ORNL/Sub-81/13829/5 NUS-3852
\ —.
/V^ LEXINCTON ri \
) EDC;KKIEI,D / I
/ \ SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION , COLUMBIv.v/i,i..«IBIA / \ AIKEN /' / ^ / V { y V v.* x OliAMiKlilK*; V. i S / S IV \ < J Y RICHMOND ^ } UAKNWEI.I. X N \ ^ / i HAMHKIM; \ / / \ I v. ^ \ I BURKE v V I FOR THE J AI.LKNDAI.K \ ,\ SAVANNAH RJVE0 PLANT AREA 1981 / SCREVEN \ / \ j IIA.MI'TO.N^ \
/ K / \ >
' / ; / X C / \
prepared for prepared by
Oak Ridge National Laboratory NUS Corporation
DISTRIBUTION NC !WI.-.RI,T |C; II,,^,^ ORNL/Sub-81/I3829/5 NUS-3852 J) //
SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTER»ZATI ON
FOR THE
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA
Prepared by
NUS Corporation
Rockvilie, Maryland 20850
Date Published: September 1981
Under Subcontract 62 B-I3829C
for
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
operated by
Un ion Carbide Corporation
for the
Department of Energy
Contract No. 1^-7405-^9-26
.DISCLAIMER - ,vc»k
The Socioeconomic Baseline Characterization presents the social and eco- nomic characteristics of the environs of the Savannah River Plant (SRP). The characterization is keyed to those areas of the social and economic environment that could be impacted by the construction and operation of major facilities at SRP. The data consists of past trends and existing characteristics of the area's land use; its demographic, social, and economic profile; regional government; community services; housing, transportation; and historical, scenic, and archeological resources.
Published documents, reports, and brochures were the primary sources of all the data presented in this document. When current published data was unavailable, representatIves of Federal, state, and locai agencies were contacted by telephone. Conversations were followed by letters of veri- fication, which were reviewed and verified by the agency representative.
111 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
FOREWORD i i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES . xvi i
1. HISTORY OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT 1-1 1.1 LOCATION 1-1 1.2 ORIGINS 1-1 1.3 MISSION DEVELOPMENT 1-4 1.4 PAST SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE AREA 1-5
2. THE STUDY AREA 2-1 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 2-7
3. LAND USE 3-1 3.1 PRESENT LAND USE 3-2 3.1.1 Primary study area 3-8 3.1.2 Secondary study area 3-21 3.2 FUTURE LAND USE 3-35 3.2.1 Primary Study area 3-39 3.2.2 Secondary study area 3-48 3.3 LAND USE REGULATION 3-56 3.3.1 County land-use regulations 3-56 3.3.2 Community land-use regulations 3-58 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 3-63 ii 4. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES AND TRENDS . . . .\\ 4-1 4.1 POPULATION AND ITS DISTRIBUTION .li. 4-2 4.1.1 Population change ... J) 4-2 4.1.2 Urban-rural ratios . . 4-6 4.1.3 Population density . . .'/ 4-11 4.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS . . '! 4-14 4.2.1 Age and sex . 4-14 4.2.2 Race and ethnicity 4-21 4.2.3 Persons per household 4-26 4.2.4 Family income 4-29 4.2.5 Births and deaths 4-34 4.2.6 Migration 4-36 4.2.7 Journey to work 4-40 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 4-42
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
5. ECONOMIC PROFILE AND TRENDS 5-1 5.1 MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS . . . 5-2 5.1.1 Major employment sectors in 1972 and 1977 • • . 5-2 5.1.2 Employment in the manufacturing sector in 1980 5-8 5.2 PER CAPITA INCOME AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME 5-18 5.3 EARNINGS PER EMPLOYEE 5-21 ,, 5-3-1 Earnings per employee in 1972 and 1975 .... 5-21 5.3-2 Earnings per employee in 1977 5-23 5.4 VALUE ADDED 5~29 5.4.1 Value added as a percentage of value of shipments 5-29 5.A.2 Value added levels 5-31 5.4.3 Growth of value added 5-32 5.5 GROSS STATE PRODUCT OF GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA . . 5-37 5.6 LABOR MARKET 5-44 5.6.1 General labor force participation rates .... 5-44 5.6.2 Labor markets for construction labor force . . 5-46 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 5-56
6. SOCIAL PROFILE,,.'*ND TRENDS 6-1 6.1 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ,'ib-l 6.2 SOCIAL AND WELL-BEING ',£-6 6.2.1 Income 6-6 6.2.2 Divorce, suicide, mental illness, and alco- holism 6-8 6.2.3 Ethnic characteristics : 6-10 6.2.4 Educational -achievement i 6-12 .'i 6.2.5 Policital participation , 6-14 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 6-16 .
7. GOVERNMENTS AND FISCAL CAPACITY IN THE REGION . 7-1 7.1 Governments in the region . 7~3 7.1.1 Federal agencies and Federal legislative districts . ; . 7-3 7.1.2 State governments - • • 7-3 7.1.3 Local governments //'.' . . 7-15 7.1.4 Intergovernmental coordination ...... 7-24 7.2 Fiscal Capacity in the Primary Study Area . . .. • . . . 7~31 7.2.1 County and municipal governments . . • . 7-31 7.2.2 School systems . . . . 7-54 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 ...... • . 7-66
i; 'J
•I''
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
8. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SERVICES IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA ... 8-1 8.1 EDUCATION 8-2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1 8-17 8.2 RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES 8-22 8.2.1 Outdoor recreation 8-22 8.2.2 Cultural activities ..... 8-34 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.2 8-35 8.3 FIRE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SERVICES . . 8-36 8.3.1 Fire services 8-36 8.3.2 Emergency medical and ambulance service .... 8-45 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.3 8-48 8.4 POLICE PROTECTION AND COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL JAILS . . . 8-51 8.4.1 Police protection . 8-51 8.4.2 Municipal and county jails 8-58 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.4 8-63 8.5 HEALTH SERVICES 8-65 8.5.1 Health service areas 8-65 8.5.2 Hospitals 8-65 8.5.3 Nursing homes 8-72 8.5.4 Health manpower 8-72 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.5 8-78 8.6 SEWAGE TREATMENT 8-80 8.6.1 Municipal sewage treatment facilities 8-80 8.6.2 Suitability for septic tank filter fields . . . 8-84 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.6 8-86 8.7 COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS 8-88 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.7 8-94 8.8 PUBLIC DOMESTIC SANITARY LANDFILLS AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM 8-96 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.8 8-103 8.9 SOCIAL SERVICES 8-104 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.9 8-106 8.10 LIBRARIES . . . , 8-107 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8,10 8 '111 8.11 UTILITIES C-112 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.11 8-115
9« HODS ING • • 9-1 9.1 TRENDS IN THE HOUSING STOCK FROM 1950 9-2 9.2 TENURE AND COST CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ' HOUSING STOCK 9-15 9.3 VACANCY TRENDS AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS . . 9-23 9.4 HOTELS AND MOTELS 9-32 9.5 HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LABOR FORCE . 9-33 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9 • 9-38
v i i TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
10. TRANSPORTATION 10-1 10.1 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 10-2 10.1.1 Orientation of roads and highways in the study area 10-2 10.1.2 Roads and highways in the primary study area 10-3 10.1.3 Roads and highways within the Savannah River Plant 10-9 10.1.A Traffic characteristics 10-11 10.1.5 Existing highway deficiencies and limitations in the primary study area 10-21 10.1.6 Planned improvements to the road highway system in the primary study area . . . 10-23 10.2 RAILROADS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA 10-37 10.2.1 Location of trackage and facilities 10-37 10.2.2 Rail facilities within the immediate vicinity of the Savannah River Plant 10-39 10.2.3 Rail improvements and abandonments 10-40 10.-3 AIRPORTS AND FACILITIES 10-47 10.3.1 Location and type of facilities 10-47 10.3.2 Restricted air space 10-47 10.4 WATER TRANSPORTATION 10-49 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 10-50
11. HISTORICAL, SCENIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA 11-1 11.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY AREA 11-2 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 11-6 11.2.1 Nationally recognized resources 11-6 11.2.2 State and locally recognized cultural resources within the study area 11-6 11.3 SCENIC RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA . . . 11-17 11.3.1 General scenic description of the study area 11-17 11.3.2 Recognized scenic resources in the study area 11 — 18 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11., 11-19
12. CIVIL DEFENSE AND EMERGENCY PREPARDNESS . . 12-1 1.2.1 CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCIES 12-2 12.2 CIVIL DEFENSE AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS 12-5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12 12-11
13. GLOSSARY
v i 1 1 LIST OF TABLES
Title Page
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 1
1.1 Major population centers within 30 miles of the
Savannah River Plant . 1-2
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 2
2.1 employeeDistributios bny placof the e ofJun residencee 1980 Savanna, and ha s Rivea percentagr Plant e of the January 1980 total labor pool . . . .' 2-5
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 3
3.1 Counties in the primary and secondary areas: acreages and percentages of total study area 3-3 3.2 Present land-use types in the primary and secondary study 3-4 areas 3.3 Present land-use types for Aiken County, South Caro- lina, in 1977 3-9 3.4 Present land-use types for Allendale County, South Carolina, in 1978 3-12 3.5 Present land-use types for Bamberg County, South Caro- lina, in 1977 3-14 3.6 Present land-use types for Barnwell County, South Carolina, in 1977 3-15 3.7 Present land-use types for Columbia County, Georgia, in 1979 .' 3-17 v 3.8 Present land-use types for Richmond County, Georgia, in 1930 3-20 3.9 Present land-use types for Burke County, Georgia, in 1972-1978 3-22 3.10 Present land -use types for Edgefield County, South Caro- lina, in 1973 3-24 3.11 Present land-use types for Hampton County, South Caro- lina, in 1977 3-26 3.12 Present land-use types for Lexinaton County, South Caro- lina, in 1977 . . . ~ 3-28 3.13 Present land-use types for Orangeburg County, South Carolina, in 1977 3-30 3.14 Present land-use types for Saluda County, South Caro- lina, in 1973 3-32 3.15 Present land-use types for Screven County, Georgia, in 1975 and 1976 3-34 3.16 Summary of present land uses (1979) for the primary and secondary study areas 3-36
7 / ix LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title Page
3*17 County land-use controls in the primary and secondary study areas 3-57 3.18 Land-use controls for incorporated communities within the primary study area 3-60 3-19 Land-use controls for incorporated communities within the secondary study area 3-61
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 4
4.1 Population, population density, and percent change for Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 4-3 4.2 Total population and percent change: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 , 4-5 4.3 Total population and percent change: secondary « study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United " States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 . 4-7 4.4 Population densities: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 4-12 4.5 Population densities: secondary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and United States, for 1950, 1960, .; 1970, and 1978 4-13 4.6 Age and sex distribution: primary study area, Georgia South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950,^/1960, 1970, and 1978 4-15 4.7 Age and sex distribution: secondary study area for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 4-18 4.8 Race and ethnicity: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States 4-22 4.9 Race and ethnicity: secondary study area 4-25 4.10 Average number of persons per household in the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and^he United States 4-27 4.11 Average number of persons per household in the secondary study area 4-28 4.12 The median family income and the number of families below poverty level in the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States 4-30 4.13 The median family income and the number of families below poverty level in the secondary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States 4-32 4.14 Births and deaths per 1000 persons for the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, . . . 4-35 4.15 Births and deaths per 1000 persons for the secondary study area 4-37
x LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title Page
4.16 Net migration: primary study area, Georgia, and South Carolina ..... 4-38 4.17 Net migration: secondary study area, Georgia, and South Carolina 4-39 4.18 Journey to work, 1970 4-41
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 5
5.1 General employment and payroll of the counties in the primary and secondary study areas 5-3 5.2 Manufacturing statistics for the counties in the primary and secondary study areas, 1972 5-4 5.3 Wholesale trade, retail trade, and government statistics for the counties in the primary and secondary study areas, 1972, 1975 5-5 5-4 Employment, earnings, and related statistics for the manufacturing and service industries in the primary and secondary study area, 1977 5-6 5.5 Services, minerals and agricultural statistics for the counties in the primary and secondary study areas, 1972 5-9 5.6 Estimated number of employees in major firms (with 50 or more employees) in the primary and secondary study areas, 198O 5-10 5.7 Per capita and median family income of the counties in the primary and secondary study areas .... 5-19 5.8 Earnings per employee and associated economic indicators, 1972 and 1975 5-22 5.9 Employment, payroll, and establishments in the primary and secondary study areas, 1977 .... 5-24 5.10 Geographic areas ranked by earnings per employee in 1977 5-28 5.11 Value added levers and trends for selected counties in the primary and secondary study areas ..... 5-30 5.12 1972 and 1977 manufactures value added for the primary and secondary study areas ...... 5-33 5.13 Annual rates of change in value added from 1972 to 1977 for the primary and secondary study areas (1972 constant dollars) 5-35 5.14 Gross national product (GNP), U.S. employee compen- sation, and ratio of product to compensation (bil- lions of current dollars) by industry for 197&, 1977, and 1978 5-38 5.15 Employee compensation and estimated gross state product (GSP) (millions of current dollars) by industry for Georgia for 1976, 1977, and 1978 5-39
xi LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title Page
5.16 Employee compensation and estimated gross state product (GSP) (millions of dollars) by industry for South Carolina for 1976, 1977, and 1978 5-40 5.17 Total employment levels for the Lower Savannah Region . . 5-45 5.18 Georgia and South Carolina counties in the 750-mile zone 5-48 5.19 Population and employment characteristies of counties in the commuting zone (within 70 miles of the Savannah River Plant), 1979 5-49 5.20 Population and employment characteristics of geo- graphical zones surrounding the Savannah River Plant, 1979 5-51 5.21 Construction employment by selected craft and zone, 1979 estimates 5-53 5.22 Construction employment by craft at the Vogtle Project, 1979 5-55
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 6
6.1 Community organizations in the primary study area .... 6-3 6.2 Per capita income changes and Hederal assistance payments in the study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States 6-7 6.3 Divorce, suicide, mental illness, and alcoholism rates in the primary study area 6-9 6.4 Unemployment rate and population distribution by race in the study area 6-11 6.5 Educational attainment in the primary study area, 1970 6-13 6.6 Political participation in the primary study area 1978-1979 6-15 - : it TABLES FOR CHAPTER 7
7.1 Federal agencies in South Carolina and Georgia 7-4 / 7.2 Standing committees of South Carolina and Georgia '' legislatures 7-14 7.3 Court structure of South Carolina and Ssorgia judicial systems 7-16 7-4 Major state services in South Carolina and Georgia .... 7-17 7.5 South Carolina county officials in the region of the Savannah River 7.6 Georgia county officials within the region of the Savannah River Plant ...» 7-22 7.7 Officials and boards (or Commissions) of incor- porated cities and towns in tt-e primary study area In South Carolina 7-25
xii LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title Page
7.3 Officials and boards (or commissions) of incor- porated cities and towns in the primary study area in Georgia 7-28 7.9 Revenues by major categories for taxing juris- dictions within the primary study area 7-32 7.10 Millage rates for taxing jurisdictions within the primary study area 7-38 7.11 Major expenditures by categories for taxing , jurisdictions within the pr!mary study area 7-39 7.12 1979 estimated per capita expenditures 7-48 7.13 Bond indebtedness, bonding capacity, and percent indebtedness of local governments within the primary study area ...... 7-50 7.14 Outstanding revenue bonds, expenditures, and revenues of selected local governments 7-52 7.15 Outstanding obligation bonds, indebtedness, and millage of school systems within the primary study area 7-55 7.16 Revenues by major sources for school systems within the primary study area 7-57 7.17 Impact funds (PL 874) for 1979 and 1980 for SRP related dependents 7-62 7.18 Expenditures of school systems within the primary study area 7-65
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 8
8.1 Number of public schools and private and public universities in the primary study area, 1979-1980 school year 8-5 8.2 Enrollment and capacity of public elementary and secondary schools in the primary study area, 1979- 1980 school year 8-6 8.3 Number of teacher aides and staff educational levels of public school teachers and professional staff in the 1979-1980 school year 8-14 8.4 Total enrollment and student/teacher ratio for selected years in the primary study area, the United States, South Carolina, and Gerogia 8-16 8.5 Existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public outdoor recreational facilities on Clarks Hill
Reservoir v 1979 8-26 8c6 Locations, activities, and facilities of parks in and near the study area, 1980 8-30
1
xi• 1• 1• LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title Page
8.7 Profile of fire protection in the primary study area, 1980 8-37 8.8 Fire department equipment in the primary study area, 1980 8-39 8.9 Fire department service area profile in the primary study area, 1980 . . . . 8-41 8.10 Emergency medical/rescue service In the primary study area, 1980 8-46 8.11 Profile of the police manpower in the primary study area, 1980 8-52 8.12 1979 crime index totals in the primary study area .... 8-55 8.13 1979 county crime rates per 10,000 population in the primary study area 8-56 8.14 County and municipal jail facilities in the primary study area, 198O 8-61 8.15 Characteristics of hospitals within the primary study area, 1979 8-66 8.16 Number of beds, inpatient days, and outpatient visits in general hospitals within the primary study area, 1979 8-68 8.17 Number of general hospitals and their services in the primary otudy area, 1979 8-71 8.18 Nursing homes within the primary study area, 1975 .... 8-73 8.19 Health manpower shortages within the study area 8-74 8.20 Health manpower in the primary study area, Georgia and South Carolina, 1979 8-76 8.21 Municipal treatment systems within the primary study area 8-81 8.22 Distribution and percentages of soil limi- tations for septic tank fieidsfor the primary study area 8-85 8.23 County and municipal public water systems in the primary study area 8-89 8.24 Public domestic sanitary landfills in the primary study area, 1980 8-97 8.25 Number of social service agencies serving the primary study area, 1980 8-105 8.26 Libraries serving the primary study area, 1980 8-108
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 9
9.1 Housing characteristics in the primary study area .... 9-5 9.2 Housing characteristics in the secondary study area . . . 9-6 9.3 Permits for privately owned housing by counties, 1970 to February, 1980 9-7
xi v LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title Page
9.4 Housing characteristics in selected cities and towns . . . 9-10 9.5 Permits for privately owned housing in cities, and towns, 1970 to February 19S0 9-11 9.6 Mobile homes within the primary study area 9-13 9.7 1976 employment and 1982 projected employment for construction occupations fn planning Dis- trict 5, South Carolina * 9-34 9.8 Construction employment in the primary and secondary study areas, 1973 to 1978 9-35
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 10
10.1 Summary of functional classification of roads and highways within the South Carolina portion of the primary study area 10-6 10.2 Selected key station and permanent traffic recorder data 10-12 ,10.3 Number of Savannah River Plant (SRP) vehicles by place of destination 10-16 10.4 Deaths and injuries due to motor vehicle accidents in the primary study area 10-22 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional Transportation Study 10-27 10.6 South Carolina priority 1 and 2 primary road im- provements within the primary study area 10-33 10.7 Aviation facilities within the primary study area .... 10-48
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 11
11.1 National Register sites within the primary study area, 1980 . . 11-7 11.2 Locally recognized historic sites within the primary study area, 1980 11-13
TABLES FOR CHAPTER 12
12.1 Civil defense agencies in the counties of Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Burke, Columbia, and Richmond, 1980 12-3
xv LIST OF FIGURES
Tit le Page
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 1
1.1 Primary and secondary study areas and SRP in
relationship to the nation 1-2
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 2
2.1 Primary and secondary study areas 2-3
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 3 3.1 Generalized existing land use in the primary and secondary study area 3-5 3.2 Future urban, residential, coirmercial/industrial development in the primary and secondary study areas 3-37
FIGUKES FOR CHAPTER 4
4.1 Change in population of Georgia and South Carolina for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 4-4 4.2 Percentages of urban and rural populations of Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States for 1950, 19&0 and 1970 4-8 4.3 Primary study area: percentage of urban and rural residents of each county, South Carolina, and Georgia for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1977 4-9 4.4 Secondary study area: percentage of urban and rural residents of each county, South Carolina, and Georgia for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1977 4-10
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 5
5.1 Percentage of gross product by industry: United States and Georgia, 1978 5-41 5.2 Percentage of gross product by industry: United States and South Carolina, 1978 5-42
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 7
7.1 U.S. Congressional Districts in Georgia 7-7 7.2 U.S. Congressional Districts in South Carolina 7-8 7.3 Georgia State Senate Districts 7-10 7.4 Georgia House of Representative Districts 7-11 7.5 South Carolina State Senate Districts 7-12 7.6 South Carolina State House of Representative Districts 7-13
xv i i LIST OF FIGURES
Tit le Page
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 8
8.1 Location and boundaries of each school system 8-3 8.2 Major Federal and state recreational areas (within a 50 mile radius of Savannah River Plant) . . . 8-23 8.3 Fire department service areas and emergency medical/rescue stations in the primay study area 8-43 8.4 Law enforcement facilities in the primary study area 8-59 8.5 Hospitals in the primary study area . 8-69 8.6 Water strvice areas in the primary study area 8-91 8.7 Public domestic sanitary landfills in the primary study aree 8-99
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 9
9.1 Housing stock in primary study area 9-3 9.2 Housing stock in secondary study area 9-4 9-3 Housing stock in cities and towns ...... 9-9 9.4 Mobile homes in selected counties in the primary study area 9-14 9.5 Tenure characteristics in primary study area, 1970 9-16 9.6 Tenure characteristics in the secondary study area, 1970 9-17 9.7 Tenure characteristics in selected cities end towns, 1970 9-18 9.8 Value of owner-occupied units and gross: rent ' in primary study area, 1970 ..... j 9-19 9-9 Value of owner-occupied units and gross rent in secondary study area, 1970 9-20 9.10 Values of owner-occupied units in selected cities and towns, 1970 9-21 9.11 Percentage vacant, crowded, and lacking plumbing in the primary study area, 1970 9-24 9.12 Percentage vacant, crowded, and lacking plumbing in the secondary study area, 1970 9-25 9.13 Percentage vacant, crowded, and lacking plumbing in selected cities and towns, 1970 9-26 9.14 Vacancy rates in primary study area 1950-73 9-28 9.15 Vacancy rates in secondary study area, 1950-77 9-29 9.16 Vacancy rates in selected cities and towns 1950-70 .... 9-30 9.17 Construction employment in primary study area, 1973-78 9-36 9.18 Construction employment in secondary study area, 1973-78 9-37
xv i i i i) LIST OF FIGURES i'/ Title Page
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 10
10.1 Functional highway classification system for selected highways within the primary study area ..... 10-7 10.2 SRP road system 10-10 10.3 1978 traffic volumes for the primary study area 10-13 10.4 Origin of work trips within the primary study area .... 10-17 10.5 Destinations of SRP work trips 10-19 10.6 Selected traffic counts in the SRP vicinity 10-20 10.7 Augusta Regional Transportation Study year 2000 traffic volumes to 1975 capacity ratios 10-25 10.8 Augusta regional transportation study annual road and street projects for FY 1981 10-35 10.9 Railroads in the primary study area 10-43 10.10 Augusta Railroad Demonstration Project selected alternatives 10-45
FIGURES FOR CHAPTER 11
11.1 National Register historic sites and general areas of archeological importance In the primary study area •».„....=> 11-9
xix 1-1
1. HISTORY OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the origins and functions of the Savannah River Plant (SRP). A brief discussion of the past and present socioeconomic impacts of the plant is also included to provide a setting for the base- line socioeconomic description provided in this document.
1.1 LOCATION
The SRP occupies approximately 300 square miles (192,000 acres) in west- ern South Carolina, adjacent to the Savannah River and the State of Geor- gia. The plant includes '(and in Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell Counties (see Figure 1.1). The nearest major urban center is the City of Augusta, Georgia, which is about 14 miles northwest of the facility. Nearby South Carolina towns include Aiken, 12 miles to the north, and Barnwell, about 6 miles to the east. There are 14 towns with populations greater than 2500 within 30 miles of the SRP borders, as listed in Table 1.1.
1.2 ORIGINS
The SRP was originally built to produce defense materials for nuclear weapons. In 1949, President Truman directed the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (now part of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regula- tory Commission (NRC)) to expand the nation's nuclear materials produc- tion program. In mid-1950, E. J. du P°nt de Nemours and Company (du Pont) was asked by the AEC to design, construct, and operate a facility to produce defense materials for nuclear weapons. Nationwide site sur- veys were conducted and a general location along the Savannah River was selected and announced to the public in late 1950. Construction work I officially began on February 1, 1951, and operation^ the first facil- ities was achieved by late 1952. 1-2
ORNL-DWG 81-15244
LEGEND:
• PRIMARY STUDY AREA • SECONDARY STUDY AREA B SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
( SOCIOECONOMIC ^ BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA J
\
FIGURE 1.1 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STUDY AREAS AND SRP IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATION
V J 1-3
Table 1.1 Major population centers within 30 miles of the Savannah River Plant3
Est. miles 1950 1980 from SRP City/town Population Pc-pulatlon Percent change border
Georgia Augusta 71,508 46,702 -34.69 16 Grovetown 991 3,388 241.88 27 Mi 11 en 3,449 3,974 15.2 26 Sylvania 2,939 3,323 13.1 24 Waynesboro 4,461 5,735 28.6 15
South Carolina Aiken 1 7,083 14,777 108.63 12 Allendale 2,474 4,362 76.31 9 Bamberg 2,954 3,633 22.99 26 Barnwel1 2,005 5,556 177.11 6 Blackvil1e 1,294 2,869 121.72 12 Denmark 2,814 4,138 47.05, 21 „b c New Ellenton 2,578 N/A 3 North Augusta 3,659 13,4.51 267.61 17 Ws11iston 896 3,115 247.66 5 aSources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion: 1950, Vol. It: Characteristics of the Population, Part 11, Georgia, Washington, D.C. 1952
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion: 1950, Vol. II: Characteristics of the Population, Part 40, South Carolina. Washington, D.C., 1952
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, Georgia^ PHC 80-P-12, Washington, D.C., 1981.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, South Carolina, PHC 80-P-42, Washington, D.C., 1981. bNot Incorporated until 1952. cNot available. 1-4
1.3 MISSION DEVELOPMENT
Today the primary mission of the SRP is the production of plutonium and other special nuclear materials for use in the national defense program.
The SR.1 he only producer of heavy water and plutonium-238 in the
United as, the sole source of tritium, and the largest producer of plutonium-239.
The key weapons materials production facilities of the SRP are five nu- clear production reactors, two of which are currently shut down and in st^P'iby condition. There are also two chemical separation areas, a heavy-water-extraction plant, test reactors, uranium-fuel-processing facilities, as well as the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) and other support facilities on the site. The weapons materials that are produced are sent to other DOE sites for fabrication into weapons components.
Most of these facilities were constructed in the early 1950s, and there has been littla or no change in the SRP production facilities since they were built. A program of extensive renovation and upgrading of the plant's reactors and major facilities is ongoing, including the startup of one of the two standby reactors In 1983.
Over the years, the uses for the special nuclear materials produced at
the SRP, such as plutonlum-238 and tritium, have been expanded into
peaceful uses in the fields of medicine (cardiac pacemakers), space ex- ploration (power generation), and industry (watch backlights).
Nuclear research and development In support of SRP materials production
have been an important support mission for the SRL. Also on the plant
site Is the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), which has been conducting extensive environmental research since the early 19501s. The
University of Georgia has been operating the SREL for the DOE, which was formally set up in 1961 and has been growing steadily. The U.S. Forest
Service has been directing an extensive forest management program on the
SRP since 1951 (see Section 3.1.1.4 for further information). 1-5
fn 1972, the entire 192,000-acre SRP site was designated as the nation's first National Environmental Research Park. Scientists from other Gov- ernment agencies, private foundations, and universities use the plant's lands as a protected outdoor laboratory for long-term projects to assess the impact of man or nuclear-related activities on the environment.
Since 1953, the chemical processing of irradiated materials at the SRP has produced radioactive wastes that require continuous management. High-level radioactive wastes are stored at the plant in large under- aground carbon-steel tanks (up to 1.3 million gallons) enclosed by con- //crete. Solid radioactive wastes produced from plant operation, such as contaminated equipment, are burled onsite in a fenced area. All burial operations are monitored to measure any releases.
In the coming years, the SRP and SRL will be increasing their efforts in waste management programs and environmental studies. Advance planning Is already under way to construct a defense waste processing plant at SRP to immobilize high-level radioactive wastes by turning them into a compact and stable radioactive solid form for disposal in a Federal repository.
1.4 PAST SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE AREA
Thi; primary socioeconomic impact of the SRP on the surrounding area has been a substantial rise in employment, which began in 1951 at the onset of the project. Construction employment rose rapidly and peaked at 38,350 jobs in 1952. Following construction, operating employment aver- aged 7500 persons in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The shutdown of one of the plant's reactors in 1964 and another In 1968, together with later budgetary reductions, has accounted for a slight decline in the work force during the late 1960s and throughout most of the 1970s.
Historically, the SRP has been not only the major employer in the area, but also one of the largest employers in South Carolina. SRP employment
totaled about 8000 in 1980. Approximately 200 of these employees work 1-6 for the DOE and most of the remainder work for du Pont and its subcon- tractors. The University of Georgia employs about 65 people in its ecol- ogy program at the plant, and the U.S. Forest Service employs about 25 people In managing the plant's extensive forestry program.
The secondary socioeconomic impact of the plant has been the dramatic rise in the area's standard of living. The 1980 annual payroll of the SRP was over $209 million, which makes It the largest work center in South Carolina. The rise in the standard of living is measured by in- creased incomes, improved housing, and increases in community services in a string of towns and cities in the Aiken-Augusta corridor. These in- clude Aiken, GranitevlIle, Warrenville, Gloverville, Langley, Bath, Burnettcwn, Clearwater, North Augusta, and Belvedere in South Carolina, and Augusta in Georgia. The majority of the people employed at the fa- cility live in this corridor, with less than 50 percent of the remaining employees living in other communities scattered through South Carolina and Georgia. 2. THE STUDY AREA
' )) /- (' The socioeconomic baseline characterization of the area surrounding the Savannah River Plant (SRP) includes four counties in Georgia and nine in
South Carolina. The four GeorgiI' a (( counties are Burke, Columbia, Richmond,
and Screven. The South Carolina counties are Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Edgefield, Hampton, Lexington, ^Orangeburg, and Saluda. The
decision to include ail of thesW e counties in the study area was based on a review of studies made by the Sav ah River Laboratory on the .residen- tial distribution of construction •• operations personnel employed at the plant and on the findings of ot..er analyses performed to study the present effects of the SRP on adjacent communities. Burke County has been included, however, because of the expected interaction of the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant construction work force with that of the proposed defense waste processing facility.,
A 1980 study conducted by the Savannah River Laboratories on the residen- ij tial distribution of persons' employed at the facility Indicates that less than 3 percent of the facility's 8335 workers resided outside the 13- county study area. An earlier study by Chap in, Jr., et. al., analyzed the impacts that the initial construction and operation of the SRP had on the region. The Chapin study considered the area being studied in this report but excluded Hampton and Saluda Counties in South Carolina and Screven County in Georgia.
The Chapin study also presented an in-depth analysis of the dislocation of the local resident population associated with the construction of the facility and the impacts of the construction and operational labor force and their dependents on the surrounding communities. This study pre- sented a limited baseline characterization.
Like the Chapin study, the counties within the environs of the SRP were analyzed as being in a primary or secondary study area. The primary 1-2
study area includes those counties where it was estimated that the larg- est number of relocating workers would choose to reside. Included in the secondary study area are those counties whose residents may serve as part of the indigenous labor pool and where a small number of relocating work- ers may choose to reside.
Counties in the primary study area include Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell in South Carolina; and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia (see Figure 2.1). Except for Allendale, these counties are included in the primary study area because each had as residents in 1980 approxi- mately 2 percent or more of the SRP labor force (see Table 2.1). Addi- tionally, the SRP labor force from each of these counties constituted more than one percent of that county's labor force in January 1980 (see Table 2.1). Allendale County was included in the primary study area although only 1.8 percent of the SRP labor Force in 1980 were residents, representing approximately 4 percent of the county's labor force in 1980. The factors leading to the decision to include Allendale County in the primary study were its location immediately adjacent to the SRP, its link to the SRP via South Carolina Route 125, and because part of the SRP facility is located in that county. Of the persons employed at the SRP, 89.3 percent reside in the six counties of the primary study area. The residence pattern of the current and future SRP labor force will continue to be based on such factors as accessibility to the SRP, available hous- ing, and the provision of community services.
Of the six counties In the primary study area, Aiken County, South Caro- lina, had the largest percentage (58.8) and number (4905) of the SRP work force as residents in 1980. SRP workers constituted 12.2 percent of Aiken County's labor force in January 1980. In contrast, Allendale Coun- ty, South Carolina, had the lowest number of SRP workers within its boundaries. Only 149 SRP workers, representing 1.8 percent of the SRP labor force, lived in Allendale County. Columbia County, Georgia, had 256 resident SRP employees. This constituted only 1.7 percent of that county's labor force, the smallest percentage of all the counties; in the 1-3 ORNL-DWG 81-15204
FIGURE 2.1 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STUDY AREAS
r LEGEND
|H PRIMARY STUDY AREA
| | SECONDARY STUDY AREA
ft SCALE IS 20 MILES
SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA Table 2.1 Distribution of the June 1980 Savannah River Plant employees by place of residence, and as a percentage of the June 1980 labor pool3
SRP employees as a Number of SRP Percent of SRP June 1980 percentage Place of residence employees labor force labor pool county's lal
Primary study area 7,447 89.3 142,257 5.2 South Carolina counties 5,955 71.4 59,790 10.0 Aiken 4,904 58.8 40,260 12.2 Allendale 149 1.8 3,580 4.2 Bamberg 165 2.0 6,830 2.4 Barnwel1 737 8.8 9,120 8.1 Georgia counties 1,492 17.9 82,467 1.8 Columbia 256 3.1 15,197 1.7 Richmond 1,236 14.8 67,270 1.8
Secondary study area 643 7.7 129,609 0.5 South Carolina Counties 553 6.6 113,370 0.5 Edgefield 92 1.1 8,090 1.1 Hampton 104 1.2 7,080 1.5 Lexington 133 1.6 57,980 0.2 Orangeburg 142 1.7 33,590 0.4 Saluda 82 1.0 6,630 1.2 Georgia counties 90 1.1 16,239 0.6 Burke 25 0.3 8,176 0.3 Screven 65 0.8 8,063 0.8
Outside study area 245 2.9 N/Ac N/A South Carolina 163 2.0b N/A N/A Georgia 71 0.9b N/A N/A Other states 11 0.1b N/A N/A
aSources: Provided by Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations, November 20, 1980.
Personal coronunI cation between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and J. Morris, Georgia Department of Labor, Atlanta Ga., Dec. 4, 1980.
Personal cotnnun I cat I on between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and S, McClary, S.C. Employment Security Commission, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 3, 1980. bNumbers do not total 2.9 due to rounding. cNot applicable. 2-6 primary study area. Table 2.1 depicts the number of employees residing in each county in 1980 and the percentage of each county's labor force that the SRP labor force represented.
Of the total SRP labor force, 7.7 percent resided in the secondary study area; approximately 6.6 percent of the total SRP labor force resided in the South Carolina portion of the secondary study area, which includes Enfield, Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, and Saluda Counties. Of these counties, Orangeburg had the largest number of SRP employees, with 142 or 1.7 percent of the SRP labor force as residents. These workers consti- tuted only 0.4 percent of Orangeburg County's labor force in 1980. Lex- ington County had 133 SRP employees, constituting 0.2 percent of that county's labor force. This percentage was the smallest among all the South Carolina counties in the study area.
Within the Georgia portion of the secondary study area, Burke and Screven Counties had the smallest number of SRP workers as residents (25 and 65, respectively). These workers constituted 0.3 and 0.8 percent, respec- tively of the total SRP labor force in 1980. 2-7
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
1. F. S. Chapin, Jr., T. W. Wlrths, A. M. Denton, Jr., and J. C. Gould, In the Shadow of a Defense Plant: A Study of Urbanization In Rural South Carolina, institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1954.
2. Provided by Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations, to G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, November 20, 1980.
3. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and J. Morris, Georgia Department of Labor, Atlanta, Ga., Dec. 4, 1980.
4. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and S. McClary, S.C. Employment Security Commission, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 3, 1980. 1-2
3.1 PRESENT LAND USE
The primary and secondary study areas, consisting of 13 counties in Georgia and South Carolina, encompasses approximately 7737 square miles. Orangeburg and Aiken Counties are the two largest counties in the study area, comprising 16 and 13 percent of the study area, respectively. In contrast, Columbia County, which represents only 3.8 percent of the study area, or 185,600 acres, has the smallest land area. Table 3.1 presents the approximate acreage of each county in the study area.
There is currently no nationally accepted or consistent standard for classifying land use. As a result, states and counties have classified their land through a variety of methodologies and criteria. What might be classified by one county as urban or built-up may be classified by another county as residential, commerical, and industrial. Therefore, Table 3.2 was Droduced for comparison purposes and may not accurately reflect the amount of land in any particular category. Concurrently, land use data supplied by the 13 primary and secondary study area coun- ties appears in individual county sections of this report. The land-use categories presented in these sections may differ from county to county, due to the nonexistence of a .standard land-use classification system. Additionally, the land-use data presented for Burke County, Georgia, is an approximation of county land-use types due to the unavailability of a county-wide land-use inventory.
The study area is primarily rural or forested (see Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1). Vast areas of forested land are located in the study area's north- ern and western counties, and large tracts of agricultural lands are situated in the eastern and southern counties. Overall, agricultural and nondeveloped land, such as forested land, wetland, or vacant/open space 1-19 land, account for 93.4 percent of the study area's total acreage.
Of this percentage, the largest land-use category is woodlands, forests, and wetlands, encompassing approximately 37.5 percent of the study area's 1-3
Table 3.1 Counties In the primary and secondary areas: acreages and percentages of total study area3
Date Approximate of Approximate percentage of County survey acreage total -study area
Primary study area V
Aiken* 1978 625,554 12.6 Allendale* 1977 267,059 5.4 Bamberg 1977 252,800 5.1 Barnwel1* 1977 353,920 7.2 Columbia 1979 185,600 3.8 R i chmond 1980 207,998 4.2
Subtotal 1,892,930 38.3
Secondary study area
Burke 1975 531,840 10.7 Edgefi eld 1972 307,885 6.2
Hampton 1977 359,680 7.3 Lexington 1977 458,240 9.3 Orangeburg 1977 707,200 14.2 SaIuda 1973 282,900 5.7 Screven 1975/ 410,773 8.3 1976
Subtotal 3,0584518 61.7
Total 4,951,448b 100.0 aSources: See references 1-20. ^Equivalent to 7737 square miles. *SRP site included. Table 3.2 Present land-use types In the primary and secondary study areas®
Urban and Public and Counties bu11t-up Agrlculture Forest Water Wetland Barren seml-publ Ic Unclassified
Primary study area 87,926.0b 444,162.0b 434,233.0b 5,460.0 151,962.0 19,795.0b 14,112.0 734,813.0b Percent of area 4.6 23.5 23.0 0.3 8.0 1.0 0.7 38.8
Aiken* Acreage 17,867.0b 19,066.0b 4,003.0 584,618.0 Percent of total county 2.8 0.6 0.6 93.5 AIlendale Acreage 1,459.0 89,862.0 116,550.0 1,082.0 57,357.0 179.0 570.0 Percent of total county 0.5 33.7 43.7 0.4 21.4 0.1 0.2 Bamberg Acreage 1,510.0 101,261.0 138,253.0 256.0 4,346.0 64.0 7,110.0 Percent of total county 0.6 41.2 56.3 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.8 Barnwell Acreage 3,488.0 92,102.0 179,430.0 4,122.0 72,979.0 486.0 845.0 Percent of total county 1.0 26.0 50.8 1.2 20.7 0.1 0.2 Columbia* Acreage 19,09S.0b 160,937.0b 5,568.0 Percent of total county 10.4 86.7 3.0 Richmond* Acreage 44,507.0b 17,280.0 4,C1.0 141,670.0b Percent of total county 21.4 8.3 ~ 2.2 68.1
Secondary study area 145,080.0b 1,322,510.0b 1,147,525.0 63,140.0 : 121,819.0b 29,815.0 12,172.0 214,625.0b Percent of area 4.7 43.3 37.5 2.1 -- 4.0 t.O 0.4 7.0
Burke* Acreage 2,700.0 162,322.0 306,600.0 29,623.0 30,595.0 Percent of total county 0.5 30.5 57.7 5.6 5.7 Edgefield* Acreage 11,202.0b 71,212.0 194,170.0 2,811.0b 28,450.0b Percent of total county 0.5 23.1 63.0 0.9 9.3 Hampton* Acreage 7,123.0" 11B,062.0 231,415.0 1,9*3.0 1,137.0 Percent of total county 2.0 32.8 64.4 0.5 0.3 Lexington Acreage 100,812.0 160,384.0 45,824.0 9,165.0 142,055.0 Percent of total county 22.0 35.0 10.0 2.0 31.0 Orangeburg Acreage 7,456.0 310,432.0 256,640.0 9,933.0 119,008.0 192.0 1,747.0 Percent of total county 1.1 44.0 36.3 1.4 16.9 c 0.3 Saluda Acreage 11,642.0 104,000.0 158,700.0 5,440.0 3,118.0 Percent of total county 4.0 37.0 56.0 2.0 1.0 Screven* Acreage 4,145.0b 396,098.0b 1,870.0 8,660.0" Percent of total county l.l 96.4 0.5 2.1
Total study area 233,006.0 1,766,672.0 1,581,758.0 68,600.0 273,781.0 49,610.0 26.2B4.0 949,438.0 Percent of area 4.7 35.7 32.0 1.4 5.5 1.0 0.5 19.2
'Sources: see references 1-19. "Data combined or modified for comparison. See Individual tables for complete data. cLess than Q.I percent. *Note: portions of land use data not categorized the same as others.
