth and Education, $170,000; E

nvironment, $15,000; H

ousing,)

$6,000; Supplem

ental Grants, $90,000; R

esearch and Dem

onstrations, 613,000.

1.76A

ppropriations are adiusted to account for reapproprtations to other accounts-tor 204 and 205 programs of 51 2 m

illionLill

' Highw

ay authorization excludes the amount of S

915 million available, 1976.1978

Cla

"Contract authority to be available through 1975 (rescinded D

ecember 19741.

Included transfer of S42 thousand to this account from

204 Tim

ber Developm

ent.

1972-73A

uthori-zations'

Appropriations

197219734

Total

1974-75A

ppro-A

uthori-priations

zationss1974

$ 46,000$ 48,000

$ 94,000$ 43,000

-2,000

13,00015,000

-4,000

5003,500

4,000-

1,500-

'.28,000

25,50053,500

-25,000

--

--

--

-38,500

37,00075,500

-34,000

-7,000

11,00018,000

-7,500

--

--

-282,000

122,000138,000

260,000294,000

115,000

355,000175,000

205,000380,000

365,000'155,000

40,0008-

--

--

677,000297,000

343,000640,000

659,000270,000

2,7001,113

1,2172,330

3,3001,492

$679,700S

298,113 S344,217

S642,330 S

662,300S

271,492

Table 7

Distribution of T

otal Costs am

ong Various Sources of Funds

for Approved Projects through June 30, 1974

(in millions of dollars)

31

Highw

ay Projects

Nonhighw

ayP

rojects

Appalachian F

unds$1,329.0 55.2%

$892.3 29.3%

Other F

ederal Funds

Total

State F

unds

Local Funds

Total

Total E

ligible

Total Ineligible'

Total

00%

674.4 22.1%

51,329.055.2%

$1,566.751.4%

1,078.0 44.7%305.2 10.0%

2.30.1%

874.9 28.7%

$1,080.344.8%

$2,409.3 100.0%

CX

)

$1,180.138.7%

CD

$2,746.890.1%

$ 303.29.9%

$2,409.3 100.0%$3,050.0 100.0%

iin addition to state and local contributions which are eligible for m

atchingfederal grants, there are often otner

project costs which are ineligible for consideration in federal grantin-aid program

s.T

hese costs must be borne

entirely by state or local governments or nongovernm

ental sources. Therefore, total state and local costs can be

determined by adding state costs, local costs and total ineligible.

Through June 1974 there has been som

e $303 million in ineligible

project costs for nonhighway program

s reported.

The total nonhighw

ay costs, including all ineligible costs reported, throughJune 1974 am

ount to $3,050 million,

and of this totai, nonfederal sources have covered $1,483 million, or 48.6 percent.

Transportation

The single greatest hindrance to eco-

nomic developm

ent in Appalachia has been

its isolation due to the lack of adequatehighw

ay and other transportation systems.

Most of the existing highw

ays in the Re-

gion used to be narrow tw

o-lane roads thatw

ound around to follow valleys and

troughs between the m

ountains and there -bs caused great distortion in the usual tim

e -distance relationship for autom

obile traf-fic. In som

e cases, it took an hour to travela 20-m

ile mountain road

in goodw

eather.W

hen the Interstate system w

asdeveloped. m

uch of it bypassed the Region.

Even the Interstate routes w

hich did crossthe R

egionInterstates 64. 40 and 71,

for instancetended to follow

the topog-raph and in general did not c rosy the R

e-gion from

east to west, O

ver the mountain

ridges. The result of this routing w

as thatthe isolated, but heavik populated. ruraliireaN

were not opened tip. and. in spite

of its advantageous location between m

ajorm

arkets. the Region w

as unable to attract

significant new industry or com

mercial

enterprises.In addition to discouraging com

mercial

and industrial growth, the inadequacies of

the transportation system com

plicated thelives of A

ppalachians, making it difficult

for them to reach existing jobs in other

areas of the Region, to get to schools, or

to take advantage of health facilities evenin em

ergency situations.In response to these conditions, C

on-gress authorized construction of the A

ppa-lachian developm

ent highway system

as afram

ework !o connect the m

ajor federalhighw

ay arteries and give areas of densepopulation ignored by Interstate routesbetter access to jobs and services. T

he Act

authorized"construction of an A

ppa-lachian developm

ent highway system

serv-ing the A

ppalachian region ... The system

.in conjunction w

ith the Interstate Systemand other federal-aid highw

ays in theregion., w

ill provide a highway system

which w

ill open up an area or areas with

a developmental potential w

here com-

merce and com

munication have been

inhibited by lack of adequate access.**T

he Act further authorized ... "access

road(s) that will serve specific- Feet rational,

residential, comm

ercial, industrial, orother like facilities..."

The A

ppalachian Corridors

The A

ppalachian system is m

ade up of24 individual corridors designated by let-ters of the alphabet (see the m

ap on page34). T

he 24 segments total 3.277 m

iles. ofw

hich 2.685 are eligible for constructionassistance. w

hile another 435 are desig-nated as adequate.

The C

omm

ission established a flexiblecriterion to accom

modate the varying high-

way needs in dif ferent parts of the R

egion.Instead of building roads to Interstate

standards, it decided that the corridorsw

ould be built to accomm

odate traffictraveling at an average speed of approxi-m

ately 50 miles per hour betw

een major

termini of the system

, comm

ensurate with

terrain. Each corridor also w

as to bedesigned as a safe, econom

ical highway

adequate for the type and volume of traffic it

was to serve. In addition, the highw

ays were

to be designed to handle a predicted 1990volum

e, and construction was to be in

accordance with prevailing standards and

specifications for highways receiving

federal aid.A

total of $800 million of the initial high-

way authorization w

as earmarked for 20

highway corridors under the A

ppalachianA

ct of 1965, and the states were to con-

tribute an additional $345 million, or 30

percent of the total cost. How

ever, in 1966the C

omm

ission decided that the statesw

ould assume 50 percent of the expenses

on four -lane highway construction. T

hestate share of engineering right-of-w

ay andtw

o-lane construction would continue to be

30 percent. In 1974 the Com

mission ap-

proved a reduction of the state contributionto 30 percent on four-lane construction,bringing the program

in line with state

contributions required by the regular (non-Interstate) federal-aid highw

ay program.

In 1967 the original number of corridors

was raised to 22; to take care of the addi-

tional corridors and increasing construc-tion costs, C

ongress upped the authoriza-tion figure in 1969 to $1,165 m

illion. In1971 C

ongress authorized another $925m

illion because of changes in highway stan-

dards established by Congress and other

cost increases. bringing total federal autho-rizations to $2,090 m

illion through 1978for the highw

ay corridors and access roadprogram

. The total state cost through this

same period is estim

ated at $1.336 million.

33

STATUS OF APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT

HIGHWAY SYSTEM

AtPALA, MAN L (VI 1.40141.14 1133MAY SYST134

A.Nate at Nynno,

ow,

Oev.r.ve y.t.. o. olo*Ortil

= ..0 OW*. w.f... *ay a, ...M....1Ago 30 1114,..

C.

In 1973 the Com

mission acted to fill tw

om

ajor deficiencies in the corridor systemby apprm

ing two new

corridors: Corridor

V, serving the A

ppalachian portions ofnorthern A

labama and M

ississippi, with a

short connecting link in Tennessee, and

Corridor W

. serving and c gmecting A

ppa-lachian South C

arolina with A

ppalachianN

orth Carolina.

The C

omm

ission provided that limited

portions of these corridors, consisting of59 m

iles in Mississippi, 44 m

iles in Alabam

aand 13 m

iles in South Carolina, w

ere eligi-H

e for construction assistance under heA

ppalachian Act. T

hus for the first time

all 13 Appalachian states are included in

the Appalachian corridor program

.C

ertain of these corridors are designedto link key m

arkets, others to connectgrow

th at eas within the R

egion and stillothers to open up areas w

ith good po-tential. natural resources or rec' eationaldevelopm

ent. Corridors I) and E

, forinstance, couple the m

etropolitanB

altimore-W

ashington area with C

incin-nati. C

ott idors 1) and F. connect with, or

provide ac cess to. I-70 in Maryland. 1-77

in Vest V

irginia and 1-74 and 75 at Cincin-

nati. and thereby create a network that

extends in all four directions.C

oridos G and B

connect key develop-m

ent at eas within the R

egion, making

itpossible for people w

ho live in the rut alsections inbetw

een to comm

ute to the jobopportunities and services in these areas.A

and R. O

n the other hand. provide accessto areas w

ith major potential fO

trecreation

des elopment.

While m

uch remains to he com

pleted.there has been considei able pi ogress inconsult( tg the A

ppalachian corridors. As

noted in Fable 8 on page 36. actual con-sit uction has begun on 1.316 m

iles; 912of these m

iles are now com

plete. Iftghwas

1

development

fromplanning

tocon-

struction is a long process. The Pennsyl-

vania Departm

ent of Transportation has

estimated that the lead tim

e from begin-

ning of a highway corridor study to stat t

Of onstuction n averages seven years. 1974

was the ninth year of A

ppalachian highway

construction «munitm

ents. In the first year(1966) the C

omm

ission comm

itted slighthos et S100 m

illivn and in the set nd yearS70 m

illion.T

he states have made a significant onn'i-

hutton to the Appalachian highw

ay 55 stem.

While a cum

ulative total of SI.259 million

of federal AR

C funds have been obligated

for highway projects, the states at the sam

etim

e have provided at least $1,029 million,

or some 45 percent of the total cost. In

addition, states have sometim

es fundedportions of a corridor w

ith 100-percentstate funds or have entirely funded designor right-of-w

ay acquisitions.C

osts of construction of the highway sy s-

tem have risen dr istically since the first

days of the Com

mission, and show

no signsof slow

ing their rise. The Federal H

ighway

Adm

inistration has recently releasedfigures indicating that all federal highw

ayconstruction cost s rose m

ore than 100 per-cent front 1967 to the end of fiscal 1974.

35

36

Table 8

Appalachian D

evelopment H

ighway System

Mileage Sum

mary (by State)

June 30, 1974

State

Total

Mileage

Construction

LocationS

tudiesC

ompletedor

Under W

ay

Design

Com

pletedor

Under W

ay

Right of W

ayC

ompleted

orU

nder Way

ConstructionC

ompletedor

Under W

ay

Construction'C

ompleted

Required

Eligible

Alabam

a156.6

142.867.22

136.667.5

35.226.7

6.4G

eorgia88.0

85.785.7

85.729.2

29.226.6

14.2K

entucky586.2

422.3422.3

422.3405.6

331.7249.4

164.4M

aryland84.6

80.680.6

80.651.1

51.151.1

16.2M

ississippi104.0

104.031.72

104.063.9

0.00.0

0.0N

ew Y

ork254.3

218.3218.3

218.3193.8

180.8148.9

106.3N

orth Carolina

206.2205.4

196.82194.8

151.4138.1

107.070.1

Ohio

293.9201.3

201.3201.3

177.7160.5

99.685.5

Pennsylvania

504.7452.1

452.1452.1

285.5159.0

139.486.8

South C

arolina30.7

13.113.12

13.10.0

0.00.0

0.0T

ennessee340.9

330.4326.12

330.4202.4

152.8131.3

126.4V

irginia200.9

176.0176.0

176.0157.1

144.3121.1

101.6W

est Virginia

426.4413.5

413.5413.5

294.5244.7

214.8134.2

Totals

3277.412845.5

2684.72828.7

2079.71627.4

1315.9912.1

1Of the total com

pleted mileage, 897.7 m

iles have been opened to traffic.2O

nly portions of Corridors V

and W are eligible for construction because of the 2,700.m

ile construction limitation in the A

ct.

Developm

ent Opportunities

Since 1972 the Com

mission has allocated

among the states an annual am

ount ofapproxim

ately $1 million for use in extend-

ing highway planning to accom

modate and

stimulate concentrated developm

ent proj-ects at varying locations along the devehp-m

ent corridors and other major highw

ays

to realim the highw

ays' greatest potentialfor developm

ent and protect the AR

C's

basic highwa investm

ent.T

he specific lughwa-related planning

needs of each of the 13 Appalachian states

arc being addressed by this program. G

eor-gia w

ill follow an earlier study of the socio-

ewnom

ict onsequences of the Appalachian

highwa in the N

orth Georgia area w

ith

the preparation or specific site do clop-m

ent plans once the final highway location

is determinee. A

labama is com

pleting asim

ilar study along 171 miles of A

ppa-lachian C

orridor V from

the Tennessee

line near Chattanooga to R

ed Bay, A

la-bam

a, and Ma r land's study oft he N

ationalFreew

ay between H

ancock and Cum

ber-land, M

aryland, has bet n completed. O

hio

has initiated a state level project which w

illidentify priority industrial sites adjacent tom

ajor highways and then focus the

resources of both state and local agenciesfor the purpose of site plan preparationand im

plementation. Pennsylvania,

through the efforts of a local areawide

planning and development agency, has

organized and established an on-goingcitizen/public official task force to im

ple-m

ent the development potential of several

high potential development sites near 1-80

and Route 219.

Several states continue to address thedevelopm

ent potential of a single inter-change area w

ith a well-focused site

development study. In other cases

assistance is provided to local jurisdictionsto prepare developm

ent ordinances aimed

at improved highw

ay-related growth. T

heeffort

in Pennsylvania to design inter-change developm

ent standards and con-trols is nearing com

pletion.N

ew highw

ay construction has a greatim

pact on employm

ent. The Federal H

igh-w

ay Adm

inistration estimated that

throughout the nation in 1973 each $1 bil-lion of kderal aid construction in highw

aysgenerated an average of 35,000 direct jobsand 35,000 indirect jobs - 18,000 in them

anufacturing sector, 13,000 in the whole-

sale trades, transportation and service sec-tors and 4,000 in m

illing and other sectors.

Local A

ccess Roads

Local access roads, w

hich are approvedindividually, ate roads providing access toan industrial park or to a school, housingdevelopm

ent, hospital or other publicfacility. T

hese roads average ben een oneand tw

o miles in length and are usuall%

only two lanes w

ide. Each road's potential

relevance to economic developm

ent must

be demonstrated in order to receive C

om-

mission funds. A

total of $99.2 million has

been reserved for access roads underpresent authorization.

During fiscal 1974 som

e 19 miles of

access roads were contracted for and

miles com

pleted; some $6.8 m

illion infederal funds out of a total cost of $10.8m

illion were com

mitted. Since the begin-

ning of the program the C

omm

ission hasapproved for construction som

e 678 miles,

of which 509 have been contracted for and

427 completed (see T

able 9). A total of

$84.2 million in C

omm

ission funds hasbeen approved for projects, and $69.9 m

il-lion com

mitted, for access road projects

where contracts for construction have been

let.

Table 9

Appalachian A

ccess Road Program

Financing and Accom

plishments

(in thousands of dollars)

Financing

Status of M

ileage, June 30, 1974

Approved

ThroughF

iscal1974

Obligated

ThroughF

iscal1974

Approved

ConstructionC

ompleted

or Under W

ay

Construction

Com

pleted

Alabam

a$18,984

$16,735202.0

144.6136.0

Georgia

3,6802,908

19.311.7

9.3

Kentucky

2,8342,904

13.46.7

3.7

Maryland

2,1971,508

5.74.7

4.7

Mississippi

8,8508,028

106.0102.2

64.1

New

York

2,6921,028

6.23.4

1.9

North C

arolina3,416

1,75718.5

11.010.3

Ohio

4,0153,007

37.230.7

28.3P

ennsylvania12,664

8,61892.8

62.548.4

South C

arolina9,431

9,49385.6

59.948.3

Tennessee

6,4805,927

54.936.4

36.4irginia

3,6672,843

17.117.1

17.1

West V

irginia5,296

5,16019.3

18.618.1

Totals

$84,206$69,917

678.0509.5

426.6

37

38A

irportsA

ppalachia has relatively few airports,

but air travel is an important com

ponentof the R

egion's transportation system. A

ir-ports play a particularly significant role inattracting industry. D

uring fiscal year 1974the C

omm

ission approved supplemental

grants totaling $503,000 for 7 airport proj-ects in 5 A

ppalachian states; combined w

ith$9.6 m

illion from the Federal A

viationA

dministration and $2.6 m

illion in stateand local funds, these funds provided anairport program

totaling $12.8 million.

Since initiation of the program in 1965,

the Com

mission has approved supple-

mental grants totaling $15.3 m

illion. Com

-bined w

ith $52.3 million in state and local

funds, these provided an airport programfor 124 projects totaling $93 m

illion.

Rail Problem

sIn response to the R

egional Rail R

eor-ganisation A

ct of 1973, the Com

mission

employed tw

o consulting firms to assist the

Appalachian states affected by the pro-

posed rail abandonments (N

ew Y

ork,Pennsylvania, O

hio, West V

irginia, Mary-

land. Virginia and K

entucky). The new

lycreated U

nited States Railw

ay Association

(USR

A), a governm

ent body, has beengiven the responsibility of developing andim

plementing a plan for the reorganisation

of the railroads in the Midw

est and North-

east. (Eight railroads, including the Penn

Central, the nation's largest passenger and

freight carrier, providing services in17

states in this area, had gone into bank-ruptcy from

1970

to1973.)

The C

omm

is-sion w

as eager to insure that the USR

Aw

ould adequately consider economic

development considerations in preparing

both its preliminary and its final rail sys-

tems plan. A

RC

staff and consultantshelped to facilitate coordination of the localand state rail-planning activities w

ithinA

ppalachia, while continuing to em

phasizethe im

portance of economic developm

entconsiderations to the three key federalagencies involved

USR

A, the Federal

Railroad A

dministration and the Interstate

Con::;;, ce C

omm

ission.T

he Com

mission is preparing a report

on the Regional R

ail Reorganization A

ctand its im

pacts on economic developm

ent,to be subm

itted to the USR

A and other

appropriate state and federal agencies.

Rural M

ass Transit

A constant problem

throughout the Re-

gion is the inability of rural Appalachians

to obtain the services and jobs they needsim

ply because getting from place to place

is so difficult. Public transportation in ruralareas is nonexistent in m

any places andinadequate alm

ost everywhere. T

he cur-rent energy crisis has m

ade it even more

imperative to find energ%

-saving ways of

transporting people to jobs. healthI a-

cilities, training institutions and a s arietvof public service program

s.T

he Com

mission has been in%

olved inthe area of lurid m

ass transportation forfour years. In a num

ber of states it hasbeen w

orking to identify rural mass n a ns-

portation requirements sN

stematicalh, to

design systems w

hich will m

eet these needsand to test m

anagement and operation

techniques.T

s% 0 projects are now

in operationin O

hio and Pennsylv'ania. Planning of fortsw

ere completed in K

entucky and Tennes-

see this veal ; as a result a Tennessee proj-

ect will be funded in fiscal %

ear1975,

and

the Kentucky study has been used as the

basis for an application to the Departm

entof T

ransportation for funding under theR

ural Highw

ay Public Transportation

Dem

onstration Program (Section

147

ofthe Federal-A

id Highw

ay Act of

1973).

Planning and system design efforts are

under way in South C

arolina, Virginia and

New

York; a feasibility study for w

esternN

ew Y

ork, to be completed in fiscal year

1975, has been approved. A total of

$122,800 in AR

C funds w

as approved infiscal 1974.

,,,

The O

perating Projects

The tw

o projects now in operation share

certain principles or goals. Both projects

are designed to:1.

Achieve self support.

2. Serve all people of all ages for anytransportation purpose.

3. Consolidate as m

any government-

sponsored transit projects and bud-gets

within

theproject

areaas

possible.4. M

ake sure that basic managem

entbackup, training and developm

ent,

which the C

omm

ission considersessential to the success of all projects.are available throughout the life ofthe project.

The A

ppalachian Ohio R

egionalT

ransit Association (A

OR

TA

)A

OR

TA

provides transportation forsenior and disadvantaged rural citizens inH

ocking, Athens and Perry C

ounties inO

hio to medical services, shopping centers,

jobs, visits to public and private agencies,and social and recreational services. It runsbuses to the three county seats six days aw

eek and links small rural villages and hol-

lows w

ith each other four days a week. In

two of the counties, a transportation system

was already in operatiot, in 1973; the

Com

mission provided m

anagement, guid-

ance and technical assistance to revamp this

limited service and expand into the third

county. The purpose of the association, under

the aegis of the Buckeye H

ills-Hocking V

alleyR

egional Developm

ent District. is to m

aketransportation available in rural areas ofthe affiliated counties at a reasonable coston a perm

anent basis.O

ne of AO

RT

A's m

ajor objectives hasbeen to develop local support for the de-velopm

ent and expansion of the system.

Dim

ing fiscal year 1974 patronage of thesystem

rose steadily, so that earned receiptsin the last quarter w

ere able to cover a much

larger share of the operating costs than inthe first quarter. L

ocal county and n.anici-pal financial support rem

ained steady,w

hile earned receipts rapidly increased,w

ith the result that the percentage of fed-eral support of the operating costs of theproject declined during the course of theyear. If this trend continues, A

OR

TA

hopes to cover 70 percent of its operatingcosts from

earned receipts by the end ofJune 1975.

AO

RT

A has been an experim

ent in con-ducting research and im

plementing a prbj-

ect simultaneously. B

ecause the needs forrural transportation are so great and soobvious, the norm

al procedures of requir-ing feasibility and design studies in advanceof funding w

ere waived. Instead, applied

research techniques in managem

ent were

used, and changes in policy and administra-

tion put into effect as they appeared neces-y in the course of the project. A

OR

TA

thus at least two years ahead of w

hereit w

ould have been if traditional feasibilityand design studies had been requiredbefore im

plementation

and it is appar-ently a successful project.

AO

RT

A w

as one of twelve transporta-

tion projects included as a case study ina national transportation study m

ade by theInstitute of Public A

dministration, spon-

sored by the Adm

inistration on the Aging.

It was selected because it had a stable

operation,. aI a rural project and seem

edto present ot,t., possible avenue of providingtransportation in rural areas.N

orth Central T

ransportation (NC

T)

The N

orth Central T

ransportation proj-ect of Pennsylvania, w

hich has been in op-eration in C

ameron, C

learfield, Elk, Jef-

ferson, McK

ean and Potter counties sinceN

ovember 19,

1973, originally concen-trated on w

ork routes within the six-county

area. Extensive efforts began during fiscal

year 1974 to extend the service to reacha variety of other needs, such as shoppingand social service program

s.T

he NC

T project w

as initiated with no

capital investments in bus equipm

ent. The

entire operation depends upon thepurchase of transportation service fromexisting private carriers in the area. T

hisconcept has already proven to be costeffective. A

lthough equipment purchases

may be expected in the future. the project

is demonstrating the feasibility of initiating

service without large capital investm

ents inareas w

here private operators are available.

39

40

C

4",

Supplemental G

rants

The A

ppalachian program has in the

supplemental grants program

, Section 214,a unique feature w

hich enables Appa-

lachian states and comm

unities to partici-pate in federal program

s where funds are

available only when m

atched by state andlocal m

onies.B

efore the existence of the AR

C, m

anyA

ppalachian states and comm

unities hadoften been unable to get a fiiir share offederal funds because their low

tax basesm

ade it much m

ore difficult for them to

come up w

ith matching funds than for

wealthier com

munities. T

hus, althoughthey w

ere eligible in all other ways for

grants for the construction of basic publicfacilities, they w

ere unable to take advan-tage or a variety of federal program

s offer-ing such grants.

Without Section 214, a scat

or comm

u-nity is usually required by federal grantprogram

s to put up 34 to 70 percent ofthe cost of construction, w

ith the federalgovernm

ent supplyingthe i em

aining30 to

66 percent. Under. Section 214, A

ppa-lachian states m

ay use these funds to raise

Section 214Supplem

ental Grants

Fiscal Year 1974

Percent of Total Section 214 D

ollars Spent

Vocational E

ducation24%

Sew

age Treatm

ent Facilities

Water and S

ewer

30%N

ational Defense E

ducation Act 1%

15%

Health F

acilities14%

Higher E

ducation6%

Airports 1%

Educational T

elevision2%

Total F

unds: $16,068,000

Libraries3%

Other4%

Note O

verruns, underruns and rev sions are excludei from project count but included m

dollar amounts

Table 10

Types of First-D

ollar ProjectsA

pproved under Section 214 in FY 1974

Num

ber of Projects

Dollar A

mount

(inthousands)

Water

24$ 6,146

Sewer

83,086

Water and Sew

er6

1,438

Solid Waste

1134

Health C

enters'4

723

Higher E

ducation3

1,045

Em

ergency Medical Services

135

Educational T

elevision1

489

Library

2283

Overruns and R

evisions2,689

Total

50$16,068

Includes public health, mental health and rehabilitation centers.

the permissible

federalpercentage up to a

maxim

um of 80 percent, so that the state

Or com

munity can participate

byputting

up as little as 20 percent.In 1971

the Act

was am

ended to permit

Section 214 funds also to be used as "first-dollar" grants

that is, grants where an

applicant, though qualified, is unable to ob-tain a basic federal grant because of insuf-ficient federal funds. T

he Com

mission ap-

proves first-dollar grants only when (1) the

applicant has made every reasonable effort

to obtain funding from other sources, (2)

funds not only are not currently availablefrom

the basic agency but also are unlikely

to he available for some tim

e and (3) theproject is im

poi tart to a inulticounty plan,and its com

pletion necessary if' the statedevelopm

ent program is

to be imple-

mented in an orderly fashion. First-dollar

grants in fiscal year 1974, which totaled

SI6,068,000 for 50 projects, amounted to

over 40 percent of all Section 214 funds.A

bout two-thirds of these first-dollar

grants were concentrated in the areas of

water and

sewer

projects(see

Table 10

above).D

uring fiscal 1974, S37 million w

asapproN

ed in all Section 214 grants, includ-ing SI6.1 m

illion first - dollar grants. The

Appalachian states have used the supple-

mental gram

funds under this program to

procure for their citizens many types of

public facilities: vocational educationschools, colleges, libraries, health facilities,sew

age treatment plants, airports and

educational television (see the graph onpage 40 and T

able 11 on page 42 for anindication of the proportion of funds ap-proved for the various types of program

s).E

vidence of the Com

mission's shifting

utilization of Section 214 funds in the lasttw

o years is that education projects, which

previously accounted for approximately 47

percent of these funds, now range betw

een30 and 16 percent. H

ealth facilities pro-jects, w

hich previously accounted for 26percent, now

utilize 15 percent. Such com-

munity facilities projects as w

ater, sewer

and sewage treatm

ent, have increased fromabout 20 percent to 38 percent in fiscalyear 1973 and 45 percent in fiscal year1974.

41

42

Table 11

Supplemental G

rant ProjectsN

et Approvals by T

ype of Program'

(

Cum

ulative through 1974F

Y 1974 P

rogram

Num

ber ofP

rojects

Dollar A

mount

(in thousands)N

umber of

Projects

Dollar A

mount

(in thousands)

Airports

106$ 10,968

8$

503E

ducational Television

245,860

2919

Health F

acilities389

77,96227

5,011

Higher E

ducation221

52,8708

2,409Libraries

11310,460

4966

National D

efense Education A

ct62

6,6255

315

Vocational E

ducation462

68,40961

8,822W

ater, and Water and S

ewer C

ombined

17032,990

4510,972

Sew

age Treatm

ent Facilities

25748,127

175,370

Other

11711,664

131,344

Total

1,921$325,935

190S

36,631

tOverruns, underruns and revisions are excluded from

project count but included in dollar amounts.

Health

The A

RC

health program is a unique

attempt to im

prove the overall health statusof the R

egion as an essential part of theC

omm

ission's economic developm

ent pro-gram

. Its major em

phasis has been on thedeliver%

Of adequate health services to rural

Appalachians.T

he three bask components 4. the health

program are com

prehensive healthdem

onstration areas, comprehensive

health planning and primary health care.

