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