."At
ORNL-DWG 81-15205
RGURE 11 GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STUDY AREAS
LEGEND
URBAN OR BUILT-UP
PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC
AGRICULTURAL
WOODS. FORESTS. OR WETLANDS
VACANT. OPEN SPACE. FORESTS OR AGRICULTURAL
ft SCALE is so MILES
SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 3-7 total acreage. ^ The forests and wetlands of the region are composed of deciduous, evergreen, or mixed forests. A wetland is an area where the water level is at, near, or on the surface of the land for a signifi- cant part of the year. In the southeastern region of the United States, where the study area is located, there are two types of wetlands: for- ested and nonforested. The study area's forested wetlands include areas of hardwoods, wooded swamps, and Carolina bays. In contrast, nonforested wetlands are generally nonforested Carolina bays, located in the eastern and southern parts of the study area. Carolina bays are topographic fea- tures common to North and South Carolina and eastern seaboard areas. Each bay is a depression in the land surface, having a nearly elliptical or ovate shape, with its major axis aligned in a north-northwest to south- southwest direction. Typically, Carolina bays occur »n overlying areas of soluble calcareous rock on the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas.
The next largest land use in the primary study area is agricultural land. The actual percentage of agricultural lands, however, may be even higher than the 35.7 percent shown in Table 3.2. ^This is because the land-use inventories for Aiken, Screven, and Richmond Counties did not make a distinction between agricultural lands, open space, and vacant
1andsI ^ . 1-19
The third largest land use in the primary study area is unclassified land (20.2 percent). This category includes barren lands, vacant, open space, and unclassified lands. Additionally, about four percent of the land in the unclassified category represents lands not inventoried. Burke County accounts for 30,59$, of the total 33,713 acres not inventoried. The re- maining acreage is in Saluda County. The water-body category accounts for approximately 9 percent of the study area. This category includes bodies of water larger than one acre, including lakes, streams, and ponds. Some of the major water resources in the study area are. Lake Murray on / \ the Saluda River, Clarks Hill Reservoir on the Savars5 .iRiver, and the 1-8
Savannah River itself. Lakes Marian and Moultrie are located on the 1-19 Santee River forming a portion of the eastern study area boundary.
In contrast, urbanized landscapes account for only 5-2 percent of the study area. Of this percentage, 4.7 percent is urban, built-up land, ,and 0.5 percent is public and semipublic land. The two largest concentra- tions of urban land use surround the cities of Columbia, South Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia. Smaller pockets of built-up land dot the remaining portions of the study area as rural communities. The urban land-use figure may be slightly lower than the study area's actual percentage of urban and built-up land, because the percentage of urban built-up land in Burke County is an estimate due to the unavailability of a county-wide land-use inventory. The public and seniipublic land-use areas are typ- ically publicly owned or maintained lands such as airports, parks, recre- ational lands, and educational facilities. These lands are scattered throughout the study area but are most common in or near urban or built- up areas. Bush Field, an, airport in Richmond County, Georgia, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recreational lands around Clarks Hill Reser- 1-19 voir, are good examples of public and semipublic land.
3.1.1 Primary study area 3.1.1.1 Aiken County ll
Aiken County, the second largest county in South Carolina, encompasses approximately 625,554 acres or 977.4 square miles. Even though the coun- ty is predominantly rural, with over 95 percent of its area still consid- ered to be underdeveloped, it is becoming more built up, particularly in the "urban corridor" of North Augusta, Aiken, and the Horse Creek Valley in western Aiken County. The dominant land use, as shown in Table 3.3, is open space, which comprises 584,618 acres or over 93 percent of the county's total area. Open space, defined by the Aiken County Planning Commission as unimproved land, includes agricultural land, wetlands, 1-9
Table 3*3 Present land-use types for Aiken County, South Carolina, in 1978a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Residential 12,450 2.0
Commerci al 1,412 0.2
Industr ial 4,005 0.6 Public and semi public 4,003 0.6 Rights-of-way 19,066 3.1 Open space 584,618 93.5 Total 625,554 100.0
aSource: Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken County — 2000: A Land Use Plan for Aiken County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., June 1978. 3-10
forests, and woodlands. Of the remaining 6.5 percent of the land that is developed, 3-1 percent or 19,066 acres are rights-of-way. Such rights- of-way include roads and transmission corridors for telephone, electric, and gas utilities. Such corridors link together other land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and public and semipubiic, and open 1 space.
Over 30 percent of the developed land in Aiken County, (approximately 2 percent of the entire county), is in residential land use. Small concen- trations of high-density residential areas are found in the incorporated areas of Jackson, N^ew Ellenton, and Wagener. Low-density residential areas are scattered throughout the county and in the unincorporated com- •• 1 \\ munities. \
Closely linked with residential development is commercial land use which comprises 1412 acres, or over 3 percent of the total developed land, and about 0.2 percent of the total land area of the county. The majority of the commercial use is found in the urban areas of western Aiken County in v 1 the form of strip commercial development.
v Next to corrmercial development, industrial, public, and semipubiic land use each account for over 1 percent of the total area and less than 10 percent of the developed land. Industrial areas are found in several sections of the county, including the areas of Beech Island, Sal ley, Jackson, the Horse Creek Valley, and the fringe areas of the city of A i ken.1
The public and semipubiic land uses are found predominantly within the urban portions of the county. Predominant public and semipubiic lands ' include the Aiken State Park, the Aiken Community Hospital, the Univers- ity of South CaroJina-Aiken, the Aiken Technical Education Center, and the Aiken County Vocational SchoolJ 3-11 a
The Savannah River Plant (SRP) occupies 66,665 acres of land in Aiken County. This represents 35 percent of the total land area occupied by 2 the plant.
3.1.1.2 Allendale County
The approximate area and associated percent of land use of the 267,059 acres of Allendale County is presented in Table 3*4, which is based on a 1977 inventory. Of the seven land-use categories, the forest category accounts for the largest percentage of the area of the county, or over 43 percenttions o.f thSuce hcounty land . 3us e is concentrated in the western and southern sec-
Agricultural land Is second, with 89,862 acres, or over 33 percent of the land area of the county. Principal uses,\ are croplands, pastures, or- chards, and feeding operations.^
The wetland and water categories add up to approximately 22 percent of the county, which is high in comparison with other counties in the study area. Major waterways in the county include the Savannah River, the Salkehatchie River, the Coosawhatchie River, and numerous small streams 3 and swamps.
The next category in size is urban and built-up land, which occurs mainly near the incorporated towns of Allendale, Fairfax, Sycamore, and Ulmer, and near , the unincorporated communities of Appleton, Baldock, Barton, Cave, Jannys, Martin, Millett, and Seigling. These areas equal approxi- mately 1459 acres or about 0.5 percent or the total land area of the county. The remaining 0.1 percent of the county's land is classified as barren (defined as land with limited ability to support life and of which less than one-third is covered with vegetation). Approximately 0.2 par- 's cent of the land is unclassified. 3-12
Table 3.4 Present land-use types for Allendale County, South Carolina, In 1977a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and built up M59 0.5 Agricultural 89,862 33.7 Forest 116,550 43.7 Water 1,082 0.4 -s r C M Wetland 57,357 Barren 179 0.1 Unclassified 570 0.2 Total 267,059 100.0 aSource: Lower Savannah River Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Up- date: Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., AprTT 1978. 3-13
The Savannah River Plant occupies 4155 acres in Allendale County. This 2 accounts for two percent of the entire land area occupied by the SRP.
3.1.1.3 Bamberg County
Bamberg County, like AU.endale County, is largely rural. As shown in Table 3.5, the urban and built-up areas constitute only about 0.6 percent of the county's total area. These 1510 acres are primarily in or near It the incorporated towns of Bamberg and Denmark. More rural development occurs throughout the county and is most pronounced in Ehrhardt, Olar, Govan, Little Swamp, Hunters Chapel, Colston, Springtown, Finland, Swe- den, Midway, and Ghents Branch.
In contrast, forest lands, the largest land-use category, constitute over
56 percent of the land area or 138,253 acres. The forest lands are lo- cated in the central, eastern, and southern portions of the county.
Timber companies manage large tracts and, in many cases, farmers who have land in timber are now harvesting the trees and converting the acreage to cropland or pasture.^
Agricultural land, the second largest type, comprises 101,261 acres or approximately 42 percent of the area of the county. It is distributed throughout the county, but is predominantly in the western and northern portions. Other areas, Including water areas, wetlands, barren land, and unclassified lands, constitute less than 2 percent of the county. The major water bodies include the Edisto, the Salkehatchie, and the Little ii Salkehatchie Rivers.
3.1.1.4 Barnwell County
Like Bamberg County, over half of the 353,920 acres of Barnwell County is classified as forest land (see Table 3.6). A large portion of forest land is the result of the Savannah River Plant (SRP) reforestation pro- gram. Of the total Savannah River Plant acreage in the county, approxi- 3-14
Table 3.5 Present land-use types for Bamberg County, South Carolina, in 1977a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and built up 1,510 0.6 Agricultural 101,261 40.1 Forest 138,253 54.7 Water 256 0.1
Wetland 4,346 1.7 . Barren 64 (b) Unclassified 7,110 2.8 Total 252,800 100.0 aSource: Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan; Bamberg County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., May 1977.
''Less than 0.1 percent. 3-15
Table 3.6 Present land-use types for Barnwell County, South Carolin< in 1977a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and bu i11 up 3,488 1.0 Agricultural 92,102 26.0 Forest 179,430 50.8 Water 4,122 1.2 Wet 1 and 72,979 20.7 Barren 486 0.1 Unci ass if ied 845 0.2 Total 353,452 100.0
Actual total of county area 353,920b
aSource: Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan and Initial Housing Element; Barnwell County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., June 1977.
bu.S. Bureau of Census. 3-16 mately 66 percent is forested, much of which is commercially harvested under the supervision of the U.S. Forest Service.The largest per- centage (63 percent) of the total land area occupied by the SRP plant is 2 in Barnwell County—121,503 acres.
Agricultural land is the second largest land-use type in the county, with 92,102 acres or 26 percent of the land area. Most agricultural lands are in the east-central and north-central parts of the county, near Barnwell, Hilda, Williston, and Blackville.^
As in the other counties, urban and built-up lands occupy a small per- centage of the land area of Barnwell County. The lands account for 3488 acres or approximately 1 percent of the county and are found primarily within the three larger incorporated towns of Barnwell, Blackville, and Williston. Rural development is scattered throughout the eastern half of the county. Rural incorporated areas include Snelling, Elko, Hilda, and Kline. In the unincorporated areas, concentrated nonfarm residential units are found adjacent to incorporated areas and In the Lyndhurst, 5
Boiling Springs, Reynolds, Ashleigh, Whaley, and Healing Springs areas.
3.1.1.5 Columbia County
Columbia County, Georgia, is more developed than the four primary study area counties in South Carolina, but less developed than Richmond County, Georgia. Areas of residential, commercial, and industrial land use con- stitute 10.3 percent of the county's land (as shown in Table 3-7). Resi- dential areas constitute 10 percent of the land use, with single-family residential areas being the most prominent residential land use in vthe 6 county. . jf
Most of this development has occurred primarily in Martinez, Evans, Grovetown, and Harlem during the last several years. Other types of development, including rural-farm, rural nonfarm, and second homes are scattered throughout the county and in small concentrations near the rural communities of Appling, Phinizy, Winfield, and Leah. Until the 3-17
Table 3.7 Present land-use types for Columbia County, Georgia, in 1979a
Approx imate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Res i dent i al 18,560 10.0 Commercial 222 0.1 Industr ial 313 0.2 Public and semipubiic 5,568 3-0 Agricultural, wooded, and vacant 160,937 86.7 Total 185,600 100.0 aSource: Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development Plan, Martinez, Ga., 1979. 3-18
late 19601s, residential development was concentrated along the major roads that offered convenient access to the City of Augusta and Richmond County. This strip-development pattern, the dominant pattern in the rural portions of the county, is spreading in the Martinez-Evans area by the development of residential subdivisions between the major roads. This residential development, however, decreases north and west of the Martinez-Evans growth area.^
In contrast to residential land use, commercial development comprises only 0.1 percent of the county's total acreage. Approximately 188 of the 222 acres of commercial iand in the county is located in the Martinez- Evans area. Industrial land uses constitute 0.2 percent of the land use of the county. Areas of industrial development are located throughout the county on 15 sites, comprising approximately 313 acres. These areas are principally scattered along the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad in Mar- tinez and Evans, along Interstate Highway 20'near Martinez, and along the Georgia Railroad near Grovetown and Harlem. There are two industrial parks in the county, one in the Columbia Planned Unit Development in Evans and the other south of Interstate Highway 20 at Belair Road. Nei- ther park is fully developed.^
Three percent of the land of the county is in public and semipublic land use. Most of the public and semipublic acreage is associated with lands used for recreation and conservation around the Clarks Hill Reservoir in the northern portion ^of the Appling area. Approximately 13 01 acres of land in Columbia County are held by the Corps of Engineers for shoreline protection of the reservoir. The Mistletoe State Park and Wildwood Coun- ty Park comprise 1920 and 991 acres, respectively.^
The largest category of land use in the county is agricultural, wooded, and vacant, and constitutes over 86 percent of the county. Most of the timber resources are not being logged.^ 3-19
3.1.1.6 Richmond County
Richmond County has a land area of 323 square miles or 207,998 acres (see Table 3.8). Estimates of the county's 1980 land use were made by the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission in 1981. From these esti- mates, it was determined that about 9 percent of the county is residen- tial land, located mostly in the northeastern corner of the county in and surrounding Augusta. Residential development is also found in and near Blythe and Hephzibah, along Routes 56, 25, and 1, along Tobacco Road and 7 8 Windsor Spring Road.'
Commercial land use activities constitute approximately 2 percent of the county's'1 area. The largest percentage is identified within the incorpor- ated communities of Augusta, Blythe, and Hephzibah, and near major inter- 7 8 state highways and state highways. '
Institutional and recreational lands constitute 2.2 and 1.5 percent, respectively, of the land area of the county. Both are located in the 7 8 urban and built-up areas.
Industrial land use constitutes approximately 3 percent of the county's area and is concentrated in five areas:''
o Within incorporated Augusta near the Savannah River and on 15th • Street o South of Augusta, north of Bush Field, and east of Route 56 o North of Hephzibah o South of Bush Field and east of Route 56 o North of Interstate 20 and west of the Savannah River in the northwest corner of the county.
The majority of vacant and open space, approximately 47 percent of the county's area, is located south of Fort Gordon, south of Augusta and 7 8 surrounding areas, and west of the Savannah River. ' Over 21 percent of the county's area, or 44,286 acres of the 55j5l8-acre Fort Gordon 3-20
Table 3-8 Present land-use types for Richmond County, Georgia, in 1980a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Residential 19,385 9.3 Commercial 4,357 2.1 Inst i tut ional (public and semipublic) 4,541 2.2 Recreational 3,197 1.5 Industrial 5,331 2.6 Rights-of-way 12,237 5.9 Wetlands 17,280 8.3 Vacant or open space 97,384 46.8 Fort Gordon Military Reservation 44,286 21.3 Approximate total 207,998 100.0
aSource: Personal communication between J. Davis, NUS Corporation, and G. Szymik, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, February 25, 1981. 3-21
Military Reservation, are within Richmond County, 'the remaining portions of the reservation extend into Jefferson, Columbia, arid McDuffie Coun- ties. The reservation acts as a physical barrier to regional development 8 9 because the large tract of land is restricted to military use only. '
3.1.2 Secondary study area
3.1.2.1 Burke County
Burke County has neither a county-wide land-use plan nor a county-wide land-use inventory. 10 The data presented in Table 3-9 is derived from data in the U.S. Census Bureau's "1974 Census of Agriculture, Georgia, 12 State and County Data," the U.S. Department of Agriculture's forestry statistics, the Waynesboro Land Use Plan, and the U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map of Burke County. Although the accuracy oF the data in the table is limited by the collection procedure the data presented has been checked with local officials. The table presents an approximation of the county's present land-use types.
Burke County is characterized by a very rural, wooded landscape. Agri- cultural and forested lands are the county's most prominent land-use types. Agricultural land comprises approximately 31 percent of the coun- 9-13 ty's total land area, and forests 58 percent.
The smallest land-use category is urban and built-up lands. These lands, consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial areas, are gener- ally located in the county's six towns. The actual percentage of urban and built-up land, however, may be slightly higher than the 0.5 percent shown in Table 3.9 because this figure is primarily based on acreage data for Waynesboro due to the unavailability of data for the other communi- g 13 ties. Because the county's towns are fairly small, the urban areas in Burke County are only a small percentage of the county's total acre- age. Waynesboro is the largest town, with a 1970 population of 5530 or 3-22
Table 3-9 Present land-use types for Burke County, Georgia, in 1972-197S'
Approx imate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and built up*3 2,700 £ 0.5 Agricultural 162,322 30.5 Forest*^ 306,600 57.7 Barren/wasteland 29,623 5.6 Water and land not inventoried 30,595 5.7 Total 531,840 100.0 aSources: See references 9-13. b1978 data; Waynesboro, Sardis. c1974 data; croplands and pasture. d1972 data; commercial forests. e1974 data. 3-23
30 percent of the county's total population. The 1970 population of the county's other five towns ranges from 131 persons in Vidette to 665 per- 7.1 sons in Midvi11e. '
Although land-u«e data for the county is unavailable, data on Waynesboro is presented in the Waynesboro Land Use Plan. The city's total area of 3205 acres is divided in the following manner: 789 acres are residential areas; 371 acres are transportation, communication, and utilities rights- of-way; 119 acres are utilized by manufacturing industries; 154 acres are commercial areas; 82 acres are cultural/recreational lands; and 1690 13
acres are agricultural or undeveloped lands.
3.1.2.2 Edgefield County
Edgefield County is very rural, with only 3-7 percent of the 307,845 acres inventoried being developed land (see Table 3.10).
Residential land use predominantly occurs in incorporated town limits (4190 acres), and suburban or rural-oriented settlements (1840 acres). Residential areas are located mainly in and around the communities of Edgefield, Johnson, and Trenton. Commercial activity is concentrated in and around the towns of Edgefield, Johnston, and Trenton, near South Carolina Highway 230 on the Aiken County line, and on small tracts of land throughout the county. Most commercial activity outside incorpor- ated towns consists of crossroad general stores and neighborhood conveni- ence stores. Outside the incorporated towns and their fringe areas, no 14 major concentrations of commercial activity exist.
Industrial lands constitute approximately 256 acres, or 0.1 percent of the developed acreage. Approximately 98 percent of all industrial growth 14 has occurred around Edgefield, North Augusta, or Johnston.
School sites, country clubs, and the Sumter National Forest make up the public and quasi-public lands. About one-half the area, or approxinately 3-24
Table 3.10 Present land use types for Edgefield County, South Carolina, in 1973a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and residential 6,030 2.0 Manufactur i ng 256 0.1 Transportation and utilities 4,916 1.6 Recreational and open space 28,200 9.2 Water and wetland 2,811 0.9 Agricultural and pasture 71,212 23.1 Forests and wasteland 194,170 63.0 Other 250 0.1 Total 307,845 100.0
Actual total of county area 307,385b aSource: Wilber Smith and Associates, Land Use Plan and Preliminary Thorough- fare Plan; Edgefield County, South Carolina, Columbia, S.C., July 1973. bu.S. Bureau of Census. 3-25
140,000 acres, is devoted to woodlands. Some of these woodlands lie within the Sumter National Forest, which comprises about one-third of the county.
Areas not accounted for in the county land-use survey are classed as "other" and consist primarily of managed forests, croplands, pasture, unmanaged woodlands, public thoroughfares, utility rights-of-way, i so- 14 lated abandoned housing sites, and old abandoned rights-of-way.
3.1.2.3 Hampton County
In June 1977, the Low Country Council of Governments estimated the acre- age in each category of existing land use in Hampton County (see Table 3.11).
Hampton County encompasses 359,680 acres of land. Of this total acreage, residential, commercial, and industrial lands comprise only 7123 acres, or 2 percent of the county. Of this 2 percent, 5683 acres are residen- tial, 806 acres are commercial, and 634 acres are industrial. The heavi- est development has occurred in the Hampton-Varnvi11 e area. In contrast, agriculture, particularly timber farming, is the county's dominant land- use activity. Forests cover 231,415 acres, or 64.4 percent, of Hampton County. Agricultural lands comprise 118,002 acres, 32.8 percent, of the county's total acreage. "
Public lands and water comprise 3080 acres, or about 1 percent of the remaining portion of the county, with 1137 acres or land controlled by 15 the public and 1943 acres of water surface area.
3.1.2.4 Lexington County
Lexington County has a land area of 716 square miles. Using the "Gener- alized Existing Land Use" map prepared by the Central Midlands Regional Planning Council in July of 1977, an estimate of the percentage of the 3-26 i if
i
Table 3-11 Present land-use types for Hampton County, South Carolina, in 1977a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Res i dent i al 5,683 1.6 Commercial 806 0.2 1ndustr i al 634 0.2 Forest 231,415 64.4 Agr i cu1tura1 118,062 32.8 Pub 1ic 1,137 0.3 Water 1,943 0.5 Total 395,680 100.0 aSource: Low Country, Council of Governments, Low Country Policy Frame- work for Regional Development, Yemassee, S.C., June 1977. 3-27 land area of the county dedicated to different categories of land use was made and is presented in Table 3-12.^ It should be realized that for the last three years, Lexington County has been one of the fastest grow- ing counties in the U.S. Residential, commercial, and industrial land uses have expanded considerably since 1977.
Residential areas in 1977 comprised approximately 20 percent of the coun- ty, most of which occurred in and adjacent to the communities of West Columbia, Lexington, Irmo, South Congaree, Pine Ridge, Swansea, Gaston, Chapin, Batesburg, Gilbert, and Leesville. The shore areas of Lake Mur- ray have been subject to greatly increasing residential development, as has the area between West Columbia and Lexington, and especially the St. Andrews area, which has grown the most rapidly of all the county's urban- . . 16 izing areas.
As of 1977, approximately 1 percent of the land area of the county had been used for commercial activities. Commercial land uses are generally in or near the urban areas of the eastern portion of the county.^
Industrial land and mining and quarries each occupy approximately 1 per- cent of the county, and are mostly located in the eastern portions of the county,^ Since 1977, industrial land use has expanded greatly along the Interstate Highway 20 and Highway 26 corridor near Lexington and West Columbi a.^
Agricultural land, primarily cropland and orchards, represents approxi- mately 35 percent of the county's area and is located in the western and southern portions. Public and institutional lands (approximately 2 per- cent of the county land area) include major educational facilities, air- ports, and major recreational areas. Lake Murray and other bodies of water account for approximately 10 percent of the county. Undeveloped lands comprise about 30 percent of the county and are scattered through- out the rural portions of the county.^ 3-28
Table 3-12 Presetu. land-use types for Lexingcon County, South Carolina, in 15)77*
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Resi dent i al 3't ,ohh 20.0 Commercial 4,582 1.0 Industrial 4,582 1.0 Mining and quarries 4,582 1.0 Agr i cu1tura1 160,384 35.0 Public and institutional 9,165 2.0 Water 45,824 10.0 Undeve i oped 137,473 30.0 Total 458,240 100.0 aSource: Central Midlands Regional Planning Counc Lend Resources Management Plan for the Year 2000, Columbia, S.C., Julv 1977. 3-2?
3. "1.2.5 Orangeburg County
Gi'ti.vjfcburg County, the largest county in South Carolina, has a land are- of /'J/,200 acres. In !977> the Lower Syvannah Council of Government'., 17 i r, ..iiitoi i eci th~ land types of the county. The acreages and the per- centages of various land use types oF the total area are presented in Table 3.13.
Orangeburg County has a total of 7^56 acres or 1.1 percent of urban and built-up land, This acreage is concentrated in and around the incorpo, ated areas. Rural development is dispersed through the county, wi tr. concentrations of housing located along Lake Marion, Sandy Run, Provi- dence, Sandridge, Boien Town, and Wolfton.^
Agriculture is the largest: single use of land in Orangeburg County, con- stituting 310,'l32 acres, or 44 percent, of the county area. The greatest concentration of agricultural land is found around the City of Orange- burg, east of Four Hole Swamp and in the southwestern section oF the county.
Second in size to agricultural land is forest land which comprises 256,640 acres or nearly 37 percent of the total land of the county. The largest conceritration is located in the south-central portion of ths county between the cities and towns of Orangeburg, Braiichvi 1 1 e, and Bow- man. Smaller areas are found around Sandy Run, Saritee State Park, and adjacent to Caw Caw Swamp ar>d the North Fork of the Edisto River near the town of North.^
Wetland is the third largest category of land in Orangeburg Ccur-Ly (119,008 acres), and is typically found In stream bottomlands, Carolina 17 bays, arid swamps. \\ Water bodies occupy 9933j acres or about ! percent of the land ares of the county, with the portic/i of Lake Marion within Orangeburg County making 3-30
Table 3-13 Present land-use types for Oranyeburq Cotint-y, South Carolina, in I977a
Approximate Approximate per Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and built up 7,456 1.1 Agr i cultural 3 10,'132 44.0 Forest 256 ,6^0 36.3 Water 9,933 1.4 Wet land 119,008 16.9 Barren 192 (b) Unclassified 1,747 0.3 Total 705,408 100.0
Actual total of county area 7i> 7,200° — aSource: Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Orange- burg County, South Carolina, Orangeburg, S.C., April T978.
^Less than 0.1 percent. CU.S. Bureau of Census. 3-31 up the majority of this acreage. There is a total of 71 lakes of 10 acres or more in size within the county. These lakes have a total sui— face area of 1597 acres.^
The 192 acres of barren land, scattered throughout the county in small parcels, constitute the smallest land type in the county.^
3.1.2.6 Saluda County
The present land-use inventory of Saluda County was estimated by using updated 1973 data (see Table 3-14). Agricultural and forest lands occupy approximately 93 percent of the total area of the county, or 282,900 acres. Four percent of the county consists of urban and built-up areas. 18 Major water surfaces constitute almost 2 percent of the county.
About 104,000 acres or 37 percent of the total area of the county is utilized as cropland and pasture. The prime croplands are in the south- ern section of the county and in the coastal plains region. Pastureland is well dispersed throughout the remainder of the rural sections of the «. 18 county.
Approximately 56 percent of the total area of che county is in forest land, including 111,500 acres of nonmanaged woodlands and 47,200 acres of managed woodlands. Wooded areas are scattered throuqhout the county, and 18 the predominant forest type is loblolly pine.
Approximately 11,642 acres are urban and built-up areas. Most of the urban and built-up land is concentrated in and around the incorporated communities of Saluda, Ridge Spring, Batesburg, Monetta, and Ward. Some residential and commercial development is located at rural crossroads and along major highways. Of the 11,642 acres of urban or built-up areas, public and semi public land uses constitute approximately 80 percent, residential development about 17-5 percent, industrial areas about 1.5 18 percent, and commercial development approximately 1.0 percent. 3-32
Table 3.14 Present land-use types for Saluda County, South Carolina, in 1973a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Urban and built up 11,642 4.0 Agr icultural 104,000 37.0 Forest 158,700 56.0 Water 5,440 2.0 Land not Inventoried 3,118 1.0 Total 282,900 100.0
aSource: LBC6W Consultants/Planning-Research-Management, Inc., Update: Land Use Plan Saluda County, S.C. - The Year 2000, Columbia, S.C., April 1977. 3-33
Approximately 5300 acres are comprised of natural drainage areas (rivers and streams) and water storage. The portion of Lake Hurray within the county accounts for the largest acreage of water cover. Most of the streams in the county drain into the Saluda River and Lake Murray through the Little Saluda River and through Clouds, Richland, Big Indian, and Halfway Swamp Creeks. Many natural and manmade farm ponds are located 18 within the county.
3.1.2.7 Screven County
The Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission staff conducted a land-use survey of Screven County in 1975 and 1976 (see Table 3.15). Over 96 percent of the land, or approximately 396,000 acres, is fievacand at s odeveloper used fod r landagricultur. 19 e and the remaining,14,67ii 5 acres is classi-
Of the county's developed acreage, 59 percent is occupied by transporta- tion, structures, communication equipment, and utility rights-of-way. Areas of industrial development comprise 14 percent or approximately 2060 acres, and residential areas comprise about 13 percent of the total de- veloped area or 1910 acres. Airports, churches, cemeteries, and other public and semipublic land uses occupy over 12 percent of the developed 19 area.
Commercial land uses occupy more of than 110 acres or only 0.8 percent of the developed area. Recreation/residential, such as summer homes and cottages along the Savannah River, account for 0.4 percent of the coun- 19 ty's total developed area. 3-34
Table 3.15 Present land-use types for Screven County, Georgia, in 1975 and 1976a
Approximate Approximate percent Land-use type acreage of total
Res i dent ial 1,910 0.5 Recreati onal/resi denti al 65 (b) Commerc ial 110 (b) Industrial 2,060 0.5 Transportation, communications and uti1ities 8,660 2.1 Public and semipublic 1,870 0.5 Vacant and agricultural 396,098 96.4 Inventory total 410,773 100.0 aSource: Planning Staff, Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Master Development Plan and Program Sy1 vania/Screven County, Augusta, Ga., April1976.
^Less than 0.1 percent. 3-35
3,2 FUTURE LAND USE
In general, the projected future land use oF the study area is very simi- lar to the existing land-use patterns summarized in Table 3.16 (see Fig- ure 3.2). Developed urban land, which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses, is projected to increase by 2 percent in the next 20 years. The largest percentage of this growth is expected to occur in Aiken, Columbia, Lexington, and Richmond Counties. The expected growth in Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond Counties will be due to the anticipated expansion of the Augusta metropolitan area. In Lexington County, such development is a reflection of continued growth of the Columbia, South Carolina, metropolitan area.
Agricultural land throughout the study area is undergoing a transition From smaller operations to larger, consolidated, more efficient farms. This trend is expected to continue. Agriculture will have a continued role in the economic viability of the study area. This is especially true in the rural areas of Allendale, Burke, Bamberg, Barnwell, Edge- field, Hampton, Orangeburg, Saluda, and Screven Counties.
A majority of the county land-use plans consulted identified a need to preserve environmentally sensitive lands, such as Carolina bays and other wetlands. Other natural areas, such as forests and woodlands, are pro- jected to be more extensively used for lumbering operations. In addition to supplying pulpwood, these forested areas are expected to continue to serve as valuable outdoor recreational areas, with some expansion of existing sites and development of new ones. The two largest areas dedi- cated to outdoor recreation are the Sumter National Forest in the north- ern part of the study area and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers holdings on the Clark Hill Reservoir. Other areas that are expected to serve a major portion of recreational requirements in the next 20 years are dis- cussed in section 8.2. Expansion and development of recreational areas are expected in every county of the study area. 3-36
Table 3-16 Summary of present land uses (1979) for primary and secondary study areas^
1979 "r"~Approx:mate Approximate percen Land-use. type acreage ^ of total
D&veloped Ijnds, urban and built up >577 Public and samipublic 168,780 3.4 Agricultural, Forest, open space, water 4,499,378 90-9 l.ancl not inventoried 33,713 0-7 Total 4,951,448 iGO.O a3ources: See references 1-19. 3-37
\
I0l.l>
LIVINGSTON M IFCESES SMU>GFIHN|
]V V
A L M VANIIAH FUW _SJT|F
^ATNISBOHO BURKE -V
j M _J» FAWF; i t \ / \ Now: lAMPTtyN Had ISI infornutio* not nUli / ESTILIH tar Birin County. \ k / o X < <-JT NTWINCTON^ ORNL-DWG 81-15206
FIGURE 3.2 FUTURE URBAN, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STUDY AREAS
LEGEND
URBAN. RESIDENTIAL. COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
ft SCALE S O g » 15 JO MILES
SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PUNT AREA V J 3-39
3-2.1 Primary study area
3.2.1.1 Aiken County
The Aiken County land-use plan for the year 2000 was prepared in June, 1978. The plan indicates that an increase in residential, commercial, industrial, public, and semi-public land uses will occur. The land-use plan is based on three assumptions:^
1 k \ o A series of policies and practices will be established to extend the existing patterns of the "harmonious development" of the county.
o The actual population in the year 2000 will approximately match the population projections for that year, and the county will not change the density of development beyond what would be considered a normal adjustment.
o Most development will expand along the existing and proposed transportation network.
Based on these assumptions, residential land use is expected to increase in acreage by 36 percent, or approximately 4283 acres between 1976 and 2000. In 1976, the residential land-use density or number of dwelling units per acre was calculated to be approximately 2.9. By 2000, the housing density is expected to drop to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Although sparse, low-density residential development is expected to con- tinue in the rural areas, most of the additional high-density residential development is expected to occur in the vacant sections of the urban- suburban areas. Major factors affecting the location of future residen- tial concentrations include the availability of jobs, transportation routes, and utilities.'' Commercial land-use activities are expected to follow anticipated resi- dential growth. The greatest majority of commercial development will 3-40 probably occur in the urban and urban fringe areas in the form of shop- ping centers and similar commercial areas. The present trend toward strip development along major traffic arteries will be discouraged except where adequate parking and frontage roads are provided.^
The completion of the Bobby Jones Expressway into South Carolina may stimulate new commercial development near interchanges. The seven exist- ing Interstate Highway 20 interchanges are expected to be commercially developed by 2000.1
Since a large portion of Aiken County is a part of the metropolitan area of Augusta, much of the commercial land needs of the county's population are expected to be absorbed in the metropolitan area. However, as land in Richmond and Columbia Counties, Georgia, becomes increasingly scarce and more expensive, commercial development may increase significantly in Aiken County.^
In contrast to commercial development, Aiken County officials have found industrial trends development difficult to project. Variables, such as capital investment required to locate industry, local and national econo- mies, market feasibility, and labor force availability make such projec- tions difficult.''
The same is true for public and semipubiic land use development projec- tions as decisions are generally determined by individuals and groups, such as the Aiken County Consolidated School District, the Aiken County Public Service Authority, the Aiken Community Hospital, various churches, and water districts.^
Aiken County has designated prime agricultural lands, prime forest land, and environmentally sensitive areas as open space with the hope of pro- tecting these areas from extensive development. 3-41
3.2.1.2 Allendale County
Allendale County does not have a county-level land-use plan. However, in April of 1978, the Lower Savannah Council of Governments prepared the Land Use Plan Update; Lower Savannah Region in which the general plan- ning goals of the Lower Savannah Region, including Allendale County, are identified. The plan allows for limited residential, commercial, and industrial expansion in and between Allendale and Fairfax and within the 3 incorporated towns of Sycamore and Ulmer.
Agricultural land use is projected to continue to cover large portions of the county. Limited residential, commercial, and industrial uses will be permitted in the area currently used for agricultural purposes, under specified conditions, based on the size of the parcel and the availabil- ity of utility services.^
No residential, commercial, or industrial structures are planned to be allowed in environmentally sensitive and hazardous lands such as stream and river bottomlands and Carolina bays which are flood prone or have a high water table.^
3.2.1.3 Bamberg County
The Bamberg County land-use plan for the 1977 to 2000 planning period was prepared in June, 1977 for the Bamberg County Planning Commission by the Lower Savannah Council of Governments. The plan allows for limited de- velopment of urban and built-up areas, encourages an increase in agricul- tural production and is structured to protect environmentally sensitive 14 land and discourage development in hazardous areas.
For planning purposes, the Bamberg County Planning Commission made the basic assumption that Bamberg County will remain essentially rural. Population is projected to grow steadily with most of the increase ex- pected in and around Bamberg and Denmark. When the county reaches its anticipated plateau of population the urban areas are expected to be 3-42 self-supporting. New housing, commercial, public, semipublic and indus- trial development is expected to take place within existing urban and built-up areas. Urban and built-up areas include land in and around the incorporated towns of Bamberg, Denmark, Ehrhardt, Govan, and Olar.
The proposed urban and built-up areas in and around Bamberg and Denmark are consistent with local development plans for these municipalities. Denmark and Olar are located in areas where the soils are suited for most types of urban development, and Bamberg and Ehrhardt are located on soils having a moderate limitation for urban development.
Further urban development in Bamberg County is recommended in areas which are presently urbanized or areas which are immediately adjacent to urban- ized areas. These areas provide existing services and utilities and do not require expensive additions to services which are required to support area urbanization. Therefore, higher intensity urban development will be encouraged in the cities of Bamberg and Denmark.
Less intensive urban activities, such as medium to low density residen- tial, neighborhood and highway commercial activities, and schools, parks, churches and government buildings are encouraged in areas adjacent to the cities of Bamberg and Denmark.
Because of the rural nature of Bamberg County, low density residential areas, minor retail and highway commerical activity, churches, recreation and public building such as post offices or town halls are encouraged for it Ehrhardt, Olar and Govan.
Much of the area recommended for urban and built-up use is located in incorporated areas, the county's current centers of urban development, which are outside of the planning jurisdiction of the county. All incor- porated areas in Bamberg County have jurisdiction over themselves, and must plan their own development. Local governments have the responsibil- Ity for detailed land-use planning within their corporate limits. 3-43
As would be expected, agricultural land constitutes most of the land of
the county, with the exception of land in and adjacent to incorporated
and wetland areas. Activities included within agricultural land use are
crop production, cattle and dairy farming, timber production, and proces-
sing of agricultural products. Residential, commercial, and industrial
uses are also permitted under specified conditions relative to the size
of the parcel and the availability of public or private utility ser- 4 vices.
As in the Aiken County plan, no residential, commercial, or industrial structures are planned to be allowed within areas that are environment- it
ally sensitive and/or hazardous.