This basic program

is supplemented by a

number of other health program

s, many

of them covering w

ide geographic areas,such as hom

e health care, emergency m

edi-cal service, an A

ppalachia -wide health

manium

et recruitment, SA

MA

(StudentA

meric an M

edical Association) sum

mer

man pm

% er projects and blac k lung pro-

grams.

*ite Com

mission invested during fiscal

Year 1974 m

ei- S25 million in A

ppalac him]

funds umard the accom

plishment of its

health goals.I'his figure included alm

ostSI() m

illion for 119 new projects and SI5

million for 219 continuations of projects.

Com

prehensive Health

Dem

onstration Areas

The A

RC

health program began w

ith thefunding of eight health dem

onstrationareas in 1968, w

as broadened to includea ninth in 1969, and three m

ore in 1970.A

ll but one of the Appalachian states now

have such an area (see the map on page 44).

These areas w

ere designed to offercom

prehensive health services to individu-als and fam

ilies living within each area, in-

cluding "health education, personal pre-ventive services, diagnostic and t herape:i ticservices, rehabilitative and restorative ser-vices and com

munityw

ide environmental

health services." This extrem

ely flexibleprogram

has stressed the concepts ofcom

prehensiveness and continuity of careas w

ell as the demonstration of innovative

techniques in the delivery of services.T

he original funding took the form of

planning grants to designated multicounty

counc ils, and construction and operatinggrants to back up these plans. In early daysm

uch emphasis w

as necessarily placed onthe construction of the facilities so badlyneeded throughout m

uch of the Region,

but in recent years emphasis has shifted

to human services.

Section 202 of the Act provided generally

for grants of up to 80 percent of costs ofconstruction or equipm

ent and up to 100percent for operations during the first tw

osears of a project. O

perations money of

up to 75 percent of costs is also grantedfor the follow

ing three years. As A

ppa-lachian funding for the project decreases,slack is being taken up by so-called "thirdparts"

pa% rents

(i.e.,M

edicare andM

edicaid), by fees charged to patients orby state and local public funds.

Each dem

onsttation area is advised bya health council w

here representation is

balanced among local

health-care pro-fessionals, representatives of local govern-m

ent and the public at large.O

ne worthy exam

ple of a comprehensive

health demonstration area

isa seven-

county program w

hich serves over 213,000A

ppalachiansthe entire population of

its area. This am

bitious program, in its

seventh operational year, coordinates aw

ide range of health services projects. New

projects of this agency funded in fiscal year1974 include an am

bulatory care center,rural em

ergency medical system

seminars,

solid waste collection, the use of m

icrowave

television to ,ink health service units, afeasibility study on health m

aintenanceorganizations, a program

establishing abaccalaureate degree in nursing and analcoholism

treatment plan. C

ontinuedfrom

earlier years were several m

entalhealth service, em

ergency medical service

and home care projects.

The agency's extensive list of projects

clearly indicates its interest in developingand testing a regional system

of compre-

hensive health services which w

ill utilize tothe fullest extent existing health m

an-pow

er, finances and physical resources.T

he major objectives of the program

ofthis agency are:

o to aim the m

ajor program thrust tow

ardthe youth of the area, w

ith primary

emphasis on m

aternal care for high-riskm

others and on preschool, elementary and

secondary school children, in an attempt

to reduce the high incidence of infant mor-

tality by 1975 and to eradicate by 1980 pre-ventable chronic disease and disabilities inthe segm

ent of the population aged over0-o to provide adequate prim

ary, definitiveand qualitative health care for the segm

entof the population aged over 25, in the belief

43

44Section 202 C

omprehensive H

ealth Dem

onstrationA

reasin A

ppalachia

1. Tri-C

ounty Appalachian R

egional Health P

lanning Council/

Muscle S

hoals Com

prehensive Health P

lanning Council/

Top of A

labama H

ealth Planning A

gency2. N

orthwest G

eorgia Regional H

ealth Advisory C

ouncil3. G

eorgia-Tennessee R

egional Health C

omm

ission4. S

outheastern Kentucky R

egional Health D

emonstration

5. Health P

lanning Council of A

ppalachia Maryland, Inc.

6. Northeast M

ississippi Health P

lanning Council

7. Regional H

ealth Council of E

astern Appalachia

8. The O

hio Valley H

ealth Services, Inc.

9. Central P

ennsylvania Health C

ouncil10. S

outh Carolina A

ppalachian Regional H

ealth Policy &

Planning C

ouncil11. V

irginia Appalachian H

ealth Services

12. Southern W

est Virginia R

egional Health C

ouncil, Inc.

that better care and rehabilitation will

enable these citizensto

contributein

greater measure to the econom

icdevel-

opment of the area.

Com

prehensive Health Planning

Com

prehensive health planning underthe A

ppalachian health program is

designed to enhance the national compre-

hensive health planning program and

speed the rate at which local com

munities

establish planning agencies recognized bythe D

epartment of H

ealth, Education and

Welfare (H

EW

). All agencies receiving

planning assistance from the C

omm

issionm

ust meet the criteria and guidelines of

an official health planning agency underSection 314(b) of the C

omprehensive

Health Planning A

ct within tw

o years.E

leven of the twelve of the A

ppalachianhealth dem

onstration areas already havebeen designated 314(b) agencies by H

EW

.

Planning for comprehensive health pro-

grams includes evaluating the health needs

of people based on their geography, popu-lation size, econom

ic levels, medical prob-

lems (m

alnutrition, black lung or poorm

ental health, for example); it also includes

an examination of m

edical resources(facilities and health personnel) existingw

ithin an area. Further, health planningm

ust determine w

hether an area will at

some point be able to support its ow

n health

0+

Olt

0

45

46organization; if it w

ill not, the plan must

offer an alternative method of m

eetingcosts. D

efining, coordinating and monitor-

ing funding, once itis received, is still

another function that requires the healthplanning organization's skill.

There are 22 com

prehensive healthplanning agencies, operating in 11 A

ppa-lachian states, w

hich are funded throughthe C

omm

ission. Com

prehensive healthplanning, since 1971, has been eligible toreceive A

RC

funds outside AR

C health

demonstration areas as w

ell as within them

.In fiscal year 1974, the C

omm

ission spent$2,700,000 for these planning anddevelopm

ent efforts.O

ne agency funded by the Com

mission

is a 73-mem

ber planning council in its sec-ond year of organization; it serves 16counties w

ith a population of over 700,000.Its boundaries are coterm

inous with the

local development district .(1.,D

D) bound-

aries, and it acts as the LD

D's technical

advisory comm

ittee for health planningand review

s health-related projects which

come before the L

DD

. In addition tocom

prehensive health planning, the coun-cil has task forces organized in the areasof health education, m

ental health, pri-m

ary care and emergency m

edical service.T

he council has sponsored the develop-m

ent of seven primary care clinics in its

service area. The council is also w

orkingto identify m

issing health data for its area.has com

pleted a study of short-term and

undertaken a preliminary study of long-

term hospital bed needs, has identified

priority needs associated with the aging and

is planning for health needs associated with

child development. R

ecognizing the impor-

tance of comm

unity participation, thecouncil sponsors continuing inform

ationalprogram

s and runs a model w

orkshop inhealth-planning issues for m

embers of the

16 county health councils.

Primary H

ealth Care

One area w

hich has received priorityattention from

the AR

C, especially over the

past four years, is primary health care. A

sview

ed by the Com

mission, prim

ary healthcare m

eans a system that offers people daily

personal health care on a full-time. con-

tinuing basis. The com

prehensive natureof prim

ary health care requires that it in-clude the m

aintenance of complete m

edicalrecords and extend care, w

hen necessary.to the secondary level (i.e., hospital ser-vices) and tertiary (i.e., highly specializedresearch-oriented

servicesusually cen-

tralized in regional hospitals). In effect, thisdefinition of prim

ary care means that once

an individual enters the comprehensive

health care system for any reason, w

hetherit

is for examination, diagnosis or treat-

ment, the prim

ary health care component

of the system m

akes available to him a full

range of personal health services, from sim

-ple testing to specialized treatm

ent.A

s with com

prehensive health planning,prim

ary care projects in all Appalachian

portions of the states have been eligible forA

RC

funding since 1971. In fiscal year1974 the C

omm

ission invested 53.400,000in over 70 prim

ary care projects.O

ne illustration of these AR

C m

onies inaction is a prim

ary health care clinic builtby a rural com

munity and staffed by tw

ofam

ily nurse practitioners. The clinic's tw

onurse practitioners and the back-up ser-vices provided by a m

edical school 20 miles

away serve a population of 5,000. T

he fam-

ily nurse practitioner concept is an inno-vative approach to solving health problem

sin rural areas, since the nurse practitionerreceives special training w

hich enables heror him

to perform m

any duties that untilnow

fell only within the prerogatives of a

medical doctor. T

his training takes mans

fewer years than the training of an M

.D.

A nurse-practitioner clinic am

offer first-rate prim

ary care, and, because a licensedm

edical doctor must w

ork in consultation(usually daily) w

ith the practitioner,patients are assured of receiving the typeof com

prehensive health care describedearlier.

Family nurse practitioner and other

types of physicians' assistants clinics aregaining increased recognition and supportthroughout the nation.

Black L

ung Clinics

Under Section 202, three new

clinicsdesigned to screen and treat coal w

orkerspneum

oconiosis (black lung) were funded

by the AR

C in fiscal 74. In K

entucky andT

ennessee the projects, both diagnosticand treatm

ent clinics with outreach, w

ill bem

anaged by the United M

ine %V

ol kers'D

ivision of Occupational Safet%

andH

ealth, working through each state's

health department. K

entucky's, which w

illserve a population of 53.000 in the m

oun-tains of Southeastern K

entucky. receivedS523,000 in A

RC

and National Institute

for Occupational Safety and H

ealth(N

IOSH

) funds. Tennessee's, w

hich will

serve 33,009 miners and their dependents

in east Tennessee north of K

noxville.received S175,900 in A

RC

and NIO

SHfunds.

In Virginia a black lung clinic., under the

managem

ent of the state health depart-m

ent, is in the pro( ess of being set up tooffer screening and tc em

inent. %%

ith oneprim

al.% site at L

onesome Pine Ilospital in

Big Stone G

ap, and two satellite centers

in Wise and T

a/ewell. It w

ill serve the sevencounties of the V

irginia health demonstra-

tion area, with a m

ining population ofapi)roxim

atel 10,000. It receivedS282.000 in A

RC

and NO

SH funds.

I

Child D

evelopment

roviding children and families w

ithPaccess to a

Sy S

IMI

With

Itw

ide range ofhealth. nutritional. educational and socialservices is the goal of the C

omm

ission'schild developm

ent program. C

hilddevelopm

ent is essentially geared toward

supplying infants and preschool children,but also their fam

ilies, with the proper tools

for fully participating in today's world.

Healthy developm

entdoes

notauto-

matically occur for all children, and in

many areas of A

ppalachia it is sorely lack-ing due to the R

egion's depressed economy

and its ph% steal and social isolation from

existing ( hild development opportunities.

Mani studies have been m

ade which

show that the early childhood ears are c tit-

ical to a child's futut e emotional and physi-

cal well-being and ability to learn. T

hese%

ears, front 0 to 6, arc the focus of theC

omm

ission program aim

ed at givingA

ppalachian children an opportunity todevelop to their inm

ost potential.In fiscal year 1974, S25.529.000 w

aschanneled into child developm

ent throughthe A

RC

. Of this total. S23.73,000 w

as

approved for 217 existing projects' con-tinuation, and 52,056,000 w

as approvedfor 28 new

child development undertak-

ings.

Organizing and PlanningO

ne of the first planning steps taken inthe child developm

ent program w

as theorganization of state interagency councils,w

hich provided the process and mecha-

nism necessary for bringing key agencies

and individuals together in a united effort.T

hese state councils are responsible forcoordinating the overall range of neededchildren's services. T

here are basically two

models for these state interagency councils

in Appalachian states. 1n one, the state

council, chaired by the Governor and com

-prising the heads of all state agencies serv-ing children, establishes policy, developsinteragency cooperative agreem

ents andm

onitors multicounty adm

inistrative unitsA

subordinate interagency council at them

ulticounty level (usually coterminous

with the local developm

ent district) estab-lishes the adm

inistrative mechanism

through which services at e delivered at the

local level.In the second m

odel. the state inter-agency council also establishes policy. butadm

inistration of the child development

programs is carried out by line agencies

at the state level. such as divisions of socialservices or departm

ents of !Indian re-sources.

In both models local developm

ent dis-tricts or child developm

ent councils at them

ulticou tit y level then function as thecoordinating agency for local childdevelopm

ent program operations in the

areas of administration, com

munity

development and training. A

development

district may have a num

ber of projectslocated throughout the counties under its

jurisdiction. A central adm

inistrative teamat the L

DD

level assists in securing comm

u-nity support as w

ell as being the focal pointfor resource developm

ent (see below). C

en-tralization of purchasing and payrollsallow

s directors of child development cen-

ters more tim

e for the children and theircurriculum

. This coordination at the L

DD

level gives the entire area access to servicesand resources not readily available locally.

Resource D

evelopment

During 1974 the A

RC

child development

program has m

ade a number of positive

contributions to the most im

portant aspectof the R

egion's natural resourcesits

people. In 12 of the 13 states, over 5,100persons have been em

ployed by the childdevelopm

ent program. T

hese people havereceived training and education in additionto em

ployment.

One of the im

portant components of the

program, quality day care services, frees

parents to enter into the labor market or

enroll in training and education programs

which w

ill prepare them for em

ployment.

Together w

ith preventive medical and vital

nutrition services for children, plus infor-m

ational services for parents, day care sig-nificantly contributes to the developm

entof A

ppalachia's people resource.A

s a result of improving the job situation

in many A

ppalachian comm

unities, thechild developm

ent program has substan-

tially increased the number of dollars circu-

lating in these locales. AR

C grants have

been used by child development planners

to attract additional finances from m

anyfederal (Social Security. T

itle I V -A

;D

epartment of A

griculture; Mental

Health; M

aternal-Child H

ealth, for ex-am

ple) and nonfederal (i.e., state) sourcesas w

ell. There is no one source of funds

which can pros 1de sufficiently flexible

47

48funds or large enough am

ounts to establishbroad categories of child developm

ent pro-gram

s, but the mix of A

RC

funds, otherfederal funds and state and local m

onieshas enabled the A

ppalachian states to takethe lead nationally in child developm

entin offering their citizens com

prehensiveprogram

s.

Programs and D

elivery Methods

Due to a w

idely scattered population,scarce service resources and poor trans-portation, delivery of child developm

entservices to A

ppalachians is a major

problem. H

owever, through its program

,the C

omm

ission has implem

ented variousapproaches to service delivery w

hich havesuccessfully elim

inated many obstacles im

-peding the flow

of services to children.T

hese approaches:

o Single agency. An agency develops the

capacity to deliver a specific range of ser-vices to a lim

ited population. For servicesoutside this range. individuals are referredto specialized agencies w

hen necessary. An

example of this is a day care center w

ithsocial services, nutrition, education andlim

ited medical capabilities for all enrolled

children.o M

ultiple agency. Various pieces of the

delivery system are provided by the local

agencies which have traditionally been in

the business of supplying that service (thecounty health departm

ent does healthscreening, for exam

ple). Agencies agree to

share information and referrals. as appro-

priate.o Structured coordination. T

he creationof a special group to insure sm

ooth andefficient use of all available resources andagencies. T

his special group exists, accord-ing to the particular state involved. on alocal, county or even state level.

"F.

=

One m

ulticounty project which uses the

structured coordination approach involvesthree rural counties. A

major hub organiza-

tion uses a confidential computerized

information system

to assure maxim

umcoordination O

f child development set -

%ices. A

ll the various service agencies within

the counties comprise the total child

development system

. Once a child t et ci, es

any one service, he or she is automatically

incorporated into the entire program for

possible referral, where necessary. C

hil-dren m

ay then obtain additional help with-

out having to go through multiple intake

procedures to determine eligibility for vari-

ous programs or having to m

ake com-

plicated financial arrangements. T

hroughall of these delivery system

s children andtheir fam

ilies become eligible for a w

iderange of services either directly or by re-ferral m

ethods. Each state's A

RC

childdevelopm

ent system includes m

ost of thefollow

ing services: family planning; pre-

natal and postnatal care; pediatric healthservices; dental services; parent education;preventive services; special education forthe handicapped and their fam

ilies; centeror fam

ily day care; mental health services;

training and education for adults working

in toe program; transportation.

Com

prehensive ServicesT

he comprehensive nature of this A

RC

program guarantees that the system

of ser-vices to children and adults is broad enoughto m

eet their individual health, nutritional,educational and social needs. From

family

planning to counseling to medical care to

education to combinations of all of these.

the Com

mission's program

stresses totalcare for children and their m

others fromconception through the fifth year.

The A

RC

child development program

has planned, developed and implem

entedover 233 projects w

hich deliver childdevelopm

ent services to over 103,000 chil-dren and their fam

ilies. And though som

eof these projects arc not necessarily uniquein them

selves, together they form a unique

network. T

his planned, organized and de-livered rural services sstem

fissures thatall m

ailable resources are I ()fused on thechildren uho need them

.

Education

n the years since the Appalachian R

egional C

omm

ission was founded, signifi-

cant progress has been made tow

ard raisingthe educational level in the R

egion, sothat A

ppalachian young people today findthem

selves much better trained to com

petesuccessfully in today's technological society.Students now

have available many new

types of courses and services which the

Appalachia of 1965 could not offer them

.T

eachers and administrators find it possi-

ble to ontinuc and upgrade their trainingso that they can do a better job of helpingtheir students. M

any classrooms, libraries,

auditoriums, vocational shops and special

facilities have been added to vocational andhigher education institutions.

Vocational educationT

he Com

mission has alw

ays placed ahigh priority on vocational education, rec-ognizing that econom

ic development of the

Region is dependent on the existence of

a qualified labor force, without w

hich no

comm

unity can attract and hold the in-dustries and em

ployment it needs for sta-

bility and growth.

The initial goal established by the C

om-

mission in conjunction w

ith the 13 Appa-

lachian states was to construct and equip

enough vocational education facilities toenroll 50 percent of the R

egion's 11th and12th graders in job-relevant courses

agoal set in the expectation that approxi-m

ately half of the Region's high school

graduates would go on to college and that

vocational training should therefore beavailable to the other 50 percent. C

urrentfigures indicate that 39 percent of the R

e-gion's juniors and seniors are enrolled insuch courses.

During the first four years of the A

RC

program, the em

phasis at the Com

mission

was on building new

schools. During the

next five years the emphasis shifted to im

-proving and expanding schools that w

erealready in existence. T

his included con-3t. acting additional

buildings andre-

equipping those already in place. By far

the majority of the C

omm

ission's Section211 (vocational education) funds are stillbeing used for construction and equip-m

ent. In fiscal year 1974 construction andequipm

ent projects were funded for a total

of over $20 million. T

he facilities which

have received Com

mission support under

this program w

ill be adequate to enroll310,000 students w

hen they are fullyoperational. (H

igher education facilitiesand equipm

ent in the Region have also re-

ceived support; $2,409,000in

supple-m

ental grants funds was expended in fiscal

year 1974 for these purposes.)A

major objective of the C

omm

ission'sprogram

has been to tailor the vocationalcourses in A

RC

-funded schools to the jobm

arket. Students have a right to receivetraining appropriate for existing and

future job opportunities. As a result, voca-

tional education schools in the Region now

offer such courses as air conditioning andheating, aircraft m

aintenance, auto bodyand fender repair, autom

obile mechanics,

building trades maintenance, child care,

cosmetology, data processing, dental

assistant, merchandisit.g, tool and die tech-

nology, and typing and stenography. In all,nearly 100 different courses are availablethroughout the R

egion in schools fundedunder the A

ct.In 1971 C

ongress amended the A

ppa-lachian R

egional Developm

ent Act so that

vocational education funds could be usedto support operating program

s. This

change in the Act w

as prompted by the

rapid increase in vocational educationenrollm

ents and the sharp escalation inteacher salaries, w

hich together placed asevere strain on operating funds in m

anyparts of the R

egion. In fiscal 1974, 30 oper-ations projects w

ere funded for a total of$2.8 m

illion. These projects w

ere aimed at

ensuring more efficient and m

ore complete

use of Appalachian-assisted facilities

through programs that m

ight, for example,

instigate double shifts at schools or eveningand w

eekend classes for adults. They w

erealso designed to furnish additional servicessuch as guidance and placem

ent and pro-vide special training program

s in fields with

critical manpow

er shortages.T

he 1971 amendm

ents to the Act also

authorizedgrants

forspecial dem

on-stration projects in vocational and technicaleducation w

hich "will serve to dem

onstrateareaw

ide educational planning, servicesand program

s." In fiscal 1974 over $1.9m

illion was approved for 22 dem

onstrationprojects, including continuation of 17 proj-ects funded the previous fiscal year. T

hesedem

onstration projects are intended tofind w

ays to make A

ppalachians more

49

50aw

are of the full range of occupationalchoices available to them

and then to helpthem

get the training necessary to obtainem

ployment in the field of their choice.

Priorities adopted by the Com

mission for

these projects include:

o more effective w

ays to utilize fully vocationaland technical education facilitieso in-service professional training for adultso hom

e-based multim

edia study programs for

individuals, or self-paced programs

o innovative approaches to guidance and place-m

ento innovative facilities such as m

obile classrooms

or guidance centers, or individualized learningcenterso career education.C

areer education is a concept which

involves making w

hat happens in the class-room

more m

eaningful to the individualstudent by relating it to the w

orld and thew

ay in which he w

ill earn his living. It helpselem

entary students develop awareness of

self and the world of w

ork, provides work

experiences for junior high students andteaches senior high students the know

ledgeand special skills they need to becom

eem

ployed or to pursue further educationafter high school.

Regional E

ducationService A

genciesT

he Com

mission has aided m

ost of theA

ppalachian states to set up Regional E

d-ucation Service A

gencies (RE

SAs). M

anyA

ppalachian school districts have low tax

bases and few students, a fact w

hich doesnot m

ake it economically feasible for them

to pros ide basic educational and supportservices to their dispersed rural popu-lations. B

y pooling their resources. how-

ever, different areas within the R

egion (seethe m

ap opposite) are now able to offer

a wide range of shared services. T

hesevoluntary organizations of school districts,w

hich have banded together to provideeducational program

s to their mem

beragencies, are R

ESA

s.N

ot all RE

SAs have identical structures,

but in the Appalachian R

egion there arecertain characteristics that are consideredessential. E

ach RE

SA m

ust be a confedera-tion of several school districts; since m

ostschool districts follow

county lines, thism

eans that RE

SAs are m

ulticounty organi-zations. A

RE

SA is usually a creation of

the participating school districts, with the

individual mem

ber districts retainingautonom

y and local control. They, not the

RE

SA, m

ust make the decision as to w

hatprogram

s the RE

SA engages in; each dis-

trict is also free to participate or not partici-pate in each program

.A

total of 18 operating RE

SAs w

ereinvolved in a variety of program

s anddem

onstrations during fiscal 1974. The

programs included:

o 5 media services program

s. Typical services

include an instructional development

institute, delivery of materials from

acentral library and repair of audiovisualequipm

ent.o 8 early childhood education program

s. Fortyprofessionals and 95 teacher-aids orparaprofessionals em

ployed in these pro-gram

s brought new opportunities to 4,888

children.

In a typical program, hom

e visitors come

once a week to each hom

e on their list.T

hey bring with them

written m

aterials oreducational toys, the use of w

hich theydem

onstrate to the parent of each childin a period of carefully guided play w

iththe ( hild. T

he parent is encouraged to con-

tinue these activities frequently during thew

eek to spur the child's development. T

hechild and parent also participate w

ith fouror five other children and parents in aw

eekly classroom session in a m

obile vanw

hich comes to the neighborhood w

ith aR

ESA

staff instructor.A

demonstration early childhood pro-

gram of another type using day care centers

was so successful in W

est Virginia that the

state subsequently established a statewide

mandated program

for five-year-olds.o // special education program

s. In the 18R

ESA

s, screening and diagnostic servicesw

ere performed for over 42,327 children

with m

ental, physical, vision, hearing,speech or learning problem

s; 271 classesw

ere conducted for their special needs. (Insom

e cases, this screening was perform

edas part of the C

omm

ission's health pro-gram

.) 129 teachers attended in-servicecourses for teaching the handicapped,w

hile over 2,822 teachers were given

assistance in regular classrooms. Ps%

cho-logical services w

ere provided in two

RE

SAs for 4,500 children.

o 8 staff development program

c. Staffdevelopm

ent activities were provided for

8,699 teachers in 163 separate courses.I I group purchasing program

s. Small

cooperative programs in group purchasing

realized reductions of from 7 to 50 percent

in purchasing costs.o 6 adm

inishative cooperation progiams. R

e-sources w

ere pooled to buy computer tim

efrom

a nearby universitN.

o 9 higher educatum cooperating propian%

.T

hese programs in vol. eel in-service

education, intern programs and research

projects.5 adult education pogrom

s. About 3.500

adults participated in classes which pre-

pared them for the G

eneral Education

Developm

ent (GE

D) test.

Regional E

ducationService A

gencies1. R

ES

A III

2 RE

SA

V II

3. Regiona E

ducation Service A

gency of Appalachian M

aryland4. R

egiona Organization to P

rovide Educational S

ervicesR

egion 95. R

egiona Organization to P

rovide Educational S

ervicesR

egion 106. R

egiona Organization to P

rovide Educational S

ervicesR

egion 117. R

egiona Organization to P

rovide Educational S

ervices -- Region 13

8. DILE

NO

WIS

CO

Educational C

ooperative9. U

pper Cum

berland Education C

ooperative10. T

ennessee Appalachian E

ducational Cooperative

11. Clinch-P

owell E

ducational Cooperative

12. Little Tennessee V

alley Educational C

ooperative13. U

pper East T

ennessee Developm

ent District E

ducation Planning

14. Northw

est Regional education C

enter15. W

estern Regional E

ducation Center

16 Three R

ivers Education S

ervice Agency

17. TA

RC

OG

18N

orthwest G

eorgia Cooperative E

ducation Service A

gency (CE

SA

)19. S

outh Carolina A

ppalachian Teacher In-S

ervice Training Institute

20. Southeastern O

hio Regional E

ducation Agency (S

OR

EA

)21. O

hio Appalachian C

ooperative for Educational S

ervices (OA

CE

S)

Other E

ducational Cooperatives

A.

Com

prehensive Teacher T

raining Program

BR

egional In-Service T

eacher Education C

onsortium

51

52T

he Appalachian

Education Satellite ProjectT

he Appalachian area w

as selected asone of three areas in the nation to partici-pate in an extensive series of experim

ents,sponsored jointly by the N

ational Aero-

nautics and Space A

dministration (N

AS

A)

and the' Departm

ent of Health, E

ducationand W

elfare (HE

W), to determ

ine whether

a comm

unications satellite is a feasible way

to provide educational information to

people in isolated rural areas.In 1974-75 900 teachers in five m

ainR

ES

A centers (the C

hautauqua, Maryland,

DILE

NO

WIS

CO

, Clinch-P

owell and

TA

RC

OG

RE

SA

ssee the list on page

51) and ten ancillary RE

SA

s are receivingin-service education courses in basic ele-m

entary reading and career education viasatellite. V

ideotapes of the courses arebeam

ed via the Applications T

echnologyS

atellite (AT

S-6), the m

ost powerful

comm

unications satellite ever sent aloft,from

the resource coordinating center(R

CC

) at the University of K

entucky, which

prepared the courses, to the five main cen-

ters and then relayed to the ancillaryR

ES

As. E

ach course includes not only thevideotaped lessons but also program

med

instruction (that is, additional assignments)

based on the lessons, laboratory sessionsand live sem

inars. Teachers at the five m

ainR

ES

A centers can ask questions, w

hich arerelayed to the sem

inar leader at the Univer-

sity of Kentucky and then answ

ered duringthe sem

inar session. Thus the satellite's

capacity for live question-and-answer ses-

sions provides a two-w

ay comm

unicationsim

ulating a normal classroom

.In addition, A

ppalachian teachers haveavailable for back-up help a carefully com

-piled depository of m

aterials in the fieldsof basic elem

entary reading and career

education, both while they are taking the

courses and later when they put the princi-

ples learned into practice in the classroom.