3.2.1.4 Barnwell County
The Barnwell County land-use plan for the 1977 to 2000 planning period
was prepared in June of 1977 for the Barnwell County Planning Commission
by the Lower Savannah Council of Governments.^
According to the plan, a very small percentage of the undeveloped agri-
cultural and forest land of Barnwell County is expected to be converted
into urban and built-up land uses. The intent of the future land-use
plan for the unincorporated areas of the county is to offer policies for
efficient management of non-urban areas and to provide for a reasonable
amount of low-density, nonagricultural growth in the unincorporated rural
areas.^
The basic assumption of the plan 's that the county will remain essen-
tially a rural agricultural-industrial county. Population is projected
to grow steadily in the major urban areas of Barnwell, Blackville, and
Williston. The delineation of urban areas in and around Blackville,
Barnwell, and Williston are consistent with local development plans.
Barnwell, Elko, Blackville, Williston, and Kline are located on soils
suited for most types of urban development, and Hilda, and Snelling are
located on soils having moderate limitations for urban development."* 3-44
Many of the areas recommended for further urban and built-up development are located outside the planning jurisdiction of the county in the coun- ty's incorporated areas. These areas are the county's current centers of urban development. Local governments have the responsibility for de- tailed land-use planning only within their corporate limits. Barnwell City is the only incorporated town that has extraterritorial jurisdiction to plan for areas within 1 mile of its corporate limits."*
Urban and built-up land includes land in and around the incorporated areas and the area adjacent to the Savannah River Plant. In general, these areas are planned for urban activity because of their location in relation to existing facilities, or because of the development potential of the area. The future urban and built-up land allocations reflect existing and potential urban activity and are based on existing and plan- ned future services, such as water and sewer, rather than on what the land may be best suited for."*
As in the case of the other three South Carolina counties in the primary study area, the trend of farm consolidation and mechanization is expected to continue. At an undefined time, the population is expected to stabi- lize and the economy is expected to reach a balance between agricultural and nonagricultural activities due to the growing scarcity of natural and manmade resources. Limited residential, commercial, and industrial uses may also be permitted under specified conditions relative to the size of the parcel and to the availability of applicable public or private util- ity services.^
In addition, no residential, commercial, or industrial structures are planned to be allowed on environmentally sensitive and/or hazardous lands.^
3.2.1.5 Columbia County
The Columbia County land-use plan for 1979 to 2000 was prepared in 1979 by the Columbia County Planning Commission. The plan allows for residen- 3-45 tial, commercial and industrial urban development in the Martinez-Evans planning area.
Development in the Martinez-Evans planning area consists of three dis- tinct sub-areas: a small, comparatively dense, primary development area; a slightly larger and less densely settled secondary development belt; and an area of development reserved between the secondary development belt and the rural, agricultural lands in the remaining two county plan- ning areas. The primary development area is bound by Richmond County, Reed Creek, Washi ngton Road, and F1owing We11s Road, and is mos11y deve1 — oped except for several scattered large and small tracts.^
The secondary development belt extends into the county to the limits of the existing and proposed urban services. The majority of the future development of the county can most economically be accommodated in this way. The suburban reserve area extends out to Uchee Creek. Within this area, large-scale development will be discouraged unless water and sewer services are available or the developer agrees to bear the financial burden of providing adequate service.^
The influence of Fort Gordon and Interstate Highway 20 and the addition of a sewage system in Grovetown are expected to cause growth to continue in the Grovetown-Har1 em planning area. Expanded future development is likely in the eastern and southern portions of the area around Grovetown £ and immediately surrounding Harlem.
The Appling planning area is expected to continue to maintain its present slow-growth character. Recreational development associated with the Clark Hill Reservoir is expected to continue but will be limited by the U.S. Corps of Engineers holdings in the area.^
In addition to indicating these general areas of development, the Colum- bia County Planning Commission has identified several areas where indus- trial development may occur. These areas are:^ 3-46
o Two existing industrial parks, one located between Old Evans Road and Evans to Lock Road adjacent to the Seaboard Coast Line Rail- road, and the other south of Interstate Highway 20 and Bel air Road
o Two large areas bounded by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and Belair Road and Furys Ferry Road
o An area west of Grovetown between Georgia 223 and Wrightsboro Road
o An area east of Harlem between Georgia 78 and the Georgia Railroad.
As was the case in the planning for the four South Carolina counties in the primary study area, the trend of farm consolidation and mechanization is expected to continue. At an undefined time, the population is ex- pected to stablize and the economy is expected to reach a balance between agricultural and nonagricultural activities because of the growing scarc- ity of natural and manmade resources. Limited residential, commercial and industrial uses may also be permitted under specified conditions ij relative to the size of the parcei and to the availability of public or private utility services.^
In addition, no residential, commercial, or industrial structures are planned to be allowed within the environmentally sensitive and/or hazard- 6 ous areas.
3.2.1.6 Richmond County
The most recent information on the needs and goals of Richmond County are based on the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commis- sion's Area Development Plan^ prepared in March, 1980 and the Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS): Year 2000 Street and Highway Plan Documentation prepared in April 1978 by the Augusta-Richmond County Plan- ning Commission in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transporta- tion, the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transporta- tion, and the Federal Highway Administration. The last land-use plan 3-47 prepared specifically for Richmond County was completed in 1968 and has not been updated since then. It is possible that the needs and goals of 22 the county may have changed, but no documentation exists.
The Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission developed a concept of future land use for the ARTS for the year 2000, locating major residen- tial, commercial, industrial, and public areas. The assumption was made that public investment to support unrestrained development would continue to be fairly limited. Major expansion of sewer and water facilities and transportation networks were considered to be highly unlikely. This limited expansion of services is expected to stimulate the filling in of areas currently overlooked for development. This concept was combined with the projected growth pattern of the ARTS Citizens Advisory Commit- tee, which assumed that the existing development trends would continue in the future and that governmental action would follow rather than guide 22 development.
The Area Development Plan outlined the overall plan for physical develop- ment of the Central Savannah River Area, including Richmond County, based on existing regional settlement, directions of regional growth, and phys- iographic limitations to regional development. To effectively anticipate future regional development, the Area Development Plan was based on a regional population estimate of 500,000 persons by the year 2000. The Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission identi- fied the City of Augusta and the surrounding metropolitan area, which includes portions of both Richmond and Columbia Counties as the only primary regional center in the Central Savannah River Area. It was esti- mated that, the population of this primary regional center would be 371,000 persons by the year 2000. Even though there has been no assess- ment of timberland, cropland, and pastureland productivity in Richmond- County, the regional planning commission does recognize the importance of the region's agricultural resources and will seek to protect them. In Richmond County, these regions are limited to its western portion, a large section of which (i.e., the Fort Gordon Military Reservation) is g under Federal Government control. 3-48
Environmentally sensitive areas within Richmond County are the Savannah River and its tributaries and adjacent flood-prone areas and swamplands. The Savannah River and its tributaries are essential to the region's water supply and recreational resources. County and regional planning officials propose to protect the river and its tributaries from develop- ment that could impair their value as a regional resource. The regional planning commission is also planning to limit development in flood-prone areas and swampland, because their water-retention capabilities aid in 9
creating a natural system of regional flood control.
3-2.2 Secondary study area
3-2.2.1 Burke County
There is no specific future land-use plan for Burke County. However, the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission has pre- pared a Waynesboro land-use plan and a general development plan for the Central Savannah River Area. Thus, a generic overview of Burke County's future land use, based on these two documents is provided below.
Although the county experienced a slight drop in population between 1970 and 1975, the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Com- mission projects the county population to increase at a steady but moder- ate rate. The Commission also anticipates an increase in employment during the next 20 years and cites this as a contributing factor in the county's population growth. To encourage the increase in employment, the Commission regards the introduction of new and diversified industries as an important element in Burke County's future development. This is par- ticularly true in Waynesboro. Currently, 85 percent of the county's total manufacturing employment is located in that city. In the city's land-use plan, large, tracts of currently undeveloped land In the east and southwest sectors are projected to become manufacturing areas in the future.^ There is curently under construction a two reactor nuclear power plant near Waynesboro. The Vogtle Plant is being con- structed by Georgia Power Company and is scheduled for completion in 1988. 3-49
In contrast, agricutural and agriculture-related activities are antici- pated to remain one of the dominant land-use categories of the county and the city. The Waynesboro land-use plan foresees acreage in the city's northwest and southeast sectors remaining primarily agricultural. The Central Savannah River Area development plan stresses the importance of the region's agriculture and suggests directing other forms of regional 9 10 13 land use away from prime agricultural lands. ' '
Residential and commercial land uses are expected to continue to cluster around the county's towns. The Commission foresees Waynesboro as a sec- ondary regional center* in the future, serving individuals beyond the county's borders. The Waynesboro land-use plan calls for the establish- ment and continued expansion of commercial nodes or centers, rather than haphazard development. Residential land use, however, is projected to grow faster than the other land-use categories, particularly in the city's north-northwest sectors and in the areas south of the central Georgia Railroad tracks1^
Both the city and the regional development plans address environmentally sensitive areas. The Savannah and the Ogeechee Rivers are important regional resources and their tributaries, flood-prone areas, and swamp- lands are located in Burke County. The two plans, therefore, limit de- velopment in these sensitive areas because of the river's valuable envi- 9 13 ronmental qualities and for their importance in flood control.
*As defined by the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, secondary regional centers will be the cities with popula- tions averaging approximately 15,000 persons by the year 2000, including development adjacent to the existing city. 3-50
3.2.2.2 Edgefield County
Edgefield County's land-use plan was prepared in July, 1973. The plan allows for the expansion of industrial, residential, commercial, public, education, and recreation land uses and addresses the need to preserve prime agricultural lands.
A major component of the plan is the policies guiding industrial develop- ment. The proposed industrial areas generally will be an expansion of existing sites. The expansion of the industrial area near North Augusta at the intersection of Interstate Highway 20 and Highway 25 probably will result from an increased availability of labor and the proximity to In- terstate Highway 20. These industrial sites along U.S. Route 378 in the northern tier of the county have excellent access to the labor market in Edgefield and the surrounding counties. These sites are outside the 14 urbanized sections of Edgefield.
Residential growth in other parts of the county is projected to be a continuation of the present urbanizing trend. Urban concentrations are anticipated to develop around the Pine Ridge Country Club and Thurmond High School areas and near the new industrial areas proposed along U.S. Route 378.^
Commercial activities are planned to center around the downtown shopping areas of Edgefield, Johnston, and Trenton. These areas can continue to provide county residents with convenience shopping without increasing their square footage. The plan notes, however, that if these areas are to retain or increase their trade, they are in need of imnediate rehabil- itation. 14
To complement these activities, the plan suggests that neighborhood fa- cilities be developed to serve the residential areas outside Edgefield, Johnston, Trenton, and North Augusta. These areas are proposed to be 14 located along the major transportation corridors. 3-51
The plan stresses the need to preserve the county's prime agricultual areas. It is expected, however, that the agricultural lands and other rural land uses will remain primarily in their current state. Larger farms are expected to continue to operate In the rural areas whereas smaller farms are anticipated to return to a managed forest or woodland 14 use. ,
3.2.2.3 Hampton County
Hampton County does not have a county-wide land-use plan, nor has the Low Country Policy Framework for Regional Development prepared by the Low Country Council of Governments been released to the public, as of March 198!.^ The following discussion of Hampton County future land use Is based on the Low Country Overall Economic Development Program Update; 1976-1980 23 , prepared by the Low Country Council of Governments, and by 24 the Land Use Survey and Analysis; Hampton County, South Carolina. This latter document was prepared by the South Carolina Office of the Governor, Division of Administration, Physical and Economic Development, in June, 1973.
The Low Country planning area, which includes Hampton County, is experi- encing growth in industrial development, and continued increases are 23 planned for the region.
In addition, Hampton County has abundant forest resources that support the wood-based industries in the region. These wooded areas are also excellent sources for yet undeveloped recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing. Recreational facilities are projected to increase in number and scope such as, the proposed 332-acre Lake Warren State Park to be located in the center of the county approximately equidistant from Varnvllle and Estill. The Hampton-Varnvi11 e Complex and Estill are ex- 23 pected to remain the major urban areas of the county.
Most of the commercial and Industrial uses are expected to be concen- 23 trated in and near the two urban areas mentioned above. 3-52
3.2.2.A Lexington County
In April, 1974, the Lexington County Comprehensive Plan was approved by 25 the Lexington County Planning Commission. The plan identified a schedule for adopting zoning regulation;; for the I rmo-Dutch Fork area. In June, 1976, in the Land Use Plans; Lexington County, South Caro- 26 ' ' 1 i na, the Lexington County Oepsf.iri ent of Planning and Development identified three high-priority piann'inci" areas: the eastern Lexington County area, the Lexington-Red Bank' area, and the Lake Murray-Chapin area. The above'documents and the Lan£ Resources Management Plan for the Year 2000, prepared by the Central 'Mil;,^.nds Regional Planning Council in July 1977» are the basis for the discussion of the future land use of 1 £ Lexington County.
Lexington County is expected to continue to be the fastest growing county in the Central Midlands Region in the short- and long-term future. Im- mediate growth is anticipated^to.occur in three areas, near St. Andrews, the area around the town of Lexington and the fringe of West Columbia and Cayce, where there is water availability and sewer systems access. On a long-term basis, as the county water system is established, a major new development is expected to occur between the Town of Lexington and West Columbia. Development also is expected to expand along the U.S. Route 1 and Interstate Highway 20 corridor west of Lexington. Additional resi- dential development is expected in the South Congaree, Pine Ridge, and 25 Gaston areas and along the shores of Lake Murray.
Industrial growth will be encouraged in the U.S. Route 1 and Interstate Highway 20 corridor because the soils are not well suited for agricul- 25 tural or forestry uses.
Even though there are successful farms being operated throughout the county, two prime.agricultural areas in Lexington County have been iden- tified as occurring in a belt between U.S. Route 1 and U.S. Route 378, 3-53 and the Swansea area. Efforts may be made in the future to preserve these areas from urban development and to encourage more intensive agricultura- i- lT uses. 2, 5
3.2.2.5 Orangeburg County
The Orangeburg County Land Use Plan for the 1977 to 2000 planning period was prepared in April, 1978 for the Orangeburg Coui.ty Planning Commission by the Lower Savannah Council, of Governments. The, plan allows for lim- ited growth of urban and built-up areas, encourages an increase in agri- cultural production and is structured to protect environmentally sensi- tive land and/or hazardous areas.^
The urban and built-up lands include land in and around the incorporated areas of the county and the area adjacent to Lake Marion.^
Because of the basically rural nature of Orangeburg Co., further urban development is encouraged in those areas that are presently urbanized. New development is preferred in. any "holes" which exist in urbanized areas or in areas immediately adjacent to urbanized areas. Based on this criterion urban development is// encouraged in Orangeburg City, North, Branchville, Holly Hill, Elloree and Santee.^ f Less intensive urban activities, such as medium to, low density residen- tial, neighborhood and highway commercial activities, and schools, parks, churches and government buildings, are encouraged in areas adjacent to existing urban areas. These include areas around Orangeburg, Holly Hill, Elloree, Branchville and Santee.^
Woodford, Livingston, Neeses, Cope, Cordova, Rowesville, Vance, and Eu- tawvile are recommended for medium and low density residential areas, minor retail and highway commercial activity, churches, recreation and public buildings such as post offices or town halls.^ This type of development does not require large expenditures by the communities to pay for the extension of sewer and water lines to newly developed areas. 3-54
In contrast, most of the land of the county is agricultural, except for land within and Immediately adjacent to the larger streams and wetland areas. Residential, commercial, and industrial uses may also be per- mitted under specified conditions in prime agricultural land.^
3.2.2.6 Saluda County
The Saluda County land-use plan for the year 2000 was prepared in April, 1977, for the Saluda Joint County-Municipal Planning Commission. The plan Is based on the assumption that the population of the county will moderately Increase by the year 2000. Only a slight modification of the 18 existing land use pattern is expected.
Future development of urban and built-up land, particularly for residen- tial, commercial, and industrial uses, is expected to be located primar- ily in and near the towns of Saluda, Batesburg, and Ridge Spring and, to a limited extent, in Ward and Monetta. Additional residential, recrea- tional, and commercial uses are anticipated along the Lake Murray shore- line. Also, the county is encouraging development of suitable vacant 18 parcels within the towns of the county.
Public and semi-public land development is expected to be in and near population centers. Future land requirements for educational facilities // will probably remain the same as for present needs, because emphasis is 18 being placed on replacing or remodeling existing structures.
Commercial development serving the entire county is expected to be con- centrated in the towns of Saluda and Ridge Spring. The Batesburg- ,. Leesville commercial area just southeast of the county line in Lexington 18 County Is also expected to serve Saluda County commercial needs.
In addition, increased forest production is expected to occur in suitable wooded areas of the county. On the whole, the economic and environmental character of Saluda County Is expected to be affected favorably by agri- 18 cultural activities, forests, and water bodies. 3-55
3.2.2.7 Screven County
The Screven County Land Use Plan for the 1975 to 1995 planning period was prepared in April, 1976 by the Central Planning and Development Commis- sion planning staff for the Sy1 vania/Screven County Planning Commission. The plan delineates the anticipated development trends and requirements for residential, commerical, industrial, public, and rural areas in the 19 incorporated and unincorporated portions of the county.
Continued out-migration from Screven County is also projected and will be caused primarily by a decline in agricultural employment. Very little growth is expected in Athe towns of Hilltonia, Newington, Oliver, and )r Rocky Ford. These areas primarily depend on Sylvania for goods and ser- vices. 19
Significant population increases are expected during the next 20 years, and the Central Savannah River Area Planning Commission has projected signifcant growth in the county's residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. It is anticipated that, while Augusta remains the region's primary metropolitan center, Sylvania will become a secondary regional * g center , eventually serving an area larger than Screven County.
*As defined by the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, secondary regional centers will be the cities with popula- tions averaging approximately 15,000 persons by the year 2000, including development adjacent to the existing city. 3-56
3.3 LAND-USE REGULATION
The land-use controls or planning tools most commonly used in the study area by local and county governments are zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes and permits, and the regulation of mobile homes and trailer park development (see Table 3-17)» Other planning tools not widely used or totally absent from the study area are develop- ment standards, utility extensions or moratoriums, floodplain regulation and flood insurance, environmental regulations, and tax incentives.
3-3.1 County land-use regulations
Overall, only three counties in the primary and secondary study areas, Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, have county zoning ordinances. Zoning ordinances typically divide the planning jurisdiction into dis- tricts according to use, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural,10'27'39
Six of the thirteen counties in the study area have county subdivision 10 27-39 regulations. ' Subdivision regulations normally are applied in advance of the development of a community and, if properly enforced, the
regulations ensure 1tha7 t the new community is designed and constructed according to plan. Aiken, Columbia, Richmond, Lexington, Burke, and Saluda Counties all have some form of subdivision regulations. In addi- tion, Orangeburg County is considering adopting subdivision regulations, whereas Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Edgefield, Screven, and Hampton Counties do not regulate subdivisions.
County-enforced building codes and/or county-issued building permits af- fect seven of the counties in the study area. Building codes ensure that new construction and existing structures meet minimum established stan- dards (I.e., plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes).^ Bamberg, Barnwell, Columbia, Richmond, Burf Table 3-17 County land-use controls in the primary and secondary study areas3 Mob i1e Bu i1d i ng home codes and trailer Subd ivi si on or park County Zon i ng regulat ions permi ts regulations Pr imary study area Aiken No Yes (b) No AIlendale No No No NoC Bamberg No No Yes Yes Barnwel1 No No Yes NoC Columbi a Yes Yes Yes Yes Richmond Yes Yes Yes Yes Secondary study area Burke Yes Yes Yes Yes Edgefield No \io Yes Noc Hampton No Ho Yes Noc Lexington Yes^ Yes Yes NoC Orangeburg No (|j) (b) Noc C Saluda No YOB€ lb) No Screven tyi (Jh Non aSources: See references 10 qntl J'7~19. bUnd er cons I deration. cState regulated to mainta(|-| h^ltll Si-fliulfll'rlS< ^Seven Oaks area. eLake Murray area. 3-58 additional counties (Aiken, Orangeburg and Saluda) are considering insti- tuting a building permit and code system. The rural counties of Allen- dale and Screven do not have any building codes or permitting proce- dure.10'27"39 The counties of Bamberg, Burke, Columbia, and Richmond have some form of county-wide mobile home or trailer park regulation. Mobile home ordi- nances are typically designed to ensure that mobile home parks are lo- cated and developed under conditions that do not diminish environmental quality, adversely affect other land values, or jeopardize the health and living conditions of the residents.^7 In addition to county mobile home regulations, all of the counties are subject to state health regula- 20 27- tions affecting mobile home water use and sewage disposal systems. ' 39 These regulations are enforced by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental r * , ^O-'tf Control. 3-3.2 Community land-use regulations Within the study area, 51 percent of the 82 incorporated and unincorpor- ated communities have at least one of the following regulations: zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes and permits, and mobile home and trailer park regulations. In the primary study area, Aiken, North Augusta, Bamberg, and Denmark in South Carolina, and Grove- town, Harlem, and Augusta in Georgia, have all four types of land-use controls. Additionally, Richmond County's communities which do not have land-use controls are subject to countywide land-use regulations. Within the secondary study area, Batesburg, Cayce, Lexington, Springdale, and Orangeburg, in South Carolina and Sylvania and Waynesboro, Georgia, are covered by these four types of land-use regulations. In contrast, 13 communities in the primary study area and 22 in the secondary study area have no regulations concerning zoning, subdivisions, buildings, or mobile homes, and are not subject to county regulations. These communities, 3-59 however, are not totally without land-use controls as all development within these counties are state regulated to maintain health stan- dards. ^ Tables 3-18 and 3-19 are inventories of the land-use regulations in the primary and secondary study areas. 3-60 Table 3.18 Land-use controls for incorporated communities within the primary study area3 Mobile Building home Approved County codes and trailer land and Subdivlsi on or park use Professional community Zon i ng regul at ions permi ts regulations pi an planners Aiken County Aiken Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Burnettown No No No Nob Yes No Jackson No Yes No Nob Yes No Monetta No No No Nob Yes No New Ellenton Yes No Yes Yes Yes No North Augusta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Perry No No No Nob Yes No Sal ley No No No Nob Yes No Wagner No No No Nob Yes No Windsor No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Al lendale County Allendale No No Yes Nob Yes No Fairfax No No No Nob No No Sycamore No No No Nob No No Ulmer No No No Nob No No Bamberg County Bamberg Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Denmark Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Ehrhardt No No Yes Yes No No Govan No No No No No No Olar No No Yes Yes No No Barnwell County V Barnwel1 Yes No Yes Yesb Yes No Blackvi1le No No Yes Nob No No Elko No No No Nob No No Hilda No No No Nob No No Kline No No No Nob No No Snel1ing No No No Nob No No Willi ston No No Yes Yes Yes No Columbia County Grovetown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Harlem Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Richmond County Augustad Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Blythed No No No No Yes Yes Hephzlbahd No No No No Yes Yes a Sources: See references 27, 311 37, and M-47. bState regulated to maintain health standards. cProposed. ^Subject to county-wide regulation. 3-61 Table 3-19 Land-use controls for incorporated communities within the secondary study area3 Mob i1e Building home County codes and trailer and Subdivision or park commun ity Zoning regulations permi ts regulations Burke County Girard No No No Nob Midsville Yes No Yes Nob Sardis No No No Nob Vidette No No No Nob Waynesboro Yes Yes Yes Yes Edgefield County Edgefield No No Yes Nob Johnston No No Yes Mpb Trenton No No Yes Yes Hampton County Brunson No No Yes Nob Estill (c) No Yes Ncb Furman No " No Yes Nob Gifford No No (c,d) Nob Hampton (c) No Yes Nob Luray No No Nod Nob Scotia No No Nod Nob Varnville Yes No Yes Yes Yemessee No No Yes Nob Lexington County Batesburg < Yes Yes Yes Yes Cayce Yes Yes Yes Yes Chap in No No No Nob GiIbert No No No Nob 1 rmo No No No Nob Leesvi1le Yes (c) Yes Yes Lexington Yes Yes Yes Yes % v. Peli on No No Yes Nob Pine Ridge No No Yes Nob South Congaree No No Yes Nob Sp r i iVgda 1 e Yes Yes Yes Yes Summi t No No No Nob Swansea No No Yes Nob West Columbia Yes Yes Yes Prohibited Note: See footnotes at end of table. 3-62 Table 3.19 Land-use controls incorporated communities within the secondary study area® (continued) Mobile Bu ?lding home County codes and trailer and Subdivision or park commun ity Zon ing regulations permi ts regulations Orangeburg County Bowman' No No No Nob Branchvi1le No No No Nob Cope No No No Nob Cordova No No No Nob Elloree Mo No No Nob Holly Hill No Yes No Nob Livingston No No No Nob Neese No No No Nob Norway No No No Nob North No No No Noh Orangeburg Yes Yes Yes Yes Rowev i11e No No No Nob b Santee No Yes No No b Springfield No No No No b Utahville No No No No b Vance No No No No b Woodford No No No No Saluda County Saluda No No Yes Nob Screven County Hi 1ltonia No No No Nob Sylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes aSources: See references 10, 31-36, 38, and 39. bState regulated to maintain jhealth standards. «cUnder consideration. ^County permits are issued and enforced. 3-63 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 1. Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken County - 2000; A Land Use Plan for Aiken County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., June 1978. 2. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and M. Readen, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, S.C., June 1981. 3. Lower Savannah River Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Update; Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., April 1978. 4. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan; Bamberg Coun- ty, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., May 1977. 5. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan and Initial Housing Element; Barnwell County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., June 1977- 6. Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development Plan, Martinez, Ga., 1979. // 7. Metropolitan Council of Governments of Aiken and Richmond Counties, Generalized Existing Land Use: Augusta Standard Metropolitan Area, North Augusta, S.C., June 1973. 8. Personal communication between J. Davis, NUS Corporation, and G. Syzmjk, Augusta-Richmond. County Planning Commission, Augusta, GA., February 25, 1981. <;} 9. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Area Development Plan, Augusta, Ga., March 1980. 10. Personal communication between, D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and S. Robinson, Central Savannah Area River Planning and Development Com- mission, Augusta, Ga., October 17, 1980. 11. Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, 1978-1979 Georgia Manufac- turers' Directory, Atlanta, Ga., 1978. 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1974 Census of Agriculture, Georgia, State and County Data, Volume 1, Part 10, Book 2, Washington, D.C., 1977. 13. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Waynesboro Land Use Plan, Augusta, Ga., 1978. 14. Wilbur Smith and Associates, Land Use Plan and Preliminary Thorough- fare Plan: Edgefield County, South Carolina, Columbia, S.C., July 1973.,, V \ 3-64 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 (continued) 15. Low Country Council of Governments, Low Country Policy Framework for Regional Development, Yemassee, S.C., June 1977. 16. Central Midlands Regional Planning Council, Land Resources Manage- ment Plan for the Year 2000, Columbia, S.C., July 1977. 1/ 17. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Orangeburg County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., April 1978. 18. LBC&W Consultants/Planning - Research - Management, Inc., Update: Land Use Plan Saluda County, S.C. - The Year 2000, Columbia, S.C., April 1977. 19. Planning Staff, Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Master Development Plan and Program Sylvan?a Screven County, Augusta, Ga., April 1976. 20. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977. 21. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Number of Inhabi- tants, PC (1)-A-12 GA., Washington, D.C., 1971. 22. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta Regional Trans- portation Study (ARTS): Year 2000 Street and Highway Plan Documen- tation, prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation, the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, Augusta, Ga., April 1978. 23. Low Country Council of Governments, Low Country Overall Economic Development Program Update, 1976-1980, Yemassee, S.C., undated. 24. South Carolina Office of the Governor, Division of Administration, Physical and Economic Development, Land Use Survey and Analysis: Hampton County, South Carolina, Columbia, S.C., June 1973. 25. Lexington County Planning Commission, Lexington County Comprehensive Plan, Lexington, S.C., 1974. 26. Lexington County Planning and Development Office, Land Use Plans: Lexington County, South Carolina, Lexington, S.C., June 1976. 27. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and F. Rodgers, Metropolitan Council of Governments, Aiken, S.C., June 23, 1980. 28. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and W. Sherrill, Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Aiken, S.C., June 23, 1980. / 3-65 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 (continued) 29. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and L. Lister, Barnwell County South Carolina, Barnwell, S.C., June 23, 1980. 30. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and E. Bellino, Columbia County Planning Commission, Martinez, Ga., June 23, 1980. 31. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and F. Mertins, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., June 23, 1980. 32. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and M. Rich, Edgefield County Assistant County Administrator, Edgefield, S.C., June 23, 1980. 33. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and R. Fallon, Low Country Council of Governments, Yamassee, S.C., June 23, 34. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and E. Lightfoot, Clerk to County Council, Orangeburg County, Orangeburg, S.C., June 23, 1980. 35- Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and R. Grubb, County Engineer, Orangeburg County, Orangeburg, S.C., June 23, 1980. 36. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and T. Watson, Jr., Tax Assessor, Saluda County, Saluda, S.C., June 23, 1980. 37. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and B. Wilson, Finance Director, Bamberg County, Bamberg, S.C., June 23, 1980. 38. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and M. Senn, Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commis- sion, Augusta, Gac,, June 23, 1980. 39. Central Midlands Regional Planning Council Staff, Development Codes in the Central Midlands Region: June, 1979, Columbia, S.C., June 1979. 40. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Fernstrom, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Ga., October 9, 1980. i'r 3-66 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 (continued) 41. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, "Water Quality Control Act, No. 870 as amended through 1974." Atlanta, Ga., undated. 42. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, "Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6, Revised June 1974." Atlanta, Ga., 1974. 43» Personal cocmiunication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Price, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Con- trol, Columbia, S.C., October 14, I98O. 44. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Sherrill, Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Aiken, S.C., Octo- ber 21, 1980. 45. Personal communication between M. Foran, NUS Corporation, and P. Main, City of Barnwell, Barnwell, S.C., October 21, 1980. 46. Personal communication between M. Foran, NUS Corporation, and A. Martin, City of Blackville, Blackville S.C., October 21, 1980. 47. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and P. Shipes, City of Williston, Williston, S.C., October 21, 198O. Jf (\ 3-4 4. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES AND TRENDS The populations of the primary and secondary study areas are very much like their larger counterparts in Georgia and South Carolina. Their demographic trends also closely parallel those of the two-state area, as well as of the United States as a whole. The people in the study area are mostly white and urban, relatively young, and live in larger than average-sized households. The population density within the study area is higher than the national average and more rural. Birth rates are slightly higher than average. This, com- bined with recent strong migration inflows, has led to a greater than average population growth. Significant demographic differences, however, occur among the counties within the study area. The differences tend to reflect basic demographic shifts such as rural-urban-suburban changes that are common nationwide. Even where major differences occur, the study-area trends as a whole closely parallel those at state and national levels. The data and refer- ences detailing the various population characteristics are presented in tables and figures throughout this chapter. 3-2 4.1 POPULATION AND ITS DISTRIBUTION 4.1.1 Population change The populations of Georgia and South Carolina have generally been in- creasing 9 to 16 percent each decade since 1950 (see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). Until recently, Georgia was growing more rapidly than South Caro- lina, which while paralleling national trends, experienced a drop Ir; the population growth rate from 1960 to 1970. The national rate of popula- tion growth has continued to slow to only 7.4 percent from 1970 to 1979, but both Georgia and South Carolina have continued to grow faster in the 1970s, especially South Carolina.1"1" Although the two states grew less rapidly than the nation during the "baby boom" years of the 1950s, their subsequent accelerated growth has largely resulted from a reversal In net migration. This occurred during 1-8 the 1960s in Georgia and more recently in South Carolina. Population growth or decline in the primary and secondary study areas has varied greatly from county to county. The variations are tied primarily to the degree of urbanization, and to urban-suburban trends. The primary study area grew much faster from 1950 to 1960 than the two- state region and the nation (see Table 4.2). Between 1970 and 1978, area population growth fell behind the state of Georgia and national popula- tion growth rates, but remained consistent with that of South Carolina. Richmond County, the most populous county, grew significantly during the 1950s and 1960s. Allendale, the least populated county, suffered sig- nificant population declines during the 1960s, but has recently experi- enced some slight growth.1 ^ The overall population growth of the primary study area has stemmed from the large population Increases in Richmond and Aiken Counties. These counties contain the growth centers of Augusta, North Augusta, and Aiken. Table 4.1 Populatlon^populatlon density, and percent change for Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950, 1960, Georgia South Carolina United States Density of Percent Density of Percent Density ot Percent population change In population change In population change tn Year Population per square mile population Population per square wile population Population per sQuare mile population 1950 3,414,578 59.0 N/Ab 2,117,027 70.0 N/A 151,325,798 43.0 N/A 1960 3,943,116 68.0 14.5 2,382,59* 79.0 12.5 179,323,175 51.0 1970 4,589,575 79.0 16.4 18.5 2,590,516 86.0 8.7 203,211,926 57.0 13-3 1978 5,084,000 87.0 10.8 2,918,000 97.0 12.6 218,228,000 62.0 7.4 "Sources: See references 1-10. bData not available. ORNL-DWG 81-15207 FIGURE 4.1 CHANGE IN POPULATION OF GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA FOR 1950,1960.1970. AND 1976 POPULATION (In Million*) 6 i l H srupmaEA MUHMVSiUDrMM I ' i I I 1 1 1 L \ • ' ' I I I 1 L 1980 1950 1960 1970 SOURCES: SEE REFERENCES I I YEARS Table 4.2 Total population and percent change: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, For 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1978° 1960 1970 1978 1950 Percent Percent Percent total Total change Total change Total change locat 1 or. population population 1950-1960 population 1960-1970 populat 1 on 1970-1978 Aiken County 53,137 81,038 52.5 91,023 12.3 99,200 9.0 Allendale County 11,773 11,362 -3.5 9,785 -13.9 10,200 4.2 Bamberg County 17,533 16,274 -7.2 15,950 -2.0 16,500 3.4 Barnwe11 County 17,266 17,659 2.3 »7,I76 -2.7 19,600 14.1 Columbia County 9,525 13,423 40.9 22,327 66.3 33,800 51.4 Richmond County 108,876 135,601 24.5 162,437 19.8 173,935 7.1 Primary study area 218,110 275,357 26.2 318,698 15-7 353,235 10.8 Georgia 3,444,578 3,943,116 14.5 4,589,575 16.4 5,084,000 10.8 South Carolina 2,117,027 2,382,594 12.5 2,590,516 8.7 2,918,000 12.6 United States 151,325,798 179,323,175 18.5 203,211,926 13.3 218,288,000 7.4 ^Sources: See references 1-10. Although Columbia County registered the greatest percentage increase in population, approximately 66 percent from 1960 to 1970, its population is relatively small in relation to the urban counties of Richmond and Aiken.1'3, 5,7 Until very recently, the more rural counties of the secondary study area, such as Hampton, Screven, and Burke, were declining in population (see Table 4.3). Since 1970, they have experienced modest increases in popu- lation. The area as a whole, however, has shown increasingly rapid growth since 1950, primarily because of the very large population in- creases in Lexington County. Much of this county is a suburban area to the City of Columbia, the capital of South Carolina. Lexington has now surpassed Orangeburg as the most populous county in the secondary study 1-10 area. 4.1.2 Urban-rural ratios Even though Georgia and South Carolina are much more rural than the coun- try as a whole, both states have been paralleling the national trend toward increasing urbanization, at least up to 1970. The national popu- lation was 73.5 percent urban in 1970. As depicted in Figure 4.2, Geor- gia has been rapidly approaching the national urban population average, reaching 60 percent in 1970. South Carolina, however, was still predom- inantly rural in 1970, as its urban population constituted only 48 per- il -13 cent of the total. Historically, the populations of all the counties of the primary and secondary study areas have been trending to greater urban concentra- tions. As shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4, the shifts toward urbanization or, perhaps more accurately, depopulations of the rural countryside, have been dramatic in some cases (e.g., Allendale and Barnwell Counties). In the secondary study area, however, several of the most rural counties have remained overwhelmingly rural in spite of the overall trends. Inter- estingly, there appears to have been a recent slowdown or slight reversal Table 4.3 Total population and percent change: secondary study area Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1978a 1960 1970 1978 1950 Percent Percent Percent total Total change Total change Total change Location populat ion population 1950-1960 population 1960-1970 population 1970-1978 Burke County 23,458 20,596 -12.2 18,255 -11.4 18,700 2.4 Edgefield County 16,591 15,735 -5.2 15,692 -0.3 16,700 6.4 Hampton County 18,027 17,425 -3.3 15,878 -8.9 17,400 9.6 Lexington County 44,279 60,726 37.1 89,012 46.6 130,500 46.6 Orangeburg County 68,726 68,559 -0.2 69,789 1.8 79,000 13.2 Saluda County 15,924 14,554 -8.6 14/528 -0.2 14,800 1.9 Screven County 18,000 14,919 -17.1 12,591 -15.6 13,300 5.6 Secondary study area 205,005 212,514 3-7 235,745 10.9 290,400 23.2 Georgia 3,444,578 3,943,116 14.5 4,589,575 16.4 5,084,000 10.8 South Carolina 2,117,027 2,382,594 12.5 2,590,516 8.7 2,918,000 12.6 United States 151,325,798 179,323,175 18.5 203,211,926 13.3 218,288,000 7.4 aSources: See references 1-10. ORNL-DWG 81-15208 FIGURE 4.2 PERCENTAGES OF URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS OF GEORGIA. SOUTH CAROLINA. AND THE UNITED STATES FOR 1950. 1960. AND 1970 PERCENTAGE SOURCES: SEE REFERENCES 11-13. CAROLINA STATES ORNL-DWG 81-15209 FIGURE 4.3 PRIMARY STUDY AREA: PERCENTAGE OF URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENTS OF EACH COUNTY. SOUTH CAROLINA. AND GEORGIA FOR 1950. 1960. 1970. AND 1977 PERCENTAGE 100 s ; m 80 70 URBAN 60 -f RURAL i KD 50 40 30 20 10 I GEORGIA SOUTH AIKEN ALLENDALE BAMBERG BARNWELL COLUMBIA RICHMOND PRIMARY STUDY CAROLINA SOURCES SEE REFERENCES IMS AREA ORNL-DWG 81-15210 FIGURE 4.4 SECONDARY STUDY AREA: PERCENTAGE OF URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENTS OF EACH COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AND GEORGIA FOR 1950. 1960, 1970. AND 1977 PERCENTAGE 100 90 80 70 URBAN •E- I 50 40 30 20 - 10 i U BURKE EDGEFIELD HAMPTON LEXINGTON ORANGE SALUDA SCREVEN SECONDARY GEORGIA SOUTH -BURG STUDY CAROLINA SOURCES SE£ REFtBENCIS 1115 AREA 4-11 in the urbanizing of the more rural counties. Rural population growth has been reported in many sectors of the United States, often reflecting 11-15 underlying shifts in life styles. The population of the primary study area is considerably urban at 64 percent of the total population. This is due primarily to the inclusion of Richmond County and its principal city, Augusta. The remaining coun- ties in the area are still principally rural in nature. Similarly, all of the secondary study area counties are primarily rural except for Lex- ington County. The urban population of Lexington County, however, is not large enough to warrant the entire area being classified as urban. It appears that the vast majority of people living in both study areas re- side in scattered rural settings.^1 ^ 4.1.3 Population density Population densities in Georgia and South Carolina have been steadily increasing as their respective populations have continued to grow. These densities, as shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, are significantly higher than the national average. 7-13 The population density of the primary study area has been similarly in- creasing as has the secondary study area, but at a slower rate. The two most urban counties, Richmond and Lexington, have the highest population densities, well above area- and state-wide averages. All of the other counties in the primary and secondary study areas, including Aiken County which experienced an increase, have relatively low population densities— 7-13 lower than their respective state averages. Several rural counties, Allendale and Bamberg in the primary study area and Burke, Edgefield, Hampton, Saluda, and Screven in the secondary study area, had declining population densities between 1950 and 1970. By 1978, however, each had begun to show increases. 4-12 Table 4.4 Population densities: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1978a Population density per square mile Location 1950 1960 1970 1978 Aiken County 26.7 73 • 9 83.7 91 .3 Allendale County 28.2 27 .2 23.4 24 .4 Bamberg County 44.4 41 .2 40.4 41 .8 Barnwell County 31.2 31 -9 31.0 35 .4 Columbia County 32.8 46 .3 77.0 116 .6 Richmond County 337.1 419 .8 502.9 538 .5 Primary study area 71.1 89 .8 103.9 115 .2 Georgia 59.3 67 .9 79.0 87 .5 South Carolina 69-9 78 .7 85.7 94 .4 United States 42.7 50 .7 57.4 61 .6 aSources: See references 7-13- 4-13 Table 4.5 Population densities: secondary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978a Population density per square miie Locati on 1950 1960 1970 1978 Burke County 28.2 24.8 21.9 22.5 Edgefield County 34.4 32.6 32.5 34.6 Hampton County 32.1 31.0 28.3 31.0 Lexington County 61.8 84.7 124.1 128.0 Orangeburg County 62.1 61.9 63.1 71.4 Saluda County 34.8 31.8 31.7 32.3 Screven County 27.6 22.9 19.3 20.4 Secondary study area 37.3 38.7 42.9 52.9 Georgia 59.3 67.9 79.0 87.5 South Carolina 69.9 78.7 85.7 94.4 United States 42.7 50.7 57.4 61.6 aSources: See references 7-13. 4-14 4.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 4.2.1 Age and sex The median ages of the populations of Georgia and South Carolina have been, and continue to be, younger than those of the national population. Since 1950, populations have generally become younger during the "baby boom" years, but more recently have been increasing in age. All counties of the primary study area have been, and continue to be, be- low national median age levels. These national levels dropped from 30.2 in 1950 to 28.1 in 1970 and rose to 30.0 in 1979- Even Allendale County, which had the highest percentage of persons of age 65 and over in 1970 (see Table 4.6), nevertheless, had a younger population (at 23-97 years) than South Carolina, Georgia, or the United States as a whole. In short, around 40 percent of the population of the primary study area has gener- ally fallen into the 19-and-under age group, approximately the same as in .. . „ _ . 1-6,16-19 the two-state region. ' The baby boom is reflected in Table 4.6 by the nearly universal growth of the youngest age group from 1950 to 1960 and its slower growth or decline from 1960 to 1970. Consequently, all of the populations have been aging. Columbia County is an exception because of its suburban character, and its accompanying large number of young families and very small number of . 1-6,16-19 elderly persons. ' The secondary study area (Table 4.7) exhibits the same characteristics as the primary study area with median age levels for both sexes below the national average. The secondary study area had a slightly younger popu- lation than the primary study area from 1950 to 1970. Growth in the youngest age group from 1950 to 1960 was followed by declining popula- tions from 1970 to 1978 in all counties in the secondary study area. The 19-and-under age group comprised over 40 percent of the total population until the mid-1970s. Table 4.6 Age and sex distribution: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and United States, For 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978» Location, age range, and 1950 1960 1970 1976b median age Number Percent NumberPercent Number Percent Number Percent Aiken County Hale 19 and under 11,101 20.9 18,546 22.9 19,172 21.1 18,096 22.9 20 to 64 13,282 25.0 19,303 23.8 22,524 24.7 19,303 23.8 65 and over 1,383 2.8 1,877 2.3 2,571 2.8 1,877 2.3 Median age N/Ac N/A 23.5 N/A 25.0 N/A 23.5 N/A Female 19 and under 11,167 21.9 17,953 22.2 18,548 20.4 17,724 17.9 20 to 64 14,281 26.9 20,804 25.7 24,461 26.9 28,265 28.5 65 to over 1,823 J.» 2,555 3.2 3,747 4.1 5,341 5-4 Median age N/A N/A 25.4 N/A 26.9 N/A N/A N/A Allendale County Hale 19 and under 2,742 23.3 2,782 24.5 2,067 21.3 1,973 19.3 20 to 64 2,495 21.2 2,279 20.1 2,149 22.2 2,504 24.5 65 and over 360 3.1 376 3.3 348 3.6 1.15 4.1 Median age N/A N/A 19.4 N/A 23.2 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 2,885 24.5 2,701 23.8 2,014 20.8 1,858 18.2 20 to 64 2,847 24.3 2,700 23.8 2,525 26.1 2,744 26.9 65 and over 444 3.8 524 4.6 589 6.1 708 6.9 Median age N/A N/A 24.2 N/A 27-3 N/A N/A N/A Banfcerg County Hale 19 end under 4,218 24.1 4,008 24.6 3,562 22.3 3,271 19.8 20 to 64 4,046 23.1 3,437 21.1 3,538 22.2 4,042 24.5 65 and over 506 2.9 584 3.6 619 3.9 703 4.3 Hedlan age N/A N/A 20.1 N/A 22.2 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and wider 4,049 23.1 3,803 23.* 3,457 21.7 3,121 18.9 20 to 64 4,139 23.6 3,647 22.6 3,921 24.6 4,357 26.4 65 and over 575 3-3 768 4.7 851 5.3 1,011 6.1 H«dlan age N/A N/A 23.5 N/A 24.2 N/A N/A N/A Barnwell County Hale 19 and under 4,194 24.3 4,328 24.5 3,721 21.7 2,957 20.2 20 to 64 3,701 - 21.4 3,669 20.8 3,890 22.6 4,963 25.3 65 and over 549 3-2 533 3.8 647 3.8 773 4.0 Median age N/A N/A 19.6 N/A 23.5 N/A N/A N/A Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 4.6 Age and sex distribution: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978a (continued) Location, age range, and 1950 1960 1970 1978b median age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Barnwell County {contl nued) Female 19 and under 4,082 24.3 4.230 24.0 3,642 21.2 3,661 19.0 20 to 64 4,031 23.4 4,129 23.4 4,321 25.2 5,057 25.8 65 and over 709 4.1 770 4.4 955 5.6 1,168 6.0 Median age N/A N/A 23.4 N/A 26.6 N/A N/A N/A Columbia County Hale 19 and under 2,122 22.2 3,228 24.0 4,955 22.2 6,513 19.3 20 to 64 2,294 24.1 3,062 22.8 5,579 25.0 8,533 25.3 65 and over 358 3.8 358 2.7 466 2.1 677 2.0 Hedlan age N/A N/A 21.2 N/A 22.7 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 2,098 22.0 3,123 23.3 4,876 21.8 6,654 19.7 20 to 64 2,320 24.4 3,242 24.2 5,863 26.3 10,528 31.2 65 and under 343 3.6 409 3.0 588 2.6 865 2.6 Median age N/A N/A 22.5 N/A 23.4 N/A N/A N/A Richmond County Hale 19 and under 20,397 18.7 29,566 21.8 33,987 20.9 29,154 18.5 20 to 64 31,908 29.3 36,887 27.2 46,891 28.9 42,575 27.0 65 and over 2,432 2.2 3,455 2.5 3,935 2.4 4,346 3.1 Median age N/A H/A 23-1 N/A 22.8 N/A N/A - N/A Female 19 and under 18,839 17.3 29,281 21.6 29,413 18.1 26,228 17.0 20 to 64 31,743 29.2 24,298 25.3 41,365 25.5 46,376 29.4 65 and over 3,557 J.3 5,114 3.8 6,846 4.2 8,664 5-5 Median age N/A N/A 27.1 N/A 26.4 N/A N/A N/A Primary study area Male 19 and under 46,553 21.3 62,1)58 22.7 67,46') 21.2 62,964 19.D 20 to 64 55,937 25.6 65,637 24.9 8II,571 26.5 88,777 26.0 65 and over 5,688 2.6 7,184 2.6 8,586 2.7 11,110 3.0 Median age N/A N/A N/A N/A N,A N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 43.225 19.8 58,091 21.1 61,552 19.4 59,237 18.0 20 to 64 59,256 27.2 68,847 25.0 82,456 25.9 97,327 27.0 65 and over 7,451 3.4 10,HO 3.7 13,576 4.3 17,757 5.0 Median age N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 4.6 Age and sex distributions primary study area, Georgia, Carolina, and United States, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978" (continued) location, age range, and 1950 1960 1970 1978b median age Number Percent Number Percent Number Pet sent Hunfaer Percent Georgia Hale 19 and under 698,558 20.3 839,760 21.3 921,789 20.1 908,000d 18.5d 20 to 64 890,511 25.9 964,664 24.5 1,164,872 25.* 1,296,000"' 26.4<>d 65 and over 99,598 2.9 121,533 3.1 144,035 3-1 157,000'' 3.2 Median age 25.5 N/A 24.5 N/A 24.6 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and wder 682,235 19.9 817,505 20.7 893,726 19.5 875,000 17.5d d 20 to 64 953,619 27.7 1,033,795 26.2 1,241,730 27.1 1,410,000 28.7 65 and over 122,025 3.5 165,679 4.2 233,423 4.9 263,000 5.4<* Median age 26.8 N/A 27.2 N/A 27.3 N/A N/A M/A South Carolina Hale 19 and under 469,597 22.2 552,081 23.1 546,723 21.1 520,000 18.7 20 to 64 518,824 24.5 561,454 23.4 649,613 25.1 738,000 26.5 65 and over 52,119 2.5 62,137 2.5 76,691 2.9 87,000 3.1 Median age 23.0 N/A 22.0 N/A 23.6 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 461,025 21.8 526,292 22.0 521,867 20.1 517,000 18.6 20 to 64 554,170 26.2 611,334 25.5 681,293 26.3 783,000 28.1 65 and over 64,695 3.1 85,042 3.5 115,269 4.5 139,000 5.0 Median age 24.3 N/A 24.8 H/A 26.4 N/A N/A N/A United States 150,216,110 Male 20 and under 27,062,625 18.0 36,058,000 20.1 40,848,000 20.1 38,746,000 17.8 21 to 64 41,403,210 27.6 44,770,000 25.0 49,7",000 24.5 57,519,000 26.4 65 and over 5,734,250 3.8 7,503,000 4.2, 8,367,000 4.1 9,778,000 4.5 Median age 29.7 H/A 28.7 N/A 26.8 N/A 28.6 N/A Female 20 and under 26,420,585 17.6 35,141,000 19.6 39,665,000 19.5 37,382,000 17.1 21 to 64 43,072,840 28.7 46,795,000 26.1 53.039.0M 26.1 60,358,000 27.7 65 and over 6,522,600 4.3 9,056,000 5.0 11,605,800 5.7 14,276,000 6.5 Median age 30.5 N/A 30.3 N/A 29.3 N/A 31.0 N/A •Soureesr See references 1-6 and 16-19. bJuly 1, 1978, estimates. 'Information not available, or not applicable. <*t976 data. Table 4.7 Age and sex distribution: secondary study area, for 1^50, 1960, 1970, and1978 ®(continued) —-.j — J ~ range, and 1950 1960 1970 1978>> median age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Burke County Male 19 and under 5,516 23.5 5,155 25.0 4,167 22.8 3,645 19.5 20 to 64 4,910 20.9 3,855 18.7 3,662 20.1 4,344 23.2 65 and over 800 3.4 819 4.0 756 4.1 870 4.6 Hedlan age N/Ac N/A 18.8 N/A 21.1 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 5,525 23.6 5,105 24.8 4,196 23.0 3,536 18.9 20 to 64 5,748 24.5 4,566 22.2 4,255 23.3 4,990 26.7 65 and over 959 4.1 1,096 5.3 1,219 6.7 1,334 7.1 Hedlan age N/A N/A 22.8 N/A_ 25.1 N/A N/A N/A Edgefield County Hale 19 and under 3,963 23.9 3,875 24.6 3,498 22.3 3,278 19-6 20 to 64 3,677 22.2 3,272 20.8 3,574 22.8 4,314 25.8 65 and over 588 3-5 546 3.5 546 3.5 641 3-8 Hedlan age N/A N/A 19.8 N/A 22.7 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 3,863 23.3 3,789 24.1 3,444 21.9 3,091 18.5 20 to 64 3,883 23.4 3,539 22.5 2,830 24.4 4,483 26.8 65 and over 617 3-7 714 4.5 800 5.1 939 5.6 Hedian age N/A N/A 22.5 N/A 24.9 N/A N/A N/A Saluda County Hale 19 and under 3,653 22.9 3,324 22.8 3,048 21.C 2,653 17.9 20 to 64 3,672 23-1 3,231 22.2 2,409 23.5 3,677 24.8 65 and over 636 4.0 656 4.5 649 4.5 719 4.9 Hedian age N/A N/A 23.6 N/A 25.6 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 3,529 22.2 3,150 21.6 2,918 20.1 2,777 18.8 20 to 64 3,799 23-9 3,443 23.7 3,650 25.1 3,968 26.8 65 and over 635 4.0 750 5.2 854 5.9 1,015 6.9 Hedian age N/A N/A 26.5 N/A 28.1 N/A N/A N/A Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 4.7 Age and sex distribution: secondary study area, for 1^50, 1960, 1970, and 1978® (continued) Location, age range, and 1950 1960 1970 1978b median age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Screven County Hale 19 and under 4,305 23.9 3,590 24.1 2,593 20.6 2,254 17.1 20 to 64 4,126 22.9 3,093 20.7 2,856 22.7 3,275 24.8 65 and over 560 3.1 595 4.0 588 4.7 696 5.3 Median age N/A , N/A 20.8 N/A 25.7 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 4,148 23.0 3,448 23.1 2,570 20.4 2,309 17.5 20 to 64 4,243 23.6 3,430 23.0 3,126 24.8 3,698 28.0 65 and over 6l8 3.4 763 5.1 858 6.8 962 7.3 Median age N/A N/A 25.0 N/A 29.4 N/A N/A N/A Hampton County Hale 19 and under 4,360 24.2 4,263 24.5 3,404 21.4 3,242 18.6 20 to 64 4,005 22.2 3,665 21.0 3,617 22.8 4,386 25.1 65 and over 521 2.9 538 3.1 600 3.8 738 4.2 Median age N/A N/A 19.8 N/A 23.8 N/A N/A N/A Femal e 19 and under 4,195 23.3 4,225 24.2 3,413 21.5 3,321 19.0 20 to 64 4,329 24.0 4,017 23.1 3,991 25.1 4,718 27.0 65 and over 617 3-4 717 4.1 853 5.4 1,051 6.0 Median age N/A N/A 22.6 N/A 25.9 N/A N/A N/A Lexington County Male 19 and under 9,174 20.7 13,259 21.8 18,278 20.5 23,501 18.0 20 to 64 11,487 25.9 14,857 24.5 23,152 26.0 38,158 29.2 65 and over 1,330 3.0 1,774 2.9 2,233 2.5 3,131 2.4 Median age N/A N/A 24.6 N/A 25.3 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 9,165 20.7 13,128 21.6 17,813 20.0 22,907 17.6 20 to 64 11,667 26.3 15,549 25.6 24,387 27.4 38,157 29.2 65 and over 1,456 3.3 2,159 3-6 3,149 3.5 4,642 3.6 Median age N/A N/A 25.7 N/A 26.2 N/A N/A N/A Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 4.7 Age and sex distribution: secondary study area, for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978® (continued) Location, age range, and 1950 1960 1970 1978b median age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Orangeburg County Mtla 19 and under 16,474 24.0 17,030 24.6 15,375 22.0 14,806 18.7 20 to 64 15,547 22.6 14,219 20.7 15,631 22.4 19,908 25.2 65 and over 1,637 2.4 1,941 2.8 2,291 3-3 2,993 3.8 Median age N/A N/A 19.4 N/A 22.4 N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 16,573 24.1 16,768 24.5 15,441 22.1 14,781 18.7 20 to 64 16,408 23.9 15,893 23.2 17,571 25.2 21,953 27.8 65 and over 2,087 3.0 2,708 4.0 3,480 5.0 4,538 5.7 Median age N/A N/A 19.4 N/A 22.5 N/A N/A N/A Secondary study area Male 19 and under 47,445 23.1 50,496 23.8 50,363 21.4 53,379 18.4 20 to 64 47,424 23.1 46,192 21.7 55,901 23.7 78,062 26.9 65 and over 6,072 3.0 6,869 3.2 7,663 3.3 9,788 3.4 Median age N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Female 19 and under 46,998 22.9 49,613 23.3 49,795 21.1 52,722 18.2 20 to 64 50,077 24.4 50,437 23.7 60,810 25.8 81,967 28.2 65 and over 6,989 3.4 8,907 4.2 11,213 4.8 14,481 5.0 Median age N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A aSources: See references 1-6 and 16-19. ''July 1, 1978, estimates. clnformatlon not available, or not applicable. 4-21 Burke, Saluda, and Screven Counties had higher percentages of persons 65 and older than the national average in the 1970s, but they also had a greater percentage of persons 19 and under. Lexington and Orangeburg Counties had fewer elderly than the national average; Lexington was below the South Carolina and Georgia averages as well. Although males consistently outnumber females in the 19-and-under age group, in most places they quickly lose their dominance with advancing age. This trend has been increasing nationwide as the male/female ratio has moved from 98.7 in 1950 to 94.8 in 1970. Georgia shows a similar trend, moving from 96.1 in 1950 to 94.6 in 1970. The ratio in South Carolina, however, has been nearly constant (Table 'i.6).^»16-19 All the counties in the primary study area have exhibited similar male/ female ratios, with all having more females except Richmond. Allendale County, the most predominantly female, had a ratio of only 89 males to 100 females in 1970. By contrast, urban Richmond County had 101 males to 100 females in 1950, increasing to 109 in 1970. Because approximately 50 percent of the entire primary study area population lives in Richmond County, its male dominance skews the overall sex ratio to 102 males to 100 females in 1970, up from 98 in 1950. Military personnel at Fort Gordon accounted for 9 percent of the total Richmond County population, no doubt contributing to this exception.1 6,16-19 4.2.2 Race and ethnicity As shown in Table 4.8, blacks constitute a significant segment—approxi- mately 30 percent in 1970 and 33 percent in 1978—of the primary study area population. Only about 1 percent of the primary study area popula- tion consists of other races. Over 100 American Indians live in the 1—6 18—21 Augusta area. ' For comparison, blacks and other nonwhites made up 12.5 percent of the national population in 1970 and 13.7 percent in 1978. Table 4.8 Race and ethnicity: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States3 b 1950 1960 1970 1978 Location, race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Aiken County 53,137 100 81,038 100 91,023 100 99,200 100 White 33,817 64 59,700 74 69,081 76 75,000 76 Black 19,308 36 21,310 26 21,794 24 24,200° 24 N/Ae Other 12 d 28 d 148 d N/A Allendale County 11,773 100 11,362 100 9,692 100 10,200 100 4,178 37 3,863 40 4,500 44 White 3,260 28 c Black 8,513 72 7,183 63 5,827 60 5,700 56 Other 0 0 1 d 5 d N/A N/A Bamberg County 17,533 100 16,274 100 15,950 100 16,500 100 40 White 7,395 42 7,187 44 7,216 45 6,600 55 9,900c 60 Black 10,131 58 9,085 56 8,648 d N/A N/A Other 8 d 2 d 36 Barnwell County 17,266 100 17,659 100 17,176 100 19,600 100 57 10,075 59 12,800 65 White 6,613 38 10,004 c Black 10,650 62 7,639 43 7,067 41 6,800 35 Other 3 d 16 d 34 d N/A N/A Columbia County 9,525 100 13,423 100 22,327 100 32,200 100 White 4,967 52 8,637 64 17,337 78 27,246 85 15 Black 4,556 48 4,770 36 4,856 22 4,954c N/A N/A Other 2 d 16 d 134 d Richmond County 108,876 100 135,601 100 162,437 100 154,338 100 66 92,483 68 112,285 69 96,605 63 Uhite 72,083 c Black 36,516 34 42,134 31 48,624 30 57,733 37 Other 277 d 984 1 1,528 1 N/A N/A Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 4.8 Race and ethnicity: primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and United States3 (continued) b 1950 1960 1970 1978 Location Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Primary study area 218,110 100 275,357 100 318,605 100 332,038 100 White 128,135 59 182,189 66 219,857 69 222,751 67 Black 89,674 41 92,121 33 96,366 30 109,287° 33 Other 302 d 1,047 1 1,885 1 N/A N/A Georgia 3,444,578 100 3,942,936 100 4,589,575 100 5,076,831 100 White 2,380,577 69 2,818,038 71 3,391,242 74 3,700,312 73 Black 1,062,762 31 1,120,999 29 1,187,149 26 1,376,519° 27 Other 1,239 d 3,898 d 11,184 d N/A N/A South Carolina 2,117,027 100 2,382,594 100 2,590,516 100 2,917,200 100 2,014,000 69 White 1,293,405 61 1,550,632 65 1,794,430 69 903,200° 31 Black 822,077 39 829,337 35 789,041 31 N/A N/A Other 1,545 d 2,b25 d 7,045 d 100 United States 151,326,000 100 179,324,000 100 203,211,926 100 218,228,000 188,657,000 86 White 135,150,000 89 158,832,000 88 177,748,975 88 25,487,000 11 Black 15,045,000 10 18,872,000 11 22,580,289 11 4,084,000 2 Other 1,131,000 1 1,620,000 1 2,882,662 1 aSources: See references 1-6 and 18-21. bEstimated figures. c1978 black data includes blacks and others. dLess than 1 percent. eNot applicable. 4-24 The black-white population ratios in both Georgia and South Carolina are similar to those in the primary study area. Unlike the national trend, where this ratio has increased slightly from 1950 to 1978, for Georgia and South Carolina, as well as for most of the primary study area, this ratio has decreased over the same period. Various factors appear to be related to this decrease in the ratio of non-white to white population. For Aiken County, the decrease in this ratio appears to be primarily attributable to the higher percentage in- crease in white versus nonwhite population. For other primary study area counties, the decrease in the ratio of nonwhite to white population may be attributable to a net outmigration of nonwhites in rural counties to more populated urban areas; e.g., the Augusta area. To a certain extent, this is reflected in the decline in the total white population in Rich- mond County (probably due to the outmigration of white persons into Co- lumbia County) and a significant increase in the honwhite population in Richmond County for the period 1970 to 1978.1"6,18"21 Blacks comprised a substantially larger portion of the secondary study area from 1950 until 1970 (see Table 4.9). By 1978, however, the per- centage of blacks in the population was equal to that in the primary study area. Throughout this time the percentage of black population was considerbly higher than the national average. In 1950, the majority of the secondary study area was black, with the highest percentage residing in Burke County. Edgefield, Hampton, Orange- burg, and Screven also had black majorities at that time. By 1970, only three counties were still primarily black, but as was occurring in South Carolina and Georgia, the proportion of blacks in the population was decreasing. The only exception to this trend was the 1978 population estimate which shows that the white population of Hampton County had decreased so that it again had a black population of over 50 percent. Lexington is the only county in the secondary study area to consistently have a high percentage of white population, increasing from 79 percent in 1950 to- 94 percent in 1978. Table 4.9 Race and ethnicity: secondary study area® 1950 1960 1970 1978° Location, race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 18,400 100 Burke 23,458 100 20,596 100 18,255 100 40 White 6,724 29 6,911 34 7,260 40 7,353 60 Black 16,732 71 13,681 66 10,988 60 11,047 d N/A Other 2 c 4 c 7 c N/A Edgefield 16,591 100 15,735 100 15,692 10U 16,700 100 White 6,660 40 6,581 42 7,586 48 7,600 46 Black 9,930 60 9,153 58 8,104 52 9,100 54 Other 1 c 1 c 2 c N/A N/A Hampton 18,027 100 17,425 100 15,878 100 17,400 100 White 7,946 44 8,038 46 8,097 51 8,300 48 Black 10,079 56 9,382 54 7,771 49 9,100 52 Other 2 c 5 c 10 c N/A N/A 100 Lexington 44,279 100 60,726 100 89,012 100 130,500 94 White 34,816 79 50,260 83 77,861 88 123,000 6 Black 9,458 21 10,460 17 11,037 12 7,500 N/A ti/A Other 5 c 6 c 114 c Orangeburg 68,726 100 68,559 100 69,789 100 79,000 100 White 25,295 37 27,367 40 31,385 45 31,600 40 Black 43,425 63 41,181 60 38,332 55 47,400 60 Other 6 c 11 c 72 c N/A N/A 100 Saluda 15,924 100 14,554 100 14,528 100 14,800 64 White 9,133 57 9,222 63 9,628 66 9,400 36 Black 6,791 63 5,330 37 4,892 34 5,400 N/A Other 0 0 2 c 8 c N/A 100 Screven 18,000 100 14,919 100 12,591 too 13,700 5* White 7,849 44 7,087 48 6,694 53 7,445 46 Black 10,148 56 7,825 52 5,881 47 6,255 c K/A N/A Other 3 c 7 c 16 100 . Secondary study area 205,005 100 212,514 100 235,745 too r 290,500 194,698 67 White 98,423 48 115, <166 54 148,511 63 95,802 33 Black 106,563 52 97,012 46 87,005 37 c N/A N/A Other 19 c 36 c 229 •Sources* See references 1-6 and 18-21. ^Estimated figures. cLess than 1 percent. dNot applicable. 4-26 Lass than one percent of the secondary study area consisted of other nonwhite races, similar to the primary study area and Georgia and South Carolina as well. Only 70 American Indians live in the secondary study area, almost half of whom are in Orangeburg County. 4.2.3 Persons per household In 1950, the average number of persons per household in both Georgia and South Carolina was about the same as the national average for the same reporting period. However, during the high birth rate years of the 1950s, the two states experienced higher-t'nan-average birth rates (see section 4.2.5) and, consequently, attained larger households than the national average in 1960, 1970, and 1978 (see Table 4.10). The national average has declined from approximately 3.4 persons per household in 1950 to approximately 2.8 in 1978.7' 8'11"13,18,22 The more rural counties in the primary study area have all been charac- terized as having above-average household sizes. Richmond County had a lower than average household size 5n 1950, but has paralleled the state and national trends for the periods of 1960 and 1970. The number of persons per household has declined significantly and uniformly since 1960, reflecting the patterns of fewer births, more single parents, and • 1 u u 7,8,11-13, 18,22 smaller or single-person households. ' ' ' ' The average number of persons per household was higher in the secondary study area in each county in 1950 than for the U.S., South Carolina, Georgia, or any of the individual counties in the primary study area (see Table 4.11). In 1960, all counties were still above the national and state-wide averages except for Lexington, which was below the South Caro» lina state-wide average. The trend between 1950 and 1970 for all coun- ties, however, was toward a lower average number of persons per house- hold. The average for the secondary study area declined from 4.1 to 3.5 during this period, making it comparable to the primary study area, al- though still higher than the national, South Carolina, or Georgia average. 4-27 Table 4.10 Average number of persons per household in the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States3 Average number of persons Location 1950 1960 1970 1978 Aiken County 3.8 3.7 3.4 N/Ab Allendale County 3.8 3.9 3.5 N/A Bamberg County 3.6 4.0 3.6 N/A Barnwell County 3.5 3.9 3.5 N/A Columbia County 3.6 3-9 „ 3.6 N/A Richmond County 3.1 3.5 3.2 N/A Georgia 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.0 South Carolina 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.1 C United States 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.8 a C O Sources: See references 7 * • N 18, 22. ''Information not available. C1979 data. 4-28 Table 4.11 Average number of persons per household in the secondary study area3 Average number of persons Location 1950 1960 1970 1978 Burke County 3.9 4.0 3-5 N/Ab Edgefield County 4.2 4.1 3.7 N/A Hampton County 4.1 4.0 3-5 N/A Lexington County 3.9 3.7 3.4 N/A Orangeburg County 4.3 4.1 3-6 N/A Saluda County 4.2 3.9 3.5 N/A Screven County 4.1 3-9 3-3 N/A Secondary study area 4.1 4.0 3.5 N/A aSources: See references 7, 8, 11-13', 18, 22. bInformation not available. 4-29 2.A Family income The median 1969 family income in Georgia and South Carolina was consider- ably below the U.S. median of $9,867 (see Table 4.12). Income has been similarly low in the primary study area, where, with the exception of Aiken County, family incomes have been even lower than their respective state medians. With the exception of the more suburban Lexington County, the secondary study area had an even lower median family income (see Table 4.13). The median family income in Screven County in 1969 was less than one-half the national median income. Before 1969, the disparity was 11-13,18,23,24 even greater. ' ' The fact that these incomes, especially in the rural counties, were still as low as they were in 1969 is somewhat exceptional. In the primary study area between 1960 and 1969, income increased from 113 to 168 per- cent in the rural counties of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, and Columbia, while the urban counties of Aiken and Richmond experienced increases of 77 and 87 percent, respectively, more closely parallel to the National increase of 76 percent. In the secondary study area, income increased between 1960 and 1969 from 103 to 142 percent in the rural counties, while Lexington County experienced the smallest percent increase with 96 percent.11"13' l8'23'2* The relatively low median family incomes of the study areas are partly attributable to the high percentages of families below the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (see Tables 4.12 and 4.13).* Only the urban/suburban counties of Lexington, Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia had percentages in 1969 (12 to 16 percent) approximating the *ln 1969 the poverty thresholds ranged from $1,487 for a female unrelated individual 65 years old and over living on a farm, to $6,116 for a non- farm family with a male head and with seven or more persons. Table 4.12 The median family Income and the number of families below poverty level In the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States8 Location, no. of families below poverty level, Percent Percent Percent percent of total, median change change change family Income 1950 1960 1950-1960 1969 1960-1969 1975 1969-1975 Aiken County No. of families below poverty level N/A& N/A N/A 3,332 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A Median family Income $1,912 $4,913 157 $8,712 77 N/A N/A Allendale County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 729 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 32 N/A N/A N/A Median family income $822 $2,188 166 $5,872 168 N/A N/A Bamberg County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 1,001 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 29 N/A N/A N/A Median family income $1,125 $2,380 112 $5,687 139 N/A N/A Barnwell County No. of families below poverty I eve) N/A N/A N/A 1,013 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A Median family Income $849 $3,266 285 $6,997 114 N/A N/A Columbia County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 903 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 16 N/A N/A N/A Median family income $1,715 $3,736 118 $8,027 115 N/A N/A Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 4.12 The median family income and the number of families below poverty level in the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States3 (continued) Location, no. of families below poverty level, Percent Percent Percent percent of total, medi an change change change family income 1950 1960 1950-1960 1969 1960-1969 1975 1969-1975 Richmond County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 5,347 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 16 N/A N/A N/A Median family income $2,435 $4,262 75 $7,988 87 N/A N/A Georgia No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 193,166 N/A 188,000 -3 Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 17 N/A 15 -12 Median family Income $1,898 $4,208 122 $8,165 94 $12,481 52 South Carolina No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 120,082 N/A 94,000 -22 Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 19 N/A 13 -32 Median family income $1,921 $3,821 99 $7,620 39 $12,188 60 United States No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 5,260,000 N/A 5,510,000 5 Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A 9 -10 Median family income $3,319 $5,620 70 $9,867 76 $14,094 43 aSources: See references 11-13, 18, 23, and 24. ''Poverty level not applicable. Table 4.13 The median family Income and the number of families below poverty level In the secondary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States9 Location, no. of families below poverty level, Percent Percent Percent percent of total, median change change change family Income 1950 1960 1950-1960 1969 1960-1969 1975 1969-19 Burke County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 1,774 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 43 N/A N/A N/A Hedian family income $625 $1,855 197 $4,480 142 N/A N/A Edgefield County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 1,090 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A Hedlan family Income 51,304 $2,595 99 $6,265 141 N/A N/A Hampton County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 1,221 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 31 N/A N/A N/A Hedian family income $1,137 $2,487 119 $5,659 128 N/A N/A Lexington County No. of families below poverty level • N/A N/A N/A 2,749 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A Hedian family income $2,125 $4,461 110 $8,759 96 N/A N/A Orangeburg County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 5,024 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 31 N/A N/A N/A Median family Income $1,028 $2,603 153 $5,934 128 N/A N/A Saluda County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 788 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 23 N/A N/A N/A Hedian family Income $1,087 $2,965 173 $6,589 122 N/A N/A Note: See footnotes at the end of table. Table 4.13 The median family Income and the number of families below poverty level In the secondary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States9 (continued) Location, no. of families below poverty level, Percent Percent Percent percent of total, median change change change family Income 1950 1960 1950-1960 1969 1960-1969 1975 1969-1975 Screven County No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 1,076 N/A N/A N/A Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A Median family Income $658 $2,370 260 $4,810 103 N/A N/A Georgia No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 193,166 N/A 188,000 - 3 Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 17 N/A 15 -12 Median family Income $1,898 $4,208 122 $8,165 94 $12,441 52 South Carolina No. of families below poverty level N/A N/A N/A 120,082 N/A 94,000 -22 Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 19 N/A 13 -32 Median family Income $1,921 $3,821 99 $7,620 99 $12,181 -60 United States No. of families be!Of poverty level N/A N/A N/A 5,260,000 N/A 5,051,000 5 Percent of total N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A 9 -10 Median family Income $3,319 $5,620 70 $9,867 76 $14,094 43 aSources: See references 11-13, 18, 23, and 24. ^Poverty level not applicable. 4-34 national level of 10 percent. These counties were also the only ones in the study areas to approximate the Georgia and South Carolina levels of 17 percent and 19 percent of total population below the poverty level, respectively. The remaining counties had poverty level percentages rang- ing from 25 percent to 35 percent, well above state and national aver- ages>11-13,l8,23,24 4.2.5 Births and deaths The U.S. birth rate decreased slightly during the decade from 1950 to 1960 from 24.1 to 23.7 births per 1000 persons, then decreased dramat- ically during the decade from 1960 to 1970 to 18.4 births per 1000 per- sons. In 1978 the birth rate dropped even more to 15-3 births per 1000 9,11-13,18,21,25 persons. ' ' ' ' The birth rates in Georgia, South Carolina, and the primary study area have generally followed the national trend by exhibiting a steady decline (see Table 4.14). Columbia and Bamberg Counties recorded birth rate increases from 1950 to 1960, but have since registered lesser increases. In the primary study area, the overall average birth rate declined from 25.3 to 19.6 per 1000 persons for the period of 1950 to 1970, exceeding the national average of 24.1 to 18.4 for the same period. The primary study area rate has, however, been slightly lower than the Georgia and South Carolina averages of 26.5 to 21.1 and 27.1 to 20.1, respectively, for the same period. Death rates in the primary study area and in Georgia and South Carolina have been variable (Table 4.14) by exhibiting a decline during 1950 to 1960, and then an increase to 1970 before decreasing more recently. Nationally, the number of deaths per 1000 population declined from 9-6 in 1950 to 9.5 in 1960. It remained steady to 1970, and declined to 8.8 by 1977. This drop in death rate is significant when the increase in average age of the population is considered. 4-35 Table 14 Births and deaths per 1000 persons for the primary study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States3 Location, Percent Percent Percent births and deaths 1950 1960 change 1970 change 1978 change Aiken County Births 24.8 24.2 -2.4 17.3 -28.5 16.5 -4.6 Deaths 10.1 7.4 -26.7 8.2 10.8 8.3 1.2 Allendale County Births 19.7 20.0 1.5 20.4 2.0 18.6 -8.8 Deaths 8.7 10.1 1.4 11.6 14.9 10.6 8.6 Bamberg County Births 23.3 26.3 12.9 19.1 -27.4 18.3 -4.2 Deaths 9.9 9.9 0.0 10.3 4.0 9.6 -6.8 Barnwell County Births 26.4 24.4 -7.6 18.2 -25.4 18.6 2.2 Deaths 10.0 7.9 -21.0 10.4 31.7 9.3 -10.6 Columbia County b Births 24.6 28.5 15.7 27.8 -2.5 20.0 -28.1 Deaths 8.7 6.9 -20.7 5.5 -20.3 5.9b 7.3 Richmond County Births 26.4 25.4 -3.8 19.9 -21.7 17.8b -10.6 b Deaths 9.9 8.1 -18.2 8.6 6.2 8.6 O.O Primary study area Births 25.3 24.9 -1.6 19.6 -21.3 17.7 -9.7 Deaths 9-9 8.0 -23.0 8.6 7-5 8.4 -2.3 Georgla Births 26.5 25.2 •19.2 21.1 -16.3 16.2 -23.2 Deaths 8.9 8.5 -4.5 9.1 6.0 8.4 -7.7 South Carolina Births 27.1 25.1 -7.7 20.1 -20.0 17.0 -15.4 Deaths 8.5 8.3 -2.4 8.8 6.0 8.2 -6.8 United States Births 24.1 23.7 -1.7 18.4 -22.4 15.3 -16.8 Deaths 9.6 9.5 -1.0 9.5 0.0 8.8 -7.4 aSources: See references 9, 11-13. 18, 21, and 25. b1975 data 4-36 The changing composition of the primary study area populations is primar- ily responsible for the notable variation over time among the various counties' respective death rates. Although the most recent death rates varied from 5*9 to 10.6 persons per 1000 population across the study area, rates above 9.0 persons per 1000 population were common, and were o considerably higher than the comparable state and national averages. 