The R

CC

has developed a computer-based

information system

which is available to an-

swer specific requests by participants. T

hissystem

includes much of the available liter-

ature and instructional materials in these

two fields. T

eletype terminals at the m

ainR

ES

As perm

it participants to assemble

bibliographies on subjects of particularinterest w

ith great speed.T

eachers attending the courses are

receiving graduate credit from local uni-

versities and colleges. They w

ill not be theonly ones to benefit from

the programsince, w

hen .he year-long project is over,the videotapes and instructional m

aterialin the teacher-training program

will be

made available to statew

ide educationaltelevision stations, local public broadcastingstations, other R

ES

As and school districts

in Appalachia. In this m

anner, the two

courses are expected to reach at least15.000 to 20,000 additional teachers.

Com

munity Facilities

and Housing

It has become increasingly clear that the

ability to attract new econom

ic develop-m

ent to the Region depends upon the

extent to which A

ppalachian comm

uhitiescan offer such am

enities as decent housing,clean w

ater and good sanitation, as well as

well-equipped industrial sites. In fiscal year

1974 the Com

mission therefore decided to

incorporate into one program a num

berof com

munity futilities w

hich it is fundingunder various sections of the A

ct. The new

program w

ill have five components: w

atersupply, w

aste water treatm

ent, housingdevelopm

ent. solid waste treatm

ent and ex-pansion of parks and rec reation fitcilities.It is designed to deliver a pat kage of qualityservices adequate for the expansion orredistribution of population w

ithin theR

egion and for the new requirem

ents ofm

ore sophisticated economic developm

ent.both now

and in the futut C.

Water and Sew

erU

nder the supplemental grants section

of the Act (see page 40). a suable am

ount

of money w

as spent during fiscal 1974 onw

ater and sewer projects. S

ome of these

were com

prehensive projects involvingw

hole systems, w

here a water supply sour:e

was installed (and often the w

ater treatedas w

ell), water and sew

er lines put in, anda sew

age treatment facility built. O

thersw

ere limited to one or m

ore phases ofeither w

ater or sewer system

s. 39 new proj-

ects were approved in fiscal year 1974 in

the amount of $10.7 m

illion; 26, fundedin the am

ount of $5.8 million, w

ere con-tinued from

previous years.In one typical project, a proposal w

as firstsubm

itted to the Com

mission to supply a

sewer system

for the approximately 300

residents of a small tow

n in Mississippi,

which had no sanitary sew

er system at all.

Each resident, and each business, had to

furnish its own m

ethod of treatment, w

hichct eated a serious public health problem

.O

n investigation, it was discovered that a

new industry w

as planning to locate nearthe tow

n if waste w

ater treatment facilities

were available and that a tract of land suit-

able for further industrial development

could also be served by the same sew

agetreatm

ent systetn if the system w

ereexpanded som

ewhat. T

he system w

astherefore redesigned to serve the tow

n resi-dents and the industrial area. T

he newplant is now

in operation and employs

about 100 people.In a N

orth Carolina tow

n, located nearthe B

eech Mountain ski area and a num

berof other tourist attractions, the w

ater sys-tem

was over 40 years old. M

any of thew

ater lines were corroded and overloaded.

Me tow

n had no fire department because

of inadequate water supply and pressure.

The lack of acceptable w

ater and sewerage

facilities inhibited new industry from

mov-

ing into the area. With the help of A

RC

Section 214 funds, the w

ater system w

as

renovated and expanded with a 100,000 -

gallon storage reservoir, a new w

ell, newand larger pipelines, gate valves and firehydrants. T

he new system

will m

eet fireunderw

riting requirements for industrial

use and will be adequate not only for the

use of the town's residents and businesses

until an estimated date of 1990 but also

for the summ

er tourists who constitute the

town's chief industry.

Other C

omm

unity FacilitiesC

omm

ission funds have supported a vari-ety of other com

munity facilities. In fiscal

year 1974 access roads have been fundedunder S

ection 201 and rural mass transit

projects under Section 302 (see pages 37-8).

Seven recreation projects w

ere approvedin the am

ount of $947,000; eight airportim

provement projects w

ere approved fora total of $503,000. T

he Com

mission's m

ostextensive program

in comm

unity facilities,how

ever, has been in housing.

HousingM

uch of Appalachian housing is still sub-

standard in comparison w

ith that in thenation as a w

hole. Substandard housing is

often measured by counting the num

berof units w

ithout some or all plum

bing (in-chiding toilet and bathing facilities and hotand cold running w

ater) and/or the unitshaving 1.01 or m

ore persons per room.

Based on this U

.S. B

ureau of the Census

measure, 19.5 percent of all housing in the

Region w

as substandard in 1970, as com-

pared with 13.5 percent for the U

nitedS

tates as a whole. In C

entral Appalachia,

where 40.3 percent of the housing w

asrated as substandard, the problem

was even

more acute. N

orthern Appalachia w

ascloser to the national average w

ith 14.2 per-cent of its

housing substandard. Sub-

53

54standard housing in Southern A

ppalachiaam

ounted to 21.8 percent of the total occu-pied housing. Furtherm

ore, much of the

Region's housing is dilapidated; in fact, one

out of four Appalachians is estim

ated tolive in housing that needs replacem

ent orrepair.R

evolving Planning-Loan Fund. T

o helpm

eet these needs, Congressn 1967 autho-

rized the Com

mission to set up a revolving

planning-loan fund to stimulate the con-

struction of low- and m

oderate-income

housing. A concept w

hich originated with

the Appalachian program

and has since be-com

e the basis for a national housing pro-gram

, the fund provides money for "plan-

ning loans," i.e., loans to cover specificitem

s that a sponsor must pay for in order

to make application for m

ortgage insur-ance com

mitm

ent under Sections 221, 235or 236 of the N

ational Housing A

ct.A

mong these item

s are land options, mar-

ket analyses, consultant and processingfees, prelim

inary architectural and site-engineering fees and construction-loan fi-nancing fees. T

he costs of these items can

normally be included in a m

ortgage, which

means that after a construction loan or a

permanent insured m

ortgage has been ap-proved for a project, the planning loan canthen be repaid to the A

RC

revolving fund.T

he Com

mission program

also providesthat repaym

ent of a planning loan may be

waived if a nonprofit corporation is not able

to obtain financing for its housing projector if the m

ortgage that is obtained doesnot provide for repaym

ent of the planningloan. From

the beginning of the AR

C loan

program through the end of fiscal 1974.

the Com

mission approved 107 loans for

a total of more than S4.5 m

illion to stimu-

late the construction of approximately

12.153 units of housing. Of the planning

loans approved. 57 are now active in the

program. T

he active loans represent 6,679dw

elling units. with $2,241,796 disbursed.

Grants for Site D

evelopment and O

ff-SiteIm

provements. E

xperience with the revolv-

ing AR

C planning fund show

ed that many

Appalachian com

munities w

ere still havingdifficulty in trying to provide housing forlow

- and moderate-incom

e families. T

hethree m

ajor causes of difficulty were: (1)

the low incom

es of the families to be housed

in the projects, (2) the high cost of landdevelopm

ent because of the Appalachian

topography and (3) the fact that availablebuilding sites frequently have no access tocom

munity facilities such as sew

er andw

ater lines. The net result w

as that if rentsand sale prices w

ere set high enough tocover full developm

ent costs, they were so

high that the housing was beyond the reach

of the people the programs w

ere intendedto serve. O

n the other hand, if rents andprices w

ere set low enough for these people

to afford, the economic feasibility

andhence the federal funding

of the projectw

as jeopardized.T

o help solve this problem, C

ongress in1971 am

ended Section 207 of the Act to

permit the C

omm

ission to make grants to

nonprofit organizations and public bodiesto pay reasonable costs of site developm

entand necessary off-site im

provements. In a

great many cases, these grants w

ill make

the difference between building or not

building a housing pi oject.pical costs

which can be covered include:

site development: excessive excavation, cut-

ting and filling, rock excavation, piling andother sim

ilar conditions; demolition of

existing structures, removal of debris and

any salvageable material or equipm

ent, dis-posal of old foundation m

aterial and fillingof excavation.ull-cite im

provement: utility line extension.

street grading, paving, curly., gutters,

drainage, and water and sew

er extension.T

hrough the end of fiscal 1974. the Com

-m

ission has approved 13 grants, totalingS1,251,872, representing 862 dw

ellingunits. O

f these, 10 grants were in the active

stage, totaling S1,040,790 and representing740 dw

elling units.

Other A

ssistance. These grant program

shave only begun to scratch the surface ofthe extensive housing needs in the R

egion,but, largely because of other A

RC

assistance, Appalachian states now

have anexpanded institutional capacity to addresshousing needs. T

he Com

mission has given

technical assistance to 10 of its 13 statesin drafting the legislation w

hich has per-m

itted the creation of state housing financeagencies (N

ew Y

ork took this step on itsow

n). In the only two A

ppalachian statesw

hich do not vet have this legislation. Ala-

bama and M

ississippi, AR

C is w

orking N%

ithstate legislators to draft it.

State housing finance agencies performseveral very im

portant functions:o perm

it the states' borrowing pow

er tobe used to provide low

-cost money for

housing developments

o help local people with the necessary pre-

liminary w

ork for housing projectso help create sponsoring agencies forhousing projectso bring together resources in the fields ofdevelopm

ent, financing and construction,all of' w

hich are needed for any given hous-ing projecto provide general technic-al assistan«..

The state housing agencies, although

the are relatively new and in som

e casesnot vet fully operational, have alreadyplaced S673.8 m

illion in housing loans andm

ortgages. These funds w

ere obtainedthrough the floating of tax-exem

pt bonds,

---4C

O

in some instances backed by state appropri-

ations to the agencies, in others backed bythe credit of the state. T

he monies thus

lent are to be repaid through mortgage

payments.

In other words, m

ost Appalachian states

are now in a position, through their state

housing finance agencies, to supplement

the flow of m

ortgage credit to low- and

moderate-incom

e families, as w

ell as to helpthese fam

ilies benefit from federal housing

assistance. Loans to such fam

ilies generallycarry low

er interest charges than the goingm

arket rate and are available to many bor-

rowers w

ho find comm

ercial loans difficultto obtain.

In a number of instances, specific hous-

ing projects that received Appalachian

planning-loansite

grants have beenfinanced through the state agencies.

The state housing finance agencies

charge a small percentage on the loans they

make, and, for the m

ost part, fund theiradm

inistrative costs out of this small

charge, so that in essence they finance theirow

n operations. How

ever, the Appalachian

state governments have provided over $10

million in direct support of them

.In addition, the C

omm

ission offers theA

ppalachian states a general program of

technical assistance in planning and pro-viding low

- and moderate-incom

e housing.U

nder this program, for exam

ple, Virginia

is emphasizing the developm

ent andenforcem

ent of housing and buildingcodes. Pennsylvania is conducting an excel-lent housing technical assistance programw

hich includes loans and grants as well as

advice, and is also undertaking a One-year

comprehensive evaluation of the state's

housing policies and programs. B

y the endof fiscal year 1974, tw

elve Appalachian

states had received grants, totaling nearly$1,700,000. under this program

.

55

56

Environm

ent, Energy

and Natural R

esources

he 13 states of the Region have a w

ideTvariety of environm

ental problems, m

anyarising out of the use of A

ppalachia's boun-tiful natural resources. A

ll of the states haveproblem

s caused by some type of extraction

of mineral resources by surface-m

iningm

ethods. Surface coal mining occurring in

eight of the states has resulted in the most

severe and widespread problem

s. All of the

states must deal w

ith the need for disposalof solid w

aste (including junk cars).I n

much of the R

egion the mountainous

topography is particularly susceptible to airpollution. T

he second-home industry is

beginning to have an impact on the envi-

ronment in som

e parts of the Region. T

hepast degradation of the environm

ent hasleft a heritage of dam

age; the nation's con-tinuing need for A

ppalachia's coal andtim

ber products and the persistent desireto seek out and develop scenic and w

ildareas m

ean that care is essential to avoidthe sam

e degradation in the future.T

hese problems have been addressed in

the Appalachian R

egional Developm

entA

ct under several sections. Section 302funds have been used for a w

ide range ofresearch on air, energy, w

ater, land use,m

ining, timber, m

inerals, solid waste, m

an-pow

er, health, environmental planning

and education. Section 202 monies have

funded solid waste treatm

ent and environ-m

ental health planning. Land stabilization

and small w

atershed research were funded

under Section 203, encouragement of tim

-ber developm

ent organizations under Sec-tion 204 and a w

ater resources studyunder Section 206. Section 205 addressesm

ining rehabilitation and related prob-lem

s. Section 214 has provided generalsupplem

ental funds to support federalbasic grant program

s in water and sew

age.H

owever, not all of these sections rem

ainoperational today. T

he small authorization

for technical assistance to timber develop-

ment .organizations (Section 204) is nearly

exhausted. No appropriations have been

requested for Section 203, land stabili-zation, since 1970. N

o funds have beenauthorized for Section 212, w

ater andsew

er, since 1969, although Section 214funds continue to support m

any water and

sewer projects. T

he water resources survey

(Section 206) was com

pleted in fiscal 1970.In recent years the C

omm

ission hastaken steps to specify that physical projectsw

hich it supports be derived from or part

of a comprehensive environm

ental plan.T

he Com

mission itself has w

orked todelineate the scope of various problem

sand to determ

ine how they interrelate.

The C

omm

ission has funded research onw

ater resources, bituminous coal, coal m

an-pow

er needs, coal mining occupational

hazards, acid mine drainage and second-

home developm

ent. Com

prehensivestudies of the M

onongahela River basin

and its pollution problems, of subsidence,

energy, environmental education and the

use of remote-sensing devices in land-use

planning and environmental m

anagement

have all been undertaken. Through all of

these efforts in comprehensive environ-

mental planning, the C

omm

ission's objec-tive is to help the states develop and pr-)tectthe R

egion's closely linked environment,

energy and natural resources, and at thesam

e time attain developm

ental goals.

Environm

ent

Tquality of the environm

ent has agreat (

al to do with the econom

ic develop-m

entthe R

egion. Industries take thisinto ace m

ilt when they consider locating

in au area. The public is no longer w

illingto accept the unsightliness and dam

age thatpollution of all kinds can cause. T

hus govern-m

ent bodies are coming to recognize that

these problems m

ust be solved and that thelonger they w

ait, the more expensive the

corrective process w:11 be.

The C

omm

ission's on-going and newly

approved environmental projects in fiscal

year 1974 dealt generally with at eaw

ideapproaches to m

ine-related problems,

land-use techniques and options, en. iron-m

ental education and junk car removal.

Mine-R

elated Problem

sSection 205 of the A

ct allows the C

om-

mission to provide funds through the

Secretary of the Interior to seal and fillvoids in abandoned coal m

ines, plan andexecute projects for extinguishm

ent andcontrol of underground and outcrop m

inefires, seal abandoned oil and gas w

ells. re-claim

surface mine areas and m

ine waste

banks on public lands and control or abatem

ine drainage pollution. New

projects to-taling nearly $5 m

illion were approved

under this section in fiscal year 1974.o M

ine Fires and Subsidence. During fiscal

year 1974 seven mine fire projects and one

subsidence project were com

pleted in Penn-sylvania. T

he mine fire projects ranged in

cost from $34,000 to over $2.5 m

illion.T

hree more subsidence control projects in

Pennsylvania were in progress, and a new

one, with a budget of S1 m

illion, was ap-

proved in West V

irginia.o Surface M

ine Reclam

ation. An O

hio in-dustrial site project w

as completed during

the year for a cost of S138,054, Tw

o proj-ects, one in O

hio and one in Pennsylvania,w

ere approved.

o Mine R

efuse Bank R

eclamation. A

projectcosting $318,362 has been approved w

hichw

ill extinguish a smoldering refuse bank

which has been polluting the air in the grea-

ter Fairmont area in W

est Virginia and

creating dust in the village of Rivesville:

it will also stop the seepage of acidic w

aterinto the M

onongahela River and end the

silt discharge to the Monongahela w

ater-shed. T

he reclamation w

ork involves com-

pacting the hank and adding fly ash tom

ake a noncombustible land fill. Plans are

being made to use the area as a site for

needed housing.o M

ine Drainage Pollution

Control. Four

mine dtainage pollution contt of projects

costing over S3 million w

ere approved forthe state of M

aryland. One, the G

eorgesC

reek project in Allegany C

ounty, Mary-

land, will im

prove the quality of water flow

-ing into the north branch of the Potom

acR

iver. The three other projects, C

hemC

reek, Friendsville and Casselm

an. in Gar-

rett County. w

ill vastly improve the quality

of the water flow

ing into the Youghioghem

,R

iver, a major tributary of the M

ononga-hela. T

he Cherry C

reek project will restore

that creek to the point where it can support

game fish, w

ill also improve the w

ater qual-itN

in Deep C

reek Lake, a reservoir w

hichis a principal recreational attraction in w

est-ern M

aryland and, finally, will upgrade the

water quality of the Y

oughiogheny Reser-

voir downstream

, into which D

eep Creek

Lake eventually drains.

o Other Projects. T

wo new

projects were

funded to develop uses for coal mine

refuse. The G

overnor's office of the stateof W

est Virginia w

ill develop tests andspecifications for building roads out of coalrefuse. E

still County, K

entucky, will study

the establishment of' new

markets and the

development of new

industries for thisw

aste material.

Land Use

Land is one of the nation's m

ost impor-

tant natural resources because it is a nonex-pandable resource. W

here restrictions onthe use of land have been negligible andplanning for its use tardy or nonexistent,governm

ental bodies have found them-

selves all too often faced with all sorts of

problems: skyrocketing costs, population

explosions that necessitate greatlyincreased public services, dam

age to theenvironm

ent from insufficiently consid-

et ed or too rapid growth,

ecological disas-ters, destruction of developm

ents on areasprone to flood, landslide and subsidencedainage.

In an effort to avoid creating problems

like these in the future, more and m

orejurisdictions are becom

ing interested inland-use planning

determining in

advance which are the best and m

ost appro-priate uses for given parcels of' land and,perhaps even m

ore impot tantly, determ

in-ing w

hich uses will prove costly or destruc-

tive in the long run.

1

N.

re.

57

58

MT

INN

/

In fiscal year 1974 the Com

mission

approved projects designed to collect infor-m

ation on the physical characteristics ofland w

hich are needed for effective land-use planning. A

contract was aw

arded tothe U

.S. Geological Survey to inventory the

geologically oriented environmental prob-

lems in the Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania, area.

This includes the preparation of slope sta-

bility maps indicating m

ine subsidenceareas and of land-use m

aps. A second con-

tract was aw

arded to Allegheny C

ounty.W

ith this funding, the county planningdepartm

ent will apply the technical infor-

mation being developed by the U

.S. Geo-

logical Survey to prepare better zoningregulations and building requirem

ents andw

ill explore other ways of using the tech-

nical data for better land-use planning andm

anagement.

Environm

ental Education

There is still a great deal A

ppalachiansneed to learn about their environm

ent.T

hey need to be more aw

are of presentand potential environm

ental problems. T

oencourage this, the C

omm

ission fundsenvironm

ental education projects. Bays

Mountain Parke a

I .300-acre nature pre-ser. e located on a m

ountain top within the

cit),lim

its of Kingsport, T

ennessee, isfunded by the city of K

ingsport. SullivanC

ounty and the Appalachian R

egional Com

-m

ission throughthe

First Tennessee-

Virginia D

evelopment D

istrict and theU

pper East T

ennessee Educational C

o-operative.

The city of K

ingsport, which ow

ns andoperates the park. has stated that the goalsof the B

ays Mountain nature area w

ill beto preserve, protect. appreciate, under-stand and cherish'all of life and the w

orldit inhabits, w

ith the primary em

phasis oneducating people to share these goals. T

he

nature center has developed courses forstudents, to be used to supplem

ent localschool curricula, and for the general publicas w

ell. In the environmental-nature cur-

riculum and the planetarium

curriculum,

an individual course for eachgrade

(kindergarten through senior high) hasbeen prepared. T

he environmental-nature

curriculum begins for the kindergarten

classes by stressing an awareness of the

general environment. Senior high students

are given several options: they may

study,for exam

ple, forestry, wildlife m

anage-m

ent or geology. The planetarium

courses,too, are designed to m

eet the needs of thestudents at each grade level. In the secondyear of operation, 163,959 visitors

partici-pated in the park's program

s.

Junk Cars

There are no public places in A

ppalachiaw

here residents can dispose of junk carsw

ithout charge. The cost and difficulty of

transporting a worthless hulk to a dealer

inhibits most people front rem

oving junktars flout their property. A

ll over the Re-

gion. abandoned junk cars have become

health hazards and environmental pollu-

tants which detract from

therecreational

and tourist potential of Appalachia's

counts' side.In 1971 the C

omm

ission initiated a $1.3-m

illion demonstration project for the

removal of junk cam

's and durable waste

which w

as intended to illustrate differentpossible institutional approaches to solinga com

mon in oblem

. Georgia; N

ot th Caro-

lina, South Carolina. T

ennessee and \Vest

Virginia are partit ipating in eight separate

junk-car-removal dem

onstration projectsinvolving the joint of forts of civic groupsand local governm

ents.T

wo T

ennessee local development dis-

tricts. Upper C

umberland D

evelopment

District and Southeast T

ennessee Develop-

ment D

istrict, collected a total of 2,547 junkvehicles in their 24-county area during thefirst tw

elve months of the project. A

rearesidents w

ere informed about the project

through -Turn in a Junkie" advertisem

entson radio, television and billboards andstories in the local new

spapers. The project,

now in its final phase, is being exam

inedto see w

hether it can he used as the basisfor a statew

ide program w

hich would

involvelegislation.

funding,adm

inis-tration, program

standards and localassistance.

Energy

Because A

ppalachia is one of thenation's prim

e available sources of domes-

tic energy, the Appalachian R

egional Com

-m

ission and the states recognize that theyhave a special responsibility to assist in theprovision of an adequate supply of energy14 the na:ion. T

he Com

mission and the

states also recognize the importance of fu -

nishing energy at prices that will perm

itthe grow

th and development of all parts

of the Region. A

ppalachia has a wealth of

natural resources, especially coal, so thatin a tim

e of crucial national need forenergy. A

ppalachia is going to play a newly

significant role. Since coal mining has often

been an exploiter of land and people inthe past. the C

omm

ission has a responsibil-ity to help the states utilize this newopportunity

foraccelerated

coalpro-

dut lion to serve sound et motnic develop-

ment and conservation. T

he Com

mission

and the states want to use the unique

federal-state relationship they havedeveloped to prom

ote the nation's inde-pendence in energy but at the sam

e time

to further. not hinder, the Region's eco-

nomic developm

ent through a sound policyof coal extraction.

One of the essential elem

ents in pro-viding an adequate supply of coal is effec-tively trained tnanpow

er. In fiscal year1974 the C

omm

ission staff assessed what

the manpow

er needs of the Appalachian

coal industry would be, projected to 1980.

Recognizing that forecasting of future

needs or events for a particular industryis a difficult and constantly changing task,the C

omm

ission will periodically update its

estimates in this assessm

ent. The A

RC

staffestim

ates concluded that in 1980:o M

anpower requirem

ents in Appalachia's

coal industry will range From

83,200 to112,100 w

orkers, as compared to a poten-

tial available labor supply of between

77,600 and 102,300.o T

he overall labor picture for the Re-

gion's coal industry will be one of reason-

able balance between needs and supply.

How

ever, there will be an increased proba-

bility of spot manpow

er shortages andrecruiting difficulties, particularly forsupervisory and highly skilled m

anpower.

o Em

ployment in A

ppalachia's coalindus-

try will con.inue at a high level unless there

is a massive shift to coal from

the Western

United States.In addition to studying m

anpower needs,

the Com

mission funded a num

ber of newenergy research projects. Pennsylvania w

asaw

arded a contract to study the feasibilityof rem

oving minerals containing sulfur

from high-sulfur Pennsylvania coal. L

ow-

sulfur coal is a cleaner-burning fuel thatw

ill help Pennsylvania electric utility com-

panies meet air quality standards. T

helaboratory w

ork and conclusions of thestudy w

ill be conveyed to the mining indus-

ty for adaptation. I tt another projectapproved by the C

omm

ission, the Can-D

oIndustrial Park in H

azelton. Pennsylvania,

59

60w

ill study the feasibility of locating a low-

BT

U gasification plant at their industrial

park. The financing and engineering re-

quirements of the plant w

ill also be coveredunder the study.

Natural R

esources

The A

ppalachian Region, w

ith its plen-tiful supplies of m

any minerals, large

timber tracts and scenery w

hich attractstourists and sportsm

en, has a wealth of

natural resources with potential for aiding

the Region's econom

ic development. T

heproblem

which m

ust always be kept in m

indis that productive use of these naturalresources frequently carries w

ith it a poten-tial danger to the environm

ent.

RecreationA

ppalachia's rugged terrain has longattracted tourists and sportsm

en. The sam

em

ountains which acted as a barrier to the

Region's developm

ent left unspoiled scenicareas w

hich can serve as the vacation mecca

for the great urban concentrations on theA

tlantic seaboard and in the industrial cen-ters of the M

idwest and South.

Second-home developm

ents can yieldboth short- and long-term

benefits to theR

ewon. T

he demand for second hom

esand recreational sites increases the priceof rural land, generates increased dem

andsfor the products and services of im

portantindustries in the R

egion, provides a market

for lumber and other building m

aterialsand strengthens local area econom

icsthrough the increased retail sales to second -hom

e occupants. The C

omm

ission hasfunded a study and a film

on the effectsof second-hom

e development (discussed

on page 62).

Another exam

ple of research in recrea-tion resources is a study funded by theC

omm

ission and the U.S. D

epartment of

Interior, Bureau of O

utdoor Recreation,

and conducted by the states of North C

aro-lina, South C

arolina and Georgia. T

heSouthern H

ighlands mountain resources

managem

ent plan defines the SouthernH

ighlands region as a multicounty area

including eleven counties in western N

orthC

arolina, four counties in northwestern

South Carolina and tw

elve counties innorthern G

eorgia. The study sketches

aplan and program

for the orderly develop-m

ent and managem

ent of the natural andm

an-made recreation resources of this

area. The three states recognize that they

share a comm

on resource base and thatm

isuse or mism

anagement of these

resources in any one state would inevitably

spread into the others. The plan w

asdeveloped so that the m

ulticounty area caninfluence the developm

ent of specific legis-lative and regulatory program

s in eachindividual state for the good of all threestates.

Each state focused on slightly different

needs: Georgia on the needs for develop-

ment, conservation and open-space m

an-agem

ent, North C

arolina on the protectionof recreation resources, South C

arolina ona system

of scenic roads and trails.

ConclusionIn conclusion, the thrust of the C

omm

is-sion's environm

ent, energy and naturalresources program

is a deep concern with

seeking ways to use A

ppalachia's resourcesand at the sam

e time m

aintain and evenim

prove the environment.