11-13,18, 21,25 The average birth rate in the secondary study area decreased from 28.6 in 1950 to 20.4 births per 1000 persons in 1970, and then decreased again in 1978 to 13.2, lower than the national average or that of Georgia and South Carolina (see Table 4.15). It was also substantially lower than the birth rate in the primary study area. The average death rate remained at about the same level in the secondary study area from 1950 to 1970 and then decreased to 7.8 persons per 1000 persons in 1978. Again, this is lower than the averages for the primary study area, South Carolina, Georgia, and the United States. 4.2.6 Migration Tables 4.16 and 4.17 indicate the general rural-to-urban and out-migra- tion patterns for the primary and secondary study area for the period 1950 to 1975. Net migration in Georgia was slightly positive during the period from 1960 to 1970, but was negative in South Carolina for the same reporting period. From 1970 to 1975, net migration was positive in both states. "-13,19,23 This positive increase in Georgia during the period from 1960 to 1975 and In South Carolina from 1970 to 1975, however, has not been paralleled in the majority of the primary and secondary study area counties. During these same periods, most counties experienced a net out-migration. During these periods Columbia and Lexington Counties experienced the greatest Influx in population as a result of increased suburban growth 4-37 Table k.15 Births and deaths per 1000 persons for the secondary study area3 Location, Percent Percent Percent births and deaths 1950 1960 change 1970 change 1978 change Burke County Births 32.0 27.7 -13.4 23.3 -15-9 19-0 -18.5 Deaths 11.0 10.2 -7.3 12.1 18.6 9.9 -18.2 Edgefield County Births 30.3 29.9 -1-3 18.0 -39.8 9-9 -45.0 Deaths 8.6 10.9 26-7 9.5 -12.8 8.7 -8.4 Hampton County Births 26.5 23.8 -10.2 21.7 -8.8 19.5 -10.1 Deaths 11.0 10.2 -7.3 11.5 12.7 9.2 -20.0 Lexington County Births 24.1 25.0 3-7 20.8 -16.8 10.5 -49.5 Deaths 8.7 7.5 -13.8 7.4 -1.3 5.6 -24.3 Orangeburg County Births 31.1 26.6 -14.5 20.4 -23.3 17.4 -14.4 Deaths 9.1 9-7 6.6 9.8 1.0 9.2 -6.1 Saluda County Births 24.8 22.8 -8.1 18.3 -19.7 0.2 -99.9 Deaths 8.7 10.0 14.9 10.0 0.0 10.9 9.0 Screven County Births 30.0 23-2 -22.7 16.4 -29-3 16.6 1.2 Deaths 8.1 10.5 29.6 12.7 21.0 12.3 -3-1 Secondary study area Births 28.6 25.7 -10.1 20.4 -20.6 13.2 -35.3 Deaths 9.2 9-3 1.1 9.3 0.0 7.8 -16.1 aSources: See references 9, 11-13, IB, 21, and 25. Table 4.16 Net migration: primary study area, Georgia and South Carolina3 Number of Number of Percent Number of Percent Number of Percent irants between migrants between change migrants between change migrants between change Location 1940-1950b 1950-1960^ 1950-1960d 1960-1970© 1960-1970f 1970-19759 1970-1975h Aiken County 2,735 10,673 20.1 -648 -0.8 -728 -0.8 Allendale County 350 -2,721 -23.1 -2,750 -24.2 -88 -0.9 Bamberg County 760 -4,980 -28.4 -2,083 -12.8 -160 -1.0 Barnwell County 480 -4,434 -25.7 -2,614 -14.8 1,082 6.3 Columbia County 825 651 6.8 5,436 40.5 3,706 16.6 Richmond County 11,200 -6,874 -6.3 6,238 4.6 -17,218 -10.6 Primary study area 16,350 -7,685 3.5 3,579 1.3 -13,406 -3.8 Georgia 272,195 -219,537 -6.4 67,033 1.7 100,971 2.2 South Carolina 108,160 -238,913 -11.3 -133,425 -5.6 88,078 3.4 aSources: See references 11-13, 19 and 23. bLlved in different county or abroad in 1949, for persons 1 year old and over In 1950. cNet gain or loss through civilian migration 1950-1960. Expressed as percentage of 1950 population. eApril 1, 1960, to April 1, 1970, net migration. ^Expressed as percentage of 1960 population. 9Apr!I 1, 1970, to April 1, 1975, net migration. ^Expressed as percentage of 1970 population. Table 4.17 Net migration: secondary study area, Georgia, and South Carolina3 Number of Number of Percent Number of Percent Number of Percent migrants between migrants between change migrants between change migrants between change b d e f Locat i on 1940-1950 1950-1960= 1950-1960 1960-1970 1S60-1970 1970-19759 1970-1975h Burke County 805 -7,456 -31.8 -5,211 -25.3 -913 -5.0 Edgefield County 530 -4,373 -26.4 -1,684 -10.7 -110 -0.7 Hampton County 480 -4,198 -23.3 -3,624 -20.8 381 2.4 Lexington County 2,565 6,039 13.6 18,339 30.2 24,033 27.0 Orangeburg County 2,150 -14,606 -21.3 -8,159 -11.9 3,489 5.0 Saluda County 680 -3,734 -23-4 -1,470 -10.1 -770 -5.3 Screven County 695 -6,605 -36.7 -3,536 -23.7 -290 -2.3 Secondary study area 7,905 -34,933 -17.0 -5,345 -2.5 25,820 11.0 Georgia 272,195 -219,537 -6.4 67,033 1.7 100,971 2.2 South Carolina 108,160 -238,913 -11.3 -133,425 -5.6 88,078 3.4 3Sources: See references 11-13, 19 and 23. bLived in different county or abroad in 1949, for persons 1 year old and over in 1950. cNet gain or loss through civilian migration 1950-1960. •^Expressed as percentage of 1950 population. eApri1 1, 1960, to April 1, 1970, net migration. fExpressed as percentage of 1960 population. 9Aprii 1, 1970, to April 1, 1975, net migration. ^Expressed as percentage of 1970 population. from Augusta and Columbia, respectively. All of the rural counties in the study area which had a negative migration rate in the period of 19&0 to 1970, either experienced a decrease in the rate of out-migration or a positive migration rate in the period of 1970 to 1975. 4.2.7 Journey to work Table 4.18 indicates that in 1970, workers in both the primary and secon- dary study areas were generally employed in the counties of their resi- dence. ^Major employment centers include Richmond and Aiken Counties, A followed by Orangeburg and Lexington Counties. Smaller, but significant, 26 employment centers occur in Bamberg, Barnwell, and Hampton Counties. Although most workers across the study area work in their home counties, more Columbia County residents work outside the county than are employed within the county. Table 4.18 indicates that Columbia County is truly a "bedroom county" to greater Augusta (Richmond County). Substantial num- bers of Aiken County residents also journey to Richmond County to . 26 work. Table 4.18 Journey to work, 1970" County the Work destination In primary stud]t area Work destination In secondary study area employees live In Aiken Allenda!e Bansberg Barnwell 1;olumbl < Richmond Burke EdgeFleld Hampton Lexington uranqeourq Saluda screven Primary study area 181 6,851 8 155 6 382 57 73 0 Aiken 22,311 178 25 69 8 0 Allendale B6 1,956 19 131 0 7 0 0 165 0 7 0 8 0 0 28 7 302 0 0 Bamberg 156 65 4,152 320 0 Barnwell 563 93 220 4.71B 0 22 0 0 35 0 63 0 0 0 2,074 3,798 0 . 0: 0 0 0 0 0 Columbia 227 0 0 Richmond 1,770 0 0 15 349 40,847 112 0 0 438 0 0 Secondary study area 16 Burke 29 0 0 0 0 783 3,595 0 0 0 5 0 6 306 0 3,563 0 9 0 70 0 Edgefield 7»S 0 0 0 0 0 Hampton n 341 3 4 0 146 0 0 3,827 0 13 0 0 171 0 81 0 15,699 143 146 0 Lexington 413 3 5 fl Orangeburg 256 13 251 84 0 18 6 0 0 240 18,760 0 0 7 0 369 0 492 12 2,547 0 Saluda 227 0 0 0 0 3,596 Screven 27 0 0 B 0 71 JJ 0 0 0 5 •Sourcei See reference 26, 4-42 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion: 1950, Volume II Characteristics of the Population, Part 11, Georgia, Washington, D.C., 1952. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion: 1950, Volume II Characteristics of the Population, Part 40, South Caro)i na, Washington, D.C., 1952. 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, Part 12, Georgia, Washington, D.C., 1963. 4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1960, Volume I Characteristics of the Population, Part 42, South CaroTTna, Washington, D.C., 1963. 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Popula- tion Characteristics: Georgia, 1970, Census of the Population, Wash- ington, D.C., September 1971- 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Popula- tion Characteristics: South Carolina, 1970, Census of Population, Washington, D.C., August 1971- 7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popula- tion Reports: Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population Esti- mates, Series P-26, No. 78-10, Georgia, Washington, D.C., October 1979. 8. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popula- tion Reports: Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population Esti- mates, Series P-26, No. 78-40, 5outh Carolina, Washington, D.C., November 1979. 9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Ab- stract of the United States, 197?, Washington, D.C., 1973. 10. Personal communication between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and Jean Pope and Mr. Wilkens, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., October 14, 1980. 11. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1952, Washington, D.C., 1953. 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1962, Washington, D.C., 1962. 13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1972, Washington, D.C., 1973. U-kl REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 (continued) 14. Personal conwunication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and D. DiAre, Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1980. 15. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and D. DiAre, Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Washington, D.C., July 1980. 16. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and L. Kehm, Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Washington, D.C., July 8, 198O. 17. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and M. Zitter, Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Washington, D.C., July 10, 1980. 18. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Ab- stract of the United States, 1979, Washington, D.C., 1979. 19. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and L. Kehm, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., October 17, 1980. 20. Personal comr.un icat ion between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and M. Dixon, Georgia Office of Special Programs, Department of Human Re- sources, Atlanta, Ga., October 14, 1980. 21. South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services, South Carolina Statistical Abstract 1979, Columbia, S.C., 1979. 22. Personal Communication between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and T. Hall, Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Washington, D.C., October 14, 1980. 23. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977. 2k. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. Grossman, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., Octobcr 16, 1980. 25. Georgia Division of Physical Health, Georgia Vital and Health Sta- tistics 1978, Atlanta, Ga., 1980. 26. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and P. Fulton, Journey to Work Section, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., May 20, 1980. 4-1 5.0 ECONOMIC PROFILE AND TRENDS The counties in the study area have a large percentage of the working population employed in manufacturing and trade. The urban variety and concentrations of business activities in Richmond, Aiken, and Lexington Counties have resulted in these counties having the largest industrial payrolls and the highest per capita income in the study area. Despite this large industrial payroll, all of the counties except Aiken County remained below the national average in earnings per employee for all industries. In the more rural counties that have lower percentages of labor employed in the manufacturing sector, the per capita income is well below the national average. As should be expected, the Augusta Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) contains the industries that contribute the most to the regional value added, and the more rural counties have a smaller share of the value added. This is because of the high concentration of manufacturing in the urban area as compared to the counties that are mor-i rural. The labor pool employed in the region has followed the general trend of the rest of the U.S., with an increase in the labor participation rates resulting from an increase in the number of women entering the labor market. Further information is presented in the following sections with regard to these areas as well as trends in earnings, gross state product, and the local labor market. 4-2 5.1 MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS Richmond County, Georgia (which includes the City of Augusta), had the largest number of employed persons in 1975 in the study area. Aiken and Lexington Counties in South Carolina had approximately an equal number of employed persons. Allendale and Saluda Counties in South Carolina had the least number of employed persons, and Burke, Columbia, and Screven Counties in Georgia, and Bamberg, Edgefield, and Hampton Counties in South Carolina, also had low employment levels (see Table 5.1). Aiken, Barnwell, and Edgefield Counties have relatively higher concentra- tions of employment in manufacturing, and Allendale, Hampton, Orangeburg, Richmond, and Screven have relatively higher shares of employment in the trades (see Tables 5.2 and 5*3).3 5.1.1 Major employment sectors in 1972 and 1977 In 1972, Richmond, Lexington, Aiken, and Orangeburg Counties had the highest numbers of manufacturing establishments and, correspondingly, the highest manufacturing employment and payrolls. The more rural counties, except for Orangeburg, have markedly low manufacturing payrolls and few production workers. As indicated in Table 5.4, county-based manufacturing employment rates annually increased during the period from 1972 to 1977, well above the state rates, except for Bamberg County where rates remained unchanged, and Hampton County, where rates declined by approximately 2.3 percent per year. Richmond County showed only a modest gain in manufacturing if 5 employment of approximately 1 percent per year. ' In 1977, Aiken, Richmond, Lexington, and Orangeburg Counties accounted for the largest total payrolls. The remaining counties had 1977 payroll totals that ranged between $6.1 and $5.6 million. 4-3 Table 5.1 General employment and payroll of the counties in the primary and secondary study areas3 1975 1974 Employment Percentage i n payrc >11 County March 1975 Mfg. Trade ($mi11i on) Burke 3,204 53 .9 24 .1 19. 1 Co1umb i a 2,435 34 .7 21 • 5 17. 3 R i chmond 43,898 29 .3 30 .4 357. 0 Screven 2,058 53 -7 27 .2 14. 8 Aiken 24,980 64 .5 15 .2 243. 8 Allendale 1,400 42 .1 36 .8 9. 6 Bamberg 2,614 48 .5 24 .4 17. 2 Barnwel1 4,825 70 .6 14 .7 35. 9 Edgefield 2,720 67 .0 18 .0 19. 6 Hampton 3,163 50 .3 26 .0 25- 0 Lexington 24,715 41 -9 23 .5 190. 5 Orangeburg 16,436 42 .2 26 .7 117. 3 Saluda 1,873 60 .2 20 .1 11. 1 aSource: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Ij City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. (\ 1! Table 5.3 Wholesale trade, retail trade, and government statistics for the counties In the primary and secondary study areas, 1972, 1975s Wholesale trade 1972 Percent Local government October 1972 Wholesale change In Payroll Federal gov't, Retail 1972 Nunber of sales sales Payrol1 per month est. 1972 NusAer of 5ales In County establIshments ($ million) 1967-1972 ($ thousand) Employment Employment ($ million) employment11 establIshments ($ millions) Burke 29 16.6 116.2 1,059 165 503 0.3 51 164 24.4 Columbia 10 10.0 340.0 769 N/Ac 488 0.3 19 154 15.2 Richmond 244 295.3 33.1 21,706 2,682 6,017 3.2 5,662 1,474 430.3 Screven 26 12.5 76.0 673 146 47J D.2 43 141 18.2 Aiken 66 31.6 86.4 2,291 368 2,773 1.6 426 839 145-3 Allendale 17 45.3 151-9 1,698 223 373 0.2 31 115 17.8 Banberg 25 24.6 849. e 661 153 548 0.3 37 200 21.2 Barnwell 15 7.0 16.5 480 92 522 0.3 44 203 22.7 Edgefield 24 17.7 102.8 756 125 360 0.2 Bo 141 27.8 Hampton 34 25.3 63.9 1,720 269 528 0.3 72 213 25.6 Lexington 134 107.9 145.0 9,492 1,198 2,106 1.3 226 924 176.4 Orangeburg 132 102.9 85.3 5,2*3 875 2,532 1.4 212 770 143.5 Saluda 18 20.0 200.0 466 84 265 0.1 47 177 18.3 'Sources: U.S. Department of Conmerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. U.S. Department of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1972. '•Estimated from 1972 and 1977 Census figures. cData not available. Table 5.4 Employment, earnings, and related statistics for the manufacturing and service Industries In the primary and secondary study area, 1977" Retail Services Average Annual Retall Payrol1 per capital ex- percent Annual services employee Number of Number New capital penditures per change In payroll sold In Sales per for pay- establ Ish- of Payrot 1 expenditures establ Ishment anp1oyment per 1977 establIsh- Payroll rol led estab- 1 Area ments employees ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ million) 1972-1977 emp 1 oyee ($ millions) ment employment lishments' Burke 31 1,800 13.8 3.4 0.11 7.69 7,667 3.07 37.01 563 5,989 Columbia 41 1,700 17.4 2.5 0.06 16.27 10,235 5.16 31.48 200 4,980 R1chmond 167 14,100 162.1 153.6 0.92 1.02 11,496 103.96 55.99 4,706 6,538 Screven 38 1,600 15.0 2.8 0.07 5.92 9,375 2.24 43.56 153 3,980 Aiken 95 19,200 250.1 15.0 0.16 3.46 13,026 24.54 39.63 1,034 5,897 c Allendale 23 800 6.1 N/A N/A 4.56 7,625 2.18 30.21 116 4,310 Bamberg 40 1,700 12.2 1.7 0.04 0.00 7,176 2.18 30.21 116 4,310 Barnwell 21 3,100 25.6 3.2 0.15 6.15 8,258 2.91 28.22 104 5,836 Ul 1.88 28.41 52 4,327 i Edgefield 52 2,100 19.1 1.3 0.03 4.32 9,095 CT> Hampton 51 1,600 19.9 2.5 0.05 -2.23 12,437 5.61 49.22 238 6,508 Lexington 169 11,800 125.3 72.2 0.43 3.57 10,618 42.00 45.96 1,886 5,892 Orangeburg 113 8,200 78.5 8.3 0.07 2.92 9,573 25.27 53.43 1,121 5,731 Saluda 43 1,400 10.9 N/A N/A 6.96 7,786 2.17 25.20 60 4,750 Totals 884 69,100 756.0 223.17 Georgia 8,630 484,400 5,091.0 1,146.0 0.13 0.71 10,510 3,453.47 93.71 113,628 7,841 South Carolina 4,227 375,300 3,815.9 792.7 0.19 1.69 10,168 1,420.28 72.34 60,773 6,836 'Sources: U.S. Department of Ccnmerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures: 1977. Geographic Area Series. HC77-A11 and 41(a), Washington, D.C., 1977. U.S. Department of Conmerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Retail Trade. Area Series 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977. bFor establishments that have payrolls Involving more than one.employee. cData not available. 4-7 Retail services in the thirteen counties during 1977 were valued at $223.6 million, and the highest portion (47 percent of the total) was in Richmond County which includes Augusta, Georgia. Lexington, Orangeburg, and Aiken Counties also had sizable retail services and employment in these sectors. Richmond County, and particularly the City of Augusta, appear to be the center of wholesale activity in the region, with 248 establishments hav- ing $295 million in 1972 sales. However, Lexington and Orangeburg Coun- ties, which had the second and third highest number of retail establish- ments,, experienced a greater increase in sales during the 1967 to 1972 period than Richmond County. In 1972, Richmond County had by far the largest number of local govern- mental employees (6017) and annual payroll ($3-2 million). Richmond County also had the highest number of Federal government employees (5662), undoubtedly due to the presence of Fort Gordon. Aiken, Orange- burg, and Lexington Counties were the next three counties with the high- est number of local and federal government employees. The number of retail establishments and sales in each county are anywhere from two to ten times the level of wholesale activity. Selected service industries have characteristics similar to those in wholesale and retail activities in the study area. There is little mineral industrial activity in the region, except for non-metallic fillers, clays, bricks, refractories, and aggregates. The region contains many small farms, most of which are worked on a part- time basis; Although most counties reported more than 100,000 acres in farms (except for urban Richmond and Columbia Counties), Orangeburg, Screven, Aiken, and Burke Counties had the largest amount of agricultural acreage. Orangeburg ($46.4 million), Burke ($25.3 million), and Screven ($21.3 million) had the largest farm product sales in 1972. On a per- acre basis, farm sales were greater for Orangeburg ($133) and Bamberg 4-8 ($118.30) Counties. The per-acre sales measure was also relatively high (i.e., over $100) in Edgefield, Hampton, and Lexington Counties (see Table 5.5).3 5.1.2 Major employment in the manufacturing sector in 1980 Data on manufacturers' products and employment are presented in Table 5.6.^"^ For seven of the counties in the study area, the Manufactur- ers' Directory of Metropolitan Augusta and the Central Savannah River Area (1980-81) provided the latest available (1980) data on large manu- facturing firms, the number of employees in each firm, the major prod- ucts, and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.* The larger firms and their employment levels are listed in Table 5.6. There are more than 300 manufacturing establishments in the 13 counties, 127 of which employ more than 50 workers each. The largest private manufactur- ing employer, the Graniteville Company's multifabric mills in Aiken Coun- ty, has 6827** employees, followed by Savannah River Plant with 5568 employees***; Owens Corning Fiberglass, 1700; Babcock and Wilcox Refrac- tories, 1200; Murray Biscuits, 1093; Continental Forest Bleached Paper- board, 1010; John King Mfg., 826; Clearwater Finishing, 997; Badish Down, 900; Therm-O-Disc, 850; Rheem, 760; and Seminole Mills, 690. There are also significant employment levels in cotton and synthetic textile yarns, fibers, fabric weaving, finishing, apparel, and related products in ten other plants, each with between 500 and 1000 employees, and there is additional textile related employment in several other es- tablishments, each of which employs less than 500 workers. A few spe- cialized equipment and machinery firms each employ about 500 or more workers in manufacturing electric controls, service equipment, roller *Codes for Industri es, as established by the Department of Commerce. **The numbers of employees listed in Table 5.6 are 1980 estimates, and the estimates in this paragraph are for earlier years. There are some- times frequent layoffs owing to the unique type of work performed in these companies. ***prime contractor (du Pont) operating personnel. Table 5«5 Services, minerals and agricultural statistics for the counties In the primary and secondary study areas, 1972a Agriculture Selected services Mineral industries Sales of Number of Sales Value Area In $2,500 Sales ($) establIsh- receipts Number of Payrol1 added In No. of thousands or more per County ments ($ million) establIshments Employment ($ million) {$ million) farms of acres ($ million) farm acre Burke 66 1.8 „b _ „ . 458 271 25.3 93.3 Columbia 126 2.6 1 N/AC N/A N/A 219 49 1.6 32.7 Richmond 960 64.5 4 N/A N/A N/A 141 39 3.0 76.9 Screven 78 1.9 - N/A N/A N/A 560 220 21.3 96.8 Aiken 569 15.3 6 300 2.1 5.3 770 173 12.8 74.0 Allendale 61 1.9 - - - - 212 124 11.9 96.0 Bamberg 93 1.8 - - - - 378 104 12.3 118.3 Barnwel1 107 2.5 - - - - 370 118 11.0 93.2 Edgefield 77 1.7 - - - - 377 104 11.0 105.8 Hampton 95 2.5 - - - - 437 145 15.3 105.5 Lexington 678 24.9 7 N/A N/A N/A 899 142 14.6 102.8 Orangeburg 382 15.4 - - - - 1588 349 46.li 133.0 Saluda 79 1.1 - - - - 700 140 11.8 84.3 aSourcej U.S. Department of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. bData cannot be obtained or derived. cDeta not available. Table 5.6 Estimated number of employees In major fl (with 50 or more employees) In the primary and secondary study areas, 1980s SICb No. of employees County Hame of fI rm code Sector description or ma|or product In 1980 Burke Sard Is Hfg. Co. 2391 Draperies 130 Burke Hfg. Co. 2329 Mens' and boys' Jackets 250 Keller Aluminum Furniture of Georgia 2514,3441 Aluminum furniture, building props 362 Kimberly-Clark Corp., Southeastern 2421 Pine lumber, hardwood lumber, 260 U.S. Forest Products, Business Dlv chips and shavings Perfection Products Co. 3433 Room heaters 200 Samson Hfg. Co. 2391 Curtains and draperies 353 Waynesboro Industries, Inc. 3441,3589,3914 Stainless steel, metal fabrication, plating 114 Columbia TRW United-Greenfield Olv. 3545 Drill bits, reamers, end mills 574 Georgia Iron Works 3322,3561 Pumps, castings 302 Thomson 2327 Men's slacks 180 Tracy-Luckey 2065,2873 Pecan nuts 120 Kaykor Agr. Chemicals N/Ad N/A 82 Augusta Iron & Steel 3441,3599 Steel fabrication, machine s.hop 50 Club Car 3799 Electlc golf carts 225 Martin Marietta SE Dlv. 3281 Crushed stone, granite N/A Rosewood Knitting Mil Is 2262 Text 11e knits 80 Sheet Metal Engineers 3444 Duct air heat 89 Sudan Industrjes 2221 Broad-woven fabrics 65 Martinex Cabinet S Mill 2434 Custom wood cabinets 171 Richmond Abltlbl Southern 2621 Newsprint 200 Addison Corp. Augusta Lumber 2431 Window and door units 53 Augusta Coca-Cola Bottling 2086 Soft drinks 189 Babcock t Wilcox Refractory Olv. 3255,3297,3299 Refractories 1,200 Borden 2026,2024 Milk, Ice cream 157 Baker Hydro 3589 Pool filter machines 70 Augusta Chemicals 2865 Dyestuffs, organic chemicals 52 Carole Fabrics . 2391,2591 Draperies, bedspreads, shades 276 Castleberry Food 2013,2035 Prepared meats, sauce 180 Coastal Lumber 2421 Lumber and wood chips 83 Colonial Baking 2051 Breads, rolls, cakes 148 Columbia Nitrogen 2813,2819 Industrial Inorganic chemicals 450 Continental Forest 2631 Bleached paper board 1,010 Continental Forest, Bldg. Prod's Dlv. 2421 Lumber, kiln dried; shavings 83 Deerfleld SpecialIty 2641 Glasslne and specialty paper 100 Dupont, E. I. de Nemours 2819 Sodlurn si 1Icate N/A E-Z Go Car, Dov. Textron 3799 Golf carts 543 Esselte Pendaflex 3953,2741,2752 I.D. tag machines; printing, bookkeeping, 200 ref. books Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 5.6 Estimated number of employees in major firms (with 50 or more employees) in the primary and secondary study areas, 1980a (continued) SICb No. of employees County Name of firm code Sector description or major product in 1980 Richmond Fine Products 2065 Candies and confection 133 Gary Concrete 3272 Prestressed concrete, pipes 80 Graniteviile Co., Enterprise Div. 2211 Cotton twill cloth 527 Georgia-Carolina Brick S Tile 3251 Structural clay, brick 166 Homestead Mfg. 2391,2392 Bedspreads, draperies 320 Hydreco 3495,3561 Valves and pump parts 120 Ireland Electric 3613 Electrical construction 75 Kendall Co. 3942 Surgical dressings and health care 665 products John King Mfg. 2211,2283 Woven cotton fabric; corduroy fabric, 826 knit yarns Lily Div. Owens, Illinois 2654 Paper cups and containers 400 Menardl-Southern 2564 Textile filters 190 Merry Ccmpanle's (excluding 3251 Brick face and decoration; conc. panels 434 G-C Brick) Mid-South Container 2653 Corrugated containers (boxes) 159 Modern Roofing S Metal Works 3444,3448 Sheet metal fabricaton; panels 66 Murray Biscuits 2052 Cookies, plain/fancy 1,093 Nipro 2819,2869 (Mnj) SOtfj cl chemicals 280 01i n Corp 2812,2819 NaOH; chlorine, sodium hydrosulfides 135 Proctor S Gamble Mfg. 2841 Synthethic detergents 250 Servomatlon of Georgia 2099 Food vending processes 90 Southeastern Newspapers 2711 Newspaper printing 440 Southern Beverage Packers 2086 Soft drinks 60 Southern Machine S Tool 3544 Jigs, dyes, tools, steel fabr. 71 Southern Wood Piedmont 2491 Creosoted poles, posts, lumber 99 Southland Timber 2411 Timber and pumpwood 50 Modern Welding 3443 Pressure storage tanks and vessels 55 Newth-Morrl5 Box 2651 Folding paperboard boxes 50 Shapiro Packing 2011 Beef, veal 150 Transco Textiles 2262 Dyeing printing, and finishing 300 Trooper 2328 Army fatigue clothing 230 Wren Optical 3851 Prescription lenses 57 Screven Corbett Plywood 2421 Cypress and hardwoods 60 Badische Dow 2281 Synthetic carpet yarn 900 Torrington 3562 Ball and roller bearings 514 White Stag Mfg. 2331,2337,2339 Ski wear, blouses, pants and coats 316 King Finishing 2211 Broad-woven cotton fabrics 316 Note; See footnotes at end of table. Table 5.6 Estimated number of employees In major firms (with 50 or more employees) In the primary and secondary study areas, 1980" (continued) SICb No. of employees Name of firm code Sector description or major product In 1980 Aiken Ccmmunlcat Ions 2711 Newspaper publishing 60 Aiken Industries 2331 Ladies' sportswear 155 Aiken Standard 2711 Newspaper publishing 59 Beecham Products 2834 Pharmaceuticals 125 Beloit Manhattan 3069 Rubber and polymer covers 52 Colonial Equipment 2541,2542 Hetal and wood store fixtures 65 Convenience Products, Rlegeltex 2647 Disposable diapers 125 Kimberly-Clark 2647 Tissue products 682 Dupont, E. 1. de Nemours 2821 Nuclear materials 5,568 Harvey Hubbell 3643 Industrial electrical wiring devices 95 Owens Corning Fiberglass 3229 Glass fibers 1,900 PepperIdge Farm 2051 Variety breads 50 Southeastern Clay 1455 Mining/refining kaolin clay 50 Therm-0-Dlsc 3622,3822 Electric temperature control 850 Universal Hfg. & Supply 2441 Equip, fabr., erectors, and plant maintenance 90 Bath Hill, United Merchants S Hfg. 2211,2221 Textile yarn mill, cotton and blend fabrics 676 Amoco Foam Products 3079 Foam trays, bowls, and plates 160 Dixie Clay 1455 Kaolin clay mining and processing 76 Ul Clearwater Finishing Plant UM S M 2261,2262 Finishing cotton, dyeing, printing 997 l Seminole Hilts UM & H 2221,2281 Synthetic yarns and spun fibers 737 fs» Gr&nltevlile Company 2211,2221,2261 Flannels, duck, poplin, denim, cords, 3,607 2295 Jeans, and blended fabrics (approximate) FMC Power Equipment 3524 Lawn mowers 92 RE Phelon 3361 Aluminum flywheels and Ignition for movers and saws 100 Universal Hfg S Supply 3441,3444 Hetal fabrication, sheet metal 85 United Fabricators 3498,3443 Pipe tank and structural fabricators 70 J. H. Huber 1455 Mining and beneficiating kaolin clay 141 Va1chem-Chemi ca1 2843,2865,2891 Surface agents, adheslves, and coating 102 Hamburg Industries 3743 Railroad service equipment 370 Jackson Sportswear 2321 Knit shirts ill Tilbury Fabrics 2221,2352 Bedspreads, draperies, home furnishings 150 Revco OS 2651 Pharmaceutical packaging 111 Sal ley Hfg. 2339,2369 Women's slacks and shorts 400 Wagener Hfg. 2329,2384 Beachwear and bathrobes 370 Granitevl11e Co. Warren Hill 2211 Indigo denims 531 Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 5.6 Estimated number of employees In major rms (with 50 or more employees) In the primary and secondary study areas, 1980® (continued) SICb No. of employees County Name of firm code Sector description or major product in 1980 Allendale Badlsche 2283 Carpet, yarn 126 Sandoz 2819,2865 Dyestuffs, special chemicals 180 Kayser Roth 2341 Ladles' loungewear 435 J. P. Stevens 2297 Carpet yarn 145 Allendale Apparel Mfg. 2321,2331 Knit tops 160 BSC - Wire Dlv. 3315,3443 Stainless steel wire, boat-control cables 50 Allendale Yarns 2281 Carpet yarn 126 Corbett Plywood 2435 Veneer 54 Bamberg0 Bamberg Mfg. 2327 Male slacks 225 Bamberg Textile Hills 2211 Print cloth 225 Delavan 3432 it Oil burner nozzles, roller and turbine 160 '' pumps Phoenix Specialty 3293,3452, Metal stampings, washers, gaskets, 72 3469,3499 shims Rockland-Bamberg Industries 2261 Coatings, bleaching/printing fabrics 95 Holland Atlantic Hitch 3714,3799 Fifth wheel, trailer hitches 205 Lifetime Doors 2431 Flush or folding doors 78 Sunbeam Appllance 3634 Electric appllances 375 Kearse Hfg. 2435 Wood veneer 73 3079,3498, Plastic pipe, fittings, coatings 85 International Reinforced Plastics 3999 2335,2339 Ladies' dresses, pants 56 Ehrhardt Mfg. Barnwell Allied-Gen'I Nuclear Services 2869 Nuclear fuel 348 Lees Carpet Dlv., Burlington Mills 2281 Synthetic carpet yarn 300 National Fasteners 3423,3964 Slide zippers, components, tools 75 Rlteway Machine & Specialty 3544,3599 Tool/die shop, welding,stampings, 89 3441,3469 fabrication Shuron Dlv., Textron 3851 Ophthalmic lenses 526 BlackvlIle Mfg. 2331,2335 Blouses, dresses 285 Augusta Fiberglass Coatings 3079,3498, Plastics, fabricated pipe, fittings, 75 3999,3479 miscellaneous metal coatings K & h 2331,2361 Ladles' and children's wear 57 Milliken-BarnwelI Mill 2358,2331 Knit fabric, synthetic weaves 700 Oucane Heating 3631,3585,3564 Glass/oil furnaces; gas barbecues 515 CarolIna Glove 2381 Work gloves 80 Oayco 3041 Rubber V-belts 165 Rheem Mfg. 3585 Freezers/refrigerators 718 Skyline Mfg. 2369 Children's sportswear 387 GraniteviIle-Wll 1 iston Div. 2221,2256 Textured woven products, double knits 73 Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 5.6 Estimated number of onployees in major firms (with 50 or more employees) In the primary and secondary study areas, 19B0a (continued) Sicb No. of employees County Name of firm code Sector description or major product In 1980 Edgefield Crest Mfg. 2399,3079 Seat covers, containers and trays 120 Federal Pacific Electric 3634 Heaters and elements 201 Kendall: Addison Plant 3842,2211 Surgical gauze; cotton goods 188 Star Fibers 2281,2824 Nylon and polyester fibers 209 Tranter-Edgefleid 3433 Transformer cooling radiators 125 Milliken: Fashion Fabrics Dlv 2258 Knitted outerwear 123 Riegel Textile: Consumer Prod's Dlv. 2399,2392 Diapers, crib sheets, blankets 586 Stone 2322 Hale shorts 162 Salem Carpet Hills 2283 Carpet yarn 295 Diversified Industries 3079 Plastic modeling and decoration 65 Hampton Estill Mfg. 2311 Uniforms 115 Falcon Industries 2329,2339 Industrial protective clothing 255 Mclarty Ind. SC 2252 Hosiery finishing 100 Westinghouse 3079,3471,3479 Laminates, clad, plate, tubing 998 Embler Door 2431 Flush doors 84 Georgia-Pacific 2411,2421 Lumber, woodchips 77 Lexington Burlington Ind. Catlln Farlsh 2211 Woven and printed mattresses 570 WABCO 3613,3662 Electronics, signal equipment 115 Horseman Dolls 3942 Dol Is 400 Macon Prestressed Concrete 3272 Prestressed concrete panels, etc. 55 Martin Marietta Aggregates 3295 Crushed granite 63 Owen Electric Steel 3313 Rolled steel products 325 Owen Joist 3441 Bar joists 85 Owen Misc. Metals 3446 Alumlnun rails, metal stairs, ladders 70 Pioneer Steel 3441 Steel fabrication 138 Reco South Carolina 3441,3443 Fabricated tanks; heater changers 80 Southeastern Concrete 3271,3272 Concrete block, brick, pipe 55 Wing Pub 11catons 2752,3731 Magazine, book, and lithographic printing 80 Weisz Graphics 2751,3993 Printed decals and namepiates 81 Nassau Recycle (Western Electric) 3341 Processing scrap metal 1,605 Allied Chemical 2824 Nylon staple and filament 1,782 Continental Forest Ind. 2653 Corrugated containers 130 Ebert Sportwear 2321,2328 T-shirts, Jackets 118 Mepco-Electra 3675 Capacitors 693 Harris Corp. Olv. of Lecom 3662 Two-way radio equipment 79 Hartwel1 Ind. 2241 Narrow fabrics 146 Imperial Caskets 3995 Hetal caskets 104 J. B. Martin 2221 Velvet 416 Southeastern Hatcheries 2048 Animal feed 55 Wellington Synthetic Fibres 2241 Woven plastic webbing 79 Allis-Chalmers Industrial Truck Div. 3537 Elec. and combustion lift trucks 293 Anaconda Ind. 3356,3661 Oropwire; telephone cords 102 Artex Hobby Products 2851,3991 Roll-on decorator paints and textiles 300 Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 5.6 Estimated number of employees In major firms (with 50 or more employees) In the primary and secondary study areas, 1980® (continued) County Name of firm code Sector description or major product In 1980 Lexington Carolina Gravure 2754 Printed paper for laminates 115 Carolina Steel & Wire 3496 Wire rope and cable 105 Classmaster Plastics 3732 Fiberglass boats 104 Guignard Brick 3251 Clay and shale brick 70 Guignard Brick 325' Brick 60 Lexington Sportswear 2329 Hen's and boys' outerwear 145 Monroe Calculator (Litton) 3573 Electronic calculators 255 Pioneer Fence 3496,3949 Fences, playground equipment 61 Summit Container 2653 Corrugated paper 82 Union Underwear 2241 Narrow elastic webbing 108 Swansea Mfg. 2329,2339,2384 Robes, shorts, jackets, swimwear 180 Atlantic Packaging 2086 Canned soft drinks 50 Canron Rail group 3743 Railroad maintenance equipment 799 Capitol City Mfg. 2335 Dresses 195 Champion Road Machine 353' Motor graders 219 Collte Ind. 3361,3446,3993 Aluminum castings, signs, metalwork 280 Gould Brown Boverl 3613 Electromechanical switching device 100 John H. Harland 2782,3052,3079 Bank checks and covers, misc. iithog. 233 Kline Iron S Steel 3441,3443 Steel and tower fabrication 141 Loxcreen 3079,3442 Aluminum doors, windows, vinyl extrusions 175 NCR Caimunlcat Ions 3573,7391 Computer equipment, R&D 556 Plggle Park Mfg 2035 Bar-B-Q sauce 54 Queen Wire S Nail 3315 Wire and nails 61 Recco Tape & Label 2641,3993,3999 Labels, tapes, tags, decals, package, design 50 Rheem Mfg. 3585 Freezing units 60 Southern Plastics 3079 Plastic extrusion 200 United Tool S Die 3469,3544 Tools, dies, stampings 85 Orangeburg Bowcar Mfg. 2369 Children's sportswear 130 El loree Garment 2341 Ladies' sleepwear and loungewear 76 Elloree Veneer 2436 Single-ply veneer 52 Holly Hill Limber 2421,2435,2661 Pine lumber, plywood, flberbrand 925 Santee Portland Cement 3241 Masonry, cement 242 Skyline 2363 Children's jackets 223 Paul Argoe Screens 2431 Screen doors and windows 75 Stone Mfg. 2322 Men's underwear 292 Anax Specialty 3357,3469 Electric wire and flatwlre products 199 Ambler Ind. 2311,2327,2329 Boy's jackets, pants, vests 700 American Koyo Bearing 3562 Ball and roller bearings 233 Applied Engineering 3443 Plate, tank fabric 430 Champion Bldg. Products 2435 Plywood panels 247 Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 5.6 Estimated number of employees In major firms (with 5" or more employees) In the primary and secondary study areas,198Da (continued) SICb No. of employees County Name of firm code Sector description or major product In 1980 Orangeburg Cox Wood Preserving 2491 Pressure-treated limber 117 Dean Dempsy Lumber 2421 Lumber, chips 135 E G S G Rotron 3629 Fans and blowers for electronic equipment 62 Ethyl Corp. - Orangeburg Dlv. 2867 Organic chemicals, specialty fuels 500 Greenwood Hills - Edlsto Finishing 2258 Finishing knits 175 Plant Greenwood Hills - Liner plant 2261 Dyeing and finishing fibers 475 Jeansvi11e Corp 2339,2369 Jeans 136 Mayer t RothkopF 3552 Knitting machines and braiders 200 Orange Cotton Mills 2281 Yarn, twine, rope 150 Orangeburg Garment 2335 Oresses, unifroms 180 Pacific Heme Fashions 2392 Bedspreads, curtains, drapes 135 Palmetto Baking 2051 Baking products 362 Roper Outdoor Products 3524 Lawn mowers 220 Times i Democrat 2711 Newspapers 72 Utica Tool Co. 3423 Pliers, sockets, wrenches 900 Talley-Corbett Box 2449 Veneer and wire poultry crates 165 Saluda Amlck Poultry Farms 2017 Processed poultry 113 Rice Mills 2384 Bathrobes 51 Knight Industries 2339 Ladies sportswear 170 Mil liken & Co. - Saluda Mill 2282 Textured yarn 400 Saluda Knitting Mills 2253 Ladies' sportswear 96 Saluda Shirt 2331,2339 Ladies blouses and sportswear 166 Gentry's Poultry 2017 Processed poultry 100 •Sources: Greater Augusta Area Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers Directory of Metropolitan Augusta and the Central Savannah River Area. 1980-81, 198O. Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, Georgia Manufacturers Directory, Atlanta, Ga., 1978. South Carolina State Development Board, South CarolIna Industrial Directory, 1980. Columbia, S.C., 1980. ^Standard Industrial Classification Code for industries, established by Department of Connierce. cFrcm Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Bamberg County Economic Profile, 1975, Aiken, Ga., 1975 dData not available. 4-17 bearings, ophthalmic lenses, paper products, furnaces and barbeques, freezer/refrigerators, drill bits and reamers, electric appliances, pumps, castings, various chemicals, golf carts, containers, brick products, and newspaper printing. The list in Table 5.6 indicates diversified industries in the urban areas, with agglomerations of similar and related industries in certain other locations. A wide cross-section of skills are represented, but these include only a limited number of jobs requiring complex skills. There are definite linkages among establishments in various phases of textile fiber and fabric processing, apparel manufacturing, and perhaps some regional cotton production. There are apparent linkages among some of the chemical firms in making integrated organic and inorganic prod- ucts. There are many smaller firms with less than 50 employees each that are not listed in the table, but in an overall sense provide additional linkages in sales and services. 4-18 5.2 PER CAPITA INCOME AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME Per capita income and median family incomes are important economic indi- cators of individual and household income. Per capita income is derived by dividing the total individual income within an area by the area's total population. Median family income is based upon the equal distribu- tion by income of families, including those with no income. Typically, since more than one family member receives an income, median family in- comes are higher than per capita incomes. The urban variety and concentration of business activities in Aiken, Lexington, and Richmond Counties resulted in their having the largest industrial payrolls and the highest per capita income in the study area. Each of these counties in 1974 ranked in the top 50 percent of the U.S. counties as a whole. From 1969 to 1974, per capita incomes grew at roughly the same rate in these three counties, a little slower within the Augusta SMSA, and a little faster in some rural counties. Per capita in- come in 1974 for the other 10 counties lagged far behind the U.S. per capita income (Table 5.7). Seven of the counties ranked in the lowest 11 percent of per capita income levels for U.S. counties, which indicated a severe income gap between the national average and the rural counties in the study area. There was also an income gap between each of the coun- ties, except for Aiken and Lexington, and their state per capita income levels for 1974, which were $4091 and $3635, respectively. For the period of 1974 to 1978, per capita income in all of the study area counties except Columbia, Allendale, and Lexington increased at a faster rate than the national change; however, all of the counties had per capita incomes below the national average. In 1978, only Richmond, Aiken, and Allendale Counties had per capita incomes greater than their respective state average per capita incomes. The 1969 median family incomes in Aiken ($8712) and Lexington ($8754) Counties were ranked high at 749th and 732nd in the nation, relatively high among all U.S. counties. Columbia ($8027) and Richmond ($7988) 4-19 Table 5-7 Per capita and median family income of the counties in the primary and secondary study areas3 1974 1969-74 ave. 1969 median per annual % 1974 per fami1y i ncome capi ta change in per capita income, County Medi an County income capita income county rank rank income $ Burke 2,180 9.9 3,001 3,018 4,480 Columbia 3,715 9.6 1,616 1,189 8,027 R i chmond 4,063 9.2 M32 1,219 7,988 Screven 2,689 9.8 2,857 2,939 4,810 Aiken 4,030 9.0 1,174 749 8,712 Allendale 2,812 10.2 2,756 2,489 5,872 Bamberg 2,488 8.9 2,995 2,599 5,687 Barnwel\ 3,307 9.9 2,186 1,841 6,997 Edgefi eld 2,799 9.0 2,769 2,293 6,265 Hampton 2,843 9.9 2,728 2,614 5,659 Lexington 4,184 9.5 981 732 8,754 Orangeburg 2,831 8.9 2,738 2,454 5,943 Saluda 3,156 9.6 2,386 2,100 6,589 aSource: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. 