Research and Planning

Since the beginning of the A

RC

pro-gram

, research and planning havebeen

directed at a wide spectrum

of social andeconom

ic problems related to developm

entof the A

ppalachian Region. S

ection 102 ofthe A

ppalachian Regional D

evelopment

Act instructs the C

omm

ission to "conductand sponsor investigations, research, andstudies

and, in cooperation with F

ederal,S

tate, and local agencies, sponsor demon-

stration projects designed to foster regionalproductivity and grow

th." Section 302 of

the Act m

akes this possible by giving fi-nancial support for research and planningto three levels

the local development dis-

tricts. the states and the Com

mission itself.

A variety of projects have been funded

encompassing LD

D adm

inistrative grants,tropical storm

Agnes relief, hum

an re-sources, energy and environm

ent.

Local Developm

ent Dist! icts

For the past year local developm

ent dis-tricts have been eligible to receive specialdem

onstration research and development

funds under Section 302 of the A

ct. This

program provides funding for a project

that meets four im

portant criteria:o It m

ust be innovative, something that has

not been done by LDD

s in the past.o It m

ust meet a specific and im

portantneed in the district w

here it is to be tried.o It m

ust be multipurpose and/or

multijurisdictional; it cannot, even during

the testing period. rcilbrin only one func-tion for only one county or city.o It m

ust be a project which, if it w

orks,could be continued as one of the activitiesw

ithin the demonstration LD

D and w

hichalso could be duplicated in LD

Ds w

ithsim

ilar problems elsew

here in the Region.

At the end of this fiscal year ten projects

had been approved.O

ne of these projects, the Georgia M

oun-tains P

lanning and Developm

ent Com

mis-

sion (GM

AP

DC

) data-processing center,w

as set up to attack a problem shared by

local governments all over the U

nitedS

tates, Local governments are finding that

the old manual m

ethods of keeping recordsused in collecting taxes, m

aintaining listsof registered voters, preparing bills forw

ater supply and solid waste collection and

accounting for federal funds transferredunder general revenue sharing w

ill not dothe job properly and on tim

e. By banding

together to set up a cooperative computer

installation and then using the equipment

on a time-sharing nonprofit basis,

localgovernm

ents can carry out these complex

tasks within a reasonable span of tim

e. Itis this idea w

hich is being tested anddem

onstrated by GM

AP

DC

in its regionalprocessing service center.

The m

ajor purpose of the data centeris to show

whether such a center, set tip

specifically to provide badly needed data-processing services to county and other lo-cal governm

ent units, can pay its own w

ay

after a reasonable period of initial funding.T

he project has now com

pleted its first yearof operation. T

he data-processing servicesavailable from

the data center during thistim

e include:o property tax adm

inistration for tencounties and seven cities in the G

MA

PD

Cand three counties and five cities adjacentto the local developm

ent districto utility billing for tw

o citieso payroll in one county and the G

MA

PD

Cdata-processing centero m

aintenance of the voter registration listin tw

o countieso student scheduling and grade reportingfor schools in five counties.A

s the project moves into the last 6 m

onthsof its 18-m

onth funding period, it will

concentrate on the services listed above.T

he center will continue to com

pile costsand charges to custom

ers. By the end of

the project, realistic charges for services will

be determined so that the center w

ill knowif it can operate financially on its ow

n. Ifthis proves feasible, this dem

onstrationproject is expected to be w

idely copied.In addition to funding dem

onstrationprojects, the C

omm

ission gives each localdevelopm

ent district administrative grants

from S

ection 302 funds to defray up tothree-fourths of its operating expenses.T

hese administrative funds are used to pay

for office supplies and travel expenses andto hire staffs to provide technical assistanceservices to localities. E

ngineers, healthplanners, land-use planners, environm

en-talists and other professionals have beenhired by the LD

Ds for this purpose.

State R

esearchP

rojects funded under the general head-ing of state research include projectsdeveloped at the state level, LD

D level and

61

62occasionally at the county or m

unicipallevel. T

hese projects analyze problems and

propose solutions that help in overcoming

adverse economic conditions. T

he ruralm

ass transit studies described oh page 38are exam

ples of state research.In another exam

ple, eight Appalachian

Ohio counties (B

Oanont, G

uernsey, Hari-

son, Monroe, M

organ, Muskingum

. Noble

and Washington) participated in a study

to stimulate the sheep-producing incluse! y

in the southeastern part of the state. Since

the turn of the century there had been adecline in the sheep industry, caused 1)Na failure to replace stock w

ith highquality

breeding rams and ew

es, the reluctance offarm

ers to use electric fence to replace them

ore expensive woven w

ire fence, the in-creased surface m

ining on sheep-grazingland, the reluctance of sheep farm

ers touse new

production and managem

entm

ethods, an exodus of young people tohigher-paving factory jobs, the gradual lossof the w

ool market to the synthetic fibre

market and erratic w

ool pt ices. The pt oject

was able to devise w

orkable solutions tosom

e of thew problem

s.A

m» oxim

atel 1.690 ewes and 8 I ram

sw

ere purchased from the W

estern statesand integrated into existing flocks. T

heeffect this has on raising the quality of thesheep stock w

ill become apparent after

several crops of lambs have been sold and

the length of ewe life, ew

e fertilit%, quality

01lam

bs and wool, and stock

hardi-ness under O

hio conditions have beenealuatd.

Five denum

sti ations of electric fencingale now

in progress and hat e sue esst till%show

n that the prohibitexpensi%

ew

rnen -witc fence can be replaced.

During the past 20 to 25 %

eat s the south-east O

hio livestot k man has lost m

uch ofhis land to sit la( c m

ining. 1 his has de-

terred long-term planning and large invest-

ments in livestock farm

ing. At the present

time the acreage being m

ined is decreasing,and there is an increasing em

phasis onreclam

ation with the recent passing of a

tough reclamation law

in Ohio. T

here istic) m

ore profitable post-strip-mining

enterprise for this land than sheep farm-

ing. One strip-m

ine company is now

pasturing sheep on stripmined land.

Another com

pany is in the process of rent-ing land for sheep pasturing to farm

ers.S

ince a successful sheep industry dependsin part on better m

anagement practices,

a well-attended short course for area sheep

producers just starting in the sheep indus-I'%

was set up, and an adult education voca-

tional school program in sheep production

is being designed.A

lthough problems still have to be

worked out, the project believes it can

demonstrate that there is a profitable

future in raising sheep.A

nother state research project w as

administered by the state of G

eorgia. A20-m

inute-long color film produced 1)%

Georgia is designed to stim

ulate viewer

;twat cites, of-and sensitivit%

to the environ-m

ental issues facing the contemporan and

changing mountainous areas of northern

Georgia, N

orth Carolina and S

outh Caro-

lina. Region in C

hange documents at shift in

use of large tracts of landI m

om f m

ull% -

owned farm

s. forests and mule%

elopedm

ountains to second homes,

at anonhom

es and recreational areas for nab%in ban populations. T

he t hangs in existingland-use patterns ha%

e lit ought about some

irtc.etsible consequences 101 the emit on-

went. "I he film

examines w

hat is 0« It ringin sections of the m

ountains w here la' ge

sec and -home ()rico national developm

ent Shave sprung up and show

s a need lotbalancing env ironm

ental tont ems

it

concerns for recreational outlets, imp:

e-m

ents in land-use programs and better

coordination of public and private actions.T

his film is available for use It the public

from the N

ews and P

ublic Affairs O

fficeat the A

ppalachian Regional C

omm

ission.

Com

mission R

esearchand Planning

L'ncler Section 302 of the A

ct the Co -

mission explm

es new w

ays to strengthenand im

prove the states' capacity to plan anddesign. set priorities for. adm

inister andcoordinate public program

s that will eco-

nomically develop the R

egion.T

o assess the impact 01 the A

ppalachianregional de. elopm

ent program on the R

e-gion in the past decade. S

ection 302 re-search funds w

ere used :o sponsor theC

omm

ission's program design of fort (sec.

page 7). Program

design has been assess-ing past developm

ent efforts in order todeterm

ine better what the C

omm

ission'sfuture p-",:ram

s and (filet-non, should be.T

het representatives ha%

pafic ipatedextensi%

el% in the subcom

mittees I It W

artand anal%

sis of spec ific p: ow am

areas. Pub-

lic meetings held in all 13 states w

ill seekto explain past act om

plishments and pres-

ent needs in the Region and pi esnt

tcnta-ti%

e plans. pi oposals and let omm

endationsI or the continued successful de%

elopment

of the Region. T

he meoings w

ill solidi%

i%., of local leadei s and citiiens to detet-

mine how

tht, would

the de. elopmnt

ogi am to assist theta! in 1111)10%

11g thequalit%

()I life in Appalachia.

An exam

ple of Com

mission I eseal ch

a stuck of t et I eational p1 cperties in Appa-

lac hia.I he hi st

report...A%

hic In has been«im

pleted, anak is the mat Lets 101 1 cc 1 ea-

Ilona] pi opi ties in the Appalachian R

e-gion. including t m

um, of supplc and

rr

g

-1

demand and future projections. T

he sec-ond repo' I

%%

ill studs the impact that a

Feu eational land de%elopm

entproject has

on the host «mununits.

The t eci cation stud points out that

concentrations of existing recreationalproperties arc found in the H

ighlands.B

lue Ridge and C

umbei land regions of

Geolgia. N

otch and South Catalina and

1 ennessee, the Pot mos of Penns%

lvania

..`.1 .S...''''

a......,

.....4./...?".......Y

...P...Z. .. ......,... ....pap,

'V.

""......4" X

.. ............

I...2 I. . .4..1.X

........,. ...041..

,

and elsewhere tin oughout the state, the

Southern Tier and C

atskills of Neu 'Y

orkand in the A

ppalachian portion of Ohio.

The report estim

ates that the Region con-

tains approximately 730,000 recreational

lots and 260,000 leisure homes. T

hesefigures represent about 3 percent of thetotal recreational lots and 12 percent of theleisure hom

es in the United States. T

heR

egion has about 223.000 leisure home-

owners, or about 8 percent of the total

group in the U.S. If the R

egion does indeedcontain 12.1 percent of all leisure hom

esin the U

.S., a considerable number of the

owners of these hom

es must have their pri-

mary hom

es outside the Region.

Many fam

ilies today have both time and

moue%

to spare, a combination w

hich hasgreatlyincreascd interest in ow

ning recrea-tional properties.

In the past most local com

munities have

welcom

ed the advent of recreational prop-erty developm

ent in anticipation of in-creased property taxes, expenditure pat-terns and additional dem

ands for relatedgoods and services. U

nfortunately, thesebenefits have frequently been outw

eighedby additional public costs, as m

ore publicservices are required, as taxes rem

ain lowbecause recreational land is not developedand as pollution of the environm

ent must

be dealt with. T

o insure that future recrea-tional land developm

ent is a positive factor,states and local developm

ent districts in theR

egion must be adequately prepared. Pub-

lic cowl ols and guidelines such as zoning,

subdivision relations, environmental im

-pact statem

ents and building codes needto be considered carefully in advance.

How

large the future potential demand

fbr recreation properties in the Region w

illbe, is subject to question. Since recreationpt opert is not a m

ajor necessitysuch as

food, clothing and lodging, it tends to bein less dem

and during periods of recession.T

he energy problem m

ay also affect them

at ket negatively.T

his study will help public officials to

assess which areas have the greatest po-

tential for development w

ithout harm to

the environment and also w

hich areas needthe closest controls to avoid any suchdam

age.

"..4,,.

£.`,

'lim

o,11$ii,

ilk,t;,;-fyttt.rsr '..:4-

....

,-.4.-inir.

..-

0. ,, l

... .

. .-1.- 174;-

... A.f,

.

,..

:

- , , ..,.. k ,..'

140'.I

'

-- I

0

:IA

t.. 1.

.111#- "*

,

11011'

- ,SA

.,D

o

-

.1"10g0--..!Puoiti

ler

:=04070£05le

'7 ! ry,.-

,-tt

.

4"4

,4 It

11,0.;,

..e

) .1'X

'1

4.

..e4,_

,..,,- r

ig.,,,.

. ,..,.,

..

olt ,"It*r

i-44 it ....

....,

-..,

,., ., i

:......,

.. ., ,,,,,,,t......

--01, - ,.:47 ":-

.,,e' '14

'1.141:-°.;....

lei;' '

-:

,..4.

'.

::

.

Al

iw

i 'IT. 1:_4.

e....

/a.-

..--- ,

- p7

., dc

---.4, ...,,,t4

,, ,s ...

.: . 0;p0V

-r--- --

.-

. -....re_

,,

.M

r',le"t '44rsi,/..'...

44... .;.,...14,5:1

... .V ''.

tde

il(''' I' t'

..

ii,,...ty T

.I.

,t

te ,........

.-e

q'

2:r...,

,;1

A itl >

-`.

'/V"'

!°5'S

yrer4'n:.,?

.r .

1-.

_.0.

.,: , .

'...

w-

.s ,

!.4,

..4 ,

*.1.",...Ir

,..,t,

'VII

,I,

4..44".:.

..,111

.'

4.i** ''I-4

'

:ail*.

.."

1.2"e

I./I

4.#.!-

4 ':

'filli;..i. Olik

fr- '

4`-sw

.11'4'41>

,' °A

et"ifir'''

, s, "'"f'. V

s411,11,,W,4 ..V

s.. %

1.:.

.0.104V,

,'.

- .74,.4,

N '

-`4

Irea 1531440,414,t,'"

1

,4tteric

v

edfl4

*V.!, '

?70,2

65

Appendix

AF

iscal Year 1974 P

rojects

Alabam

a66

Georgia

70

Kentucky

75

Maryland

80

Mississippi

83

New

York

86c.1r.-

North C

arolina90

00O

hio94

Pennsylvania

98

South C

arolina104

Tennessee

108

Virginia

112

West V

irginia115

Alabam

aP

opulation(in thousands)

State T

otal3,539.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

2,201.1

(0.»K,.

Bibb

14.0B

lount30.4

Calhoun

103.8C

hambers

35.6C

herokee17.2

Chilton

27.1C

lay13.0

Cleburne

11.2C

olbert50.1

Coosa

11.0C

ullman

56.6D

e Kalb

45.6E

lmore

36.0C

'DE

towah

94.6N

Fayette

16.2C

.,F

ranklin25.6

CD

Jackson42.6

Jefferson646.3

Lamar

15.2Lauderdale

71.1Law

rence27.7

Limestone

42.7M

adison187.1

Marion

26.0M

arshall56.9

Morgan

81.3P

ickens21.4

Randolph

18.0S

t. Clair

32.1S

helby42.3

Talladega

63.5T

allapoosa34.8

Tuscaloosa

122.3W

alker62.2

Winston

19.6

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

FederalS

tate Cooperative P

rogram for

Populahon E

stimates, U

S B

ureau of Census, S

enes P26. no 76

411

YA

P

-

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Alabam

a

67

Project

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Early C

hild Developm

ent Program

-Area III'

Early C

hild Developm

ent Program

-Area III

Fam

ily & C

hild Developm

ent-11th Areal

Child D

evelopment P

rogram-A

rea IV'

Fam

ily & C

hild Developm

ent Program

'E

arly Childhood D

evelopment P

rogram-A

rea I1D

ay Care S

ervices, Inc.'E

arly Childhood E

ducation Services O

utreach'F

amily &

Child D

evelopment P

rogram-11th A

realC

hild Developm

ent Program

'C

hild Developm

ent Project 1

Child D

evelopment P

rogram 1

Child D

evelopment P

rogram-A

rea V1

Early C

hildhood Developm

ent Program

-Region III'

East A

labama E

arly Child D

evelopment P

rogram D

istrict Staff 1

Fam

ily & C

hild Developm

ent-Area V

I1H

ealth & E

ducation Consortium

-Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Child D

evelopment P

rogram T

echnical Assistance &

Monitoring'

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Counties S

erved

8lountC

alhounC

herokeeC

hiltonC

leburneC

oosaE

towah

JeffersonJeffersonS

helbyS

t. Clair

Walker

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Section 202 F

unds

$58,56062,87017,14062,28119,34696,713

132,25675,54321.59273,272

104,29799,267

230,233178,47822,11523,621

128,989424,183

7,483

Other F

ederal Funds

$ 157,196205,18456,099

190,19160,53515,870

458,431226,5180224,983322,063299,943243,000580,438

61,42670,982

394,2881,287,255

20,790

Total E

ligible Costs

$ 215,756268,45473,349

252,47279,881

188,765596,720302,601

36,575298,255427,760399,210630,977759,71683,54194,643

523,2771,712,274

28,273$1,838,239

$4,875,192$6,972,499

Continuation F

inancial support for the project for an additional year beyond the initial first-year grant period.2 Increase

Additional A

RC

funds approved during the budget year.'O

verrun: An upw

ard revision of estimated costs of a project after approval under both the basic federal and A

RC

assistance program, O

R a bid overrun

(i e., bids incurred exceod estimate

costs) OR

a case where actual cost incurred exceeds accepted bids

4 Revision

An increase or decrease in local, state or federal costs of a previously approved project

Note. F

or each project, the combined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determ

ined by subtractingA

RC

section funds and other federal fundsfrom

the total eligible cost of the project

68A

labama, continued

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

District H

ealth Services

Cullm

an$

94,757$

0$ 188,993

Eliza C

offee Mem

orial Hosp. C

onstructionLauderdale

200,0004,000,000

8,713.785P

rimary H

ealth Care P

rojectsLaw

rence307,759

0424,129

Allied H

ealth Technology P

rograms

Limestone

65,6730

87,566C

alhoun Com

munity C

ollege Allied H

ealth Building

Limestone

187,5000

375,000A

ssociate Degree N

ursing Satellite P

rogramM

ulticounty26,741

037,281

Associate D

egree Nursing P

rograms

Multicounty

139,0470

278,122C

omprehensive A

lcoholism S

ervices1M

ulticounty151,803

0202,404

Com

prehensive Health P

lanning-Muscle S

hoals1M

ulticounty51,984

070,474

Com

prehensive Health P

lanning Program

Multicounty

61,2000

92,711C

omprehensive H

ealth Planning-T

op of Alabam

anM

ulticounty75,850

0108,022

Consolidlated P

ublic Health D

ept.M

ulticounty197.881

0847,881

Dental H

ealth Com

ponent Projects

Multicounty

21,8020

29,069D

istrict Air P

ollution Control P

rograms

Multicounty

27,55349,671

77,224E

mergency M

edical Service C

oord. Project

Multicounty

23,8200

27,260E

mergency C

omm

unications Netw

orkM

ulticounty39,375

052,500

Fam

ily Nurse P

ractioner Graduate P

rogramM

ulticounty35,434

052,546

Fam

ily Practice R

esidencyM

ulticounty47,900

089,950

Health C

areers Guidances

Multicounty

22,4000

22,447H

ealth Program

Coord.

Multicounty

26,5500

35,400H

ome H

ealth Nursing S

ervicesM

ulticounty217,806

0229,521

Medical &

Param

edical Student R

ecruitment P

rograms

Multicounty

53,3370

71,450M

ental Health T

echnology-John Calhoun S

tate Technical

Jr. Colleges

Multicounty

69,6360

92,848N

ortheast Alabam

a Health D

evelopments

Multicounty

65,0000

96,717N

orthern Alabam

a Occupational H

ealth Services1

Multicounty

78,5460

79,396P

roject Rescue for the R

etarded1M

ulticounty300,569

0433,571

Respiratory C

linic Program

2M

ulticounty152,801

0156,624

Tennessee V

alley Rehabilitation C

entersM

ulticounty157,994

0282,246

West A

labama C

omprehensive H

ealth Planning C

ouncilsM

ulticounty60.600

091.183

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,961,318

$4,049,671$13,346,320

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Section 214 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

H. M

. Ayers S

tate Technical C

ollege Addition

Calhoun

$ 111,510$

44,010$ 223,020

George C

. Wallace T

echnical Com

munity C

ollegeLearning R

esource Center

Cullm

an200,000

112,200400,000

Area V

ocational Technical S

choolE

lmore

300,000112,800

600,000G

adsden State Jr. C

ollegeE

towah

225,000125,000

700,000B

essemer S

tate Technical C

ollege Construction

Jefferson125,000

75,000250,000

Parker A

rea Vocational C

enter Addition

Jefferson150,000

64,500300,000

Area V

ocational School E

xpansionLaw

rence150,000

90,000300,000

Vocational T

echnical Center

Limestone

225,000100,000

450,000

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

^

Section 211 (E

ducation), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Section 214 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Vocational T

echnical Center E

xpansionM

adison225,000

100,000450,000

State Jr. C

ollege Vocational T

raining Center3

Tallapoosa

75,50027,331

151,000

State T

rade School A

dditionW

alker225,000

100,000450,000

Industrial Developm

ent Training P

rogram'

Multicounty

300.0000

400,000T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$2,312,010$ 950,841

$4,674,020

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Area W

ater System

Calhoun

$ 213,300$

0$ 711,000

Jacksonville Water S

ystemC

alhoun226,300

0755,700

Hospital

Clay

233,000937,500

1,562,500

Fort P

ayne Water S

ystem Im

provements

De K

alb131,622

0263,245

Water S

ystemE

lmore

400,0000

800,000

Russellville W

ater Improvem

entsF

ranklin84,200

0235,500

Warrior R

iver Water &

Fire P

rotection Authority

Jefferson135,810

0370,810

Florence W

ater Improvem

entsLauderdale

360,0000

1,634,000

Hobbs Island W

ater System

Madison

234,3870

468,774H

amilton W

ater Improvem

entsM

arion227,700

0504,300

South U

nion Jr. College S

cience & F

ine Arts B

uildingR

andolph150,000

0600,000

Mental H

ealth Center

Talladega

O 000

390.000650,000

Total A

pproved in FY

1974...3$2,426,3195

$1,327,500$8,555,829

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Cost

Developm

ent Planning &

Technical A

ssistanceB

ibb$

35,000$

35,000

Birm

ingham R

egional Planning C

omm

ission'M

ulticounty75,000

100,000

Central A

labama R

egional Planning &

Developm

ent Com

mission'

Multicounty

20,14226,856

East A

labama Library C

ooperativeM

ulticounty115,362

153,815

Econom

ic Impact of E

nergy Crisis S

tudyM

ulticounty126,600

190,870

Local Governm

ent Fiscal P

lanning & B

udgetingM

ulticounty36,900

36,900M

uscle Shoals C

ouncil of Local Governm

ents'M

ulticounty59,998

79,997

North C

entral Alabam

a Regional C

ouncil of Governm

ents'M

ulticounty55,819

74,425

TA

RC

OG

Hum

an Resources P

rogramM

ulticounty42,759

85,518

Top of A

labama R

egional Council of G

overnments'

Multicounty

64,95086,601

West A

labama P

lanning & D

evelopment C

ouncil'M

ulticounty45,000

60,000T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 677,530$ 929,982

Footnotes 1-4. F

or explanation, see page 67.'A

n additional $950,841 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for Alabam

a amounted to $3,303,960.

Note: F

or each project, the combined state and local O

r individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting

AR

C section funds and other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

69

70

Georgia

Population

(in thousands)

State T

otal4,786.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

891.3*

Banks

6.4B

arrow18.0

Bartow

35.9C

arroll49.9

Catoosa

30.2C

hattooga21.7

Cherokee

35.1D

ade11.5

Daw

son3.9

Douglas

36.9F

annin13.7

Floyd

75.7F

orsyth19.7

Franklin

13.3G

ilmer

9.6G

ordon26.0

Gw

innett89.9

Habersham

22.2H

all64.2

Haralson

17.0H

eard5.7

Jackson.22.5

Lumpkin

9.2M

adison15.0

Murray

15.0P

aulding19.9

Pickens

10.0P

olk30.8

Rabun

9.0S

tephens21.8

Tow

ns4.6

Union

7.4W

alker52.9

White

8.2W

hitfield58.5

'Total does not add because of rounding of county totals in the

SM

SA

s

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

Federal-S

tate Cooperative P

rogram for

Population E

stimates, U

S B

ureau ol the Census S

eries P26 no

92

72

Georgia

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Day C

are Center'

Barrow

$21,500

$52,800

$74,300

Day C

are Center'

Bartow

27,30060,000

90,300D

ay Care C

enter'C

arroll24,996

60,00185,797

West G

eorgia College M

odel Com

prehensive Child C

are Project'

Carroll

45,0000

45,000B

allground Day C

are Center'

Cherokee

12,00029,400

41,400T

oonigh Day C

are Center'

Cherokee

17,00053,378

78,142W

aleska Day C

are Center'

Cherokee

26,00036,000

62,000D

ay Care C

enter'D

awson

21,73048,000

71,230B

erry College S

taff Developm

ent Project'

Floyd

25,0000

25,000D

ay Care C

enter'F

loyd23,125

42,00065,125

Day C

are Center'

Floyd

37,73096,000

139,730D

ay Care C

enter'F

orsyth29,790

44,684117,999

Day C

are Center'

Gilm

er18,496

45,60464,400

Day C

are Center'

Gordon

34,00090,000

124,000D

ay Care C

enter'G

winnette

31,00050,398

86,389B

renau College Infant C

are Center'

Hall

62,6400

76,675C

hild Developm

ent Program

'H

all22,032

50,40072,432

Day C

are Center'

Haralson

63,60197,888

161,489D

ay Care C

enter'H

eard25,000

60,00085,000

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Jackson20,000

60,00080,000

Day C

are Center'

Lumpkin

18,00036,000

55,617D

ay Care C

enter'M

adison25,200

60,00085,200

Day C

are Center'

Paulding

36,30090,000

129,300D

ay Care C

enter'P

ickens25,000

57,60083,200

Day C

are Center'

Polk

10,00050,000

80,000D

ay Care C

enter'T

owns

25,77060,000

87,160D

ay Care C

enter'W

hite26,500

48,00074,500

Atcooga D

ay Care C

enter'W

hitfield12,000

36,00048,000

Whitfield-D

alton Day C

are Center'

Whitfield

2,73038,220

57,600W

hitfield-Varnell D

ay Care C

enter'W

hitfield20,000

50,40071,200

Child C

are Project-C

oosa Valley D

istrict'M

ulticounty123,735

0123,735

Child C

are Project-G

eorgia Mountains D

istrict'M

ulticounty220,481

0220,481

Child C

are Project-N

orth Georgia D

istrict'M

ulticounty98,420

098,420

Child C

are Project S

hared Personnel2

Multicounty

20,1500

20,150C

hild Care P

roject Shared P

ersonnel"M

ulticounty238,929

0238,929

Child D

evelopment O

utreach Program

-Georgia M

ountains'M

ulticounty75,196

173,192248,388

Fam

ily & C

hild Outreach'

Multicounty

105,047315,140

420,187H

omebound C

hild Developm

ent Project'

Multicounty

34,750104,250

139,000Low

er Appalachia C

oordinating & T

raining Program

2M

ulticounty4,375

04,375

Lower A

ppalachia Coordinating &

Training P

rogram'

Multicounty

49.4670

49.467T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$1,759,990$2,095,355

$3,981,317

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state Or individual local contribution can be determ

ined by subtracting AR

C section funds and

other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project

(

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

erved Section 202 F

unds

Section214

Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Floyd Jr. C

ollege Associate D

egree in Medical Lab T

echnologyF

loyd$

33,504$

0$

37,520$ 105,456

Floyd Jr. C

ollege Associate D

egree in Nursing'

Floyd

$ 180,4290

14,920265,228

Floyd Jr. C

ollege Health &

Science B

uilding Construction

Floyd

530,00070,000

0750,000

Floyd Jr. C

ollege Hum

an Services &

Health T

echnology Program

Floyd

97,6650

0120,810

In-Service C

ontinuing Education'

Floyd

36,8510

048,913

Mental H

ealth Center'

Floyd

90,7870

0291,751

Training C

enter for Mentally R

etarded Construction

Pickens

30,0000

058,576

Allied H

ealth Manpow

er Training P

rogram D

emon.'