4-20 Counties had median family incomes which were near the median of all U.S. counties, but all counties were well below the U.S. average of $9586. The national county rankings are skewed because of relatively high family income levels in populous SMSA counties elsewhere in the United States. Screven, Hampton, Bamberg, Allendale, Orangeburg, and Burke Counties have particularly low median family incomes. Table 4.12 and Section 4.2.4 provide a more detailed examination of median family income in the study area. 4-21 5.3 EARNINGS PER EMPLOYEE Unlike the per capita and median family income indicators, which include persons, family members, or families who may not derive an income, earnings per employee is calculated by dividing the total earnings paid out by industry by the number of employees. 5.3.1 Earnings per employee in 1972 and 1975 The average 1975 earnings per employee, as shown in Table 5.8 were high- est for Aiken ($9760), Richmond ($8132), Hampton ($7904), and Lexington 3 9 10 ($7709) Counties. ' ' The Savannah River Plant was largely respon- sible for the high level registered by Aiken County. Saluda, Burke, and Bamberg County earnings per employee were lowest. All counties were below the national average except Aiken. Earnings per employee for manufacturing production workers were also highest for Aiken and Hampton Counties, but each county was lower than the national average ($8044 computed from the Bureau of Labor Statistics data) for manufacturing in 1972. For wholesale activities, employees had the highest annual average earnings in 1972 in Richmond ($8093), Lexington ($7923), and Allendale ($7614) Counties. Earnings per retail employee (including some part-time employees) ranged on average between $5067 for 1972 in Columbia County to $3582 in Saluda County. Selected service industries are those industries wherein labor or an activity is transferred rather than goods. For selected service indus- tries, each employee in Columbia, Richmond, Barnwell, Lexington, and Orangeburg Counties earned more than $4000 In 1972. Table 5.8 Earnings per employee and associated economic Indicators, 1972 and 19758 Selected services Income per Income Income per 1972 payroll for employee Average per mfg. Income per 1972 retail selected mfg. value 1972 payrolled In retail production wholesale sales per services added per retail 1972 establish- establish- Selected Income per c employee worker'' employee resident employee establishment pay rolled payroll ments ments services County ($ 1975) ($ 1972) ($ 1972) ($1972) ($ 1972) ($ 1000) employment ($ million) ($ million) ($ 1972) employment Burke 5,961 3,636 6,418 1,363 4,578 440.0 515 2.333 0.380 4,578 83 Coluirfcla 7,105 5,500 N/A<) 673 5,052 341.7 254 1.287 0.485 5,067 96 Richmond 8,132 6,253 8,093 2,795 4,683 1,660.7 10,514 51.663 19.814 4,911 4,231 101 Screven 7,191 5,900 4,610 1,468 3,188 419.4 400 1.481 0.322 3,703 Aiken 9,760 7,429 6,226 1,588 3,869 4,222.4 2,808 13.299 3.919 4,736 1,013 Al lendale 6,857 4,714 7,614 1,762 2,783 437.5 429 1.784 0.359 4,159 129 Bamberg 6,580 4,000 4,320 1,350 2,805 602.9 465 1.775 0.244 3,817 87 Barnwel1 7,440 5,238 5,217 1,290 4,172 1,058.3 453 1.966 0.413 4,340 99 Edgefield 7,206 5,071 6,048 1,805 3,644 590.0 354 1.673 0.215 4,726 59 Hampton — 7,904 7,214 6,394 1,620 3,930 889.2 570 2.225 0.452 3,904 115 Lexington 7,709 6,037 7,923 1,762 4,220 972.8 3,389 15.853 5.895 4.67B 1,397 Orangeburg 7,137 5,137 6,015 2,021 4,189 1,255.0 3,035 13-595 3.963 4,479 946 46 Saluda 5,926 4,556 5,548 1,253 2,674 376.0 328 1.175 0.123 3,582 United States 8,502* 8,908f 8,0449 -source; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. bSoclal Security and fringe benefits are excluded. cFor establishments that have payrolls Involving more than one employee. dData not available Calculated for 1975 from Bureau of Economic Analysis data. fCalculated from U.S. Department of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures. General Statistics. Washington, D.C., 1973. OCalculated from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Washington, D.C., May 1973. 4-23 5.3.2 Earnings per employee in 1977 In 1977, the earnings per employee were highest for the diversified urban counties of Aiken ($11,265), Richmond ($9364), and Lexington ($9126). The highest rankings corresponded closely to relative manufacturing earn- 1-13 ing levels (see Table 5.9). The one exception to this pattern is' rural Hampton County, where 1977 earnings per employee of $9689 were recorded due to skilled manufacturing jobs. In each of these four counties, the earnings per employee in the manufacturing, the transportation/utilities, and the nonclassifiable service sectors were higher than the county average. In Richmond and Lexington Counties, earnings per employee were also higher than average in mining, construction, wholesale trade, and finance/insurance/real estate. In transportation/utilities, the earnings per employee were higher than all the other industrial sectors of these counties, except for services in Aiken that were not elsewhere classified. This was also true for Columbia, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, and Orangeburg Counties because of the specialized skills and strong organization in this sector. Earnings per employee were lowest in most counties within the retail and service trades and in some of the agricultural service sectors. Whole- sale trade varies from being nearly $2000 below the average for all in- dustries in Aiken County to nearly $5000 above this average in Burke County. Columbia, Orangeburg, Edgefield, Barnwell, Screven, and Burke Counties indicated moderate earnings per employee, regardless of the industrial category, whereas Bamberg and Saluda Counties had relatively lower aver- age earnings per employee across all industries. The average earnings per employee in the study area are compared to the averages in their state and in the nation and ranked on Table 5.10.'® Table 5.9 Employment, payroll, and establishments In the primary and secondary study areas, 1977* Contract Transportation finance Non-class' construc- Manufac- t other publIc Wholesale Retail Insurance Iflable Loeitloo Total Agriculture Mining tion turing utilities trade trade real estate Services services Burke Ho. of establIshments 2*5 5 —b 21 24 11 22 88 21 49 4 Ho. of employees 2,370 20-99 — 99 2,015 54 155 588 107 326 0-19 c Payroll (In OOO's) $26,343 H/A — 611 16,410 481 1,981 3,934 937 1,853 N/A EarnIngj/amployee $7,817 N/A 6,172 8,144 8,907 12,781 6,690 8,757 5,684 N/A Columbia Ho. of establishments 431 7 0 127 35 16 13 132 22 73 „d Ho. of employees 4,163 24 20-99 737 1,733 152 254 702 98 398 0-19 Payroll (In 000's) $36,674 90 0 6,350 17,486 1,545 2,209 4,956 807 2,320 D Earnings/employee $8,810 3,750 D 8,616 10,090 10,164 8,697 7,060 8,235 5,829 D Richmond Ho. of establishments 3,271 22 4 319 152 93 256 1,031 368 984 42 No. of employees 46,819 213 87 3,382 13,776 1,993 3,087 11,791 3,055 9,383 52 Payroll (In 000's) $438,395 2,139 1,138 34,378 160,450 24,743 35,575 79,052 31,498 68,887 535 Earnings/employee $9,364 10,042 13,080 10,165 11,647 12,415 11,524 6,704 10,310 7,342 10,288 Sereven No. of establishments 214 D 17 35 5 26 78 12 38 2 Ho. of employees 2,609 20-99 -- 64 1,597 43 186 442 57 188 0-10 Payroll (In 000•») $21,502 0 — 500 14,957 323 1,140 2,451 575 976 0 Earnings/employee $8,241 0 — 7,813 9,366 7,512 6,129 5,545 I0,0B8 5,191 D Aiken No. of establishments 1,425 21 7 170 87 54 85 503 119 361 18 Ho. of employees 29,846 116 342 618 19,581 1,199 550 3,835 854 2,533 18 Payroll (In 000's) 5336,22J 644 3,230 6,902 256,226 15,792 5,214 24,567 7,103 16,261 285 Earnings/employee $11,265 5,552 9,444 8,438 13,085 13,171 9,480 6j406 8,317 6,420 15,833 Allendale No. of establishments 168 D 17 19 8 18 60 6 37 0 No. of employees 1,596 0-19 81 747 70 80 440 23 148 0-10 Payroll (In 000's) $11,522 D — 725 6,148 796 767 1,969 169 922 0 Earn Ings/employee $7,219 0 8,951 8,230 11,371 9,588 4,475 7,348 6,230 0 Bamberg No. of establishments 168 0 „ 16 36 8 22 108 13 57 4 No. of employees 3,339 20-99 — 52 1,769 156 163 543 70 548 4 Payroll (In 000's) $23,823 0 — 320 12,487 2,016 1,141 3,011 546 4,090 D Earnings/'employee $7,135 0 — 6,154 7,059 12,923 7,000 5,545 7,800 7,464 D Note: See footnotes atthe end o f table. Table 5.9 Employment, payroll, and establishments In the primary and secondary study areas, 1977" (continued) Contract Transportation Finance Non-elass- construc- Manufac- s other public Wholesale Retail Insurance Iflabte Location Total Agriculture Mining tion turing utlIItles trade trade real estate Services services Barnwell Ho. of establishments 289 25 21 17 122 26 65 No. of employees 5,026 0-19 0-19 208 3,622 72 70 701 111 230 0-19 Payroll (In 000's) $41,623 D 0 1,459 32,983 719 527 3,563 803 1,522 0 Earn 1ngs/emp1oyee $8,282 D D 7,014 9,106 9,986 7,529 5,083 7,234 6,617 0 Edgefield Ho. of establishments 258 10 18 42 13 20 84 19 47 5 Ho. of employees 3,157 23 125 2,167 134 106 385 69 144 4 Payroll (In 000's) $26,937 269 - 830 19,560 1,4B2 895 2,392 487 931 91 Earnings/employee $8,532 11,696 6,640 9,026 11,060 8,443 6,213 7,060 6,465 2,275 Hampton No. of establishments 338 D 41 45 7 29 129 15 60 8 No. of employees 3,422 0-19 224 1,630 28 329 679 122 382 0-19 Payroll (In 000's) $33,156 D 1,888 20,423 341 3,048 3,902 1,074 2,131 D Earn 1ngs/emp1oyee $9,689 0 8,429 12,529 12,179 9,264 5,747 8,803 5,579 D Lexington Ho. of establishments 2,130 24 6 88 160 86 181 592 120 501 42 VI 26,789 96 152 645 1,739 1,875 5,182 703 4,073 62 I Ho. of employees 10,699 r» Payroll (In 000's) $244,483 665 1,722 6,082 116,589 21,715 21,147 31,768 6,767 24,195 728 vn Earn!ngs/emp 1 oyees $9,126 6,927 11,329 9,429 10,897 12,487 11,278 6,130 9,6?6 5,940 11,742 Orangeburg No. of establishments 1,352 15 - 119 99 48 126 489 110 331 15 No. of employees 17,187 120 790 7,720 621 942 3,509 782 2,679 24 Payroll (In 000's) $143,8B9 722 6,451 74,393 6,564 9,081 21,873 6,914 17,713 177 Earnings/employee $8,372 6,017 8,166 9,636 10,570 9,640 6,233 8,841 6,612 7,375 Saluda No. of establishments 228 0 32 40 9 19 76 8 -i^S 41 2 No. of employees 2,420 0-19 120 1,633 39 106 334 42 138 0-19 Payroll (In 000's) $17,317 0 - 847 12,358 284 805 1,949 302 737 D Earnings/employee $7,156 7,058 7,568 7,282 7,594 5,855 7,190 5,341 D Note: See footnotes at end of table. T.;ble 5.9 Employment, payroll, and establishments In the primary and secondary study areas, 1977a (continued) Contract TransportatIon Finance Non-class- construc- Hanufae- & other public Wholesale Retail Insurance Iflable Location Total Agriculture Mining tlon turlng utilities trade trade real estate Services services South CarolIna No. of establishments 52,259 552 67 6,096 3,794 1,775 4,108 16,870 4,460 13,786 751 No. of employees 839,782 6,615 1,531 76,939 373,022 33,254 42,931 147,378 39,302 120,792 948 Payroll (in 000's) 57,922,262 30,524 15,636 920,409 3,824,893 419,673 480,028 931,944 397,598 892,207 9,352 Earnings/employee $9,434 4,614 10,213 11,963 10,254 12,620 11,181 6,323 10,116 7,386 9,865 Georgia No. of establishments 99,373 986 197 9,873 7,771 3,406 9,968 30,490 8,958 16,349 1,375 No. of employees 1,481,069 5,336 6,987 86,309 487,005 107,646 125,884 300,979 95,845 262,714 2,370 Payroll (in 000's) $14,883,673 43,628 91,775 961,436 5,162,793 1,640,978 1,650,155 2,056,020 1,058,859 2,166,660 24,368 Earnings/employee 510,043 8,176 13,135 11,139 10,061 15,244 13,109 6,831 11,329 8,247 10,282 United Statese No. of Employees (In 000's) 66,945 N/A 831 3,845 19,555 4,590 4,389 13,892 4,509 15,334 N/A Payroll ($ million) 5658,495 N/A 13,092 59,156 230,720 66,258 49,274 87,700 39,475 125,430 Nonagrlcultural per $9,836 N/A 15,754 15,385 11,798 14,435 11,227 6,313 8,755 8,180 capita Income(S) — V/l 'Source: • U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns: South Carolina and Georgia, Washington, O.C., 1977. bOata cannot be obtained or derived. cData not available ^Information not disclosed In order to protect the confidentiality of company data. eBased on U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Washington, D.C., May 1973, and U.S. Department of Com- merce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, Washington, D.C., September 1978, pp. S 14-l6. Totals exclude government workers and agricultural workers. 4-27 As indicated in Table 5.10, the earni ngs per employee are the highest for all industries within Aiken County, There are considerable income gaps between most counties and the Georgia and South Carolina average earnings per employee, with the exceptions of Aiken County and four other counties with employment concentrations in the manufacturing sector. Table 5.10 Geographic areas ranked by earnings per employee in 1977a Average earnings All Transportation, Geographic unit all industries^ Industries'* Construction Manufacturing utilities Retail Services Aiken County, S.C. $11,265 1 8 1 3 5 9 Georgia 10,049 2 3 6 1 1 1 United States 9,836c 3 1 3 2 7 2 Hampton County, S.C. 9,689 4 9 2 8 12 14 South Carolina 9,434 5 2 7 5 6 4 Richmond County, Ga. 9,364 6 4 4 7 3 5 Lexington County, S.C. 9,126 7 5 5 6 10 11 Columbia County, Ga. 8,810 8 7 8 13 2 12 Edgefield County, S.C. 8,532 9 14 12 11 3 8 Orangeburg County, S.C. 8,372 10 10 9 12 8 7 Barnwell County, S.C. 8,282 11 13 11 14 14 6 Screven County, Ga. 8,241 12 11 10 15 13 16 Burke County, Ga. 7,817 13 15 14 10 4 13 Allendale County, S.C. 7,219 14 6 13 9 15 10 Saluda County, S.C. 7,156 15 12 15 16 11 15 Bamberg County, S.C. 7,135 16 16 16 4 13 3 aSource: U.S. Deparment of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns: South Carolina and Georgia, Washington, D.C., 1977. ^Excludes government, railroad workers, and self-employed. cSame levels indicated. 4-29 5.4 VALUE ADDED Value added (VA) can be simply defined as the economic value of those inputs needed to provide the goods or services produced by the firms or establishments in a particular sector that originate entirely within the establishment or sector. The product or service is upgraded by the es- tablishment to a particular level of value, because the producer provides the services of its capital equipment (i.e., depreciation), management and labor skills, and effort to achieve the upgraded level of product going toward final demand in the economy. Value added is the best mea- sure of relative importance of a sector's contribution to a product. All external services, utilities, equipment, and materials are supposedly excluded in the value added measure, but Federal census data may include some of these services unavoidably. Census definitions go into greater detail about the components of published value added data. In another sense, value added is equivalent to the returns on the basic factors of production of a firm or sector. 5.4.1 Value added as a percentage of value of shipments A relatively high ratio of value added to value of shipments (VS) indi- cates greater control by the firm or sector of its basic production in- puts, and it implies less interdependence with other sectors inside and outside the region. High ratios can be the result of strong vertical integration of production processes within an industry, or high labor intensity in the product or services, or the importance of captive raw materials. A growing ratio may mean a firm or sector is diversifying to account for a greater amount of its own required inputs, whereas a de- cline in the ratio means that the firm or sector is purchasing a rela- tively greater amount of its requirements from other sectors inside or outside the area, or that inflation is growing faster than its supplying sectors when measured in current dollars. In Table 5-11* Aiken County data indicate the highest ratio of value added to value of shipments (VA/VS), with a marked but gradual downtrend Table 5.11 Value added levels and trends for selected counties In the primary and secondary study areas1 Value added (million of dollars) Value added as a percent of value of shipments SNSA,b county, or state 1967 1970 1971 1972 J973 _I975 J976 1977 1970 1971 1972 1973 1975 1976 1977 Augusta SMSA Current $ 438.1 514.0 546.6 578.2 657.6 799.2 975-3 1,108.4 55.4 54.0 53-9 54.5 50.0 50.6 50.5 1972 $ 516.5 550.9 564.8 578.2 615.8 549.4 630.4 669.8 Richmond County Current $ 180.8 232.7 248.1 249.1 292.0 372.1 506.2 464.1 45.1 44.0 44.7 46.0 43.1 45.4 39.4 1972 $ 213.2 249.4 256.4 249.1 273-4 255-8 327.2 280.5 Aiken County Current $ 257.3 281.3 298.5 320.9 356.3 399.8 450.3 610.6 68.2 66.4 64.3 64.4 58.8 57.7 64.2 1972 $ 303.4 301.0 308.4 320.9 333.7 274.8 291.1 369.0 Lexington County Current $ 76.6 116.4 150.4 157.6 202.7 202.8 198.2 275.7 51.4 50.5 45-7 48.0 42.9 40.1 45.2 1972 $ 90.3 124.6 155.4 157.6 189.8 139.4 128.1 166.6 vn VjJ Orangeburg County Q Current $ 58.3 62.9 68.7 117.6 116.5 118.3 143-0 171.0 49.8 47.3 52.2 45.8 43.1 42.8 39.8 1972 $ 68.7 67.4 71.0 117.6 109.1 81.3 92.4 103-3 South Carolina Current $ N/A= 3,767.7 4,234.5 4,965.6 5,853.1 5,933.7 7,163.9 8,095.4 46.9 47.0 46.3 46.9 43.3 43.1 43.1 1972 S 4,038.3 4,375.5 4,965.6 5,481.1 4,079-2 4,630.6 4,892.1 Georgla Current $ M/A 5,482.7 6,532.2 7,385.8 8,618.6 8,790.0 11,092.6 12,499.7 38.4 39.8 40.2 40.9 37.8 47.4 38.1 1972 $ 5,876.5 6,750.8 7,385.8 8,071.0 6,042.8 7,170.0 7,553.6 'Sources I Calculated by NUS Corporation from U.S. Department of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures, Geographic Area Series, Washington, D.C., 1972 and 1977, and from the reports In U.S. Oepartment of Cormerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Surveys of Manufactures, Washington, D.C. ^Standard metropolitan statistical area. cData not available. Note) Adjustments of current to 1972 constant dollars Incorporated the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index. 4-31 in the 1970s until restoration of the ratio at 64.2 percent after the 4 10 14 mid-1970s recession. ' ' The primary clay minerals, finished ap- parels, chemical and allied products, printing/publishing, and machinery sectors each indicate high ratios of value added to value of shipments in support of the high Aiken county ratio, since they produce significantly upgraded products from raw materials, or semi-finished and finished goods. These high (i.e., greater than 55 percent) Aiken county ratios contribute largely to the moderately high VA/VS ratios for the Augusta SMSA, which declined slowly from 1970 to 1975 but remained stable to 1977. For the States of Georgia and South Carolina overall, and for each of the three other major diversified counties in the impact area, the VA/VS ratio was below 50 percent. Each state (as well as the three counties of Richmond, Lexington, and Orangeburg) indicates a constancy or a moderate decline in the ratio for the 1970s. Preliminary data for 1977 show a marked decline for Richmond and Orangeburg Counties. 5.4.2 Value added levels The actual value added levels county by county, year to year, in current dollars, and in constant dollars, are listed in Table 5.11. Obviously, the Augusta SMSA encompasses the industries that contribute most to the regional value added ($1,108 billion in 1977), of which Aiken ($610.6 million) and Richmond Counties ($464.1 million) account for almost all of the SMSA activity. Aiken County accounted for 7.5 percent of tha South Carolina value added, whereas Richmond and Columbia Counties contributed 4 percent to Georgia's value added in 1977. The value added by the SRP to the region amounted to about $187,740,000 in 1977. The value added by the Savannah River Plant (SRP) to the region in 1979 is estimated to total $280 million. Of this total, approximately $213 million is a result of the du Pont operational phase; another $50 million is associated with the contractors and their employees who are doing con- 5-32 struction work on-site. In addition, the DOE employees at SRP increased the value added to the region by $17 million. Value added in manufacturing for 1972 and 1977, along with VA/VS ratios, is listed in Table 5.12 for all counties in the primary and secondary im- 4 14 pact areas. ' Some sectors have VA/VS ratios as low as 33 percent, but most are in the 40 percent range, indicating a modest intensity of product upgrading within sectors. Aiken and Screven counties show un- usually high ratios of VA/VS. There are indications that the textile and apparel industries are strongly integrated in successive (vertical) processing, as are some of the mineral, wood processing, and chemical f i rms. For the impact area's more rural counties, the regional shares of value added are low, particularly for Allendale, Saluda, Columbia, Screven, and Burke Counties. Value added is higher and at similar levels for Edge- field, Bamberg, and Hampton Counties (between $41 and $46 million each in 1977), and Barnwell County ($55.6 million). Value added then shifts to a much higher level—$171 million for Orangeburg County and $275.7 million for Lexington County. As noted, Aiken and Richmond Counties have the most industries that result in greater total value added. 5.4.3 Growth of value added The rates of growth of value added in constant 1972 dollars were calcu- lated for each county from 1972 to 1977, depending on the most readily available data. These rates are given in Table 5.13, and are based on data provided in Tables 5.11 and 5.12. ji Large increases in the growth of value added usually indicate new firms or expansion of output for specific sectors or for the area in general. Business closures or declines result in significant decreases in value added. Table 5-13 indicates that Columbia County experienced sharp growth in new manufacturing from 1972 to 1977 (e.g., 19.8 percent com- pounded annually in constant dollars) with the establishment of TRW Table 5.12 1972 and 1977 manufactures value for the primary and secondary study areas8 Value added Value added as a percentage SMSAb or SICC No. of ($ mil 11 on) of value of shipments county code establIshments 1222, 1227 1222 1222 Sector description or malor project Augusta SMSA All 250 578.2 1,108.3 53.9 50.5 Total 20 25 38.0 N/A<1 32.8 N/A Food and kindred 208 7 7-7 N/A 49.4 N/A Beverages 2,086 7 7-7 N/A 49.4 N/A Soft drinks 22 19 13.4 N/A 50.6 N/A Apparel and other textiles 232 6 3.9 N/A 54.9 N/A Male furnishings 239 6 6.5 N/A 41.9 N/A Misc. fabricated test. prod. 24 45 7.6 N/A 37.3 N/A Lumber and wood 26 14 81.7 N/A 39.1 N/A Paper and allied 264 5 28.9 N/A 42.3 N/A Misc. paper products 265 5 18.9 N/A 58,9 N/A Paperboard containers/boxes 27 28 9.7 N/A 79.5 N/A Printing and publishing 28 17 248.5 N/A 75.3 N/A Chemical and allied 32 17 56.8 N/A 68.5 N/A Stone, clay, and glass 325 4 26.1 N/A 68.5 N/A Structural clay 34 14 6.0 N/A 43.2 N/A Fabricated metal 344 9 5-0 N/A 41.3 N/A Fabricated structural metal 35 12 6.2 N/A 64.6 N/A Machinery, except electrical 37 8 5.8 N/A 34.1 N/A Transportation equipment Col umbt a All 24 8.2 33.5 50.9 51.1 Total R1chmond All 150 249.1 464.1 44.7 39.4 Total 22 6 30.4 N/A 42.9 N/A Textile mill products 23 13 8.8 N/A 43.8 N/A Apparel and other textiles 239 6 6.5 N/A 41.9 N/A Misc. fabricated textiles 26 10 49.8 N/A 41.0 N/A Paper and a 111ed Burke All 30 13.2 33.5 48.5 48.1 Total Screven All 36 15.1 33.3 62.1 62.7 Total Aiken All 76 320.9 610.6 64.3 64.2 Total 23 4 3.1 N/A 64.5 N/A Apparel and other textile 233 3 2.4 N/A 95.8 N/A Female outerwear Allendale All 17 9.1* 14.2 48.5 38.6 Total Bamberg Ail 32 20.5 44.1 47.9 50.9 Total Barnwell All 24 25.4 55.6 35.2 47.4 Total 23 5 2.3 N/A 76.7 N/A Apparel and other textiles 233 4 1.9 N/A 95.0 N/A Female outerwear Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 5.12 1972 and 1977 manufactures value added for the primary and secondary study areas3 (continued) Value added Value added by sector as a percentage SHSAb or SICc No. of ($ mill Ion) of value of shipments county code establIshments 13W m 1911 1977 Sector description or major project Edgefield All AO 23.6 41.6 35.2 37.2 Total Hampton All 37 32.9 46.0 44.4 38.2 Total Lexington All 162 157.6 275.7 45.7 45.2 Total 23 8 9.4 N/A 61.0 N/A Apparel and other textiles 33 6 5.6 N/A 34.1 N/A Primary metals 3* 12 7.5 N/A 41.1 N/A Fabricated metals 344 9 7.1 N/A 40.1 N/A Fabricated structural metal products 35 18 25.1 N/A 40.9 N/A Machinery, except electrical 39 7 De N/A D N/A Misc. manufacturing Orangeburg All 96 117.6 171.0 52.2 39.8 Total 20 8 8.9 N/A 31.0 N/A Food and kindred 22 4 6.2 N/A 35.4 N/A Textile mill products 23 9 13.9 N/A 69.8 N/A Apparel and other textiles 24 44 22.7 N/A 36.4 N/A Lumber and wood products zkz 7 9.9 N/A 47.8 N/A Sawmills and planing mills 35 9 27.1 N/A 74.0 N/A Machinery, except electrical Saluda All 25 9.4 •22.6 35.3 31.0 Total aSources U.S. Department of Conmerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures. Geographic Area Series, Washington, D.C., 1972, and 1977. bStandard Metropolitan Statistical Area cStandard Industrial Classification Code for Industries, established by Department of Conmerce. dData not available. information not disclosed In order to protect the confidentiality of company data. Notes Declines In the VA/VS rates by 1977 are mainly the result of greater Inflationary costs for purchased materials and for Increased purchases of Inputs outside the sector. 5-35 , / 'n il Table 5-13 Annual rates of change In value added from 1972 to 1977 for the primary and secondary study areas (1972 constant dollars)9 Annual compound percentage rate of Increase in value added SMSAb, county, or state 1972-77 Georgia 4.50 Augusta SMSA 2.98 Burke 9.25 Columbia 19.81 R i chmond 2.40 Screven 5.91 South Carolina -2.98 Aiken 2.83 AI1endale -1.81 Bamberg 5-39 Barnwel1 5-75 Edgefield 1.27 Hampton -3.31 Lexington 1.11 Orangeburg -2.56 Saluda 7.76 aBased on Tables 5.10 and 5.11. bStandard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Note: Because of the 1974-1975 recession, : and extraordinary inflation in some sectors, average annual year-to-year rates may be desirable for projections. 5-36 United-Greenfield in 197^, which as of 1980, employs 574 workers. Burke and Screven Counties also indicate strong annual growth (9.25 percent and 5-91 percent, respectively). Screven County's growth can be traced main- ly to the establishment in 197^ of the Torrington Company, which employs 51^ workers in making roller bearings. Bamberg and Barnwell Counties each posted strong rates of value added increases of above 5 percent compounded annually. The Barnwell County rate was due partly to the establishment at Williston in 1977 of the Dayco Corporation, which employs 160 persons in making rubber V-belts, and to the expansion of output by other firms. The decline of 1.8 percent for Allendale County indicates at least a decline in sales by existing firms. Orangeburg and Hampton Counties' declines of 3.0 and 3.3 percent, respectively, may be more of an indica- tion of sales setbacks or closures. Growth rates of 1 to 3 percent for other counties indicate normal growth in output to serve markets that were expanding at average national rates. For comparison, it is notable that the rate of growth in value added increased for Georgia (A.5 per- cent), and decreased for South Carolina (-3*0 percent) from 1972 to 1977. In current dollars, value added grows at much faster rates than in con- stant dollars, but current dollars are deceptive because of inflation. For Aiken County, the current dollar rate of growth in value added is 13-7 percent annually for the 5-year period 1972 to 1977. For Richmond, the rate is 13.3 percent; Screven 17.1 percent; Columbia 32.3 percent; Allendale 8.6 percent; Bamberg, 16.6 percent; Barnwell 11.7 percent; and Burke 20.5 percent. Since these rates are simply the real rates esca- lated for inflation by about 12 percent annually, the differences in the amounts of the increase are due only to compounding the rates. In other words, as expected, the inflationary increases occurred at almost the same rate for each county and should be removed to determine genuine growth in local manufacturing activity. 5-37 5.5 GROSS STATE PRODUCT OF GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA The gross state product (GSP) is the total economic activity of a state and is similar to the gross national product (GNP), which is the total economic activity of the nation. The gross regional product is simply the regional equivalent to gross state product. GSP can be defined as the sum of the value of all goods produced for final sale in an accounting period within a given state. A general description of the economies of the States of Georgia and South Carolina can be obtained by estimating the GSP by industry in the two states. The method for obtaining the estimate is first to obtain the GNP 13 14 and U.S. Employee Compensation, as shown in Table 5.14. ' The ratio of these two measures is then computed and multiplied by the figures for 3 employee compensation for the states. Tables 5.15 and 5.16 present employee compensation and estimated GSP by industry for Georgia and South Carolina, respectively, for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978. While the GNP rose from $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion during the period 1976 to 1978 (11.8 percent per year), Georgia's GSP rose from about $34.8 billion to nearly $42.7 billion (10.8 percent per year). As a percent of GNP this represented a drop from 2.11 percent to 2.07 percent. During the same period, personal income rose from $21.8 billion (2.09 percent of U.S. income) to $27.2 billion (2.07 percent of U.S. income). South Carolina's GSP rose from about $17.6 billion to $21.8 billion (11.3 per- cent per year), representing a slight drop from 1.07 percent of GNP to 1.06 percent. Employee compensation rose from 11.3 billion (1.09 percent of U.S. income) to 14.4 billion (1.10 percent of U.S. income), for an increase of 12.3 percent per year. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 compare the percent of GSP by industry for Georgia and South Carolina to the U.S. GNP. The industry in which Georgia dif- fers most from the U.S. is mining, which represents 0.72 percent of Georgia's gross product and 2.68 percent of South Carolina's gross prod- uct. Georgia produces a higher proportion of non-durable goods (14.8 Table 5.14 Gross national product (GNP), U.S. employee compensation, and ratio of product to compensation (billions of current dollars) by Industry for 1976, 1977, and 1978* 1976 1977 1978 Industry 6HP Compensation Ratio fiNP Compensation Ratio HUP Compensation Ratio Farms MA 18.682 2.4837 49.2 19.759 2.4900 59.5 27.880 2.1341 Agricultural 5.0 3.919 1.2758 5.9 4.568 1.2916 7.1 5.426 1.3085 services, forestry, fisheries Mining 42.5 15.756 2.6974 48.2 17.556 2.7455 55.1 20.552 2.6810 Construction 74.5 61.301 1.2153 83.5 68.886 1.2121 95.3 79.777 1.1946 Nondurable goods 166.5 100.031 1.6645 181.9 110.347 1.6484 196.5 121.450 1.6179 Durable goods 236.7 171.593 1.3794 274.1 196.235 1.3968 312.6 223.969 1.3957 Transportation 62.6 43.494 1.4393 70.4 49.560 1.4205 81.4 56.013 1.4532 Comnunlcation 45.2 21.701 2.0829 49.5 24.318 2.0355 55.9 27.953 1.9999 Electric, gas, 43-3 13.280 3.2605 48.4 14.852 3.2588 53.5 16.682 3.2070 sanitary services Wholsale and 296.7 177.385 1.6726 323.1 193.985 1.6656 360.5 217.952 1.6540 retail trade FIREb 235.2 57.308 4.1041 267. B 66.548 4.0242 298.7 76.165 3.9217 Services 207.4 173.153 1.1978 234.8 194.692 1.2060 268.7 221.939 1.2107 Federal government 57.6 63.425 0.9087 59.0 67.148 0.8790 62.4 72.097 O.8656 State and local 127-9 123.092 1.0392 138.1 133.026 1.0380 149.9 144.364 1.0380 governments Total 1,647.6 1,044.120 1.5778 1,833.9 1,161.480 1.5789 2,057.1 1,312.219 1.5677 aSourcei U.S. Department of Comnerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, Volume 59, Number 7 and 8, Washing- ton, D.C., July and August 1979. ^Finance, Insurance, real estate. Table 5.15 Employee compensation and estimated gross state product (GSP) (millions of current dollars) by Industry for Georgia for 1976, 1977, and 1978® GSP by Industry as a 1976 1977 1978 percent of total GSP 1978 percent of Industry Compensation GSf Compoiiat 1 on GSP Compensator i GSP and of GNP national Industry Farms 520 1,292 221 550 626 1,336 3.13 2.25 Agricultural services, Ti 94 83 107 94 123 0.29 1.73 forestry, and fisheries Mining 88 237 104 286 114 306 0.72 0.56 Construction 1,123 1,365 1,305 1,582 1,458 1,742 4.08 1.83 Nondurable goods 3,239 5,391 3,586 5,911 3,896 6,303 14.78 3.21 Durable goods 1,998 2,756 2,316 3,235 2,566 3,581 8.40 1.15 Transportation ; 1,154 1,661 1,333 1,894 1,497 2,175 5.10 2.67 Comnunlcation 506 1,054 582 1,185 668 1,336 3.13 2.39 Electric, gas, sanitary 290 946 339 1,105 373 1,196 2.80 2.24 services Wholesale and retail 4,207 7,037 4,701 7,830 5,235 8,659 20.29 2.40 trade FIREb 1,225 5,028 1,406 5,658 1,570 6,157 14.43 2.06 Services 3,080 3,689 3,512 4,235 3,958 4,792 11.23 1.78 Federal government 1,795 1,631 2,005 1,762 2,133 1,846 4.33 2.96 State and local 2,480 2,577 2,751 2,856 2,990 3,104 7.28 2.07 governments Total 21,781 34,758 24,242 38,196 27,177 42,656 100.0 2.07 Percent of U.S. 2.09 2.11 2.09 2.08 2.07 2.07 N/AC N/A •Sourcesi U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. Personal Cornunlcatlon with A. Velser, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economic Measurements Division, U.S. Department of Comnerce, October 16, 1980. ''Finance, Insurance, real estate. cNot applicable. Table 5.16 Employee compensation and estimated gross state product (GSP) (millions of current dollars) by Industry for South Carolina for 1976, 1977, and 1978a GSP by Industry as a 1976 1977 1?78 percent of total GSP 1978 percent of Industry bompensatlon 65P Compensat 1 on G£P Compensation GSP and of GNP national Industry Farms 161 400 107 266 239 510 2.34 0.86 Agricultural services, 4 3 55 54 70 65 85 0.39 1.20 forestry, and fisheries Mining 19 51 22 60 25 ji 67 0.31 0.12 Construction 734 892 838 1,016 967 /! 1,155 5.30 1.21 Nondurable goods 2,760 4,594 3,012 4,965 3,337 V, 5,399 24.77 „ 2.75 Durable goods 1,116 1,539 1,315 1,837 1,530. 2,135 9.79 0.68 Transportation 297 427 340 483 399 580 2.6€- _ 0.71 Comiunlcatlon 192 400 220 448 255 510 2-'y j -v ^ * 8.91 Electric, gas, sanitary 138 450 173 564 220 706 V" • services • — , ' - * ~ Wholesale and retail 1,648 2,756 1,825 3,040 2,072 3,427 15.71 0.95 trade FIREb 451 1,851 528 2,125 607 2,380 10.92 0.80 Servl ces ~ 1,344 1,610 1,544 f ,862 1,762 2,133 9.78 0.79 : Federal government 1,250 1,136 1,234 1,085 1,158 1,089 5.00 1.74 State and local 1,254 1,303 1,423 1,477 1,564 1,623 7.45 1.08 governments ji Total 11,408 17,564 12,635 19,298 14,389 21,799 100.0 1,06 c '' Percent of U.S. 1.09 1.07 1.09 1.05 1.10 1.06 N/A N/A aSourcesj U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. Personal comnunleatlon with A. Welser, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economic Meausrements Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, October 16, 1980. bFlnance, Insurance, real estate. cNot applicable. ORNL-DWG 81-15211 FIGURE 5.1 PERCENTAGE OF GROSS PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY: UNITED STATES AND GEORGIA, 1978 Per Cent 22 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADES 20 18 16 DURABLE FINANCE GOODS- INSURANCE NONDURABLE REAL ESTATE GOODS 14 ui ) 12 / -C- / 10 1/ ^ STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8 i / / R 6 / / TRANSPORTATION / fEOERAL CONSTRUCTION GOVERNMENT / ELECTRIC 171 1 GAS / / 4 COMMUNICATION SANITARY / SERVICES / / MINING / / Fl V~1 / 2 AGRICULTURAL / A SERVICES / v FORESTHV Y / / FISHERIES / / rrii—i El / v. / 0 I C/> < . (JD ! ZD SOUFICC: TABLES 5.13 AND 5.14 ORNL-DWG 81-15212 • FIGURE 5.2 PERCENTAGE OF GROSS PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY. UNITED STATES AND SOUTH CAROLINA. 1978 P«r Cant NONDURABLE GOOOS WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRAOES IT- DURABLE FINANCE GOOOS INSURANCE VI REAL ESTATE I 4=- SERVICES N> STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CONSTRUCTION GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC 0 GAS / TRANSPORTATION SANITARY / SERVICES COMMUNICATION / AGRICULTURAL / v\ — SERVICES FORESTRY / / FISHERIES / / W II I i s SOURCC: TABUS5.I3AMD5.IS 5-43 percent) and a lower portion of durable goods (8.4 percent) than the U.S. South Carolina indicates similiar conditions. Mining represents only about 0.3 percent of the South Carolina economy, while nondurable goods represent nearly 15 percent compared with less than 10 percent for the U.S. Durable goods constitute over 15 percent of the GSP compared to less than 10 percent of the GNP. The direct, indirect, and induced impacts of the SRP facility on the Geor- gia and South Carolina economy can be estimated by using the GSP. The 1979 salaries of the construction and operational labor force (which includes the du Pont work force and Department of Energy employees) were used to estimate, the total value of goods produced for final sale. The total value includes the direct, indi rect, and induced effects of the SRP on the region. The indirect and induced effects were calculated using an income multipiier developed for the two states based on a 74-sector econ- omy. In addition, other factors such as employer contribution for social insurance, income of unincorporated enterprises, rental income, divi- dends, net interest, undistributed profits, corporate taxes, indirect business taxes, business transfer payments, and depreciation allowances were not considered. As a result, the total impact of the SRP on the Georgia and South Carolina GSP is conservatively low. The total 1978 estimated SRP impact was $651 million, or approximately 1 percent of the combined GSP for both states in 1978. 5.6 LABOR MARKET 5.6.1 General labor force participation rates The labor force participation rate—the percent of the population 16 years old or above which is employed—rose from 63.2 percent to 64.2 percent between 1975 and 1979 In Georgia, and from 62.2 percent to 63.8 percent during the same period in South Carolina. During these years the male participation rate dropped from 79-3 percent to 68.5 percent in Georgia, and remained at 76.4 percent in South Carolina. During the same period, the female participation rate was rising from 49.2 percent to 51.9 percent in Georgia, and from 50.1 percent to 52.7 percent in South Carolina. Also during these years, the male participation rate for the U.S. remained at 77-9 percent while the female participation rate rose from 47.5 percent to 51.6 percent. The employment levels and labor force participation rates for the county populations are presented in Table 5.17.These data are directly taken from the Lower Savannah Overall Economic Development Plan 1976- 1980.17 The annual rate of growth in total employment for Aiken County from 1960 to 1980 was about 2.29 percent. Allendale County employment declined at an annual average of about 0.46 percent. Bamberg County's employment increased only 0.65 percent annually and, in Barnwell County, job oppor- tunities grew at only 0.5 percent annually. 5-45 Table 5.17 Total employment levels for the Lower Savannah Region' 1960 19 70 Partici- Part i c i — Total pation Total pati on Area empl oyment rate (%) employment rate (1) South Carolina 896,246 37.6 1,091,100 42.1 Lower Savannah 0 Region 71,024 34.3 91,389 42.6 Aiken County 28,410 35.0 40,392 44.4 Allendale County 4,189 36.9 4,388 45.3 Bamberg County 5,365 33.0 6,911 43.3 Barnwell County 6,047 34.2 7,552 44.0 Orangeburg County 23,467 34.2 .28,093 40.2 aSource: Lcwer Savannah Coiinnj] of Governments, Regional Planning and Development CoUUS fij Office of Business Economics, Lower Savannah Overall nMliPllllc Development Plan, 1976-1980, Aiken, S.C., August 1976, p. 69. 5-46 5.6.2 Labor markets for construction labor force* The smallest area around the SRP that can function as a labor market for supplying the construction work force to build a large facility is the commuting zone, or area, in which craftsmen and laborers are likely to drive from home to work on a daily basis. Such a zone is impossible to draw precisely, because some craftsmen will commute farther to work than others. The experience of large project contractors in this area, how- ever, generally has been that most commuters will come from within an 18 80- to 90-minute zone (70 to 75 miles from the construction site). The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), in a series of surveys of the work- ers constructing its power plants in the 1970s, defined the commuting 16 18 zone as the counties within 70 miles from the work site. ' There- fore, the commuting zone includes all counties within a 70-mile driving distance of the proposed site. Commuters from outer counties in the zone will require approximately 90 minutes to commute. The second zone from which construction workers are likely to come can be called the immediate traveling and moving zone (70-150 miles). Workers who live within this zone (outside the commuting zone) will usually travel to the worksite at the beginning of the week and return home at the end of the week. During the week they typically stay in rental or mobile housing near the worksite. Also, some workers from within this zone move nearer to the worksite and take their families, rather than travel between home and work once each week. The 150-mile zone around the construction project includes all of the major population centers of South Carolina (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, Columbia, and Charles- ton) and three of Georgia's population centers (Augusta, which is also in *Major inputs to this section were obtained from Oak Ridge Associated Uni- versities, Baseline Construction Employment in 1979 Around the Proposed DWPF Site, by R. Garey, L. Blair, and W. Stevenson, May 1980. 