Whitfield

51,9140

069,088

Cheerhaven S

chool for Mentally R

etarded Construction4

Whitfield

42,7310

076,678

Ham

ilton Mem

orial Hosp. N

ewborn C

are Center C

onstruction3W

hitfield100,801

00

126,002C

omprehensive H

ealth Planning'

Multicounty

51,5040

068,672

Com

munity M

ental Health C

enter'M

ulticounty203,144

00

312,545D

ay Care T

raining for the Mentally R

etarded'M

ulticounty78,181

00

104,084D

ental Health S

ervices Dem

on.'M

ulticounty110,939

00

111,239H

ealth Scholarships'

Multicounty

82,0690

0109,425

In-Service C

ontinuing Education'

Multicounty

40,1660

053,552

Planning &

Adm

inistrative Grant'

Multicounty

110,4320

0147,243

Staff C

oordination for Day C

enters for Mentally R

etardedM

ulticounty159,450

00

210,850T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$2,030,567$70,000

$52,440

$3,030,112

Section 202 (H

ealth)-Georgia-T

ennessee

Project

Section214

Counties S

erved Section 202 F

undsF

undsO

ther Federal F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Health C

enter3M

arion$

32,900$12,093

$0

$62,133

Dental H

ealth Project'

Multicounty

196,5590

0262,079

East T

ennessee Health P

lanning Council'

Multicounty

60,0000

33,695140,993

Expansion and D

emon. of S

peech & H

earing Services'

Multicounty

62,5050

099,460

Georgia-T

ennessee Regional P

ublic Health S

ervices'M

ulticounty247,740

00

382,850N

orthwest G

eorgia Mental H

ealth Project'

Multicounty

53,9770

0142,159

Orange G

rove Center for the R

etarded'M

ulticounty142,090

0304,186

839,6024P

lanning & A

dministrative G

rant 1M

ulticounty163,720

09,000

230,645R

egional Em

ergency Medical S

ervices Expansion &

Coordination'

Multicounty

39,6000

40,800202,200

Regional H

ealth Education M

aterials Center!

Multicounty

22,9470

027,805

Regional Inform

ation&

Referral C

enter"M

ulticounty25,080

00

41,200S

outheast Tennessee A

rea Health E

ducation Center'

Multicounty

180,0090

8,000228,543

Southeast T

ennessee Mental H

ealth Project'

Multicounty

116,2140

0151,214

Speech &

Hearing C

enter'M

ulticounty28,080

00

65,656S

peech & H

earing Center'

Multicounty

25,7550

060,270

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,397,176

$12,093$ 395,681

$2,936,809

Section 207 (H

ousing)P

rojectC

ounties Served

Section 207 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Housing D

evelopment P

rogramM

ulticounty$ 103,819

$ 103,819T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

1()31119$ 103,819

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each prO

ject, the combined state and local O

r individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds and other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

73

74G

eorgia, continued

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Section 214 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Winder-B

arrow C

omprehensive H

igh School

Barrow

$ 300,000$ 180,000

$ 600,000C

omprehensive H

igh School E

xpansionC

herokee100,000

60,000212,000

Com

prehensive High S

choolG

winnett

325,000195,000

650,000N

orth Georgia V

oc. Tech. S

chool Learning Resource C

enterH

abersham290,000

85,000750,000

Lanier Area %

fix. Tech. S

chool3H

all85,000

094,275

Com

prehensive High S

choolW

hitfield325,000

195,000650,000

Dalton Jr. C

ollegeW

hitfield101,040

203,000380,040

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,526,040

$ 918,000$3,336,315

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Blue R

idge Sew

age Collection

Fannin

$90,000

$0

$ 300,000B

lue Ridge W

ater System

Fannin

160,0000

833,250B

uford Trout H

atcheryF

orsyth257,300

435,0001,127,300

Hospital M

odernizationJackson

200,967292,000

848,427H

ospital Equipm

entLum

pkin150,000

50,000550,000

Chatsw

orth Water S

ystem E

xpansionM

urray258,000

0518,000

Pickens A

rea Voc. T

ech. School E

xpansion3P

ickens90,000

0120,000

Recreation P

arkT

owns

60,000102,000

204,000S

chool System

s Improvem

entM

ulticounty83.259

138,765277.530

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,349,5265

$1,017,765$4,778,507

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Atlanta R

egional Com

mission)

Multicounty

$57,339

$82,731

Chattahoochie-F

lint Area P

lanning & D

evelopment C

omm

ission)M

ulticounty12,489

16,652C

oosa Valley A

rea Planning &

Developm

ent Com

mission)

Multicounty

70,23893,650

Georgia M

ountains Area P

lanning & D

evelopment C

omm

ission)M

ulticounty72,930

97,240G

eorgia Mountains A

rea Planning &

Developm

ent Com

mission)

Multicounty

65,00086,667

Georgia M

ountains Regional D

ata Processing S

erviceM

ulticounty120,200

160,263N

orth Georgia Junk C

ar Program

Multicounty

28,59046,090

Northeast G

eorgia Area P

lanning & D

evelopment C

omm

ission)M

ulticounty54,750

73,000N

ortheast Georgia Junk C

ar Program

Multicounty

12,63816,850

Northw

est Georgia E

ducation Service A

gencyM

ulticounty41,650

100,650S

tudent Involvement in C

omm

unity Service

Multicounty

22.00029,915

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$ 557,824

$ 803,708...-

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.s A

n additional $988,000 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for Georgia am

ounted to $2,337.526.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

es.

Kentucky

Population

(in thousands)

Flem

ingF

loydG

arrardG

reen

11.639.5

9.210.5

Menifee

4.4M

onroe12.4

Montgom

ery16.7

Morgan

10.0S

tate Total

3,342.0G

reenup32.8

Ow

sley5.3

Harlan

40.8P

erry27.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

927.0Jackson

10.2P

ike66.0

Johnson19.8

Pow

ell7.9

Adair

14.7K

nott16.2

Pulaski

38.5B

ath9.4

Knox

26.1R

ockcastle12.6

Bell

32.7Laurel

28.8R

owan

17.5

Boyd

52.6Law

rence11.9

Russell

11.9B

reathitt15.1

Lee6.9

Wayne

15.0

Carter

20.7Leslie

12.4W

hitley26.4

Casey

13.3Letcher

25.6W

olfe5.9

Clark

25.8Lew

is12.4

Clay

19.4Lincoln

17.4

Clinton

8.6M

cCreary

13.4

Cum

berland6.9

Madison

44.6C

ounty figures are 1973 provisional population estimates rounded to

Elliott

5.8M

agoffin10.9

me nearest hundred from

Federal. State Cooperative Program

forPopulation E

stimates. U

S Bureau of

the Census. S

eries P26. no

Estill

13.1M

artin10.4

as

75

(N1

Cr

00

76

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Infant & P

reschool Project'

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Counties S

erved

Multicou nty

Kentucky

Section 202 F

unds

$1 197 946$1,197,946

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

$1 947 093$1,947,093

$3,188,089$3,188,089

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Em

ergerry Am

bulance Services P

roject'B

ell$

49,070$

0$ 160,549

Regional S

olid Waste D

isposal System

'B

ell72,320

0160,361

Prim

ary Care C

enter, Inc.C

linton245,429

0327,339

Travel C

linic & T

raining Program

for Com

munication D

isorders'F

ayette55,980

074,606

Clover F

ork Outpatient M

edical Project'

Harlan

115,0100

313,094H

ealth Maintenance O

rganization'H

arlan599,939

01,545,237

Big S

andy Health P

lanning Services'

Multicounty

24,8960

33,263B

lack Lung Program

Multicounty

291,05841,500

345,558B

uckhorn Lake Em

ergency Am

bulance Service'

Multicounty

117,7210

156,962B

uffalo Trace A

rea Health P

lanning'M

ulticounty13,726

036,408

FIV

CO

Area H

ealth Planning S

ervices'M

ulticounty40,186

053,586

Gatew

ay Health P

lanning Services'

Multicounty

59,3350

79,113H

ealth Professions S

cholarship Program

'M

ulticounty111,946

0166,067

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or Individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 202 (H

ealth, continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Instructional Pilot P

rogram in A

llied Health O

ccupations'M

ulticounty49,599

075,626

Lake Cum

berland Health P

lanning Services'

Multicounty

44,6320

59,510

Planning &

Adm

inistration2M

ulticounty13,100

017,467

Red B

ird Prim

ary Care C

enterM

ulticounty120,39P

0170,690

Southeastern K

entucky Baptist H

ospital3M

ulticounty200,993

0251,241

Rural H

ealth Center'

Multicounty

130.1340

151,384

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,355,473

S41,500

$4,178,061

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Housing P

roject for Elw

ood Courts

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Counties S

erved

Pike

Section 207 F

unds

$80.663

S80,663

Total E

ligible Costs

S80,663

$80,663

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

erved

Section211

Funds

Section214

Funda

Section302

Funds

Other

Federal F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

High S

chool Voc. E

d. Dept. C

onstruction & E

quipment

Flem

ing$250,000

$150,000$

0S

0S

500,000H

igh School V

oc. Ed. D

ept. Construction &

Equipm

entLaw

rence350,000

180,0030

0662,500

High S

chool Voc. E

d. Dept. C

onstruction & E

quipment

Magof fin

350,000180,000

00

662,500

Voc. E

d. Center C

onstruction & E

quipment

Morgan

78,12546,875

00

156,250

High S

chool Voc. E

d. Dept. C

onstruction & E

quipment

McC

reary350,000

180,0000

0662,500

High S

chool Voc. E

d. Dept. C

onstruction & E

quipment

Pow

ell350,000

180,0000

0662,500

Career E

ducation for Region 121

Multicounty

132,6500

0133,408

356,098

Operation of A

rea Voc. T

ech. Schools'

Multicounty

359,0850

00

359,085

Placem

ent Program

for Graduates of V

oc. Program

s'M

ulticounty25,000

00

025,000

Regional O

rganization to Provide E

ducationalS

ervices-Region X

Multicounty

30,0000

18,7500

60,000

Regional O

rganization to Provide E

ducationalS

ervices-Region IX

Multicounty

22,4700

00

30,0(X)

Regional O

rganization to Provide E

ducationalS

ervices-Region X

IM

ulticounty30,000

018,750

060,000

Regional O

rganization to Provide E

ducationalS

ervices-Region X

IIIM

ulticounty30,000

018,750

060,000

Staff E

xchange Project

Multicounty

125,0000

00

250 000

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,482,330

$916,875$56 ,250

S 133,408

$4,506,433

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individuallocal contribution can bo determ

ined by subtracting AR

C section funds and other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

77

78K

entucky, continued

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Ow

ingsville Water &

Sew

er Project

Bath

$ 312,000$

0$ 624,000

Quicksand W

ater Line Extension

Breathitt

374,000170,000

680,000W

inchester Water S

ystemC

lark275,000

0903,000

South C

umberland W

ater System

Cum

berland120,000

45,000484,000

Com

prehe:sive Care C

enter Central F

acilityF

loyd150,000

0250,000

Com

prehensive Care C

enter Integrated Food P

rograms

Floyd

300,8000

376,000P

aintsville Neighborhood F

acilityJohnson

18,899346,829

462,439A

lice Lloyd College H

ealth & P

hysical Education C

enter3K

nott141,025

045,679

Water S

ystem Im

provements

Lee250,000

01,018,000

Kirksville W

ater Project

Madison

230,000165,000

697,400A

mbulatory C

are Center3

Menifee

32,15063,243

114,502M

orris Creek W

ater Project

Pow

ell50,000

66,000280,000

Rockcastle Industrial P

ark Water &

Sew

er Project

Rockcastle

39,0000

79,000S

trip Mine R

eclamation

Whitley

235,113333,967

792,933W

ater & S

ewer P

rojectsW

olfe197.600

0247, 100

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,725,5875

$1,190,039$7,054,053

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Model V

alley Econom

ic Developm

ent Plan

Bell

6,750$

9,000C

oal Mine R

efuse Study

Estill

70,00070,000

Appalachian F

olk Heritage P

rogramM

ulticounty3,000

9.000A

reawide A

pproach to Industrial Developm

entM

ulticounty39,300

52,400B

ig Sandy A

rea Developm

ent District, Inc.1

Multicounty

72,36698,170

Bluegrass A

rea Developm

ent District, Inc.'

Multicounty

50,04267.598

Buffalo T

race Area D

evelopment D

istrict, Inc.1M

ulticounty41,673

55,564C

umberland V

alley Area D

evelopment D

istrict, Inc.1M

ulticounty82,000

109,334F

IVC

O A

rea Developm

ent Districts

Multicounty

74,50099,334

FIV

CO

Com

munity F

acilities Utilization

Multicounty

112.500112.500

FIV

CO

Solid W

aste Feasibility S

tudyM

ulticounty14,580

19,440G

ateway A

rea Developm

ent District, Inc.'

Multicounty

100,600135.400

Kentucky R

iver Area D

evelopment D

istrict, Inc.1M

ulticounty92.000

132.720Lake C

umberland A

rea Developm

ent District, Inc.1

Multicounty

74,15098,900

Regional O

rganization to Provide E

ducationalS

ervices-Region IX

Multicounty

9.3639,363

Total A

pproved in FY

1974S

842,8246$1,078,723

Footnotes 1 4: F

or explanation, see page 67.s A

n additional S916.875 of S

ection 214 fundsw

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for Kentucky am

ounted to 53,642,462.A

n additional $56,250 of Section 302 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 302 funds for Kentucky am

ounted to 5899.074

Note

For each project. the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds and otherfederal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Maryland

Population

(in thousands)

e

State T

otal4,070.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

212.3

Allegany

83.6G

arrett23.5

Washington

105.2

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

Population E

stimates and P

rojections, U.S

.B

ureau of the Census, S

eries P.25, no 530

79

.s;

I

k'

si -,sy`mtr, 4N

i.:4-4.4 ,

"-- ,l'etz.

-t4

12'

2r.'44;014''''''

4 4

'.,,4,-,

' A...):4_4.), i

'i,',.111-1 .0.' 4

,".:Z

14;:.`"('lii ,,,,,'''', Ili

'4'-''2t:,

,. .1 el, -, di.i."4,'",,, .

, ' 2

,'24,2Y,44

:'.44.i-1... ,

:.4., ,,,,,f,

4/,..,,,..4.

)st,

t..'",i,,t

:40,,,, 1, +,-, , ,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,24

,'"! Str"'"..1T.r.

t.-4,

t,.,

' 41":2 '`'

t').,4'. 'k',1

,

4,45'A

.', ,,i

"jai tir,,%

. .1,,,...o....f.rV. '

!..0' 10: :0, :'

'"q ':T

. } . .'S

'

t

Maryland

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Child D

evelopment P

rojectT

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Counties S

erved

Multicounty

Section 202 F

unds

$ 814,671$ 814,671

Tote/ E

ligible Costs

$ 814,671814,671

81

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Total E

ligible Cost

Dental A

ssistance Program

'A

llegany$

58,359$

78,264F

amily C

ounseling'A

llegany27,584

36,778P

reventive Dental H

ealth Services for C

hildren'A

llegany26,671

44,735S

chool Health A

ides'A

llegany37,014

74,028T

ritown A

mbulance &

Rescue S

erviceA

llegany36,844

44,488A

ctivities Center &

Workshop for the H

andicappedG

arrett86,506

92,902A

mbulatory T

ransportation System

Garrett

20,12265,026

Area H

ealth Center C

onstruction3G

arrett79,817

99,771

Health O

fficer Program

'G

arrett7,553

30,212S

econdary School H

ealth Aides'

Solid W

aste Managem

ent Project

Garrett

Garrett

5,400290,595

19,462441,950

OD

Activity C

enter for the Mentally R

etardedW

ashington45,552

53,472Q

Health D

ept. Com

munication S

ystemW

ashington11,496

14,3700

Adm

inistrative Support for E

mergency M

edical Service C

ouncilsM

ulticounty132,092

182,879

Alcoholism

Treatm

ent'M

ulticounty38,292

50,792A

llegany Com

munity C

ollege Health T

echnician Program

Multicounty

29,81744,454

Com

prehensive Regional N

utritional Health S

ervicesM

ulticounty69,825

97,996H

ealth Planning C

ouncil'M

ulticounty133,074

177,432O

ccupational Therapy'

Multicounty

84,61486,576

Pediatric R

esident Project'

Multicounty

66,912101,148

Planning and A

dministration2

Multicounty

10,00013,500

Prehospital C

ardiac Monitoring S

ystemM

ulticounty26,250

28,776

School H

ealth Education P

rogramM

ulticounty136,439

137,825

Western M

aryland Dental D

isease Prevention P

rogramM

ulticounty69.002

86,774T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$1,529,830$2,103,610

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 207 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Technical A

ssistance in Housing

Multicounty

$60,000

$60,000

l otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$60,000

$60,000

Footnotes 1.4

For explanation, see page 67.

Note. F

or each project, the combined state and local O

F individual state or individual local contribution can be determ

ined by subtracting AR

C sectio.1

funds and other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

82M

aryland, continued

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Section 302 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Allegany C

omm

unity College C

oordinating Voc.

Guidance C

ounselorA

llegany$

13,063$

0$

17,418A

llegany Com

munity C

ollege Counseling &

Career P

lanningA

llegany53,114

070,819

Voc. C

luster Exploration Laboratory

Allegany

59,7820

59,782W

estern Maryland V

oc. Resource C

enter Equipm

entA

llegany66,000

0166,000

Work E

xperience Coordinator C

ounselorA

llegany10,500

014,000

Career LaboratO

ryG

arrett24,700

024,700

Garrett C

omm

unity College V

oc. Ed. P

rogram Im

provement

Garrett

88,5840

88,584Im

proved Voc. G

uidance Services

Garrett

15,0000

20,000S

upervised Student Learning C

enterG

arrett20,438

020,438

Voc. E

d. Program

s Improvem

ent'G

arrett51,960

051,960

Voc. G

uidance Counselor

Garrett

13,0780

17,438H

agerstown Jr. C

ollege Career C

ounselorW

ashington18,275

018,275

Career E

ducation Dem

on. Project

Multicounty

178,7370

178,737F

amily A

ide Program

Inservice Training T

echnician'M

ulticounty24,087

032,354

Fam

ily Aide P

rogram Inservice T

raining Technician

Multicounty

49,9140

66,926Im

plementation of Inservice C

areer Developm

ent Courses

Multicounty

36,9280

48,236R

egional Education S

ervice Agency of A

ppalachian Maryland

Multicounty

95,8700

159,783R

egional Education S

ervice Agency of A

ppalachian Maryland'

Multicounty

36,38511,942

68,673U

nified Pupil T

estingM

ulticounty4,744

06,325

Unified P

upil Testing'

Multiocunty

3,0000

7,900T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 864,159$

11,942

$1,138,348

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Cum

berland Municipal A

irport Runw

ayA

llegany$ 141,547

$2,123,198$2,830,930

Bedford R

oad Sanitary D

istrict Addition3

Allegany

44,4000

94,400W

ills Creek S

anitary District P

rojectA

llegany642,905

01,285,810

Winchester R

oad Sew

er InterceptorsA

llegany218,400

0273,000

Water &

Sew

age System

s3G

arrett291,150

33,250405,500

Clear S

pring Collection S

ystem4

Washington

120,4450

117,000N

ational Defense E

ducation Act, T

itle IIIM

ulticounty47,696

79,494158,988

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,506,543

$2,235,942$5,165,628

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Fly A

sh Utilization F

easibility Study

Multicountv

$36,567

$51,567

Penn A

lps Highland A

ssociation Developm

entM

ulticounty12,780

17,080T

ri-county Council for W

estern Maryland

Multicounty

92,000122,666

Total A

pproved in FY

1974S

141,3475$ 191,313

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.s A

n additional $11.942 of Section 302 funds w

ere used to supplement prO

jects under the AR

C program

. Total 302 funds for M

aryland amounted to $153,289.

Note: F

or each project, the combined state and local or Individual state or Individual local contribution can be determ

ined by subtracting AR

C section funds and

other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

Mississippi

Population

(In thousands)

State T

otal2,281.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

432.3

Alcorn

27.7B

enton7.1

Chickasaw

17.1

Choctaw

8.4C

lay19.2

Itawam

ba16.7

Kem

per10.0

Lee48.4

Lowndes

53.2M

arshall25.7

Monroe

34.3N

oxubee13.4

Oktibbeha

30.7P

ontotoc17.8

Prentiss

20.7T

ippah17.1

Tishom

ingo15.3

Union

20.4W

ebster10.2

Winston

18.9

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

FederalS

tate Cooperative P

rogram for

Population E

stimates. U

S B

ureau of Me C

ensus. Senes P

26. no86

83

84

Mississippi

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Day C

arelB

enton$

93,263$

8,774$ 104,057

Fam

ily Day C

arelC

hoctaw67,819

054,839

Day C

are Center'

Clay

26,56669,909

96,475P

reschool for Developm

entally Delayed'

Clay

36,1511,716

54,511C

hild Developm

ent Center'

Itawam

ba88,719

4,22493,263

Fam

ily Education'

Kem

per76,141

076,141

Child D

evelopment'

Lee104,018

0104,018

Palm

etto Day C

are Center'

Lee19,105

64,82086,427

Saltillo D

ay Care C

enter'Lee

20,97593,466

128,661D

ay Care P

rogram'

Lowndes

45,59718,240

65,773F

ranklin Center for Infants &

Parents

Lowndes

84,2323,550

112,282Institute of C

omm

unity Services-H

ome S

tart'M

arshall86,311

086,381

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Monroe

91,9390

92,179H

ome R

each'U

nion77,661

017,661

Choctaw

Indian Fam

ily Education'

Multicounty

40,6720

i0,672

Com

bined Com

munity C

hild Developm

ent Services'

Northeast M

ississippi Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Multicounty

Multicounty

224,986129,551

4,932558,156

247,006f 87,387

r-fO

kolona Day C

are Center'

Multicounty

52,0205,717

.10,497C

DS

tate & D

istrict Technical A

ssistance Training C

oordination'M

ulticounty249,080

0250,080

CD

$1,614,876$ 833,504

$2,568,310T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

0S

ection 202 (Health)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Section 214 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

ostsH

ealth Dept. at H

ouston3C

hickasaw$

12,330$

0$

15,412H

ealth Dept. at O

kolona3C

hickasaw16,112

020,140

Solid W

aste Collection &

Disposal

Chickasaw

99,90633,516

201,112C

omprehensive A

ftercare Program

'Lee

60,5770

100,881N

orth Mississippi M

edical Center O

bstetrical-Nursery F

acilities3Lee

35,2480

70,496G

ilmore M

emorial H

osp. Obstetrical D

ept. Expansion3

Monroe

87,4620

203,400M

emorial H

osp.U

nion300,000

180,000600,000

Dental D

emon. P

roject'M

ulticounty249,999

0265,821

Em

ergency Medical S

ervices System

Dem

on. Project

Multicounty

378,6090

476,631G

eneral Food &

Nutrition P

rogram'

Multicounty

80,0830

106,758G

olden Triangle D

istrict Com

prehensive Health P

lanningM

ulticounty36,830

055,180

Lions Sight C

onservation Program

'M

ulticounty51,538

065,513

Lions Sight C

onservation Program

'M

ulticounty36,374

067,154

Mental H

ealth Services A

ftercare Program

'M

ulticounty53,327

091,400

Mental H

ealth Services for.S

chool-age Children'

Multicounty

60,4820

60,482P

lanning & A

dministrative G

rant'M

ulticounty118,431

0165,379

Regional E

valuation and Training C

enter'M

ulticounty112,502

0166,642

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,789,810

$ 213,516$2,732,401

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution con be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 211 (E

ducation)85

'II,P

rojectC

ounties Served S

ection 211 Funds

Section214

Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Voc. T

ech. Center C

onstructionC

hoctaw$ 339,771

$209,778$

0$ 699,260

Itawam

ba Jr. College V

oc. Tech. E

xpansionLee

179,114120,886

0500,000

Golden T

riangle Voc. T

ech. Center3

Lowndes

87,0300

146,922292,440

Implem

entation of the Career E

ducation Concept'

-Multicounty

200,0000

4,620409,968

Northeast M

ississippi Career E

ducation Opportunities P

rogram'

Mul ticounty

100,0000

0155,961

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$ 905,915

$ 330,664$ 151,542

$2,057,629

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Health C

enter8enton

$52,500

$87,500

$ 175,000

Industrial Arts E

xpansionC

hickasaw7,206

12,01124,022

West P

oint Water &

Sew

er Improvem

ents3C

lay65,577

0218,590

Hosp. E

xpansion3Itaw

amba

124,9150

416,385

Voc. T

ech. School3

Itawam

ba33,728

55,324112,425

Health D

ept.G

untown W

astewater F

acilities Project

Kem

perLee

49,50050,000

82,5000165,000112,164

Water S

ystems Im

provement3

Monroe

33,8280

140,040eN

Health D

ept.Long M

eadow P

ark

Noxubee

Oktibbeha

52,500127,286

87,500212,144

175,000424,288

CM

Falkner S

ewer S

ystemT

ippah100,000

40,000260,000

0H

osp. Addition

Tippah

300,000418,720

1,272,337C

DT

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 997,0405$ 995,699

$3,495,251

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Land Use S

tudyG

olden Triangle P

lanning & D

evelopment D

istrict'N

ortheast Mississippi P

lanning & D

evelopment D

istrict IP

lanning, Coordination &

Policy D

evelopment

Technical A

ssistance on Solid W

asteT

echnical Assistance on S

olid Waste

Three R

ivers Planning &

Developm

ent District'

Three R

ivers Planning &

Developm

ent District'

Three R

ivers Regional E

ducation Service A

gency IT

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

ft.

Counties S

erved

Pontotoc

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Multicounty

Section 302 F

unds

$40,00063,65273,16542,73415,00018,00065,31673,16585,650

Other F

ederal Funds

$00000000

12,000

Total E

ligible Costs

$53,29287,774

100,82542,73420,00018,00087,08897,553

126,200$ 476,682

$12,000

$ 633,466

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.5 A

n additional $544.180 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal214 funds for M

ississippi amounted to $1,541,220.

Note: F

or each project, the combined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determ

ined bysubtracting A

RC

section funds and other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

0

86

New

York

Population

(in thousands)

State T

otal18,265.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

1,079.1

Allegany

49.4B

roome

218.4C

attaraugus86.4

e'DC

hautauqua150.5

Chem

ung100.4

Chenango

47.5C

DC

ortland46.5

Delaw

are46.5

Otsego

57.6S

choharie29.6

Schuyler

17.2S

teuben101.7

Tioga

47.3T

ompkins

80.1

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

Population E

stimates and P

rojections U S

Bureau of the C

ensus Series P

.25, no 527

Section 202 (H

ealth)

New

York

87

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Prim

ary Care for the E

lderlyB

roome

$ 106,499$ 203,972

Com

prehensive Rural H

ealth Maintenance P

rogramC

hemung

141,630234,235

Geriatric P

rimary C

are Program

Chem

ung95,744

100,997

Com

prehensive Hom

e Care P

roject'C

henango56,651

77,197e:14

New

Berlin P

rimary H

ealth Care S

ervicesC

henango50,411

67,B09

C7)

Expansion of H

ealth Care S

ervicesH

ealth Care S

ervices Program

'

Cortland

Cortland

90,83414,570

130,02527,010

CZ

)

Hom

e Care'

Cortland

27,747206,897

Hom

e Care'

Steuben

64,93282,213

Com

prehensive Hom

e Care P

rogram'

Tioga

55,23163,595

Prim

ary Care C

enterT

ioga92,961

127,510

Health D

elivery System

Tom

pkins90,117

150,538

Am

bulatory Care P

lanning'M

ulticounty30,092

40,761

Com

munications P

roject for Improved E

mergency M

edicalS

ervicesM

ulticounty29,767

29,767

Prim

ary Care E

valuation & M

onitoring Program

'M

ulticounty215,717

238,878

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,162,903

$1,781,504

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Com

prehensive Child D

evelopment C

onference'A

llegany$

49,6040

$60,136

Rural E

ducation Program

for Preschool C

hildren & P

arentsB

roome

188,3892,100

262,671

Susquehanna S

chool Expansion

Broom

e29,446

040,481

Olean D

ay Care &

Child D

evelopment C

enterC

attaraugus28,267

063,460

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each prolect, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individuallocal contribution can be determ

ined by subtracting AR

C secti..3., funds end other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

88N

ew Y

ork, continued

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent), continued

Project

Day C

are Program

'D

unkirk Head S

tart Expansion'

Medical O

utpatient Services in C

hild Care'

Westfield D

ay Care &

Rural C

hild Developm

ent Center'

Elm

ira Neighborhood H

ouse First S

tep Program

'R

ural Child D

evelopment C

enter'S

peech & Language O

pportunity for Trainable M

entallyR

etarded Children'

Verbal Interaction P

roject'C

hild Developm

ent Center'

Day C

are Center'

Well-C

hild Clinics'

Training P

rogram for P

arents'C

omprehensive V

isual Care P

rogram'

Day C

are Services'

;.,D

ental Attack P

rograrr;1'E

arly Child E

ducation for Handicapped'

Preschool T

ransportation'T

raining Program

in Early C

hild Education'

Child H

ealth Services'

Child H

ealth Services'

Com

prehensive Program

for Teenage P

arents'P

roject Reach D

evelopment C

enter'H

eadstart1C

hild Service P

ackage'D

ental Health S

ervices'C

hild Based Inform

ation System

'C

hild Developm

ent Evaluation &

Program

Monitoring'

Com

prehensive interdisciplinary Developm

ent Services2

Com

prehensive Interdisciplinary Developm

ent Services

Early C

hildhood Training P

rogram for H

andicapped Children'

Pediatric N

urse Practitioner T

raining Program

'P

rogram D

esign & M

odification Monitoring U

nit'S

peech & H

earing Evaluation P

rogram'

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Counties S

erved

Chautauqua

Chautauqua

Chautauqua

Chautauqua

Chem

ungC

hemung

Chem

ungC

hemung

Chenango

Cortland

Delaw

areS

choharieS

chuylerS

chuylerS

chuylerS

chuylerS

chuylerS

chuylerS

teubenS

teubenS

teJbenS

teubenT

iogaT

ompkins

Tom

pkinsM

ulticountyM

ulticountyM

ulticountyM

ulticountyM

ulticountyM

ulticountyM

ulticountyM

ulticounty

Section 202 F

unds

24,70818,543

152,96183,90214,905

185,515

10,53119,362

138,774106,019

,

71,20036,325

2,97054,61110,53016,61437,2854,689

1818,35237,17532,5604123:074

88,72830,22148,93083,38322,670

138,388195,81435,588

156,13038,229

Other F

ederal Funds

007,16303,2200

5,97401,02000000000

14,0660003,367000000

68,2500000

Total E

ligible Costs

65,07822,308

190,722112,64728,419

247,354

16,50520,612

144,474127,95277,41048,0372,970

72,81410,53030,07137.28523,35849,57065,95282,42267,98612,112

108,72630,25590,381

136,51323,083

321,518279,141

47,451156,13099,581

$2,266,454$ 105,160

276,115

.o.<1,k)r)

207 (Housing)

Project

Counties S

erved

Technical A

ssistance in Developing Low

- & M

oderate-Income

Housing

Total A

pproved in FY

1974M

ulticounty

Section 207 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

$ 100,726$ 100,726

$-TC

:t-T

5-0,726

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

89S

ection 211 (Education)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Career E

ducationA

llegany$

45,900$

76,980

Multioccupational Learning E

xperienceB

roome

33,96040,360

Special E

ducation & T

raining Opportunity

Broom

e104,700

228,136

Career O

riented Hum

an Potential C

enterC

hautauqua58,500

76,000

Curriculum

Developm

ent & E

valuation Program

'C

hautauqua26,445

40,39t,

Expanded C

areer Program

in Basic T

hree As

Delaw

are45,390

102,673

Occupational E

ducation Instructional Program

Schoharie

3F,155

50,155

Audiovisual D

emon. Laboratory in S

ecretarial Science'

Tom

pkins25,844

33,056

Fam

ily Nurse P

ractitioner Program

Multicounty

169,680174,680

Instructional Television M

aterialsM

ulticounty633,783

720,869

Total A

pprove+) in F

Y 1974

$1,182,357$1,543,919

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Dunkirk Industrial P

ark Water &

Sew

er Project

Chautauqua

$ 538,800$

0$ 673,500

Educational T

elevision Transm

ission System

4C

hautauqua74,673

093,341

Water P

ollution Control F

acilityC

hautauqua98,943

3,874,5005,166,000

Wastew

ater Treatm

entC

ortland250,000

14,463,00019,284,000

Erw

in Sew

age Collection S

ystem E

xtensionS

teuben196,000

0245,000

Riverside S

ewage C

ollection System

Steuben

119,0000

238,000

Second S

tage Developm

ent of Educational T

elevisionS

teuben489,416

0611,770

Telecom

munications N

etwork4

Steuben

113,0780

141,348

Wayland S

ewage C

ollection System

Steuben

640,000550,000

2,190,000

Groton C

hild Developm

ent Center3

Tom

pkins15,000

020,535

Rural A

mbulatory C

are Center

Tom

pkins78,839

325,000729,000

Developm

ent of Regional Link in T

elecomm

unications4M

ulticounty264,000

0330,000

$2,877,749$19,212,500

$29,722,494T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Rural P

ublic Transit S

tudyC

hautauqua$

26,250$

35,000

People M

obile Project'

Chenango

87,01587,015

Design &

Production of T

eacher Training M

aterialsE

ducational Planning P

rogram

Multicounty

Multicounty

..-

59,60052,600

59,60067,600

Environm

ental Legislation Impact on E

conomic D

evelopment

Multicounty

101,250135,000

Forest Industries F

easibility Study

Multicounty

32,86543,820

Southern T

ier Central R

egional Planning &

Developm

ent Board'

Multicounty

45,75061,000

Southern T

ier Central R

egional Planning &

Developm

entB

oard'M

ulticounty65,625

87,500

Southern T

ier West R

egional Planning &

Developm

ent Board'

Multicounty

34,37545,834

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$ 505,330

$ 622,369

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds and other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

90N

orth Carolina

Population

(in thousands)H

aywood

Henderson

JacksonM

cDow

ell

42.345.323.331.8

State T

otal5,273.0

Macon

16.8M

adison16.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

1,080.9M

itchell13.7

Polk

12.2R

utherford48.8

Alexander

21.5S

tokes26.1

Alleghany

8.5S

urry53.1

Ashe

19.2S

wain

9.7A

very13.2

Transylvania

19.8B

uncombe

148.5W

atauga26.5

Burke

63.2W

ilkes52.5

Caldw

ell57.7

Yadkin

26.1C

herokee16.2

Yancey.

13.1C

lay5.2

Davie

19.7C

ounty figures ate 1973 provisional population estimates rounded to

Forsythe

224.5the new

est hundred from F

ederalState C

ooperative Program

forP

opu taboo Estim

ates. U S

Bureau of the C

ensus. Senes P

26. noG

raham6.4

68

;:e:

7-

)

'AgitkiN

t:44VA

r 4:1 -

;.!'

k

e..1

11-'2-4.1

-4.

-"r

--,0

)

va

i' As

-- ', ;;7';',-4

x0t.},,,,,,:

i'

".,?""t, r'....,4C

..vs

4c

.,

.1- a.

.1)P'

ll'', O

s1 '

'T. ..'

'',1c?.il:

''..:

t''' -/

.So

....r.2.

.l ae reg A

1'r a. ykallt..2"/

i `a

,.

.,.- --.

.c

c

le.

el

e

A

1

-01.

i'l .:::M

.'".: ' .?-

-,,40- ',44-44.

.-I,'

-4

1.. r.OA

:rrzt.9*-;.-5i

;1%.

441.1,....r...,

',:h..,..

,a

ti.z. -,

.4._

..

.../P\"N.

.

-to

I'

..

A

1: 4".` ""

low.

.7't

4,:t4

;

Ika-

92

North C

arolinaS

ection 202 (Child D

evelopment)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection*202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Child D

evelopment P

rograml

Multicounty

$ 843,750$ 276,570

$1,456,086C

hild Developm

ent Program

-Managem

ent & T

echnicalA

ssistance'M

ulticounty489,304

0641,610

Child D

evelopment P

rogram - O

perationsM

ulticounty2,113,126

956,1603,069,286

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$3,446,180

$1,232,730$5,166,982

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Hot S

prings Health P

rogram'

Madison

s,221,968

$0

$ 343,978H

alfway H

ouse Alcohol P

rograml

Rutherford

66,8730

67,423D

etoxification Clinic for A

lcoholicsW

ilkes146,311

0174,415

Bringing It A

ll Back H

ome

Multicounty

231,613139,756

390.819E

xpansion & D

evelopment of H

ome C

are Services'

Multicounty

117,6000

253,431H

alfway H

ouse for Fem

ale Alcoholics

Multicounty

78,6990

86,540H

alfway H

ouse for Treatm

ent of Alcoholism

'M

ulticounty36,053

073,485

Health M

anpower E

ducation Project'

Multicounty

63,1730

86,564H

ealth Planner &

Coordinator'

Multicounty

15,1000

20.422H

ealth Planning P

rogramM

ulticounty17,322

031,515

Hom

e Care P

rograml

Multicounty

47,3870

89,279Inform

ation & R

eferral Services

Multicounty

57,7580

59,378Living E

xpenses for Physician A

ssistants'M

ulticounty8,940

08,940

Planning &

Adm

inistration Grant'

Multicounty

192,5000

266,656P

reventive Dentistry (F

luoridation/'M

ulticounty188,674

0204,674

Preventive D

entistry-Region D

IM

ulticounty84,738

0124,488

Rural P

rimary H

ealth Care D

emon. P

rojectM

ulticounty182,892

0228,117

Unifour D

ental Disease P

revention Program

lM

ulticounty35,000

0197,200

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,792,601

$ 139,756fi,707

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Oak K

noll Apartm

ents Housing S

ite De4elopm

ent3T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

Counties S

erved

8uncombe

Section 207 F

unds

$73,550

f----773W)

Total E

ligible Costs

$73,550

9-73,550

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or Individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting

AR

C section funds end other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 211 (E

ducation)S

ection214

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

AshevilleB

uncombe T

ech. InstituteB

uncombe

$ 375,000$225,000

$0

$ 800,000S

outhern Caldw

ell High S

chool Voc. E

d. Facilities

Caldw

ell500,000

100,0000

1,000,000V

oc. Ed. C

enterC

herokee275,000

165,00040,000

600,000T

echnical Institute Expansion

Forsyth

375,000225,000

02,14.^.981

Voc. E

d. Facility

Transylvania

325,000195,000

47,000744,000

Consolidated H

igh School

Yancey

244,125146,475

89,400706,700

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,094,125

$1,056,475$ 176,400

$5,994,581

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

LeesMcR

ae College E

ducation Building3

Avery

$33,600

$0

$33,659

Tow

n of Elk P

ark Water S

ystem3

Avery

8,0000

74,700

Asheville A

irport3B

uncombe

12,652189,787

253,050A

sheville Airport R

unway E

xtension & Im

provements

Buncom

be42,735

641,025854,700

East B

urke Water P

rojectB

urke37,700

659,625879,500

East B

urke Water P

rojectB

urke217,600

0283,300

Murphy &

Nantahala R

egional LibraryC

herokee163,660

210,420467,600

Angel H

osp. Modernization

Macon

300,0002,336,170

2,927,967R

utherford Airport

Rutherford

33,220688,800

918,400W

alnut Cove W

ater System

Stokes

164,0700

608,795A

rlington Water P

rojectY

adkin197,000

85,000665,000

Yadkinville W

ater System

Yadkin

300,0000

1,400,000

Blue R

idge Hosp. S

ystem E

xpansionM

ulticounty250,000

584,3055,222,980

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,760,2375

$5,394,132$14,589,651

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Appalachian Junk C

ar Rem

oval Project

Multicounty

$96,000

$0

$ 128,000B

lue Ridge P

lanning & D

evelopment C

omm

ission'M

ulticounty43,351

057,802

Mountain S

cenic Regional P

lanning & D

evelopment

Com

mission'

Multicounty

45,7950

61,060N

orthwest E

conomic D

evelopment C

omm

ission'M

ulticounty47,316

063,088

Northw

est Regional E

ducation Center'

Multicounty

21,02564,307

309,709O

mbudsm

an Program

'M

ulticounty34,275

0102,825

Region B

Planning &

Developm

ent Com

mission'

Multicounty

55,7200

74,295S

outhwestern N

orth Carolina P

lanning 8ii Econom

icD

evelopment C

omm

ission'M

ulticounty60,264

080,352

Statew

ide Developm

ent Policy

'-'.-M

ulticounty51,750

069,000

Tornado F

orest Dam

age Control

Multicounty

15,0000

15,000W

estern Regional E

ducation Center'

Multicounty

21,02549,800

266,250T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 491,521$ 114,107

$1,227,381

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.s A

n additional $1,056,475 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for North C

arolina amounted to

$2,816,712.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

93

1

94

11

Ohio

Population

(in thousands)

State T

otal10,731.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

1,176.0

Adam

s21.1

Athens

57.2B

elmont

82.9B

rown

28.8C

arroll23.1

Clerm

ont102.1

Coshocton

34.9G

allia27.3

Guernsey

40.1H

arrison17.5

Highland

30.1H

ocking20.9

Holm

es24.1

-"!Jackson

28.6C

,Jefferson

95.8r---f

Lawrence

61.4C

)M

eigs20.6

Monroe

15.6M

organ13.5

Muskingum

81.6N

oble10.9

Perry

27.8P

ike20.0

Ross

61.9S

cioto79.6

Tuscaraw

as79.8

Vinton

10.4W

ashington58.4

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

FederalS

tate Cooperative P

rogram for

Population E

stimates. U

S B

ureau of the Census. S

enes P.26, no

80

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

ai

Ohio

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Day C

arelC

oshocton$

45,516$

14,136$

62,742W

ell-Child C

linicsiC

oshocton41,063

061,063

Appalachian H

opeiG

allia143,452

21,452169,904

Day C

are Center 1

Guernsey

65,4490

65,449G

eneral Health D

istrict 1G

uernsey117,486

4,075178,991

School for P

arent Educations

Guernsey

17,9700

17,970

Child D

evelopment R

eferral Projects

Harrison

31,8650

42,986

Food &

Nutrition E

lucation Program

lH

arrison15,225

018,300

Com

prehensive Child H

ealth Servicesi

Holm

es55,752

063,589

Establishm

ent of Preschool P

rograms

Holm

es166,630

0230,802

Child D

evelopment &

Fam

ily Advocacy C

entersJefferson

178,2840

250,556

Child H

ealth Care P

rograms

Muskingum

70,0000

82,579

Child D

evelopment A

dministrationl

Scioto

18,31720,179

41,496D

ay Cares

Tuscaraw

as87,441

15,000128,617

Maternal &

Child H

ealth Centersi

Tuscaraw

as214,445

7,756332,719

Child D

evelopmentl

Multicounty

62,2910

62,291

Child D

evelopment A

dministration &

Managem

ent Grants

Multicounty

49,2169,257

58,473

Child D

evelopment F

luoride Treatm

entsM

ulticounty73,850

095,059

Child D

evelopment H

ealth Evaluation

Multicounty

59,1330

87,432

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.ual state or individual local contribution can be determ

ined by subtracting AR

C section funds and other federal

95

96O

hio, continued

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent), continued

)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Child D

evelopment P

rojectM

ulticounty110,000

239,930353,365

Child D

evelopment P

roject'M

ulticounty104,835

200,392312,527

Com

prehensive Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Multicounty

602,54445,344

730,890C

omprehensive C

hild DE

velorrnent Program

'M

ulticounty357,965

30,757434,860

Coordinating G

rant for Child D

evelopment'

Multicounty

66,3000

89,665T

ricounty Fam

ily Planning'

Multicounty

18.14261.927

83,069T

o ..! Approved in F

Y 1974

r$2,773,171

$ 670,205$4,055,394

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Health S

ervices Planning G

rant'A

thr$ 148,748

$ 198,329N

ursing Program

Atht

32,39836,080

Rural S

olid Waste C

ollectionG

allia40,000

50,00GM

edical Adaptation of M

icrowave to H

ealth Delivery

Hocking

68,840175,840

Hom

e Health C

are'Law

rence23,040

55,740V

eterans Mem

orial Hosp. H

ome H

ealth Services P

rogram'

Meigs

6,00029,758

Prim

ary Care P

rojectP

ike53,745

129,758S

atellite Health C

enterN

iinton102,003

153,003A

mbulatory H

ealth Services

Multicounty

132,305219,283

Com

munity M

ental Health S

ervices Developm

ent Project'

Multicounty

6,000236,405

Com

munity M

ental Health S

ervices Developm

ent Project'

Multicounty

34,745350,962

Fam

ily Planning, M

aternal Care &

Related S

ervices'M

ulticounty260,348

348,740H

ealth Maintenance O

rganization Study

Multicounty

25,00033500

Health P

lanning Assistance'

Multicounty

20,95028,680

Health P

lanning Assistance'

Multicounty

19,13125,508

Health P

lanning Council E

mergency M

edical Services'

Multicounty

35,21547,015

Hosp. F

inancial Control S

ystem'

Multicounty

145,046193,394

Medical A

daptation of Microw

ave Delivery

Multicounty

123,800135,114

Medical A

daptation of Microw

ave to Health D

eliveryM

ulticounty30,459

35,518M

edical & P

aramedical S

tudent Field E

xperience'M

ulticounty110,253

156,435N

urse Practitioners for A

ppalachiaM

ulticounty70,000

70,000T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$1,488,02607709562

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Housing &

Com

munity D

evelopment T

echnical Assistance

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Counties S

erved

Multicounty

Section 207 F

unds

$98,000

$98,000

Total E

ligible Costs

$98,000

$98,000

- -F

ootnotes 1.4: For explanation, see page 67.

Note: F

or each project, the combined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can bo determ

ined by subtracting AR

C section funds and

other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Section 214 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Southern H

ills Joint Voc. S

choolB

rown

$ 371,250$ 371,250

$3,615,000U

.S. G

rant Joint Voc. S

choolC

lermont

167,840326,572

2,962,700S

witzerland of O

hio Voc. S

choolM

onroe450,000

450,0003,000,000

Muskingum

Area T

ech. College E

quipment

Muskingum

12,6507,590

25,300B

uckeye Joint Voc. S

choolT

uscarawas

581,550581,549

7,469,322V

oc. School C

areer Planning

Washington

99,0000

99,000A

dult Voc. S

heep Production

Multicounty

31.2510

31,411T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$1,713,541$1,736,961

$17,202,733

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ctiedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Waste W

ater Treatm

ent Plant

8elmont

$ 120,000$

0$ 160,000

Voc. S

chool Satellite B

uildingH

arrison56,651

0123,968

Clinic

Monroe

159,600266,000

532,000W

ater Distribution S

ystem E

xtensionP

erry300,000

200,0001,000,000

Satellite H

ealth Center

Vim

in9,129

15,21530,430

Clinics

Multicounty

207.600500,000

1,208 576T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 852,9805$ 981,215

$3,054,974

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Earth R

esource Managem

ent for Regional D

evelopment

Harrison

$49,875

$0

$72,081

Marietta D

owntow

n Restoration P

rojectW

ashington30,060

040,100

Appalachian C

ooperative for Educational S

ervicedM

ulticounty125,000

0154,200

Buckeye H

illsHocking V

alley Regional D

evelopment

District, Inc.1

Multicounty

32,8740

43,632O

hio Valley R

egional Developm

ent Com

mission)

Multicounty

21,0470

28,063P

ublic Service Internship P

rogramM

ulticounty43,545

058,060

Regional E

ducation Service A

gency)M

ulticounty125,020

97,100310,023

Sheep Industry P

rojectsM

ulticounty24,000

036,300

Southeast O

hio Regional T

ourismM

ulticounty79,664

083,654

Speech, H

earing & V

ision Services

Multicounty

24,9600

50,293T

uscarawas V

alley Regional A

dvisory Com

mittee, Inc.1

Multicounty

65,0000

98,000T

uscarawas V

alley Regional A

dvisory Com

mittee, Inc.1

Multicounty

65,0000

97,375T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 686,045$

97,100

$1,071,981

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.s A

n additional $1,736,661 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for Ohio am

ounted to $2,589,941.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

98

Population

(in thousands)

State T

otal11,902.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

6,000.0*

Allegheny

1,559.8A

rmstrong

77.2B

eaver212.6

Bedford

43.3B

lair137.4

Bradford

59.2B

utler135.7

Cam

bria190.9

JeffersonC

ameron

7.2Juniata

Carbon

51.7Lackaw

annaC

entre103.8

Lawrence

Clarion

40.8Luzerne

Clearfield

76.9Lycom

ingC

linton38.4

McK

eanC

olumbia

57.4M

ercerC

rawford

84.9M

ifflinE

lk38.8

Monroe

Erie

273.4M

ontourF

ayette157.0

Northum

berlandF

orest5.0

Perry

Fulton

11.2P

ikeG

reene38.3

Potter

Huntingdon

40.8S

chuylkillIndiana

83.9S

nyder

Pennsylvania

45.1S

omerset

17.8S

ullivan237.0

Susquehanna

108.6T

ioga346.8

Union

115.7V

enango52.5

Warren

129.0W

ashington46.1

Wayne

49.3W

estmoreland

17.8W

yoming

100.132.212.917.5

161.931.1

78.46.0

36.941.829.563.249.2

215.132.6

379.321.0

'Total does not add because of rounding of county totals in the

SM

SA

s

County figures are 1973 provisional poN

tation estimates rounded to

the nearest hundred from F

ederalStaM

Cooperative P

rogram for

Poputati,,n E

stimates U

S B

ureau ci the Census. S

enes P 26, no

93

O

a r

a.

- ; f i

cam

?

No.

a.r

.1

or-

ii-

3111

A30

1NO

N91

1 10

1131

0111

f.be

T

.704

*9...

,r/P

r.

"--

""4

-.41

1111

."

Ar,

i

se"

100

PennsylvaniaS

ection 202 (Child D

evelopment)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Medical Infant C

are Program

Allegheny

$20,007

$62,557

$83,409

Northview

Heights Infant C

are Project

Allegheny

82,4900

95.160C

hild Care Inform

ation & R

eferral Program

'B

edford62,436

065,436

Altoona H

osp. Social S

ervices Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Blair

96,4600

110,690A

rea Day C

are Center"

Blair

17,19651,590

69,000tilaternal &

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Blair

80,2460

80,366P

reschool Dental C

linic Program

'B

lair59,223

61,573121.036

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Cam

bria244,891

257,201505,624

Com

prehensive Child D

evelopment P

rogramC

arbon108,058

0123.052

Colum

bia Day C

are Program

, Inc.C

olumbia

56,39586.518

180.064C

hild Developm

ent'F

ulton56,795

75.167131.962

Model D

ay Care C

enter'H

untingdon92,871

60,847158.271

Com

munity C

enter Project

Indiana45,080

30,13499,962

Maternal H

ealth Care P

rogram2

Luzerne8,580

08,580

Teenage P

arent Program

Luzerne11,730

36,83566,691

Toddler D

emon. P

rogram'

Luzerne20,032

60,73980,981

Day C

are & C

hild Developm

ent Center

Mifflin

120,4800

120.980C

omprehensive C

hild Developm

ent Program

'S

chuylkill58,210

177,057236,075

Child D

evelopment C

enter'S

omerset

105,981109.972

216.253D

ay Care P

rogram &

Children's S

ervices'T

ioga61,296

340,192453,589

Early C

hild Developm

ent Program

Multicounty

121,56067,046

221,282F

amily P

lanning Council

Multicounty

58,0002,812,000

3.425,400P

rogram M

onitoring & E

valuation Project

Multicounty

99,2390

99,359S

creening Preschool C

hildren for Com

municable D

isorders'M

ulticounty21.043

23 49344.693

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,708,299

$4,312,921$6,797,915

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Prim

ary Health C

are Delivery S

ystemC

arbon$

41,480$

37,000$ 137,192

Hom

e Health S

ervice'sC

entre19,910

072,935

Mountaintop A

rea Medical C

enter'C

entre19,071

0181.714

Pennsylvania V

alley Medical C

enter'C

entre32,633

0192,213

Em

ergency Services D

emon. P

roject'C

linton33,247

081,392

Broad T

op Prim

ary Health C

are Center'

Huntingdon

208,334236,547

529,673P

rimary C

are Center

Lackawanna

216,6750

323,155C

omm

unity Health S

ervices'Lycom

ing156,713

0265,660

Enterprises for the H

andicapped'Lycom

ing50,000

0126,063

Lower A

nthracite Regional H

ealth Care C

enter'N

orthumberland

83,2000

291,939l

Health C

enter'P

erry60,000

0337,793

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 202 (H

ealth), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Com

prehensive Prim

ary Care.

Susquehanna

77,8100

131,485B

lossburg Prim

ary Care C

enter'T

ioga314,882

0668,544

Partners in P

rogress'T

ioga14,887

091,082

Dental A

ssistant Training P

rogram'

Union

48,4160

82,276B

ig Valley A

rea Medical C

enter'M

ulticounty149,564

0344,424

Com

munity N

ursing Service

Multicounty

32,1660

41,786C

omprehensive H

ealth Planning &

Adm

inistrative Grant'

Multicounty

156,4410

208,588H

ealth Technical A

ssistance Staffing G

rantM

ulticounty18,973

018,973

'Iski Valley M

edical Facility

Multicounty

316,0330

553,525R

egional Em

ergency Com

munication P

rojectM

ulticounty75,000

075,000

Special D

emo.). H

ealth Project for C

omprehensive health'

Multicounty

150,5790

200,960S

pecialized Refuse S

ewage C

ollection&

Treatm

ent Facility

Multicounty

230,8750

351,095S

un Hom

e Nursing S

ervices, Inc.'M

ulticounty43,984

0110,984

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,600,873

$ 273,547$5,418,451

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 207 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Tow

ne Tow

ers Housing P

rojectB

eaver$

28,000$

28,000S

ite Improvem

entB

utler56,027

56,027S

ite Developm

ent Grant

Lacka.-anna197,056

197,056U

rban Renew

alLaw

rence186,000

186,000S

tudy of Pennsylvania S

tate Housing A

uthorityM

ulticounty131,040

131,040T

otal Approved in F

V 1974 ,

$ 598,123S

598,123

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Area V

oc. Tech. S

chool Equipm

entA

llegheny$

34,200$

0$

45,600C

ity of Pittsburgh S

chool District E

quipment

Allegheny

186,0000

248,000F

orbes Road E

ast Area V

oc. Tech. S

choolA

llegheny192,416

0256,550

Parkw

ay West A

rea Tech. S

chool Equipm

entA

llegheny40,500

54,000V

oc. Equipm

entA

llegheny7,462

09,949

Voc. P

rogram E

quipment

Allegheny

30,1130

40,150A

rea Voc. T

ech. School

Arm

strong500,000

- 73,01:1955,142

Voc. T

ech. School E

quipment

Arm

strong28,125

037,500

Aliquippa S

chool District E

quipment

Beaver

26,8290

35,772A

mbridge A

rea School D

istrict Voc. P

rogram E

quipment

Beaver

6,9250

9,231C

omm

unity College E

quipment

Beaver

11,8500

15,800A

rea School D

istrict Voc. E

quipment

Blair

6,1730

8,231A

rea Voc. T

ech. School E

quipment

Blair

238,5000

318,000A

rea School D

istrict Equipm

entB

utler7,406

09,875

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual Iccal contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

101

102P

ennsylvania. continued

Section 211 (E

ducation), calicos('

ProjectC

ounties ServedSection 211 Funds

Other Federal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Area V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Cam

bria112,500

0150,000

Greater Johnstow

n School District E

quipment

Cam

bria12,533

016.711

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entC

ambria

43,8800

58,507A

ea Voc. T

ech. School Construction

Clarion

767,5400

3,800,000School D

istrict Equipm

entC

linton12,000

016,000

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entC

rawford

13,5600

18,080V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Craw

ford54,036

072,048

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entE

rie75,000

0100,000

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entE

rie56,250

075,000

Area V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Fayette50,492

067,323

Area V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Fayette11,775

015,700

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entG

reene12,815

017,087

Area V

oc. Tech. School C

onstructionH

untingdon831.124

02,878,389

Area V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Lackaw

anna37,500

053.000

Learning L

aboratory Equipm

entL

ackawanna

52,5000

70,000V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Law

rence42,000

056.000

Area V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Luzerne

48,7500

65,000A

rea Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entL

uzerne6,000

08.000

Com

munity C

ollege Equipm

entL

uzerne107,499

0143,333

West Side A

rea Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entL

uzerne96,000

0128,000

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entM

ercer15,000

020,000

Area V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Monroe

36,0000

48,000V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Schuylkill22,500

030,000

Voc. T

ech. School Construction

Somerset

83,5030

300.000A

rea Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entU

nion110,953

0147.939

Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entV

enango15,000

020,000

Area V

oc. Tech. School

Washington

188,76757,233

546,000A

rea Voc. T

ech. School Equipm

entW

estmoreland

25,8750

34,500M

obile Conservation L

aboratoryW

estmoreland

22,5000

30,000School D

istrict Equipm

entW

estmoreland

10,2000

13,600A

rea Voc. School E

quipment

Multicounty

10,3760

13,835V

oc. Tech. School E

quipment

Multicounty

7,5000

10,000T

otal Approved in FY

197454.308,427

$ - 15,849$11,062,859

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

McK

eesport Hosp. W

ing Construction

Pine Creek W

atershed Sewage Project

Counties Served

Allegheny

Allegheny

Section 214 Funds

S 700,000250.000

Other Federal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

$1,604,8046,985,720

58,264,1809,314,300

Footnotes 1.4: For explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, thecom

bined state and local or individual stets or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds and other federalfunds from

the total eligiblecostof the project.