5-47 the commuting zone, Macon, and Savannah). The counties included in the 150-mile zone are listed in Table 5.18. The Atlanta SMSA is not in- cluded in the 150-mile zone because of its distance (160 to 180 miles) and because predicted construction growth through the mid-1980s make it an unlikely recruitment area for the construction of a large facility at the SRP. In the mid-1980s, very close to full employment of construction workers is expected for Atlanta. With continued Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) funding, several large projects planned for the downtown area, and many hotels and other satellite projects to be built around the recently completed airport, the construction industry in Atlanta should experience continued heavy demand through the period. A third zone, consisting of all counties in South Carolina and Georgia, represents a probable maximum recruitment area for travelers and movers, except for the few long-distance travelers that all large projects seem to attract. In summary, the three labor market areas, or recruitment zones, of inter- est in this study are: , |j 1. Commuting zone: All counties whose principal municipality is within 70 driving miles (90 minutes) of the SRP site. 2. 150-mf'e zone; All counties whose principal municipality is within 150 driving miles of the SRP site. 3. Two-state region: All South Carolina and Georgia counties. 5.6.2.1 General employment in 1979 Several 1979 population and employment indicators for the counties in the 18—23 commuting zone are presented in Table 5.19. ~ Total population within the zone was almost 800,000 in 1979. Four counties contained cities of moderate size: Richmond County, Georgia (Augusta); Aiken Coun- ty, South Carolina (Aiken); Lexington County, South Carolina (Lexington 5-^8 Table 5.18 Georgia and South Carolina counties in the 150-mile zone Georgi a Appling Columbia Jasper Mcintosh Taliaferro Baldwin Effi ngham Jeff Davis Madi son Tattnall Banks Elbert Jefferson Montgomery Toombs Barrow Emanuel Jenki ns Morgan Treutlen Bibb Evans Johnson Newton Twi ggs Bryan Frankli n Jones Oconee Walton Bu 11 och Glascock Laurens Oglethorpe Warren Burke Greene Liberty Putnam Washington Candler Hancock Lincoln R ichmond Wheeler Chatham Hart Long Rockdale Wilkes Clarke Jackson McDuffie Screven Wi lkinson South Carolina Abbevi11e Calhoun Edgefield Lancaster Richland Aiken Charleston Fairfield Laurens Saluda Al 1 endale Cherokee Greenevi11e Lee Spartanburg Anderson Chester Greenwood Lexi ngton Sumter Bamberg Clarendon Hampton McCormick Uni on Barnwel1 Col 1eton Jasper Newberry Williamsburg Beaufort Dorchester Kershaw Orangeburg York Berkeley s-ks Table 5«19 Population and employment characteristics of counties in the commuting zone (within 70 miles of the Savannah River Plant), 1979a Unemployment rate Construction County Population Employment Unemployment percent employment13 Georgia Burke 18, 483 7,175 723 9-2 802= Columbia 37, 242 14,210 586 4.0 592 Jefferson 16, 170 6,901 441 6.0 345 Jenki ns 7, 852 3,514 167 4.5 49 McDuffie 19, 107 7,075 503 6.6 253 Ri chmond 154, 056 61,594 4,031 6.1 5,215 Screven 13, 221 7,466 284 3.7 112 South Carolina Aiken 98 ,527 38,480 2,150 5-3 3,352d Allendale 10 ,262 3,460 260 7.0 260 Bamberg 16 ,949 6,600 370 5-3 110 Barnwell 19 ,523 8,870 590 6.2 370 Calhoun 12 ,191 6,980 270 3-7 430 Colleton 2S ,974 11,080 830 7.0 520 Dorchester 57 ,307 19,550 950 4.6 1,000 Edgefield 16 ,293 7,580 290 3.7 100 Hampton 17 ,226 6,670 340 4.9 290 Lexington 144 ,272 57,240 2,030 3.4 2,900 HcCormick 8 ,169 2,980 270 8.3 70 Orangeburg 80 ,210 3i,110 1,930 5-7 970 Saluda 14 ,500 6,200 370 5.6 140 Total 791 ,534 315,735 17,385 5.2 17,880 aSource: Garey, R., Blair, L., Stevenson, W., Baseline Construction Employment In 1979 Around the Proposed 0WPF Site, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN., May, 1980. ^1978 Georgia figures were multiplied by 1.018, the national projected rate of growth, to obtain 1979 estimates. See Valerie A. Person!ok, "Industry Output and Employment: BLS Projections to 1990," Monthly Labor Review, April 1979, pp. 3-14. i>v; c 7979 Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant constructon employment (603) was added to Burke County figures (199) to obtain total county construction employment. dIncludes construction employment figures provided by South Carolina Employment Security Office and 1979 average annual construction employment at the Savannah River Plant. 5-50 and several Columbia suburbs); and Orangeburg County, South Carolina (Orangeburg). The unemployment rate varied from a low of 3.4 percent in Lexington County, South Carolina, to a high of 9.2 percent in Burke Coun- ty, Georgia. The overall unemployment rate for the zone, 5.2 percent, was more than 0.5 percent below the national average during the year. Summary figures for counties in the other recruitment zones are provided 18-23 in Table 5.20. J Because several middle-sized cities (Greenville, Columbia, Charleston, Savannah, Macon) are included in the 150-mile zone, their population of almost 3-8 million is much larger than the 0.8 mil- lion living in the commuting zone. Consequently, the total employment in the 150-mile zone, 1.5 million, is five times the employment in the com- muting zone. 5.6.2.2 Construction craft employment Total constructon employment in the 70-mile zone was just under 18,000 in 1979« The county figures have been obtained from the results of estab- lishment (place-of-work) surveys provided by the' state employment sacur- i1 ity (ES) offices. In addition, the average construction work force of 1111 du Pont construction employees and 641 subcontractor employees at SRP during 1979, was added to the Aiken County figures provided by the ES offices. These workers were included in the ES state totals for construction workers, but not in the county figures. The 150-mile zone has more than five times the employment in construction than does the commuting zone. The two-state region contains over twice the population, employment, and construction employment as the 150-mile zone. Most of the increase over the 150-mile zone comes from Georgia, since over half the state's counties and the entire Atlanta SMSA are added. "rj The total in each zone in each of the construction crafts that will be required to build a large construction facility at the SRP is presented 5-51 Table 5.20 Population and employment characteristics of geographical zones surrounding the Savannah River Plant, 1979a Unemployment rate Construction Area Population Empl oyment Unemployment (percent) employment13 Zones Counties within 70 miles of the SRP (commuting zone) 791,534 315,735 17,384 5.2 17,880 Counties located between 71 and 150 miles from the SRP 2,962,122 1,238,056 70,605 Ji if 65,836 Total of counties within 150 miles of the SRP (traveling and moving zone) 3,753,656 1,553,791 87,990 5.4 83,716 Two-state region South Carolina (all counties) 2,988,976 1,241,020 65,000 5.0 72,800 Georgia (all counties) 5,176,255 2,215,000 119,000 5.1 103,154 South Carolina and Georgia 8,165,231 3,456,000 184,000 5.1 175,954 aSource: Garey, R., Blair, L., Stevenson, W., Baseline Construction Employment in 1979 Around the Proposed DWPF Site, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN., Hay, 1980. •"Georgia figures were multiplied by 1.018, the national projected rate of growth, to obtain 1979 estimates. See Valerie A. Personick, "Industry Output and Employment: BLS Projections to 1990," Monthly Labor Review, April 1979, pp. 3-14. J) iy> 5-52 20 21 24 25 in Table 5.21. ' ' ' The estimates in the table were obtained from 1978 Occupational Employment Surveys (OES) of the construction in- dustry establishments in South Carolina and Georgia for the two-state region. Total construction industry employment in the 70-mile and 150- mile zones was broken down into crafts in the same proportions as they appeared in the state OES surveys. Construction workers employed at theo . Savannah River Plant (du Pont construction) and Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant project in 1979 were added to these figures to produce the commut- ing and traveling zone estimates in Table 5.21. The crafts listed in Table 5.21 represent 67 percent of the total con- struction workforce in each zone and in the two-state region. While the employment in some of the crafts is very low in the commuting zone, there is a much larger workforce in the traveling zone. Furthermore, current craft employment in South Carolina and Georgia appears to be sufficiently large to accommodate any demand by a large construction project, if work- ers can be enticed to travel or move from outside the 70-mile zone to work on the project. 5-6.2.3 Large construction projects in the commuting zone The only announced construction project within 70 miles of the SRP that will create a demand for skilled construction workers in excess of "nor- mal" labor demand is the Georgia Power Company 2-unit Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, already under construction near Waynesboro in Burke County. ,,The plant is scheduled for completion in the late 19&«=. Normal demand is defined here as all other construction projects in the zone—even those costing as much as $300 mi 11 ion—since the construction of new plants and the expansion or refurbishment of existing plants in this area (especially in Georgia) has been quite heavy in recent years, and is ex- 27 pected to continue at a high level of activity. Therefore, employ- ment at such large projects is already included in the base figures pro- vided by th'^ OES and other surveys that served as data sources for Tables j > 5.19, 5.2G ^uhd 5-21. No project approaching the size of the Vogtle pro- 27 ject, which will cost an estimated $3.4 billion and employ 5000 con- 5-53 Table 5-21 Construction employment by selected craft and zone, 1979 estimates0'** 70-ml 1e 150-ml 1 e comnutl ng travelIng Two-state Craf tc zone zone reglon Boll ermakers 62 179 532 Carpenters 2,678 13,105 26,910 Insulators 188 932 2,850 Electrlcl ans 1,231 5,796 11,869 Concrete finishers 460 1,944 4,358 1ronworkers 332 1,210 1,939 Palnters 620 3,017 6,120 Mil 1 wrlghts 189 962 1,644 Heavy-equipment operators 977 4,803 10,735 Teamsters 464 2,237 4,810 Pipefitters/plumbers 1,290 4,926 10,360 Laborers 2,644 11,565 32,200 Sheet-metal workers 471 2,477 4,550 Total 11,606 53,253 117,860 •Source: ;r Garey, R., Blair, L., Stevenson, V., Baseline Construction Employment In 1979 Around the Proposed DWPF Site, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN., May, 1980. ^Coost ruction"' employment by craft for the two-state region equals the sum of craft employment In South Carolina and Georgia as re- ported In the 1978 Occupational Employment Surveys of those states, multiplied by 1.018, the annual projected rate of growth. Craft employment In the 70- and 150-mile zones was obtained by first dividing 1979 construction employment In these zones Into crafts of the same proportions as In the South Carolina and Geor- gia occupational employment surveys. To these craft figures, the employment by craft at the Savannah River Plant In 1979, and 1979 employment by craft at the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant near Waynes- boro, Georgia, were added, giving an estimate of total construc- tion employment In the crafts of Interest In 1979. (The 1979 SRP construction workers were Included In the state totals for South Carolina, but not In the county level figures on which the 70-mile zone and 150- mile zone totals are based. Vogtle's construction workers, similarly were not Included In the county level figures In Georgia.) Craft estimates include helpers. cMachlnist's, who will be required In extremely small numbers during construction, are not Included because this craft Is not normally considered part of the construction industry, and thus there are no figures available on their employment levels In that Industry. It Is very probable that all will be hired from the local area. J i 5-5^ struction workers during peak construction in the early 1980s, is in- cluded in the base data for the 70-mile commuting zone. Therefore, em- ployment at the Vogtle plant in the base year, and in the mid-1980s, must be added to the base level of construction employment, which can be ex- pected to grew at an annual rate similar to that in the rest of the Southeast. Actual 1979 Vogtle construction employment, averaged over the year, is presented in Table 5.22. 5-55 Table 5.22 Construction employment by craft at the Vogtle Project, 1979a Average employment, Craft ' 1979 Boilermakers 2 Carpenters 135 Insulators 0 Electricians 64 Concrete finishers 21 Ironworkers 73 Paintors 2 Millwrights 1 Heavy-equipment operators 89 Teamsters 32 Pipefitters/plumbers 24 Laborers 160 Sheet-metal workers, 0 Total 603 aSource: ,, Robert B. Gary, Larry M. Blair, and Wayne Stevenson, Baseline Construction Employment In 1979 Around the Proposed DWPF Site, Oak Ridge Associated Universi- ties, Oak Ridge, May 1980. it I! 5-56 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 1. Personal communications between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and P. Hadlock, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statis- tics Section, March 10, 1981. 2. Personal communications betweeen L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and C. Leon, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Current Employment Anal- ysis, March 10, 1981. 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, Washington, D.C., 1977. 4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manu- facturers: 1977, Geographic Area Series, MC77-A-11 and 41(a), Wash- ington, D.C., 1977. 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Retail Trade, Area Series 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977. 6. Greater Augusta Area Chamber of Commerce, Manufactures Directory of Metropolitan Augusta and the Central Savannah River Area, 1980-1, 1980. 7. Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, Georgia Manufactures Di- rectory, Atlanta, Ga., 1978. 8. South Carolina State Development Board, South Carolina Industrial Directory: 1980, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 9. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Bamberg County Economic Pro- file: 1975, Aiken, Ga., 1975. 10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures, General Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1973. 11. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Washington, D.C., May 1973. 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns: South Carolina and Georgia, Washington, D.C., 1977. 13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, September 1978. 14. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manu- facturers (1972), Geographic Area Series, Washington, D.C., 1972. 15. U.S. Department o^ Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, Volume 59, Number 7, Washington, D.C., July 1976. 5-57 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 (continued) 16. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, Volume 59, Number 58, Washington, D.C., August 1979. 11 if 17. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Regional Planning and Devel- opment Council, Office of Business Economics, Lower Savannah Overa11 Economic Development Plan, 1976-1980, Aiken, S.C., August 1976. 18. Tennessee Valley ^Authority, Survey of Construction Project Impact, Phipps Bend, Hartsville, and Yellow Creek surveys, undated. 19- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates and Projections, Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1975 and 1976, Washington, D.C., 1978. 20. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, Monthly Labor Force Estimates: January 1974 to February 1980, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 21. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, 1979 Wage and Salary Employment for the Construction Industry for South Carolina, unpub- 1ished, undated. 22. Georgia Department of Labor, Employment by Type and Broad Industrial Sources, 1973-78: Employment by Place of Work, unpublished, undated. 23. Georgia Department of Labor, Civilian Labor Force Estimates: 1979 Annual Average, unpublished, undated. 24. Personick, V. A., "Industry Output and Employment: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Projections to 1990," Monthly Labor Review, April 1979. 25. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, South Carolina: Non- manufacturing Industries, Occupational Profile 1978, Columbia, S.C., 1979. 26. Georgia Department of Labor, 1978 Occupational Employment Surveys (PES) Results for Selected Crafts, unpublished, undated. 27. Author unknown, 1 'Water and Power Trends: 1980 Report and Fore- cast," Engineering News Record, January 17, 1980. n ^J if 4-1 6. SOCIAL PROFILE AND TRENDS There are many coimnunity organizations in the primary study area, includ- ing charitable, health, religious, professional, business, and social organizations. Most of these community organizations are located within or in close proximity to the cities of Augusta and Aiken. The 1978 per capita average income in the primary study area was lower than the average for the United States, and only Aiken, Lexington and Richmond Counties had per capita incomes that were greater than their respective 1978 statewide averages. Unemployment levels among the non- white population in the primary study area counties typically run at twice the unemployment rate of the white population; however, the unem- ployment rate for the nonwhite population is less than the national average. Community organizations, as well as selected factors portraying individ- ual material and social well-being, are discussed in this chapter. 5-2 6.1 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION Community organizations are an informal mode of social interaction and may be as important to a community as its government, services, and for- mal institutions. It is difficult, however, to determine the actual number of organizations in the six-county primary study area, because some community organizations are as informal as a daily neighborhood gathering and defy enumeration, or because an accurate inventory of these organizations was unavailable, except for Allendale County and the cities of Aiken, North Augusta, and Augusta. Thus, information concerning most of the community organizations is primarily limited to estimates made by county administrators or members of local chambers of commerce, supple- mented with information obtained from area telephone directories. Data on charitable, health, and religious organizations was obtained from county human service directories. Despite these limitations, Table 6.1 presents a brief overview of the approximate number and types of commun- ity organizations located in the primary study area. Although this table does not include governmental agencies that are included in Table 8.25 of Chapter 8, some of these agencies do receive public support and, there- fore, some overlap in the presentation of community organizations versus social service agencies occurs. Nevertheless, Table 6.1 suggests that a wide variety of organizations are located in the six counties, providing residents with medical services, social activities, professional and 1-20 career interests, religious, and cultural events. There are approximately 5^0 churches in the six-county study area. Of these, percent are located in Richmond County. Many of the churches are Baptist, although many other denominations may be found in the six counties including Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Christian Science, Metho- dist, and others.6'8'11'lif In the study area, the charitable and health organizations, some of which may receive public support, primarily consist of local chapters of na- tional organizations such as the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, and the United Way. County residents receive disaster relief, emergency Table 6.1 Community organizations In the primary study areaarb»c Type of organization Business/ Civic/ Charitable/ County profess 1ona1 service Fraternal Special Interest Environmental Cultural Health relIglous Churches Aiken 17 32 53 25 3 12 14 0 80 Allendale 4 5 7 2 0 0 8 5 51 Bamberg 4 9 12 8 0 <1 8 10 72 Barnwell 3 2 3 0 0 2 8 3 55-60 Columbia 4 2 10 4 0 0 3 10 41 Richmond 35 27 60 35 1 17 29 31 237 •Sources: See references 1-20. bDue to a limitation of data, the figures In this table are approximations based on available data and do not Include all organiza- tions located In the six counties. cThls table (unlike Table 8-31) does not Include governmental agencies. 5-4 medical care, counseling, and financial assistance from these organiza- tions, as well as from several religious organizations. The counties have between 5 and 13 chapters of the national organizations located within their borders. Richmond County, however, has the largest total number and the greatest diversity of charitable, health, and religious organizations of all the counties in the primary study area. Augusta's population can support more local, formal, or specialized organizations, such as the Diabetes Teaching Service or the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center, than other counties can support with their more limited popula- 1-5,15-18 tions. ' Fraternal organizations are the second most numerous type of community organization in the six counties, and there are approximately 145 of Q-18 them." These organizations include social clubs, country clubs, or ethnic organizations. All of the three ethnic organizations inventoried, the Jewish Community Center, the Chinese Woman's Club, and the Chinese Benevolent Association, are located in Augusta. 16-1" 8 Social clubs may be found in each of the six counties, and all but Bamberg County has a ...... „. 6-15,18,20 country club in its jurisdiction. ' ' Special-interest and cultural clubs are similar to fraternal clubs in that they function as social clubs, but they are also distinct in that they focus upon a particular area of study or concern. Garden clubs, pilot clubs, barber shop quartets, or camera clubs may be considered special interest organizations. Included in the cultural organization category are organizations such as the Augusta Opera Association, Inc., the Aiken Community Playhouse, and the Bamberg County Music Club. The Cities of Aiken and Augusta support the largest number of cultural and special-interest organizations in the primary study area.^"^'^"^ Section 8.2 of Chapter 8 presents a summary of recreational and cultural facilities in the area. Of the four environmental groups inventoried in Table 6.1, three are lo- cated in Augusta and one is located in Aiken County. These organizations 5-5 include the National Audubon Society, Friends of Savannah River, the Augusta Archaeological Society, and the Beech Island Agricultural 17 19 Club. ' ^ Other organizations in the study area that may be inter- ested fn environmental issues are 55 garden clubs and 5 historical organ- izations, the Aiken Outing Club, and Allendale County Concerned Citizens Organization, as well as other civic groups such as the League of Women 9-19 Voters. In addition, state environmental organizations and state chapters of national environmental organizations such as the Sier(: CI ub, the National Wildlife Federation, the Georgia Conservancy Inc., and the South Carolina Environmental Action Inc. may be interested in environ- mental issues occurring in the primary study area, but were not included in Table 6.1 because they do not have offices in any of the primary study area's six counties. Two additional environmental groups have been ac- tive in the Barnwell, South Carolina, area—the Palmetto Alliance and the Southeasteralso a partny tNaturao litigatiol Guardn .concernin The Nationag SRP l wastResourcee tankss . 2Defens1 ' 22 e Council was Civic and service organizations in the study area include the Lions Clubs, the Jaycees, the Woman's Clubs, and the Kiwanis Clubs. At least two of these organizations are located in each county; nevertheless, approximately two-thirds of the total number of civic/service organiza- tions inventoried are located in the Cities of Augusta, Aiken, and North Augusta. The professional and business organizations presented in Table 6.1 are also associated with the study area's larger population centers; 48 percent are located in the City of Augusta and 23 percent are in the City of Aiken. These organizations include the County Board of Realtors, the National Secretaries Association, area medical societies, and other 9-18 similar organizations. 5-6 6.2 SOCIAL WELL-BEING Although the concept of social well-being embodies an abstraction of "Ideal" forms of social interaction and personal satisfaction, there are a number of factors that have been identified through research, community profiles, attitude surveys, etc., that have been determined to be sig- nificant to an individual's sense of well-being. These factors may be grouped into the categories of material well-being, psychological well- being, intellectual well-being, and physical well-being. The following subsections characterize selected aspects of these major categories of well-being. The intent of these characterizations is neither to determine a "standard" of well-be'ng in the study area, nor to suggest that certain factors are of paramount importance to an individ- ual's well-being. The factors presented have been selected based upon the availability of data as well as the data's relevance in describing the status of individuals as they may relate to other individuals in the primary study area. 6.2.1 Income Table 6.2 depicts selected income data for the study area. Sections 4.2.4 and 5.2 of this report present additional information concerning per capita and median family income. In the study area, all of the counties except Saluda have experienced changes in per capita income that have been less than the national aver- age. Compared to statewide changes in per capita income (that also were less than the national average), all South Carolina counties except Al- lendale and Lexington, and only Screven County in Georgia experienced a greater increase than their respective statewide averages. All of the counties in the study area except Aiken, Lexington, and Col- umbia, have a higher 1976 percent of recipients of Federal assistance to families with dependent children than the national average. Allendale, & Table 6.2 Per capita Income changes and Federal assistance payments In the study area, Georgia, South Carolina, and the United States3 Percent of Percent of population receiving Percent of population receiving Percent change In assistance to families population receiving social security Per caDlta Income Der capita Income with dependent children supplemental security monthly benefits Jurisdiction 1970 1978 1970-1978 February 1976 Income June 1976 June 1976 Aiken County 3,241 7,157 120.8 4.9 2.8 14.2 Allendale County 2,149 4,186 94.8 14.2 7.3 17.2 Bamberg County 2,246 4,982 121.8 11.1 5.1 15.4 Barnwell County 2,605 5,844 124.3 8.4 5.5 15.2 Edgefield County 2,156 5,375 149.3 6.3 4.7 14.3 Hampton County 2,499 5,644 125.9 11.8 6.2 19.2 Lexington County 3,348 6,610 97.4 2.1 1.5 10.4 Orangeburg County 2,426 5,227 115.5 10.0 4.6 15.8 Saluda County 2,190 5,509 151.6 6.0 4.1 15.5 Burke County 1,956 4,337 121.7 12.3 6.8 16.9 Columbia County 2,584 5,240 102.8 3.3 2.1 9.2 Richmond County 3,401 6,993 105.6 8.1 3.8 14.1 Screven County 2,186 5,462 149.9 8.6 7.5 18.6 Study area 2,963 6,234 110.4 6.8 3.6 13.9 Primary study area 3,159 6,565 107.8 7.1 3.6 13.9 Georgia 2,697 6,700 148.4 6.1 3-3 14.0 South Carolina 2,951 6,288 113.1 5.0 3.0 14.1 United States 3,119 7,810 150.4 5.3 2.0 14.9 °Sources: U.S. Department of Conmerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977. Personal comnunlcatlon between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and a representative of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, June 19, 1980. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Jordan, South Carolina Division of Research and Statistics, October 28, 1980. 5-8 Bamberg, Hampton, Orangeburg, and Burke Counties have a significantly higher percent of recipients than the national, Georgia, or South Caro- lina averages. A similar pattern with i respect to 1976 supplemental security income also emerges, with Aiken;,' Lexington, and Columbia Coun- ties having the lowest percent of recipients in relation to population; however, only Lexington County has a percentage of recipients that is below the national average. Counties that have a significantly greater percent of recipients than the national or statewide averages include Allendale, Hampton, Burke and Screven. Columbia and Lexington Counties had the lowest 1976 number of recipients of monthly social security benefits in relation to total population, and wera significantly below the national and statewide averages with respect to this type of assistance. Counties that had the highest percent of recipients for monthly social security benefits relative to total popula- tion were Allendale, Hampton, Screven, and Burke. Although dissimilar periods are involved in the presentation of per cap- ita income and types of assistance, and. exceptions do exist, a pattern of significant income diversity generally emerges in the study area between the urbanized counties of Aiken, Lexington, Columbia, and Richmond Coun- tyi;, and the rural counties of Allendale, Hampton, Burke and Screven. 6.2.2 Divorce, suicide, mental illness, and alcoholism Table 6.3 summarizes selected rates for divorce, suicide, mental ill- ness, and alcoholism in the primary study area. As shown on Table 6.3, in 1975 both Columbia and Richmond Counties had the highest incidences of divorce with both exceeding the national average. All of the counties in the South Carolina portion of the primary study area and the statewide average for South Carolina were below the national average divorce rate.21"26' * 5-9 Table 6.3 Divorce, suicide, mental illness, and alcoholism rates in the primary study area3 Rate Per 10.000 1980 1975 1978 mental illn< Location divorces suicides and alcoholi South Carolina 34 1.1 Aiken County 29 1.1 20.9b Allendale County 10 1.6 21.6 Bamberg County 15 1.2 26.7 Barnwell County 23 3.1 31.1b c Georgia 60 1.3 N/A Columbia County 64 0.6 N/A Richmond County 96 1.9 N/A United States 49 1.3 N/A aSources: See references 28-30, 36. bRate is for admission to six South State Hospitals in 1978. cData not available. 6-10 For 1978, Barnwell County had the highest suicide rate per 10,000 persons in the primary study area. Although Barnwell County's suicide rate was significantly above that of the national average, the rate is deceiving due to the size of the county's population in relation to that of the nation. Other suicide rates were roughly comparable to that of the na- tional average, with Columbia County having the lowest rate. Barnwell County had the highest rate of institutionalization for mental illness and alcoholism among the four South Carolina counties in the primary study area. Comparable data was not available for Georgia or the 24-26 United States. 6.2.3 Ethnic characteristics Table 6.4 shows the distribution of nonwhite population and employment throughout the 13-county study area. In 1979, five counties of the nine- county South Carolina portion of the study area had a majority of non- white persons. The South Carolina county with the lowest percentage of nonwhite population was Lexington County with 4.9 percent. In 1978, Burke County in the Georgia portion of the study area had the highest percentage of nonwhite population with 57.1 percent, and Columbia County had the lowest percentage of nonwhite population with 14.6 percent. All of the study area counties except Lexington County had a higher percent of nonwhite population than the national average. Section 4.2.2 of this report presents a more detailed discussion of the racial characteristics of the study area. Unemployment rates for white versus nonwhite population were signifi- cantly different. Nonwhite unemployment for almost all counties in the study area averaged approximately twice the unemployment rate for the white population. Counties with the greatest difference between nonwhite and white unemployment included Allendale and Edgefield, where the unem- ployment rate of nonwhites was approximately four times that of the white Table 6.4 Unemployment rate and population distribution by race in the study area0 Estimated percent Annual average Annual average Annual average of total nonwhite unemployment rate for unemployment rate for unemployment rate for Location Year population total labor force total white labor force total nonwhite labor force South Carolina 1979 31.0 5.0 3-7 8.6 Aiken 1979 24.5 5.4 4.1 10.0 Allendale 1979 55.3 7.0 2.3 10.9 Bamberg 1979 60.8 5.3 2.2 8.8 Barnwel1 1979 33.2 6.2 4.9 8.9 Edgefield 1979 55.0 3-7 1.6 C.3 Hampton 1979 52.8 4.9 3-9 6.2 Lexington 1979 4.9 3.4 3.0 6.3 Orangeburg 1979 61.0 5.7 3-1 8.4 Saluda 1979 36-9 5.6 3-1 11.4 Georgia 1978 24.9 5.7 NAb 10.2 C Burke 1978 57.1 10.0 4.8 11.9C Columbia 1978 14.6 4.3 5.32 12.6<* Richmond 1978 32.3 6.5 5.3d 12.6 United States 1978 13.5 6.0 5-2 11.9 1979 13.7 5.8 5.1 11.3 'Sourcesi U.S. Department of Conmerce, 1989 Statistical Abstract. Washington D.C., 1980. Georgia Department of Labor, Employment Security Agency, Augusta Annual Planning Information, Fiscal Year 1980, Augusta, Ga., Nay 1979. Georgia Department of Human Resources, Indicators of Heeds for Human Services In Georgia. Atlanta, Ga., July 1980. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, Manpower Information for Affirmative Action Programs, Columbia, S.C., April 1980. bD«ta not available. c1980 projected rate for Central Savannah River Area excluding Columbia and Richmond Counties. d1980 projected rate for Columbia and Richmond Counties. 5-12 population. Compared to the national unemployment rate for nonwhite persons, however, both states as well as all the counties in study area except Richmond, Columbia, and Screven, had a lower percentage of non- white unemployment. 6.2.4 Educational achievement Table 6.5 presents selected educational achievement data based on 1970 Bureau of the Census data for the primary study area (Census data is based upon individual responses and, therefore, includes both public and parochial education). Richmond County, Georgia, had the highest median number of school years per capita, with 12.0 years of education for males and 11.4 years of education for females. Richmond County also had the highest percentage of high school graduates for both females and males. While Richmond and Columbia Counties had the highest Dercentage of chil- dren between the ages of 14 and 15 in school, Bamberg and Barnwell Coun- ties had the highest percentage of children between the ages of 16 and 17 u i 27,28 in school. ' Using less than 5 years of education as a measure of effective illiter- acy, Allendale County had the highest percentage of effective illiteracy in the primary study area.^®'^ For Columbia and Richmond Counties, the 1977-1978 high school dropout rates as a percent of enrollment were 12 2.0 and 2.1 percent, respectively. For counties and school districts in the South Carolina portion of the primary study area, the Allendale County School District reported a 1.3 percent dropout rate for school year 1979-1980, Bamberg School District No. 1 reported a high school dropout rate of approximately 1 to 2 percent per year, and Williston School District No. 29 in Barnwell County reported tha29-3t 2approximatel y eight students per year leave Wi 11iston-EIko High School. Table 6.5 Educational attainment in the primary study area, 1970a Median school Percent of years Percent of persons Percent of persons persons high school ages 14-17 yrs. with less than 5 25 yrs . & over qraduat :es % in school yrs. education County Male Fema i e Ha Ie FemaJ e J4-15 16-17 Male Female Aiken 11.1 11.1 44.2 42.6 94.8 89.8 9.9 7.2 Allendale 8.8 9.4 29.9 29.7 89.3 69.6 19.4 19.1 Bamberg 9.0 9.9 26.1 28.6 92.2 91.9 15.9 10.9 8arnwei1 9.2 9.8 27.8 2S.8 93.5 91.8 17.0 10.7 Columbia 11.1 10.9 43.0 39.7 95.1 78.2 9.2 6.3 Ri chmond 12.0 11.4 50.9 45.6 95.6 76*8 8.3 7.1 aSources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Statistics, Georgia, PC(1)-C12 Ga., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton, D.C., 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Statistics, South Carolina, PC(1)-C42 Ga., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. 5-14 6.2.5 Political participation Table 6.6 summarizes selected political participation data for the coun- ties in the primary study area. As shown in this table, Aiken County had the highest participation rate in the 1978 statewide general elections. Although the data -for the number of eligible voters was not available, on a percentage basis of the total number of registered voters to total population, Columbia County ranked the highest and Richmond County the lowest in 1979. As a percentage of total nonwhite and white populations, white registered voters evidenced a significantly higher registration rate in Aiken, Bamberg, and Richmond Counties, while registration rates in Allendale, Barnwell, and Columbia Cpuntles were relatively equal be- tween white and nonwhite populations. Table 6.6 Political participation in the primary study area, 1978-1979® 1979 1979 nonwhite 1979 white registered voters registered voters registered voters Est(mated Estimated Estimated Percent that voted in percent of percent of percent of statewide election State/county Number populat Ion Number population Number population in 1978 South Carolina Aiken 38,135 38.4 6,941 28.7 31,194 41.6 59.7 AIlendale A,812 47.2 2,661 46.7 2,151 47.8 56.1 Bamberg 6,504 39.4 2,855 28.9 3,649 55.3 56.5 Barnwel1 8,604 43.9 3,097 45.5 5,507 44.9 47.3 Georgia Columbia 16,045 50.7 1,620 53.9 14,425 52.3 30.0 R i chmond 57,500 43.1 17,250 25.0 40,250 40.5 44.0 aSources: See references 23, 33-35. 5-16 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 1. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, CSRA Human Resources Directory, Augusta, Ga., 1979- 2. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Tri-County Directory of Human Services 1979, Aiken, S.C., 1979. 3. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Barnwell Directory of Human Services 1980, Aiken, S.C., 1980. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Allendale County Directory of Human Services 1980, Aiken, S.C., 1980. 5. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, 1978 Aiken County Directory of Human Services, Aiken, S.C., 1978. 6. Allendale County, Allendale County Newcomers Guide, 2nd edition, Allendale, S.C., 19751 7. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Martinez, Evans, Grovetown Telephone Directory, June 1980. 8. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Augusta Telephone Directory, June 1980. 9. Personal communication between M. Huggins, NUS Corporation, and D. Baltus, Allendale County Administrator, June 20, 1980. 10. Personal communication between M. Huggins, NUS Corporation, and W. Thompson, Bamberg County Chamber of Commerce, June 20, 1980. 11. Personal communication between M. Huggins, NUS Corporation, and W. Thompson, Bamberg County Chamber of Commerce, June 23, 1980. 12. Personal communication between M. Huggins, NUS Corporation, and D. Wilder, Barnwell Chamber of Commerce, June 23, 1980. 13- Personal communication between M. Huggins, NUS Corporation, and F. Bodiford, Barnwell County Administration, June 23, 1980. 14. Personal communication between M. Huggins, NUS Corporation, and Reverend J. Rodgers, Barnwell County Ministerial Association, June 23, 1980. 15- Greater Augusta Chamber of Commerce, Augusta, Georgia, Augusta, Ga. 16. Greater Augusta Chamber of Commerce, 1980 Listing of Area Clubs and Organizations, Augusta, Ga., 1980. 5-17 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 (continued) 17- Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce, Aiken, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C. 18. Chamber of Commerce of Greater North Augusta, North Augusta, South Carolina, North Augusta, S.C. 19. Personal communication between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and T. Rebutar, Baldwin and Cranston Associates, Inc., July 31, 1980. 1' 1 20. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Barnwell, Bamberg, Blackville, Denmark Telephone Directory, February 21. T. C. Tyrna and S. R. Osberg, Environmental Protection Directory, Marques Press, Chicago, 111., 1975. 22. Onyx Group, Inc., Environment U.S.A., A Guide to Agencies, People, and Resources, R. P. Bowker Co., New York, N.Y., 1974. 23. South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services, South Carolina Statistical Abstract, Columbia, S.C., 1979. 24. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and M. Hill of the South Carolina Department of Health, June 19, 1980. 25. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and S. Odom of the Georgia Department of Human Resources, June 19, 1980. 26. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and T. McDonnell of the Georgia Department of Human Resources June 19, 1980. 27. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Statistics, Georgia, PC(1)-C12 Ga., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. 28. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Statistics, South Carolina, PC(1)-C42 S.C., U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. 29. Georgia Department of Human Resources, Indicators of Needs For Human Services in Georgia in 1978, Atlanta, Ga., July 1980. 30. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Dr. R. Hubright, Allendale County School District, October 1, I98O. 31. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Coker, Bamberg School District No. 1 Superintendent, October 1, I98O. 32. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Zeigler, Williston School District No. 29, October 1, 1980. 5-18 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 (continued) 33. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. Beasley, Richmond County Board of Registered Voters, July 25, 1980. 34. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and N. Olson, Columbia County Board of Elections, July 14, 1980. 35* Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and Z. Morris, Columbia County Board of Registered Voters, July 15, 1980. 36. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, 1977, Washington, D.C. 1977. 