'

Section 214 (S

upplemental), continued

103

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

St. F

rancis General H

osp. Modernization

Allegheny

400,000400,000

1,557,650

Em

ergency Medical S

erviceB

eaver35,299

044,124

Water &

Sew

er Project

Bedford

35,00035,000

190,000

Water S

ystemB

edford135,000

115,000510,000

Educational T

elevision Program

Bradford

15,64826,080

52,159

Service Inc., S

heltered Workshop P

rojectB

radford45,000

75,000150,000

Troy O

steopathic Hosp., Inc.3

Bradford

163,000100,000

572,552

Otocsin S

ewage P

lantC

learfield612,000

0765,000

Supply &

Distribution Im

provement

Elk

340,0000

536,855

Sew

er Project

Erie

127,6901,915,350

2,553,800

Water S

ystem3

Fayette

116,1940

228,174

Mem

orial Hosp.3

Greene

300,0000

1,325,470

Friendship H

ouse Day T

reatment C

enterLackaw

anna335,000

500,0001,265,000

Lark Workshop for the H

andicapped, Inc.Law

rence119,430

230,570465,140

Learning Resource C

enterLuzerne

600,0000

1,729,210

Allenw

ood Sanitary Landfill

Lycoming

1,018,5040

1,573,500

Bradford A

rea Sew

age Treatm

ent Facility

McK

ean147,445

1,196,2502,948,900

Interceptor & T

ertiary Sew

age Treatm

ent Facility

Monroe

248,260337,160

842,900

Rehabilitation M

edicine Dept.

Montour

360,000582,291

1,422,600

Sew

age Treatm

ent Facility C

onstructionS

chuylkill153,940

2,309,2503,637,000

Triboro S

ewage P

rojectS

usquehanna55,195

1 116 5201,488,700

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$6,312,605

$17,528,995$41,437,214

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Developm

ent of Fine C

leaning Methods for C

oalC

entre$ 100,000

$ 133,333S

tump C

reek Com

munity R

evitalizationJefferson

56,760102,600

Coal G

asification Planning P

rojectLuzerne

50,62567,500

Developing S

kills through In-Service E

ducationM

ulticounty56,300

224,650

Econom

ic Developm

ent Council of N

ortheastern Pennsylvania'

Multicounty

82,325109,767

Econom

ic Developm

ent Council of N

ortheastern Pennsylvania'

Multicounty

82,325109,767

Floating C

omm

unity College

Multicounty

81,11481,114

North C

entral Pennsylvania E

conomic D

evelopment D

istrict'M

ulticounty65,000

86,667N

orthern Tier R

egional Planning &

Developm

ent Com

mission'

Multicounty

65,00086,667

Northw

estern Pennsylvania R

egional Planning &

Developm

entC

omm

ission1M

ulticounty56,979

87,000R

emote S

ensing & G

round InvestigationM

ulticounty64,873

64,873

SE

DA

Local Developm

ent District'

Multicounty

67,50090,000

SE

DA

Local Developm

ent District'

Multicounty

67,50090,000

Southern A

lleghenies Planning &

Developm

ent Com

mission'

Multicounty

12,63143,405

Southw

estern Pennsylvania E

conomic D

evelopment D

istrict'M

ulticounty71,850

102,500

Southw

estern Pennsylvania E

conomic D

evelopment D

istrict'M

ulticounty71.850

102,500

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,052,632

$1,582,343

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and soca' or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined

by subtracting AR

C section funds and other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

104

Population

(in thousands)

State T

otal2,726.0

'

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

706.0

Anderson

112.0C

herokee38.7

Greenville

259.8O

conee43.5

Pickens

65.0S

partanburg187.0

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded toM

e nearest hundred horn FederatS

tate Cooperative P

rogram for

copulation Estim

ates U S

Bureau of the C

ensus Series P

26 no71

South Carolina__

%.

South Carolina

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Child D

evelopment'

Anderson

$63,807

$73,291

$ 172,698Industrial D

ay Care P

rogramA

nderson99,680

0164,680

Com

prehensive Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Greenville

266,105214,049

641,697F

amily D

ay Care T

raining Project

Greenville

49,5180

51,324C

omprehensive C

hiid Developm

ent Project'

Oconee

79,59532,044

143,292C

hild Developm

ent Project'

Pickens

227,62243,868

354,562C

omprehensive C

hild Care C

enterS

partanburg185,000

0421,078

Adm

inistration & Liaison P

rogram2

Multicounty

5,0000

5,000A

dministrative &

Liaison Program

'M

ulticounty41,704

42,831112,714

Child C

are Assistance

Multicounty

21,6250

25,925C

hild Care A

ssistance'M

ulticounty43,342

046,065

Com

prehensive Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Multicounty

887,348573,790

1,995,375C

omprehensive C

hild Developm

ent Program

4M

ulticounty47,102

43,47296,541

Infant Motivation U

nitM

ulticounty63,965

064,765

Public Inform

ation Cam

paign for Child D

evelopment P

rogramM

ulticounty52,500

052,500

School for the D

eaf & B

lindM

ulticounty73,213

11,366119,300

State &

Regional P

rofessional Managem

ent & T

echnicalA

ssistance Program

'M

ulticounty157,457

0209,942

Tricounty La F

rance Laboratory School

Multicounty

116,6000

126,800T

ricounty Tech. E

ducation Center'

Multicounty

52,5720

82,316T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$2,533,755$1,034,711

$4,886,574

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Fam

ily Practice R

esidency Program

Anderson

$82,502

$0

$ 222,782H

osp. Occupational T

herapy Center

Anderson

23,5200

27,200P

atient After C

are & R

eferral Project'

Anderson

18,7380

28,356Interdisciplinary H

ealth Education C

orps'C

herokee53,494

055,088

Patient A

fter Care &

Referral P

roject'C

herokee21,072

035,897

Social &

V=

Education of T

rainable Retardates'

Cherokee

46,6730

72,299D

ental Health P

roject'G

reenville24,145

048,494

Fam

ily Practice R

esidencyG

reenville214,042

75,000750,053

New

born Nursery E

quipment

Greenville

85,5410

106,926P

iedmont H

ealth Care C

orp.'G

reenville367,359

0569,453

Piedm

ont Health C

are Corp. U

rban Medical C

enterG

reenville125,000

0132,741

Transportation to P

reventive & C

linical Health S

ervices'G

reenville34,785

25,03361,818

Footnotes 1 4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds end other federalfunds from

the total eligible cost of the project.

105

106S

outh Carolina. continued

Section 202 (H

ealth), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Curriculum

Developm

ent & In-S

ervice Education)

Oconee

33,2510

47,504V

oc. Center Licensed P

ractical Nurse P

rograms

Oconee

7,6570

21,236C

omprehensive M

aternal, Infant & C

hild Care

Pickens

216,20622,546

249,794F

amily practice R

esidency Staff &

Operations,.

Spartanburg

98,98531,196

355,684H

ealth Maapow

er Developm

entS

partanburg26,615

074,36

Hosp. A

mbulatory C

are Equipm

entS

partanburg109,901

0265,913

Patient A

fter Care R

eferral Project,.

Spartanburg

37,6110

50,084A

lcohol &.D

rug Abuse P

roject,.M

ulticounty46,609

0105,930

Addiction P

rogram,.

Multicounty

66,8370

102,997D

ental Health P

roject,.M

ulticounty30,660

2,00064,720

District D

ental Program

Multicounty

28,4060

42,997G

reenville Tech. P

aramedical P

rogram-P

hase 111M

ulticounty97,297

0253,604

Greenville T

ech. Param

edical Program

-Phase 1111

Multicounty

81,4220

204,891H

ealth Education C

orps,.M

ulticounty65,932

18,587113,383

Manpow

er Developm

ent & R

ecruiting,.M

ulticounty13,920

028,145

Nursing E

ducation Project,.

Multicounty

15,9300

21,240P

lanning & A

dministrative G

rant,.M

ulticounty185,000

0250,000

Solid W

aste Managem

ent Implem

entation Program

,.M

ulticounty66,764

089,019

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,325,874

$ 174,362$4,452,608

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Technical A

ssistance for Housing

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

School D

istrict Voc. E

ducation Center E

quipment

Tricounty T

ech. Education C

enter Equipm

entV

oc. Education C

enter3V

oc. Education C

enter Equipm

entA

rea Voc. C

enter Equipm

entG

reenville Tech. E

ducation Center E

quipment

Greenville T

ech. Industrial Careers E

ducation Center

Construction

Voc. C

enter Equipm

ent Project

Area V

oc. Center E

quipment

Counties S

erved

Multicounty

Counties S

erved

Anderson

Anderson

Anderson

Anderson

Cherokee

Greenville

Greenville

Oconee

Pickens

Section 207 F

unds

$93,303

$93,303

Section 211 F

undsS

ection 214 Funds

$10,16446,063

3,20211,16441,41625,350

688,11763,89897,637

$000000

311,88300

Total E

ligible Costs

$93,303

$93,303

Total E

ligible Costs

$12,70557,579

4,00322,32851,76950,700

1,800,000127,796195,274

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or Individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 211 (E

ducation), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Tech. E

ducation Center E

quipment

Spartanburg

29,7860

39,715V

oc. Center E

quipment

Spartanburg

12,7180

15,897V

oc. Center E

quipment

Spartanburg

45,5490

56,936V

oc. Center E

xpansionS

partanburg380,160

0475,200

Adult V

oc. Education)

Multicounty

395,8740

395,874C

areer Cluster A

nalysis & V

oc. Tech. C

urriculum)

Multicounty

19,0000

19,000C

areer Cluster A

nalysis Project-P

hase 1111M

ulticounty120,960

0142,600

Guidance Institute)

Multicounty

13,9100

13,910S

tudent Placem

ent Program

Multicounty

158.6710

158,671T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$2,163,639$ 311,883

$3,639,957

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Tricounty E

ducation Center Laboratory C

onstructionA

nderson$ 944.000

$0

$1,180,000H

ealth Dept. A

dditionG

reenville725,000

170,8141,620,814

Clem

son Univ. S

chool of Nursing B

uildingO

conee170,136

2,025,6462,795,782

Library Classroom

Building

Spartanburg

400,000100,000

3,000,000S

anitary Sew

er District3

Spartanburg

210,300424,990

772,700W

ater Pollution C

ontrol3S

partanburg131,950

86,020156,400

National D

efense Education A

ct Title III S

upplement

Multicounty

117,023195,039

390,078N

ational Defense E

ducation Act T

itle III Supplem

entM

ulticounty60.396

100,659201,318

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,758,8055

$3,103,168$10,117,092

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Developm

ent & Im

plementation of H

orticultural Techniques

Multicounty

$37,922

$51,810

Education C

onfederatiorefor Planning

Multicounty

18,75025,000

Hum

an Services C

oordination Project

Multicounty

278,000310,487

Junk Car D

isposalM

ulticounty100,717

157,302R

ehabilitative & E

ducational Horticulture P

rogramM

ulticounty23,302

32,019S

ocial Services, T

ransportation Planning &

Coordination

Multicounty

31,10044,650

State M

anagement A

ssistanceM

ulticounty26,200

34,350T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$ 515,991$ 655,618

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.5 A

n additional $1,255,883 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for South C

arolina amounted to

84,014,688.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or irdividual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

107

108

Tennessee

"t"'"'"*" ."'"`"

tIt

""C

".

weso.

ift."1

'

""priert

,*a..

,aeol.16,

ye"

Population

(In thousands)F

ranklinG

raingerG

reeneG

rundy

29.415.449.711.7

Putnam

39.3R

hea19.0

Roane

41.0S

cott15.6

State T

otal4,126.0

Ham

blen42.2

Sequatchie

6.9H

amilton

264.7S

evier32.1

Total of C

ounties In Appalachia

1,837.0'H

ancock6.6

Sm

ith14.0

Haw

kins37.1

Sullivan

128.5A

nderson60.7

Jackson8.4

Unicoi

15.6B

ledsoe7.7

Jefferson27.8

Union

10.3B

lount66.3

Johnson12.6

Van B

uren3.9

Bradley

56.9K

nox291.4

Warren

29.2C

ampbell

28.7Loudon

25.5W

ashington80.0

Cannon

9.1M

cMinn

38.4W

hite17.1

Carter

45.9M

acon12.8

Claiborne

21.2M

arion21.5

Clay

6.8M

eigs5.5

Cocke

27.0M

onroe25.0

Total does not add because of rounding of county totals in the

Coffee

33.5M

organ14.6

SM

SA

s

Cum

berland22.8

Overton

16.1C

ounty figures are 1973 provisional population estimates rounded to

De K

albF

entress11.913.4

Pickett

Polk

4.211.8

the nearest hundred from F

ederalState C

ooperative Program

forP

opulation Estim

ates. US

Bureau of the C

ensus. Series P

.26. no83

109

I

JP,

ISection 202 (H

ealth)

dvi,./11:-T

ennessee

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

People's H

ealth Center'

Anderson

$22,500

0$

80,575N

eighborhood Health S

ervices, Inc.K

nox66,291

0145,481

Black Lung D

isease Diagnosis &

Treatm

entM

ulticounty99,465

0174,707

Com

prehensive Health P

lanningM

ulticounty18,000

31,85481,119

Prim

ary Care P

rojectM

ulticounty72,960

35,320137,680

Prim

ary Dental C

areM

ulticounty55,860

060,860

Rural H

ealth Care

Multicounty

83,1148,870

155,734

Total A

pproved in FY

1974418,190

S76,044

$ 836,156

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Day C

are Program

'A

nderson$ 172,928

$ 130,777$ 495,757

Com

munity D

ay Care C

enter'C

arter16,000

39,00084,600

Day C

are Center'

Claiborne

25,65413,954

60,608

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting

AR

C section funds and other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

110T

ennessee, continued

Section 202

(chileD

evelopment), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Day C

are Centers'

Ham

blen13,050

85,982150,261

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Ham

ilton112,000

695,435846,053

Hom

e InterventionJackson

20,70231,740

52,442N

ursery Schools'

Knox

40,864248,363

385,636E

xceptional Children's D

ay Care C

enter'R

oane10,811

94,161140,201

Acceleration &

Expansion of T

eam E

valuation, Services'

Multicounty

44,033112,970

519,852C

hild Developm

ent Project'

Multicounty

271,8480

362,464C

omm

unity-Wide P

reschool Services

Multicounty

54,0000

91,987C

omprehensive C

hild Developm

ent Project'

Multicounty

972,238262,840

1,324,808Infant &

Early C

hildhood Program

'M

ulticounty5,570

91481,718

Infant Intensive Care'

Multicounty

135,677119,600

526,615M

aternal & C

hild Health O

utreach Delivery S

ystem'

Multicounty

51,3570

51,621T

echnical Assistance for C

hild Developm

ent'M

ulticounty44,234

83,669163,576

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,990,966

$1,919,405$5,338,199

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Gatew

ay Village

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Counties S

erved

Sevier

Section 207 F

unds

$14,400

$14,400

Total E

ligible Costs

$18,000

$18,000

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Section 214 F

undsT

otal Eligible C

osts

Com

prehensive High S

chool3C

offee$ 126,736

$25,347

$ 253,472V

oc. Education C

omponent

Ham

ilton1,256,577

24,0562,641,153

Voc. E

ducation Com

ponent3H

amilton

20,53412,320

41,068C

omm

unity Career E

ducation Dem

on. Project

Hancock

13,0100

26,020H

igh School V

oc, Com

ponent3W

arren160,044

58,399340,487

Total A

pproved in FY

1974'M

TS

7901V

120,122$3,302,200

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Neighborhood F

acilityC

lay$

60,412$ 211268

$ 339,600S

ewer S

ystemC

offee69,600

0116,000

Library Construction

Cum

berland143,328

0220,506

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project,

Section 214 (S

upplemental), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Water S

ystemC

umber lei d

500,0000

2,182,480Lovell F

ield Aiipert

Ham

ilton83,644

1,828,2212,389,831

Soddy D

aisy Water S

ystemH

amilton

179,2000

224,000P

ublic Health C

enterH

ancock79,750

0145,000

Nursing H

ome3

Jefferson17,349

30,000115,660

McG

hee Tyson A

irport- Phase li

Knox

156,7103,523,375

4,694,100W

ater System

Loudon185,000

500,0001,172,000

South P

ittsburgh Water S

ystemM

arion850,000

02,075,000

Water S

ystemM

onroe220,000

500,0001,197,000

Hiw

assee Scenic R

iver Access

Polk

24,00060,000

120,000R

ockwood N

eighborhood Facility

Roane

55,180224,820

350,000S

ewage T

reatment3

Roane

214,4000

150,000P

igeon Forge W

ater Treatm

ent3S

evier52,200

087,000

King C

ollege Science B

uilding Construction

Sullivan

295,3350

1,670,412H

ealth Center

Washington

192,5000

350,000Jonesboro H

istorical Preservation P

rogramW

ashington60,000

200,000400,000

Water S

ystem E

xpansionW

ashington213,750

0475,000

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$3,652,3585

$7,077,684$18,473,589

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

ClinchP

owell E

ducation Cooperative)

Claiborne

$23,872

$ 431,233$ 527,221

Upper C

umberland E

ducation Cooperative E

xtension)P

utnam38,860

051,813

Upper E

ast Tennessee E

ducational Cooperative)

Washington

43,4290

58,079A

ppalachian Education C

ooperative)M

ulticounty52,861

090,153

East T

ennessee Developm

ent District'

Multicounty

68,6190

91,492F

irst Tennessee-V

irginia Cable T

elevisionM

ulticounty78,594

0144,294

First T

ennesseeVirginia D

evelopment D

istrict'M

ulticounty56,737

075,650

Interinstitutional Problem

s Study

Multicounty

30,0000

40,000R

egional Environm

ental Managem

entM

ulticounty42,421

042,421

Rem

ote Sensing P

rojectM

ulticounty53,600

4,00096,133

Rural T

ransportation System

Multicounty

43,6820

61,160S

outh Central T

ennessee Developm

ent District'

Multicounty

15,0000

20,000S

outheast Tennessee D

evelopment D

istrict'M

ulticounty79,757

0134,519

Tennessee A

ppalachian Education C

ooperative'M

ulticounty13,433

092,243

Tennessee V

alley Education C

ooperative'M

ulticounty13,750

079,250

Upper C

umberland D

evelopment D

istrict"M

ulticounty77,973

0103,964

Waterw

ay Opportunities in T

ennesseeM

ulticounty15,000

084,093

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$ 747,588

$ 435,233$1,792,485

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.$ A

n additional $120,122 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for Tennessee am

ounted to $3,772,480.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

112

Virginia

0.4

Population

(in thousands)

State T

otal

..,

. a. . .,

i. .

. ./.

r

..1%.....

1\..

,..::...

,..,...,

4,811.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

483.8'

Alleghany

12.6B

ath5.3

Bland

5.5B

otetourt19.0

Buchanan

33.0C

arroll22.5

Craig

3.6D

ickenson17.3

Floyd

9.7G

iles16.1

Grayson

16.0H

ighland2.5

LeeP

ulaskiR

ussellS

cottS

myth

Tazew

ellW

ashingtonW

iseW

ytheB

ristol**C

lifton Fo4e

Covington**

Galax**

Norton**

22.430.124.824.231.842.344.138.222.214.7

5.39.76.44.4

'Total does not add because of rounding of county totals in the

SM

SA

s.

"Independent cities.

County figures are 1973 provisional population estim

ates rounded tothe nearest hundred from

Federal-S

tate Cooperative P

rogram for

Population E

stimates, U

S. B

ureau of the Census, S

enes P-26, no

88

Virginia

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent)

113

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Handicapped C

hildren's Preschool P

roject'D

ickenson$

55,378$

0$

69,688C

linch Valley C

ollege Program

For Im

proving the Disabled

Multicounty

8,88341,523

59,402C

umberland P

lateau Early C

hildhood Developm

ent Program

'M

ulticounty166,683

0224,869

DI LE

NO

WIS

CO

Early C

hild Developm

ent Program

-Center B

aselM

ulticounty256,753

- 5,877314,054

DI LE

NO

WIS

CO

Early C

hild Developm

ent Program

-Hom

e Basel

Multicounty

225,1050

300,694D

I LEN

OW

ISC

O M

obile Base P

arent & C

hild Preschool E

ducationM

ulticounty65,000

065,000

Early C

hild Developm

ent Program

'M

ulticounty72,624

079,924

Fam

ily Counseling S

ervicesM

ulticounty30,000

061,025

Fam

ily Nurse P

ractitioner Program

''

Multicounty

24,0800

24,080P

ediatric Health &

Child D

evelopment P

rogramM

ulticounty224,123

0228,411

Preschool P

rogram for R

egional Child D

evelopment C

enter'M

ulticounty81,842

0109,562

Satellite P

rogram-R

egional Child D

evelopment C

enter'M

ulticounty118,560

10.938187,217

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$1,329,031

$46,584

$1,720,926

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

_Com

munity S

ervice Center C

onstructionT

azewell

$ 100,000$ 212,693

Solid W

aste Program

'T

azewell

6,00020,816

Coalm

iners Respiratory C

linic Program

Multicounty

149,865153,515

Com

prehensive Children's V

ision Screening

Multicounty

38,18938,659

Consortium

Health &

Child D

evelopment P

rogram'

Multicounty

65,44881,810

Dental H

ealth Program

'M

ulticounty245,382

326,109E

pidemiology T

echnician Training &

Service'

Multicounty

26,53435,379

Lebanon Speech &

Hearing C

enter'M

ulticounty42,427

57,838P

lanning & A

dministrative G

rant'M

ulticounty97,339

130,052P

ublic Health N

utrition Program

Multicounty

47,61748,022

Public H

ealth Social S

ervice Program

Multicounty

33,32433,570

Regional E

mergency C

omm

unications System

Multicounty

271,460322,124

Regional E

nvironmental Im

provement P

rogramM

ulticounty99,400

124,250S

peech & H

earing Center

Multicounty

54,57266,054

Student A

merican M

edical Association &

Health T

eamT

raining Program

'M

ulticounty45,518

88,353T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$1,323,075$1,739,244

Section 207 (H

ousing)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

State-w

ide Housing P

rogramM

ulticounty$ 100,000

Total A

pproved in FY

1974i 100,006

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

$100 000S

'IC0,000

Virginia. continued

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

erved

Section214

Section 211 F

undsF

undsO

therF

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Vocational C

enter3A

llegheny$ 146,500

$ 62,409$

0$ 293,000

High S

chool Vocational W

ingB

ath355,703

151,5290

711,408V

ocational Multim

edia Individual Study Learning Laboratory)

Floyd

12,634522

025,267

High S

chool Vocational W

ing3G

rayson167,582

79,4340

335,163H

igh School V

ocational Wing-P

hase IIG

rayson69,645

132,047208,935

557,160H

igh School V

ocational Wing

Pulaski

25,00039,600

75,000200,000

Occupational E

quipment

Pulaski

11,5254,723

048,427

Vocational C

enter Addition

Tazew

ell133,462

769,0380

1,250,000C

omm

unity College O

ccupational Equipm

entW

ashington39,583

19,0710

79,165T

ech. School3

Washington

145,00068,730

0290,000

Com

munity C

ollege Occupational E

quipment

Wise

16,2508.726

032,500

Com

munity C

ollege Occupational E

quipment

Wythe

38,00016,735

076,000

Com

munity C

ollege Learning In Transit)

Multicounty

31,5508,070

063,100

Upgrading V

oc. Ed. P

rogramM

ulticounty400 000

00

800.000T

otal Approved in F

Y 1974

$1,592,434$1,360,634

$ 283935$4,761,190

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Ingalls Airport Im

provements3

Bath

$6,452

$15,144

$30,284

Lonesome P

ine Regional Library

Dickenson

29,000100,000

310,652H

ealth Center3

Grayson

29,0250

135,391Lonesom

e Pine R

egional LibraryS

cott140,000

0337,305

Mountain E

mpire A

irport Improvem

entS

myth

22,650450,000

600,000Lonesom

e Pine R

egional Library3W

ise20,000

0149,768

Health C

enter3W

ythe25,428

0114,540

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$ 272,5555

$ 565,144$1,677,940

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Central S

henandoah Planning D

istrict Com

mission)

Multicounty

$12,070

$16,094

Cum

berland Plateau P

lanning District)

Multicounty

54,61478,819

DILE

NO

WIS

CO

Regional E

ducation Service A

gency)M

ulticounty42,670

42,670F

ifth Planning D

istrict Cc rnm

issionlM

ulticounty59,480

79,307LE

NO

WIS

CO

Planning D

istrict Com

mission)

Multicounty

100,000133,333

Mount R

ogers Planning D

istrict Com

mission)

Multicounty

90,000120,000

New

River P

lanning District C

omm

ission)M

ulticounty49,900

95,962R

ural Public T

ransportation Study

Multicounty

21,80929,159

State M

anagement

Multicounty

78,91278,912

Total A

pproved in FY

1974S

509,455$ 674,256

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.s A

n additional $1,360,634 of Section 214 funds w

ere used to supplement projects under the A

RC

program. T

otal 214 funds for Virginia am

ounted to $1,633,189.N

oto: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

West

Virginia

Population

(In thousands)

State T

otal1,794.0

Total of C

ounties in Appalachia

1,794.0

Barbour

15.5B

erkeley39.2

Boone

26.4B

raxton13.7

Brooke

30.1C

abell107.2

Calhoun

7.4C

lay9.8

Doddridge

6.7F

ayette51.9

Gilm

er7.9

Grant

8.7G

reenbrier32.4

Ham

pshire12.8

Hancock

39.99.0

Hardy

9.076.2

Jackson21.4

Jefferson23.2

Kanaw

ha226.8

Lewis

18.3Lincoln

19.5Logan

47.2M

cDow

ell52.8

Marion

65.1M

arshall38.7

Mason

24.9M

ercer65.0

Mineral

24.0M

ingo33.7

Monongalia

67.2(:\Z

Monroe

11.7C

Morgan

8.6I.-4

Nicholas

23.4C

)O

hio63.7

Pendleton

7.4P

leasants7.6

Pocahantos

8.6P

reston26.8

Putnam

29.4R

aleigh75.1

Randolph

25.9R

itchie10.5

Roane

14.7S

umm

ers13.8

Taylor

14.9T

ucker7.5

Tyler

9.9U

pshur20.5

Wayne

38.0W

ebster10.0

Wetzel

20.6W

irt4.2

Wood

87.2W

yoming

31.4C

ounty Nunn are 1913 Provisional ;M

u/saran estimates rounded to

the nearest hundred horn FederatStaie Cooperative Program

forPopulation E

stimates. U

S Bureau of the C

ensus. Sams P.26. no

89

115

116

.4S

ection 202 (Child D

evelopment)

West V

irginia

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Early C

hildhood Diagnostic C

enterK

anawha

S90,178

S15,030

S 150,297

Abused C

hild Protective S

erviceM

ulticounty61,264

232,696309,328

Child D

evelopment C

enter Field Instructional U

nitM

ulticounty62,489

083,325

Children's M

ental Health O

fficesM

ulticounty31,299

031,299

Children's M

ental Health S

ervicesM

ulticounty35,788

041,460

Children's M

ental Health S

ervicesRegion Ill

Multicounty

69,8290

69,829C

hildren's Mental H

ealth ServicesR

egion IVM

ulticounty65,576

065,576

Children's M

ental Health S

ervicesRegion V

Multicounty

69,8730

78,270C

hildren's Mental H

ealth ServicesR

egion VI

Multicounty

69,8570

69,857C

oordination & T

echnical Assistance

Multicounty

49,389148,167

197,556

Footnotes 1.41: F

or explanation. tee page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Section 202 (C

hild Developm

ent), continued

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Dem

on. Day C

are Center

Multicounty

33,36199,481

133,442

Dental H

ealth Developm

ent Program

Multicounty

66,0000

88,000E

arly Learning & C

hild Care S

ystemM

ulticounty151,749

455,241606,590

Enrichm

ent for Day C

are Centers

Multicounty

206,276619,788

826,304F

amily P

lanning Outreach

Multicounty

6,07972,114

80,571

Learning Disability &

Staff tevelopm

entM

ulticounty33,000

113,615161,165

Learning Disability D

iagnosi,M

ulticounty38,719

114,956154,875

Maternal &

Child H

ealth Dem

on. Project'

Multicounty

557,23821,000

773,984M

aternal & C

hild Health D

emon. P

roject4M

ulticounty35,000

- 11,00033,879

Maternal &

Child H

ealth Dem

on. Project'

Multicounty

380,2332,500

388,433M

edical Treatm

ent Services

Multicounty

90,0000

100,000

Neighborhood B

ased Protective S

erviceM

ulticounty45,689

193,373257,725

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$2,248,886

$2,076,961$4,702,165

Section 202 (H

ealth)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 202 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Health tare C

linicsB

raxton$ 126,273

$39,727

$ 447,883F

amily H

ealth Center construction

Marion

100,000500,000

1,600,000

Health C

linic Construction, E

quipment &

Operations

McD

owell

80,0000

100,000

Com

munity H

ealth Center

Monongalia

133;14047,700

237,597

Fam

ily Health S

ervicesT

ucker116,520

0238,409

Em

ergency Care, C

omm

unications & T

ransportation'M

ulticounty855,824

01,206,374

Em

ergency Care, C

omm

unications & T

ransportationM

ulticounty53,000

070,667

Environm

ental Health P

rogram'

Multicounty

215,0000

337,862

Nutrition P

roject'M

ulticounty70,366

093,821

Planning &

Adm

inistrative Grant'

Multicounty

162,2850

216,380

Total E

ligible Cost in F

Y 1974

$1,912,708$ 587,427

$4,548,993

Section 211 (E

ducation)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 211 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Voc. T

ech. Center

Berkeley

$ 150,000$ 165,000

$ 506,590V

oc. School3

Mineral

70,000100,000

90,000V

oc. Tech. C

omprehensive H

igh School

Ohio

600,0000

1,200,000

Voc. E

ducation Center

Putnam

362,4950

762,495

Voc. T

ech. Center

Raleigh

600,0000

1,400,000

Voc. T

ech. Career C

enterR

andolph305,785

0705,785

Footnotes 1-4: F

or explanation. see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual localcontribution can be determ

ined by subtracting AR

C section funds and other federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

117

.¢.1111.

West V

irginia, continued

118S

ection 211 (Education), continued

Project

Com

prehensive High S

chool3C

omprehensive Industrial D

evelopment T

raining Pri gram

Total A

pproved in FY

1974

Counties S

erved

Webster

Multicounty

Section 211 F

unds

250,00043,953

Other F

ederal Funds

00

Total E

ligible Costs

260,00088,703

$2,382,233$ 265,000

W15105,-

Section 214 (S

upplemental)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 214 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Follansbee W

ater Project

Brooke

$ 137,026$ 397,986

$ 636,000W

ellsburg Sew

age System

Brooke

88,6001,329,000

1,772,000P

arkD

oddridge85,771

142,962285,905

LandfillG

reenbrier134,400

0218,000

Hepzibah P

ublic Water S

ystemH

arrison43,200

057,015

Salem

College P

hysical Education B

uildingH

arrison111,789

0143,859

State Library C

enter3K

anawha

350,0000

814,650B

uffalo Valley R

ecreation Area

Logan74,367

123,945247,890

Airport

Mercer

11,644174,668

232,890A

thens Water S

ystem E

xtensionM

ercer300,000

0390,000

Matoaka W

ater System

Mercer

266,0000

360,500M

atewan R

ecreational Park

Mingo

108,254180,423

360,846P

ublic Health C

enter3M

pnongalia49,303

82,173164,346

Water Line

Ohio

45,0000

78,0001.

Water S

ystemP

reston254,000

181,000822,000

CN

IS

tudent Union A

uditorium C

omplex

Randolph

460,000469,734

2,244,792e-4

Parsons W

ater System

Improvem

entsW

ater System

Tucker

Wetzel

194,000236,000

00244,000254,800

0T

otal Annoyed in F

Y 1974

$2,948,353$3,081.1170

$9,226,493

Section 302 (Local D

evelopment D

istricts & R

esearch)

Project

Counties S

ervedS

ection 302 Funds

Other F

ederal Funds

Total E

ligible Costs

Tropical S

torm A

gnes Recovery P

rogramK

anawha

$ 126,000$

100,000$ 226,000

BC

KP

Regional Intergovernm

ental Council'

Multicounty

15,0000

20,000B

elOM

ar Interstate Planning C

omm

ission'M

ulticounty30,080

040,107

Eastern P

anhandle Regional P

lanning & D

evelopment C

ouncil'M

ulticounty34,687

046,250

Gauley R

egional Planning &

Developm

ent Council'

Multicounty

37,4700

49,960M

idOhio V

alley Planning C

ouncil'M

ulticounty47,179

062,905

Region 1 P

lanning Council'

Multicounty

69,4290

92,572R

egion 2 Planning C

ouncil'M

ulticounty15,428

020,570

Region 6 P

lanning Council'

Multicounty

66,0000

86,667R

egion 7 Planning C

ouncil'M

ulticounty39,998

053,331

Region 11 P

lanning Council'

Multicounty

34,8000

46,400R

egional Program

Coordination O

fficeM

ulticounty45 000

060,000

Total A

pproved in FY

1974$ 669,071

$ 100,000$ 803,762

Footnotes 1.4: F

or explanation, see page 67.N

ote: For each project, the com

bined state and local or individual state or individual local contribution can be determined by subtracting A

RC

section funds andother federal

funds from the total eligible cost of the project.

Appendix B

Local Developm

ent Districts

See the m

ap on page 120.

Alabam

a

1A:

Muscle S

hoals Council of Local

Governm

entsP

.O. B

ox 2358M

uscle Shoals, A

labama 35660

(205) 383-3861C

ounties: Colbert, F

ranklin, Lauderdale,M

arion, Winston

19:N

orth Central A

labama R

egional Council of

Governm

entsP

.O. B

ox 1069D

ecatur, Alabam

a 35601(205) 355-4515C

ounties: Cullm

an, Lawrence, M

organ

1C:

Top of A

labama R

egional Council of

Governm

entsC

entral Bank B

uilding, Suite 350

Huntsville, A

labama 35801

(205) 533-3333C

ounties: De K

alb, Jackson, Limestone,

Madison, M

arshall

1D:

West A

labama P

lanning and Developm

entC

ouncilP

.O. B

ox 86T

uscaloosa, Alabam

a 35401(205) 345-5545C

ounties: Bibb, F

ayette, Lamar, P

ickens,T

uscaloosa (Greene, H

ale)

1E:

Birm

ingham R

egional Planning

Com

mission

2112 Eleventh A

venue, South

Birm

ingham, A

labama 35205

(205) 251-8134C

ounties: Blo int, C

hilton,Jefferson, S

t. Clair, S

helby, Walker

Note: P

arenthesis Indicate nonAppaiachian count ,s and in.

dependent cities Included with the developm

ent districts.

1F:

East A

labama R

egional Planning and

Developm

ent Com

mission

P.O

. Box 1584

Anniston, A

labama 36201

(205) 237-6741C

ounties: Calhoun, C

hambers, C

herokee,C

lay, Cleburne, C

oosa, Etow

ah,R

andolph, Talladega, T

allapoosa

1H:

Central A

labama R

egional Planning and

Developm

ent Com

mission

303 Washington A

venueP

.O. B

ox 4034M

ontgomery, A

labama 36104

(205) 262-7316C

ounties: Elm

ore (Autauga, M

ontgomery)

Georgia

2A:

Coosa V

alley Area P

lanning andD

evelopment C

omm

issionP

.O. D

rawer H

Rom

e, Georgia 30161

(404) 234.8507C

ounties: Bartow

, Catoosa, C

hattooga,D

ade, Floyd, G

ordon, Haralson,

Paulding, P

olk, Walker

2B:

Georgia M

ountains Planning and

Developm

ent Com

mission

P.O

. Box 1720

Gainesville, G

eorgia 30501(404) 536-3431C

ounties: Banks, D

awson, F

orsyth,F

ranklin, Habersham

, Hall, Lum

pkin,R

abun, Stephens, T

owns, U

nion,W

hite (Hart)

2C:

Chattahoochee-F

lint Area P

lanning andD

evelopment C

omm

issionP

.O. B

ox 1363LaG

range, Georgia 30240

(404) 882-2575C

ounties: Carroll, H

eard (Cow

eta,M

eriwether, T

roup)

2D:

Atlanta R

egional Com

mission

Suite 910

100 Peachtree S

treet, N.W

.A

tlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 522-7577C

ounties: Douglas, G

winnett (C

ayton,C

obb, DeK

alb, Fulton, R

ockdale)

2E:

Northeast G

eorgia Area P

lanning andD

evelopment C

omm

ission305 R

esearch Drive

Athens, G

eorgia 30601(404) 548-3141C

ounties: Barrow

, Jackson, Madison

(Clarke, E

lbert, Greene, M

organ,O

conee, Oglethorpe, W

alton)

2F:

North G

eorgia Area P

lanning andD

evelopment C

omm

ission212 N

orth Pentz S

treetD

alton, Georgia 30720

(404) 226-1672C

ounties: Cherokee, F

annin, Gilm

er,M

urray, Pickens, W

hitfield

Kentucky

3A:

Buffalo T

race Area D

evelopment

District, Inc.

State N

ational Bank B

uildingM

aysville, Kentucky 41056

(606) 564-6894C

ounties: Flem

ing, Lewis (B

racken,M

ason, Robertson)

39:F

IVC

O A

rea Developm

ent District

Boyd C

ounty Courthouse

P.O

. Box 636

Catlettsburg, K

entucky 41129(606) 739-4144C

ounties: Boyd, C

arter, Elliott, G

reenup,Law

rence

3C:

Bluegrass A

rea Developm

ent District, Inc.

Suite 201

160 East R

eynolds Road

Lexington, Kentucky 40503

(606) 272-6656C

ounties: Clark, E

still, Garrard, Lincoln,

Madison, P

owell (A

nderson, Bourbon,

Boyle, F

ayette Franklin, H

arrison,Jessam

ine.:er, N

icholas, Scott,

Woodford)

3D:

Gatew

ay Area revelopm

ent District, Inc.

P.O

. Box 107

Ow

ingsville, Kentucky 40360

(6061 674-6355C

ounties: Bath, M

enifee, Montgom

ery,M

organ, Row

an

119

120L

ocal Developm

ent Districts in A

ppalachia

..

thlovr Yerk

/'

I;1\

k-I-

.... I

-\

-OM

ft, .

e

II .....:...`

S...,

.. . ....

,

I.'

\ ,..'K

iittliiki.r.

N..

N.

I.....

4',

P.

,..:711D

I

,.t

1H

. AI a

SC

ALE

IN M

ILES

At P

t RS

CO

I IAL

AP

I A °R

oil(' ZIO

N

3E:

Big S

andy Area D

evelopment D

istrict, Inc.T

ourist Information C

enterP

restonsburg, Kentucky 41653

(606) 886-2374C

ounties: Floyd, Johnson, M

agoffin,M

artin, Pike

3F:

Lake Cum

berland Area D

evelopment

District, Inc.

P.O

. Box 387

Jamestow

n, Kentucky 42629

(502) 343-3520C

ounties: Adair, C

asey, Clinton,

Cum

berland, Green, M

cCreary, P

ulaski,R

ussell, Wayne (T

aylor)

311:C

umberland V

alley Area D

evelopment

District, Inc.

Laurel County C

ourthouseLondon, K

entucky 40741(606) 864-7391C

ounties: Bell, C

lay, Harlan, Jackson,

Knox, Laurel, R

ockcastle, Whitley

31:K

entucky River A

rea Developm

entD

istrict, Inc.P

.O. B

ox 986H

azard, Kentucky 41701

(606) 436-3158C

ounties: Breathitt, K

nott, Lee, Leslie,Letcher, O

wsley, P

erry, Wolfe

3J:B

arren River A

rea Developm

entD

istrict, Inc.(429 E

ast Tenth S

treet)P

.O. B

ox 154B

owling G

reen, Kentucky 42101

(502) 781-2381C

ounties: Monroe (A

llen, Barren, B

utler,E

dmonson, H

art, Logan, Metcalfe,

Sim

pson, Warren)

Maryland

4A:

Tri-C

ounty Council for W

esternM

aryland, Inc.S

uite 510A

lgonquin Motor Inn

Cum

berland, Maryland 21502

(301) 722-6885C

ounties: Allegany, G

arrett, Washington

1

Mississippi

5A:

Northeast M

ississippi Planning and

Developm

ent District

Post O

ffice Box 6D

Booneville, M

ississippi 38829(601) 728-6248C

ounties: Alcorn, B

enton, Marshall,

Prentiss, T

ippah, Tishom

ingo

5B:

Three R

ivers Planning and D

evelopment

District

99 Center R

idge Drive

Pontotoc, M

ississippi 38863(601) 489-2415C

ounties: Chickasaw

, Itawam

ba, Lee,M

onroe, Pontotoc, U

nion (Calhoun,

Lafayette)

5C:

Golden T

riangle Planning and

Developm

ent District

Draw

er DN

Mississippi S

tate, Mississippi 39762

(601) 325-3855C

ounties: Choctaw

, Clay, Low

ndes,N

oxubee, Oktibbeha, W

ebster, Winston

5D:

East C

entral Mississippi P

lanning andD

evelopment D

istrict410 D

ecatur Street

New

ton, Mississippi 39345

(601) 683-2007C

ounties: Kem

per (Clarke, Jasper,

Lauderdale, Leake, Neshoba, N

ewton,

Scott, S

mith)

New

York

6A:

Southern T

ier West R

egional Planning and

Developm

ent Board

15 Main S

treetS

alamanca, N

ew Y

ork 14779(716) 945-5303C

ounties: Allegany, C

attaraugus,C

hautauqua

6B:

Southern T

ier Central R

egional Planning

and Developm

ent Board

531/2 Bridge S

treetC

orning, New

York 14830

(607) 962-3021/962-5092C

ounties: Chem

ung, Schuyler, S

teuben

6C:

Southern T

ier East R

egional Planning and

Developm

ent Board

Room

2319 E

ast Main S

treetN

orwich, N

ew Y

ork 13815(607) 334-5210C

ounties: Broom

e, Chenango, C

ortland,D

elaware, O

tsego, Schoharie, T

ioga,T

ompkins

North C

arolina

7A:

Southw

estern North C

arolina Planning

and Econom

ic Developm

entC

omm

ission102 S

cotts Creek R

oadS

ylva, North C

arolina 28779(704) 586-5527C

ounties: Cherokee, C

lay, Graham

,H

aywood, Jackson, M

acon, Sw

ain

7B:

Land-of-Sky R

egional Council

P.O

. Box 2175

85 Mountain S

treetA

sheville, North C

arolina 28802(704) 254-8131C

ounties: Buncom

be, Henderson,

Madison, T

ransylvania

7C:

Isothermal P

lanning and Developm

entC

omm

ission306 R

idgecrest Avenue

Rutherfordton, N

orth Carolina 28139

(704) 287-3309C

ounties: McD

owell, P

olk, Rutherfordton

(Cleveland)

7D:

Region D

Executive A

rts Building

Furm

an Road

Boone, N

orth Carolina 28607

(704) 264-5558C

ounties: Alleghany, A

she, Avery,

Mitchell, W

atauga, Wilkes, Y

ancey

7E:

Alexander-B

urke-Caldw

ell Econom

icD

evelopment C

omm

issionC

aldwell C

ounty Em

ergency Services

Building

616 West A

venue, Room

5, 2nd Floor

,Lenoir, North C

arolina 28645(704) 758-2969C

ounties: Alexander, B

urke, Caldw

ell

121

1227G

:N

orthwest E

conomic D

evelopment

Com

mission

Governm

ent Center

Winston-S

alem, N

orth Carolina 27101

(919) 725-0742C

ounties: Davie, F

orsyth, Stokes, S

urry,Y

adkin

Ohio

8A:

Ohio V

alley Regional D

evelopment

Com

mission

Griffin H

all740 S

econd Street

Portsm

outh, Ohio 45662

(614) 354-4716C

ounties: Adam

s, Brow

n, Clerm

ont,G

allia, Highland, Jackson, Law

rence,P

ike, Ross, S

cioto, Vinton

8B:

Buckeye H

ills-Hocking V

alley Regional

Developm

ent District, Inc.

Suite 325

Dim

e Bank B

uildingM

arietta, Ohio 45750

(614) 374-9436C

ounties: Athens, H

ocking, Mei 9s, M

onroe,M

organ, Noble, P

erry, Washington

8C:

Tuscaraw

as Valley R

egional Advisory

Com

mittee, Inc.

P.O

. Box 66

802 South 10th S

treetC

ambridge, O

hio 43725(614) 439-4471C

ounties: Belm

ont, Carroll, C

oshocton,G

uernsey, Harrison, H

olmes, Jefferson,

Muskingum

, Tuscaraw

as

Pennsylvania

9A:

Northw

estern Pennsylvania R

egionalP

lanning and Developm

ent Com

mission

P.O

. Box 231

Franklin, P

ennsylvania 16323(814) 437-6821C

ounties: Clarion, C

rawford, E

rie, Forest,

Lawrence, M

ercer, Venango, W

arren

9B:

North C

entral Pennsylvania R

egionalP

lanning and Developm

ent Com

mission

P.O

. Box 377

212 Main S

treetR

idgway, P

ennsylvania 15853(814) 773-3162C

ounties: Cam

eron, Clearfield, E

lk,Jefferson, M

cKean, P

otter

9C:

Northern T

ier Regional P

lanning andD

evelopment C

omm

ission507 M

ain Street

Tow

anda, Pennsylvania 18848

(717) 265-9103C

ounties: Bradford, S

ullivan,S

utquehanna, Tioga, W

yoming

9D:

Econom

ic Developm

ent Council of

Northeastern P

ennsylvaniaP

.O. B

ox 777A

voca, Pennsylvania 18641

(717) 655-5581C

ounties: Carbon, Lackaw

anna, Luzerne,M

onroe, Pike, S

chuylkill, Wayne

9E:

Southw

estern Pennsylvania E

conomic

Developm

ent District

1411 Park B

uilding355 F

ifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, P

ennsylvania 15222(412) 391-1240C

ounties: Allegheny, A

rmstrong, B

eaver,B

utler, Fayette, G

reene, Indiana,W

ashington, Westm

oreland

Southern A

lleghenies Planning and

Developm

ent Com

mission

310 Union A

venueA

ltoona, Pennsylvania 16602

(814) 946-1641C

ounties: Bedford, B

lair, Cam

bria, Fulton,

Huntingdon, S

omerset

9G: S

ED

A-C

OG

R.D

. #1Lew

isburg, Pennsylvania 17837

(717) 524-4491C

ounties: Centre, C

linton, Colum

bia,Juniata, Lycom

ing, Mifflin, M

ontour,N

orthumberland, P

erry, Snyder, U

nion

9F:

South C

arolina

10A: S

outh Carolina A

ppalachian Council of

Governm

entsC

entury Plaza B

uilding B

Draw

er 6668, 211 Century D

riveG

reenville, South C

arolina 29607(803) 242-9733C

ounties: Anderson, C

herokee. Greenville,

Oconee, P

ickens, Spartanburg

Tennessee

11A: U

pper Cum

berland Developm

ent District

Burgess F

alls Road

Cookeville, T

ennessee 38501(615) 858-2131C

ounties: Cannon, C

lay, Cum

berland,D

e Kalb, F

entress, Jackson, Macon,

Overton, P

ickett, Putnam

, Sm

ith, Van

Buren, W

arren, White

11B: E

ast Tennessee D

evelopment D

istrict1810 Lake A

venueK

noxville, Tennessee 37916

(615) 974-2386C

ounties: Anderson, B

lount, Cam

pbell,C

laiborne, Cocke, G

rainger, Ham

blen,Jefferson, K

nox, Loudon, Monroe,

Morgan, R

oane, Scott, S

evier, Union

11C: F

irst Tennessee-V

irginia Developm

entD

istrictB

ox 2779, East T

ennessee State U

niversityJohnson C

ity, Tennessee 37601

(615) 928-0224C

ounties: Carter, G

reene, Hancock,

Haw

kins, Johnson, Sullivan, U

nicoi,W

ashington and Washington C

ounty,V

irginia

11D: S

outh Central T

ennessee Developm

entD

istrict805 N

ashville Highw

ayC

olumbia, T

ennessee 38401(615) 381-2040C

ounties: Coffee, F

ranklin (Bedford,

Giles, H

ickman, Law

rence, Lewis,

Lincoln, Marshall, M

aury, Moore, P

erry,W

ayne)

11E: S

outheast Tennessee D

evelopment

District

423 James B

uilding731 B

road Street

Chattanooga, T

ennessee 37402(615) 266-5781

Counties: B

ledsoe, Bradley, G

rundy,H

amilton, M

arion, McM

inn, Meigs,

Polk, R

hea, Sequatchie

Virginia

12A: LE

NO

WIS

CO

Planning D

istrict Com

mission

U.S

. 58-421WD

uffield, Virginia 24244

(703) 431-2206C

ounties: Lee, Scott, W

ise, City of N

orton

12B: C

umberland P

lateau Planning D

istrictP

.O. B

ox 548Lebanon, V

irginia 24266(703) 889-1778C

ounties: Buchanan, D

ickenson, Russell,

Tazew

ell

12C: M

ount Rogers P

lanning District

Com

mission

544 South M

ain StreetT

he Hull B

uildingM

arion, Virginia 24354

(703) 783-5103C

ounties: Bland, C

arroll, Grayson, S

myth,

Washington, W

ythe, Cities of B

ristol andG

alax

12D: N

ew R

iver Planning D

istrict Com

mission

1612 Wadsw

orth Street

Radford, V

irginia 24141(703) 639-9313C

ounties: Floyd, G

iles, Pulaski

(Montgom

ery and City of R

adford)

12E: F

ifth Planning D

istrict Com

mission

Post O

ffice Box 2527

145 West C

ampbell A

venueR

oanoke, Virginia 24010

(703) 343-4417C

ounties: Allegheny, B

otetourt, Craig,

Cities of C

lifton Forge and C

ovington(R

oanoke County and C

ities of Roanoke

and Salem

)

12F: C

entral Shenandoah P

lanning District

Com

mission

119 West F

rederick Street

P.O

. Box 1337

Staunton, V

irginia 24401(703) 885-5174C

ounties: Bath, H

ighland (Augusta,

Rockbridge, R

ockingham, C

ities of

Buena V

ista, Harrisonburg, Lex ngton,

Staunton and W

aynesboro)

West V

irginia

13A: R

egion 1 Planning C

ouncil201 B

lair Building

Beckley, W

est Virginia 25801

(304) 252-6208C

ounties: McD

owell, M

ercer, Monroe,

Raleigh, S

umm

ers, Wyom

ing

13B: R

egion 2 Planning C

ouncilR

oom 305 C

abell County C

ourthouseH

untington, West V

irginia 25701(304) 523-7434C

ounties: Cabell, Lincoln, Logan, M

ason,M

ingo, Wayne

13C: B

-C-K

-P R

egional Intergovernmental

Council

410 Kanaw

ha Boulevard, E

astC

harleston, West V

irginia 25301(304) 348-7190C

ounties: Boone, C

lay, Kanaw

ha, Putnam

13D: R

egion 4 Planning and D

evelopment

Council

P.O

. Box 505

Sum

merville, W

est Virginia 26651

(304) 872-4970C

ounties: Fayette, G

reenbrier, Nicholas,

Pocalontas, W

ebster

13E: M

,J-Ohio V

alley Regional C

ouncilF

ourth Floor, 225 F

ourth Street

Parkersburg, W

est Virginia 26101

(304) 485-3801C

ounties: Calhoun, Jackson, P

leasants,R

itchie, Roane, T

yler, Wirt, W

ood

13F: R

egion 6 Planning and D

evelopment

Council

201 Deveny B

uildingF

airmont, W

est Virginia 26554

(304) 366-5693C

ounties: Doddridge, H

arrison, Marion,

Monongalia, P

reston, Taylor

13G: R

egion 7 Planning C

ouncilU

pshur County C

ourt House

Buckhannon, W

est Virginia 26201

(304) 472-6564

Counties: B

arbour, Braxton, G

ilmer, Lew

is,R

andolph, Tucker, U

pshur

13H: R

egion 8 Planning C

ouncilO

ne Virginia A

venueP

etersburg, West V

irginia 26847(304) 257-8818C

ounties: Grant, H

ampshire, H

ardy,M

ineral, Pendleton

13 I: Eastern P

anhandle Regional P

lanningand D

evelopment C

ouncil121 W

est King S

treetM

artinsburg, West V

irginia 25401(304) 263-1743C

ounties: Berkeley, Jefferson, M

organ

13J: Bel-O

-Mar Interstate P

lanning Com

mission

2177 National R

oadW

heeling, West V

irginia 26003(304) 242-1800C

ounties: Marshall, O

hio, Wetzel and

Belm

ont County, O

hio

13K: R

egion II Planning C

ouncil3550 M

ain Street

Weirton, W

est Virginia 26062

(304) 748-1175C

ounties: Brooke, H

ancock

123

A