6-1 7. GOVERNMENTS AND FISCAL CAPACITY IN THE REGION The primary and secondary study areas have a variety of Federal, state, regional, and local governments that administer and fund programs and services, enact laws and regulations, and formulate policy. Such actions are undertaken to help the state, regions, counties, special-purpose districts, and incorporated communities supply needed services. A vari- ety of governmental forms are used at the local level, including coun- cils, joint mayor-council and counci1-manager systems, commissioners, and other forms. The administration of local governments may be the respon- sibility of full- or part-time paid employees or volunteers. h The type of administration varies from community to community, usually depending on the size of the community. Many of the jurisdictions with larger populations, such as the cities of Aiken, North Augusta, and Au- gusta, have paid professional staffs, whereas small communities, such as Elko, rely on part-time personnel. The cost of general administration Is only one of the many expenditures incurred by the local governments. As would be expected, the three more urban counties of Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond have larger total expen- ditures than the more rural counties of Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell. Similarly, the major urban centers of Aiken, North Augusta, and Augusta have the largest expenditures among the incorporated communities. This is because these jurisdictions must fund a larger variety of services, such as recreation, community development, and public health programs, that smaller counties or communities do not provide. The revenues needed to meet these expenditures are obtained from Federal, state and local sources. The Federal sources include revenue sharing, whereas the states have various taxing mechanisms that provide revenues for distribution to county and local governments. Local governments also generate revenues using a variety of mechanisms, including the property tax. As would be expected, the more urban the county or community the larger the revenues from property taxes and other sources,. This section discusses governments in the region and the fiscal capacity of the local taxing jurisdictions. ij 4-3 7.1 GOVERNMENTS IN THE REGION The Savannah Ri ver Plant (SRP) region is a 13-county area containing one Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), Augusta, and outlying areas of another SMSA, Columbia. There are 31 incorporated areas in these inner 6 counties and a total of 81 incorporated areas in the entire 13-county region. The roles of these local governments and their interactions in the region around the SRP are becoming more important as common issues link them closer together. State and Federal agencies interact with these local governments as they administer their programs in the region. This sec- tion describes the institutional structure and organization of these governments. 7-1.1 Federal agencies and Federal legislative districts A number of Federal agencies, such as the NRC and the EPA administer Federal programs in the two-state study area.^ These agencies are listed in Table 7.1.1 Federal aid to Georgia in fiscal year 1979 amounted to $1,360,876,657 (about $296 per capita) and represented 32.84 percent of the total State of Georgia revenue of $4,143,756,676. Federal aid to the State of South Carolina in fiscal year 1979 amounted to $871,180,834 (about $297 per capita) and represented 31.88 percent of the total State of South Carolina revenue of $2,732,272,518.^ U.S. Congressional districts in Georgia and South Carolina are shown in Fig- ures 7.1 and 7.2. 7.1.2 State governments In South Carolina and Georgia all state policy-making responsibilities reside with the South Carolina Legislature or the Georgia General Assem- bly, their laws, the lawmakers, the Governors, and the Constitutions of these two states. State agencies, authorities, and responsibilities stem Table 7.1 Federal agencies In South Carol and Georgia9 Subagencies for Type of officers) Federal agency major socioeconomic services South Carolina Georgia Department of Agriculture State (one Regional and state regional office) Farmers Hems Administration State State Federal Crop Insurance Administration Regional (b) Forest Service State Regional and state Soil Conservation Service State Regional and state Department of Conmerce District Regional and district Bureau of the Census (b) Regional Economic Development Administration (b) Regional Department of Defense State Regional and state Military Installations 12 12 Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (became part of Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1979) Corps of Engineers District Regional and district Department of Education0 (d) (d) Office of Educational Programs (e) (e) Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (e) (e) Office of Student Financial Assistance (e) (e) Office of Civil Rights (e) (e) Department of Human and Health Services0 State Regional and state Center for Disease Control (b) Regional Social Security Administration District Regional and district Public Health Services (b) Regional Department of Interior State Regional and state Fish and Wildlife Service State Regional Geological Survey State State National Park Service Regional and state Specific sites sites Heritage Conservation Recreation Service Regional (formerly Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) (b) Department of Energy None DOE instillation Regional Department of Housing and Urban Development None State Regional and state Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.1 Federal agencies In South Carolina and Georgia8 (continued) Subagencles for T.tpe of offlce(s) Federal agency major socioeconomic services South Carolina Georgia Department of Justice None State Regional and state Department of Labor None State Regional and state Department of Transpor- tation None State Regional and state Department of Treasury None State Regional and state ACTION None State Regional and state Civil Service Commission None (b) Regional Coastal Plains Regional Action Planning Commission None State State Commission on Civil Rights None (b) Regional Conmunlty Services Administration None (b) Regional Comptroller of the Currency None (b) Regional Consumer Products Safety Conmlsslon None (b) Regional Environmental Protection Agency None (b) Regional Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Conmlsslon None (b) Re$;<*ia1 Farm Credit Admlnlstraton None Regional (b) Federal Cormun Icat Ion Commission None (b) Field office Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation None (b) Regional Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency None fb) Regional Notes See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.1 Federal agencies In South Carolina and Georgia8 (continued) Subagencles for Type of offlce(s) Federal agency major socioeconomic services iouth Carolina Georgia Federal Mediation and Con- ciliation Service None (b) Regional Federal Trade Conmlsslon None (b) Regional Genera) Accounting Office None (b) Regional General Services Administra- tion Business Service Center None (b) Regional Interstate Conmeree Com- mission None State Regional National Credit Union Admlnlstraton None (b) Field office National Labor Relations Board None (b) Field office Nuclear Regulatory Comnls- slon None (b) Regional Railroad Retirement Board None (b) Regional Small Business Adminis- tration None Field office ReglonaI Securities and Exchange Comnlssion None (b) Regional Office of Personnel State Regional and state Management None State State Postal Service None Regional Regional and state Veterans Administration None 8Source: S. Lukowsk! and C. T. Grayson, Jr., Eds., State Information Book, Potomac Books, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1977. bNo state or regional office. cFormerly part of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was reorgani2ed In early 1980. ''information not available. eCurrently being established. ORNL-DWG 81-15213 SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA FIGURE 7.1 ft 0 50 U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SCALE IN MILES IN GEORGIA \ 7-8 ORNL-DWG 81-15214 VcHIROHEE [ TOD I 1 ISPARTANBURC . V Hltl \ CHESTER f^CASTERY""""'El° -v. J J^IARLBORO LAURENS ' FMIFIEID K. \ / '} KERSRAV ^^TOARLKCTON "l / DIL1.0W \ RE1BERRT N V ABBEVILLE iff < S^MARIOH ^ i yiREERlOOO/ > >——J -.^RICHIAR^ X SALUDA L. FLORENCE C V / lEIKtlOR \ SUMTER \ \ HORRY %-aV/V N .J^ALHOuipJ f i', / Aiui^ -<< CLARE 10011 / / • tILLIANSBURC / 2Xr '^RARCEBURt ^ I \ DARRIEll 1BAK1ERC S BERHELET \ COL LE TOR ! V V^, HAHPTOS ^ ^"S^JASPE"PERSbR r ( SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA FIGURE 7.2 0 50 U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA SCALE IN MILES 5-9 from these institutions. Elected officials in both state governments include the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Comptroller General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Superin- tendent of Education. The Adjutant General and the State Treasurer are elected in South Carolina and the Commissioner of Labor is elected in Georgia. Other elected state officials include commissioners on various state boards and commissions that control state activities. The South Carolina General Assembly consists of 46 senators serving 4-year terms and 124 representatives serving 2-year terms. The Georgia General Assembly consists of 56 senators and 154 representatives all serving staggered 2-year terms. State legislative districts in Georgia and South Crolina are shown on Figures 7.3 through 7.6. Each legislature has created standing committees that initially receive bills, report on them favorably or unfavorably, and forward them to the main legislative body for action. The South Carolina and Georgia legislative standing It committees are listed in Table 7.2. In Georgia, the Governor is responsible for budget preparation and must submit a proposed general approprrations bill (formulated by the Office of Planning and Budget) to a newly convened legislature. All appropria- tions bills must originate in the House of Representatives and proceed from there through the Senate. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate must approve the bill before gubernatorial signature. In South Carolina, the Budget and Control Board prepares the recommended budget, which is then submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee for preparation of a general appropriations bill. All appropriations bills must be approved by the House of Representatives before proceeding to the Senate for approval. The Georgia and South Carolina judicial systems vary greatly. In South Carolina, the court system is subject to local legislation that in turn causes great variations from county to county. In Georgia, the court 7-10 ORNL-DWG 81-15215 ( SOCIOECONOMIC ^ BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT FIGURE 7.3 0 50 GEORGIA STATE SENATE DISTRICTS SCALE IN MILES J 7-11 ORNL-DWG 81-15216 ( SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PUNT AREA FIGURE 7.4 ft GEORGIA HOUSE OF O 50 REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS SCALE IN MILES v 5-12 ORNL-DWG 81-15217 CHESTERFIELD V^ Q lAltll LAIRCNS oiLLoa - 5 OAR LL MGTO M ^ _ lEIBERir r ABSEVILLE^ ' LEE9\IQ J S / C MARIDM { \ ^ummy ,/^L Z^ALUDA LE XINCTOH SIINTEII /QLORERCE \ ^ Homir No. of /' AIKEN AINOIIRT, /U Dirtrict Stmtora VCURE»00» 8 X A / VILLIANSBURC 1 4 13V 2 5 / 3 1 ORAMCE BURC T // I 4 3 V imjIELL itkMEKt 5 2 SERKELEr J4 6 3 COLIETOI 7 5 8 4 9 2 iptoi \25 10 1 11 4 12 2 »SPE« 13 2 14 1 15 2 16 5 46 SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA FIGURE 7.5 4b SOUTH CAROLINA STATE 0 50 SENATE DISTRICTS SCALE IN MILES 5-13 ORNL-DWG 81-15218 122-124 ( SOCIOECONOMIC ^ BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA , FIGURE 7.6 ft SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HOUSE OF O 50 REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS SCALE IN MILES 5-14 Table 7.2 Standing committees of South Carolina and Georgia legislatures3 State Senate Committees House of Representatives Committees South Carolina Agricultural and Natural Agricultural and Natural Resources Resources Banking and Insurance Education and Public Works Correctons and Penology Judiciary EducatIon Labor, Commerce, and Industry Ethics Medical, Military, Public, and Municipal Affairs Finance Ways and Means Fish, Game, and Forestry Ethics Genera I Interstate Cooperation Interstate Corporation Invitations Invitations Rules Judiciary Labor, Connerce, and Industry Medical Affairs Rules Transportation Georgia Agrlculture Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Approprlatons Appropriations Banking, Finance, and Insurance Banks and Banking Consumer Affairs Defense and Veteran Affairs County and Urban Affairs Education Defense and Veteran Affairs Game, Fish, and Recreation Education Health and Ecology Government Operations HIghways Higher Education Human Relations and Aging Transportation Industrial Relations Human Resources Industry Industry, Labor, and Tourism Insurance Interstate Cooperation Interstate Cooperation Judiciary Journals Natural Resources and Environ- Judiciary mental Quality Offender Rehabilitation Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Public Utilities Motor Vehicles Ret Irement Natural Resources Rules Retirement Rules Special Judiciary State Institutions and Property State Planning and Community Affairs State of RepublIc Temperance Unlvesity of Georgia Ways ana Means Joint Senate-House Standing Committees Fiscal Affairs Subcommittee World Congress Center Authority Overview Connlttee Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Overview Committee (MARTOC) "Sources! League of Women Voters of South Carolina, Know Your State - South Carolina Government, Columbia, S.C., 1977. League of Women Voters, Georgia's Government. Atlanta, Ga., December 1977. 5-15 system is more uniform because it is based on the State Constitution. In South Carolina, only the Supreme Court arid the Circuit Courts are state- wide and constitutionally sanctioned. These courts are listed in Table 7.3."<5 South Carolina has 133 departments, authorities, boards, commissions, and committees, many with overlapping jurisdictions and ill-defined responsi- bilities. Georgia has 22 state agencies that were established by its 1S'72 Executive Reorganization Act. Prior tc 1972, Georgia had over 200 state agencies, boards, authorities, departments, committees, and coun- cils. Table 1 .k presents the major South Carolina and Georgia state agencies and their major functions. 7•1•3 Local governments Local governments in South Carolina and Georgia consist of county arid municipal governments with special-purpose districts such as school and water districts. The State Constitutions authorize county governments in both states; but in Georgia, municipalities derive their power by charter through the Georgia General Assembly. Both Georgia and South Carolina are now considered "home rule" I) 5 states, ' Prior to constitutional amendments, the legislative dele- gations in Georgia and South Carolina controlled county affairs., The Georgia Constitution specified a county unit system until a 1566 consti- tutional amendment allowed counties certain governing authority. The Georgia county unit system provided disproportionate represenation and influence to rural areas when population patterns changed during urbani- zation and industrial development. In 1973 the South Carolina Constitu- tion was amended and the Local Government Law was approved in 1975. By the early 1970s5 only about half the South Carolina counties were still controlled by their'Tlsl atlve delegation, and other counties had as- sumed control of the: ( own governments by establishing local county coun- cils with limited authority granted by the General Assembly* Table 7.3 Court structure of South Carolina and Georgia Judicial systems9 South Carolina Georgia Constitutional Courts Jurisdiction Constitutional Courts Jurisdiction Supreme Court Last court of appeals Supreme Court Highest state appelate court Circuit Court Civil or criminal cases Court of Appeals State revlsw court (major offenses) Superior Courts Original .yurlsdlcton In civil and criminal cases Probate Courts Administers wills, estates, (County Courts) mental Incompetency, and other county matters Justice of Peace Courts Minor civil cases (at least one for each Militia District) Statutory Courts Statutory Courts County Courts Civil and/or criminal cases, City and County Courts Municipal and county offenses excluding murder, arson, and such as traffic violations other major cases (varies widely by county)b State Courts State civil trial courts Family Courts Exclusive Jurisdiction over Juvenile Courts Juvenile relations (required domestic relations and Juvenile In urban areas) matters Probate Courts Administration of wills, estates, and mental Incompetency Magistrate Courts Minor civil and/or criminal cases (varies widely by countyP aSources: League of Women Voters of South Carolina, Know Your State - South Carolina Government, Columbia, S.C., 1977. League of Women Voters, Georgia's Government, Atlanta, Ga. (December 1977). bLlmlts of Jurlsdlclcn determined by General Assembly. Table 7.4 Major state services In South Carolina and Georgia9 Agency performing service Major"service South Caroli na GeorgT^ Administration, Finance, and General Services Division of Administration Department of Administration Services Financing and Development State Development Board Office of Planning and Budget Business and Commerce State Development Board Bureau of Industry and Trade Transportation Transportation Department Department of Transportation Employment and Labor Labor Department Department of Labor Educaton Department of Education and Department of Education and Board Commission on Higher Education of Regents Health and Social Services Department of Health and Department of Human Resources Environmental Control, and Department of Social Services Law Enforcement and Protection Law Envorcement Division Department of Public Safety Consumer Affairs and Regulation Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Utilities Division Public Service Comnission Conservaton and Natural Re- Department of Health and Department of Natural Resources sources Environmental Control Library Services State Library Department of Education Emergency Preparedness Planning Adjutant General's Office CivlI Defense Division aSource: S. Lukowski and C. T. Grayson, Jr., Eds., State Information Book, Potomac Books, Inc., Washington D.C., 1977. 5-18 Local governments can now enact ordinances, regulations, and resolutions relating to their "property, affairs, and local government." The form of county government organization is generally determined by law. In South Carolina, county council men are elected for 4-year terms and the county organization may be one of the following four types: o Council — 3 to 12 council men o Counci1-Supervisor — 3 to 12 councilmen and an elected super- visor o Counci1-Administrator — 3 to 12 councilmen with an appointed admi n i strator o Counci1-Manager — same as counci1-administrator (county trea- surer and auditor may also be appointed) In Georgia, the principal governing authority of counties is the Board of County Commissioners, who are elected for 4-year terms. The county may or may not have an appointed county manager. The county's home rule powers do not extend to election procedures, schools, courts, or taxa- tion. Most Georgia counties have three or more commissioners, although the number can range from one to eight members. ( In South Carolina, the Home Rule Act provides counties with many tradi- tionally municipal powers to do the following: o Use a corporate seal o Acquire, sell, or lease real estate o Make and execute contracts o Exercise eminent domain o Assess property and levy taxes in order to provide a number of servi ces o Establish and regulate needed county agencies o Develop personnel policies for county employees o Develop an accounting and reporting system for receiving and disbursing of funds o Provide land-use regulations 5-19 o Issue bonds o Grant franchises o Levy business taxes o Participate in multicounty projects o Conduct advisory referenda u o Undertake slum clearance and redevelopment o Enact ordinances to implement and enforce their powers o Exercise any other powers granted them by general law. Elected and appointed officals of South Carolina and Georgia counties in the primary and secondary impact areas surrounding the SRP are listed in Tables 7.5^ 8 and 7-6, respectively.There are more boards, com- missions, and departments to provide governmental services in the urban- ized counties than the rural counties. In South Carolina, the Constitution and the 1975 Home Rule Act estab- lished the legal basis and framework of general laws for municipal gov- ernments. All incorporated cities and towns have the same authority regardless of size, but the number of elected and appointed officials, committees, and commissions vary significantly according to the popula- tion size. The municipality may choose one of three forms of government: o Council — 5, 7, or 9 members; the mayor is a voting member of the council; council has policy and administrative powers o Mayor-Council — mayor is chief administrative officer, council has 6, 8, or 12 members plus the mayor o Ccunci1-Manager — appointed city manager is administrative head of government; council has 6 or 8 members and the mayor, who has a figurehead role in many functions. By special action of the Georgia General Assembly, cities and towns are incorporated by a charter that specifies the government offices, the election, requirements, and terms of office. The municipal government Table 7.5 South Carolina county officials In the region of the Savannah River P)anta Four counties in primary study area Five i counties in secondary study area County offIclal(s) At ken Allendale Bamberg Barnwe11 Edgefield Hampton Lexington Orangeburg Sa1uda Elected County Counc i1 Cha1rman xb X X X X X X X X County Councilnien (In addition to Chairman) 8 k 6 k k 8 6 Aud1 tor X X X X X X X X X Treasurer (or Finance Director) X X X T/TCC X X X X X _d Clerk of Court X X X X X X X X Registrar of Means Conveyances X - - - - - X - - Coroner X X X X X X X X X Solicitor X X - - - X X X - Judge of Probate Court X X X X X X X X X Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes X ------Mag Istrates 8 2 5 b 2 2 7 11 3 Board of Education 7 5 8 7 7 7 5 9 9 Sheriff X X X X X X X X X Appolnted e County Administrator X X X - CA/CC X X X - Clerk to Council X X X X cr./cc X X X X Judge of Family Court X - - X - - - - - Tax Collector X X - T/TC X X - - - Tax Assessor X - X X X X X X X County Attorney X X X X X X X X X Veterans Affairs Officer X X X X X X X X Civil Defense 01 rector X - X X X X X X X Chairman, County Elections f Commissioner X X X X X X CCE/CVR X X Chairman, Voter Registraton X X X X X X CCE/CVR X X Coordinator of Finance (Finance Director) X - - - - - X X - Assistant Personnel Director ------X — — Purchasing Agent (or Director) X X X X X Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.5 South Carolina county officials in the region of the Savannah River Plant3 (continued) Four counties in primary study area Five counties In secondary study area County official(s) Aiken Allendale Bamberg Barnwel1 Edgef ield Hampton Lexington Orangeburg Saluda Appointed Registrar Public Defender Emergency Hedlcal Services 01 rector Planning Director Building Official (or Inspector) Road Supervisor x Public Works Director x Superintendent of Maintenance Department x Assistant County Administrator x Administrative Secretary x Recreation Director Personnel Director Registration Board (Register) Master-in-Equlty Director of Penal Services Public Safety Director Englneer aSources: South Carolina Association of Counties, 1980 Olrectory of County Officials, Columbia, S.C., I98O. Aiken County League of Women Voters, Directory of Public Officials of Aiken County, South Carolina, July 19)9, Aiken, S.C., July 1979. S. L. Wise, Ed., 1979 Guide and Directory to South Carolina Government, Wing Pub} Icat Ions, Columbia, S.C.,. 1979. bIndicates office exists cTreasurer also serves as Tax Collector. ^Indicates the office does not exist. eCounty Administrator also serves as Clerk to Council. ^Chairman of County Elections Committee also serves as Chairman of Voter Registration. Table 7.6 Georgia county offlcals within the region of the Savannah River Plant3 Prima;/ study area Secondary study area County off leal(s) Richmond County Columbia County Screven CountyBurke County Elected h h b CcunciI men 5 5 5 Clerk of Court x x x Coroner x x x x Judge of Probate Court X x x Tax Commissioner X x x Judge of Civil Court X Solicltor, State Court X Judge, State Court X Judge of Small Claims Court Justice of the Peacep h County Clerk X Sheriff X Boaid of Education 16 Superintendent of Schools (f) Appolnted i M County Administrator N) Director of Administrative Boaid (3) ClerV. tc County Commission x (3) Tax Assessor (Appraiser) X x County Attorney X x Bui Idinf- Inspector X Civil f!{.f".tv e DIrscror X ."nima! r.r.-(fe! Center X Board Health X Correctional Institute Xy County Controller County Engineer x County Physician x CSRA-CETA Consortium x Department of Family and Children's Services x Hosn!«?i Authority x .'ersenna! Board x Kccrcsticn Department x iiou.: ,'t.a iootnotes at end of table. Table 7.6 Georgia county officals within the region of the Savannah River Plant® (continued) Primary study area Secondary study area County off leal (s) Richmond County Columbia County Screven County Burke Cc'unty' Appointed Revenue Sharing Advisory Board x - Water and Sewerage Systems x - Jury Connlssloners x x - Jury Clerk x - - Beer and Wine License - x - - County Ranger x - - Planning and Zoning Commission x - Roads and Bridges x - Water Works x - Manager Civic Center and Bell Auditorium x - City-County Oeptartments and Comnlsslons Augusta-Richmond Co. Coliseum Authority x - - Augusta-Richmond Co. Planning Commission x - - - Board of Zoning Appeals x - - City-County Data Processing Commission x - - - Civil Preparedness x - - - Human Relations Connilsslon x - - aSources: League of Women Voters of the Augusta area and the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Augusta, Government Directory, Augusta, Ga., March 1978. Georgia State Department of Archives and History, Georgia Officials and Statistical Register. ^Chairmen chosen by elected Commissioners. clndlcate5 office exists. ''indicates the office does not exist. ^Justices of the Peace certified as of July 1, 1900, from the Directory Issued by the Georgia Justice Courts Training Council. ^Superintendent of Schools appointed as authorized by local legislation. 9Dlrector of Administrative Services - responsibilities Include purchasing, grants coordination, personnel and serving as Clerk to the Comlsslon. 7-24 has the power to amend its charter or pass new ordinances by its tct ic«r. or by referendum, but in some cases must seek action through the General Assembly. In South Carolina, municipal governments are authorized to levy taxes, grant franchises, abate nuisances, conduct advisory referenda, enact ordinances and regulations, prosecute violators, own property and acquire easements, furnish and charge for services outside the corporate limits of the town, investigate its departments, provide police protection, adopt an annual budget, and provide for an independent annual audit. In Georgia, general powers listed in most charters include police power, power to provide services, community development, regulation of conduct and administration. In 1976 the Georgia Constitution authorized home rule provisions for municipalities as well as counties, giving them addi- tional and supplemental powers to expand previously authorized services and to create additional programs in recreation, housing, planning, zon- ing, urban redevelopment, and transportation. The two forms of municipal government in Georgia are mayor/council and city manager forms. Under the mayor/counci1 form the mayor serves as chief administrative officer. Under the city manager form, the city manager is the chief administra- tor. The city commission is the policy maker and controls the city man- ager and mayor. City officials in the primary study area are listed by city in Table 7.77'8 and Table 7.8.9'11 7.1.4 Intergovernmental coordination Regional planning councils were formed in South Carolina in 1971 to pro- mote governmental coordination by region. Pursuant to a 1960 amendment to the Planning Enabling Act, Georgia's local governments formed 18 area planning and development commissions throughout the state. These re- gional agencies are financed by local, state, and Federal government funds. They perform planning services as requested by their locai gov- ernments, including Federal grants administration (A-95 Reviews), econo- Table 7.7 Officials and boards (or cormlsslons) of Incorporated cities and towns In the primary study area In South Carolina3 Aiken County (population: 1980 Census) North New Aiken Augusta Burnettown Jackson Monetta El lenton Perry Sal ley Waganer Windsor Officials and boards (Hi,777) (13,451) (356) (1,762) (123) (2,578) (275) (285) (883) (56) Elected Officials Mayor Counc I lmen Appointed Officials Judge, Recorder City Administrator City Manager City Attorney Finance Director Treasurer City Clerk (Clerk of Counc11) Assistant Clerk Director, Public Safety Superintendent, Street Health Officer Superintendent, Sanitation Recreation Director I Director (Engineer) N) Ul of Public Works Tax Collector Building Inspector Superintendent, Public Utilities Superintendent, Water Supervisor, Vehicle Ha Interlace Chief of Police Fire Chief Boards and Comnlsslons Planning and Zoning Zoning Board of Adjustments Housing Authority Park Commission Board of Adjustments Street Paving and Lighting Commission Cormunlty Development Advisory Conmlsslcn Board of Health Public Works Commission See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.7 Officials and boards (or conmlsslons) of Incorporated cities and towns In the primary study area In South Carolina8 (continued) Barnwell County (population; 1980 Census) Barnwell ElackvlMe Elko Hilda JfTTrre Snelllng Ul I! Iston Officials and boards (S.S56) (2,869) (338) (356) (319) (106) (3,115) Elected Officials Mayor x x x x x x x City Council 6 6 I, U k k 5 Appointed Officials City Adnlnlstrator x ..... Clerk * * * * x x * Assistant Clerk x x x Treasurer * * - * * Purchasing Agent - x Tax Collector - * - * * City Attorney x x - x x x Police Chief x x x x - x x Fire Chief x x x x x Engineer x x x Building Official x x x Judge, Recorder x x x Superintendent, Water - x x Superintendent, Streets ** Superintendent, Lights ------Superintendent, Sanitation ** ** - - x x Director, Finance - - Director, Personnel ------Director, Public Works - ..... x Director, Recreation - - * - - - x Director, Utilities - - Planning Official - ..... See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.7 Officials and boards (or commissions) of Incorporated cities and towns In the primary study area In South Carolina* (continued) Bamberg County (population; 1980 Census) Allendale County (population; 1980 Census) Bamberg Denmark Ehrhardt Govan Olar Allendale Fairfax Sycamore Ulmer Officials and boards (3.633) (4,138) (335) (98) (390) (M62) (2.'32) (262) (88) Elected Officials Hayor City Council Appointed Officials * City Administrator ** Clerk * * X Assistant Clerk * t Ik Treasurer * Purchasing Agent * Tax Collector x * u x X X X 4 City Attorney *** Police Chief x X X ** Fire Chief x X X Engineer 4*4 Building Official X ** X x X X * Judge, Recorder »* ** Superintendent, Water X X tt i **» **» **« NJ Superintendent, Serects *x* Superintendent, Lights *** Superintendent, Sanitation * Director, Finance * Director, Personnel Director, Public Works *** Director, Recreation Director, Utilities Planning Official •Sources I U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports. Georgia and South Carolina (2 reports), Washington, D.C., 1931. Directory of Public Officials of Aiken County, South Carolina. July 1979. compiled by Aiken County League of Women Voters, Aiken, S.C., 1979. Sidney L. Wise, Editor, 1973 Guide and Directory to South Carolina Government. Wing Publications, Coluvbla, S.C., 1979. bIndicates office exists. clndlcetes the offices does not exist. •'Asterisk Indicates multiple responsibilities of an official. For example, * Indicates that one official serves as Finance Director, Treasurer and Clerk of Council. Table 7.8 Officials and boards (or commissions) In Incorporated cities and towns In the primary study area In Georgia3 Richmond County Columbia County (population; 1980 Census) (population: 1980 Census) Augusta Hephzibah Blythe tar 1 em Grovetown Officials and boards (i»6,702)b (1,W9) (363) (1,468) (3,388) Elected Officials c Mayor x X X X X Counc1Imen 16 It Appointed Officials City Clerk (Secretary) .d X X X X City Attorney X X X X X Clerk of Council and Purchasing Agent X - - - Air Terminals 2e - - - Cemeteries Department X - - - Central Shop X - - - Collector of Revenues X - - - Community Development X - - - Comptrol1er X - - - Electric department X - - - Engineer X - - - Fire Chief X X X X X Department of Inspectors X - - - Parking Meters X - - - Personnel Department X - - - Police Chief X X X X Recorder's Court X - X - Sheriff X - - - Streets and Drains Department X - - - Sanitation Department X - - - Stockade X - - - Transit Department X - - - Trees and Parks Department X - - - Traffic Engineer X - - - Waterworks Operation X - X - Waterworks Offices and Sales X - - - Water Pollution Control X - - - Sewage Superintendent — X See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.8 Officials and boards (or commissions) In incorporated cities and towns In the primary study area In Georgia3 (continued) Richmond County Columbia County (population; 1980 Census) (population; 1980 Census) Augusta Hephzibah Blythe Harlem Grovetown Officials and boards (46,702)" (1,449) (36?) (1,468) (3,388) Commissions Affirmative Action Committee x Augusta Aviation Commission x Civil Service Commission X General Aviation Commission X Housing Authority of Augusta X Standing Committees of City Council Cemeteries, Trees, and Parks X Community Development X Finance and Appropriations X Public Safety, Railroads, and Public N> Utilities X u> Public Transit and Parking X Pub 11c Works X Stockade and Recorder's Court X Waterworks X aSourcess U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, Georgia and South Carolina (2 reports), Washington, D.C., 1981. League of Women Voters of the Augusta area and the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Augusta, Government Directory, Harch 1978, Augusta, Ga. W. Elmer George, 1980 Directory of Georgia Municipal Offlcals, Georgia Municipal Association, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., April 1980. bWlthln Augusta City limits; total for Richmond County Is 162,437- indicates the office exists, ^Indicates the offices does not exist. eBush Field and Daniel Field have separate managers. 7-30 mic development nssistsnce, and planning and management assistance. The services vary from region to region, depending on local needs and prior- ities. The Area Planning and Development Commissions in Georgia receive funds on, a matching basis—25 percent from local governments, 25 percent from the State of Georgia, and 50 percent from Federal funds. The Centra! Savan- nah River Area (CSRA) Planning and Development Commission services the Georgia counties located in the primary and secondary study areas. The. CSRA Planning and Development Commission, made up of elected officials and appointed citizens, functions as a substate regional clearinghouse, for local funding requests for Federal Aid (A~95 Program). Their main activity lies in cooperatively planning with local governments- In South Carolina, regional councils of government (COGs) function much the same way in coordinating local governmental planning efforts. In the primary study area, the Lower Savannah River COG covers Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell Counties. In the secondary study area, the Lower Savannah COG covers Orangeburg and Bar.iberg Counties; the Low County C0G; Hampton County; and the Upper Midlands COG, Lexington County. Unlike Georgia, the Governor's Office of South Carc-i ina directly handles the A-95 Pro- gram. Nonetheless, these regional councils continue to play an important role in coordinating government?! activities in their respective regions. 7-31 7.2 FISCAL CAPACITY IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA Providing such public services as fire, police, general government, sewer, water, and education, requires financing mechanisms for the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of facilities, and for the employ- ment of staff to supply the needed services. Such fiscal activities are the concern of county governments, incorporated cities and towns, school systems, and water and sewer commissions within the primary study area. The revenues and expenditures, millage and assessment rates, and bonding capacity of these taxing jurisdictions and commissions are discussed in this section. 7.2.1 County and municipal governments In the primary study area there are 39 taxing jurisdictions currently exercising the right to levy tax. As shown in Table 7.9, this includes the 6 counties within the primary study area and 28 towns and cities. Five school districts, the Consolidated School District of Aiken County, the Board of Education in Richmond County, the Blackville School District No. 19, the Williston School District No. 29, and the Barnwell School District No. 45, also levy taxes and are discussed in section 7.2.2. 7.2.1.1 Revenues and expenditures The revenues and expenditures of the taxing jurisdictions vary according to their size, character of population, and the number and level of ser- vices provided. As indicated in Chapter 8, services in urbanized areas are primarily provided by a formal organization with a full-time paid staff. The service institutions in rural areas may be less well equipped, be primarily staffed by paid, part-time employees and volun- teers, and have a less formal organization. The same types of services are either absent or are provided by less formal means in rural areas, resulting in lower budgets for taxing jurisdictions. Table 7.9 Revenues by major categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) General property taxes Licenses and permits Average Average annual annual Fiscal percent Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction Pollars year Pollars change Pollars year Pol lacs change Aiken County 1975 1,431,51! 1978 1,446,851 0.4 1975 5,840 1978 85,322 453. City of Aiken 1975 885,340 1979 1,520,859 17.9 1975 234,828 1979 461,017 24, Town of Jackson 1975 46,359 1979 46,721 0.2 1975 9,146 1979 6,452 -7. City of Hew Ellenton 1975 21,600 1979 28,000 7.4 1975 9,000 1979 17,000 22, City of North Augusta 1975 476,004 1979 641,273 8.7 1975 153,938 1979 343,026 30, Town of Sal ley NAa NA NA NA Town of Perry NA 1979 —b NA 1979 Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 197 A 82,288 1979 210,713 31.2 1974 In fines 1979 5,194 Town of Allendale 1975 118,927 1979 134,945 3.4 1975 35,502 1979 35,038 -0.3 Town of Fairfax 1976 55,233 1979 80,465 15.2 1976 23,098 1979 35,877 18.4 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 85,534 1979 100,497 4.4 1975 630 1979 8,237 301.9 City of Bamberg 1975 63,801 1979 74,386 4.1 1975 28,141 1979 33,487 4.7 City of Denmark 1976 92,387 1979 109,796 6.3 1976 31,361 1979 62,713 33.3 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan NA 1979 70 NA NA Town of Olar 1975 3,650 1979 5,100 9.9 1975 680 1979 3,692 110.7 Barnwell County 1975 1,004,775 1979 392,049 •15.2 1975 3,520 1979 5,226 12.1 City of Barnwell 1979 1975 146,664 1979 185,087 6.5 1975 66,222 122,018 21.1 Town of Biackvllie NA NA NA NA Town of Elko 1979 1976 1,809 1979 2,018 3-9 1976 767 1,084 13.8 Town of Hilda 1979 1979 1975 1,483 2,053 9.6 1975 1,456 1,953 8.5 Town of K1Ine NA NA NA NA Town of SnelIIng NA NA NA NA Town of Wl11Iston 1979 1979 1975 94,468 162,652 18.0 1975 32,950 55,015 16.7 Columbia County 1979 1979 1975 1,050,188 1,258,925 5.0 1975 74,969 199,055 41.4 City of Grovetown 1979 1979 1975 30,792 37,000 5.0 1975 5,096 19,000 68.2 City of Harlem 1979 1979 1975 50,000 31,619 -9.2 1975 5,000 10,735 28.7 Richmond County 1979 NA 1975 2,779,213 -16.5 NA City of Augusta 8,211,800 1978 1975 4,709,481 1978 1,497,070 -22.7 1975 669,880 677,105 0.4 Town of Hephzlbah 1978 1975 1978 0 1975 2,319 Town of Blythe 24,213 NA 4,379 29.6 NA NA NA Total revenues 18,688,307 10,747,362 1,394,343 2,192,625 See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.9 Revenues by major categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Revenues from state government Revenues from service charges Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change year Dollars year Dollars change Aiken County 1975 1,731,586 1978 1,692,581 -0.8 1975 8,113 1978 153,843 598.8 City of Aiken 1975 346,814 1979 166,707 -13.0 1975 325,477 1979 497,011 13.2 Town of Jackson 1975 21,807 1979 30,578 10.1 1975 20,635 1979 1,868 -22.7 City of New Ellenton 1975 27,490 1979 25,000 -2.3 NA -- 1979 130,000 — City of North Augusta 1975 147,430 1979 188,130 6.9 1975 234,758 1979 310,531 8.1 Town of Sa 11 ey NA NA NA NA Town of Perry NA NA NA NA Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 1974 247,821 1979 262,115 2.8 NA NA Town of Al1enda1e 1975 43,652 1979 51,222 4.3 1975 600 1979 3,346 114.4 Town of Fairfax 1976 24,312 1979 26,147 2.5 1976 16,207 1979 9,434 -13.9 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 445,751 1979 412,986 -1.8 NA 1979 44,160 -- City of Bamberg 1975 44,907 1979 47,773 1.6 1975 14,612 1979 14,872 0.5 City of Denmark 1976 46,464 1979 51,252 3.4 1976 5,325 1979 8,255 18.3 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan NA NA NA NA Town of Olar 1975 6,035 1979 6,037 0.01 NA NA Barnwell County 1975 404,042 1979 481,472 4.8 1975 22,898 1979 13,436 -10.3 CIty of Barnwe11 1975 58,255 1979 60,401 0.9 1975 222,150 1979 257,290 4.0 Town of Clackvllle NA NA NA NA Town of Elko 1976 4,443 1979 2,215 -16.7 1976 11,827 1979 16,026 11.8 Town of Hilda NA 1979 0 0.0 1975 3,474 1979 3,636 1.2 Town of K1Ine NA NA NA NA Town of Sne 111 ng NA NA NA NA Town of Wl11Iston 1975 33,642 1S79 51,413 13.2 1975 17,913 1979 50,139 45.0 Columbia County 1975 490,539 1979 285,096 -10.5 1975 5,476 1979 124,073 541.4 City of Grovetown 1975 62,391 1979 194,502 52.9 1975 27,789 NA -- City of Harlem 1975 16,900 1979 27,098 15.1 1975 14,000 1979 32,851 33.7 Richmond County 1975 1,992,461 1979 1,638,054 -4.5 NA NA City of Augusta 1975 1,829,442 1978 826,110 -18.3 NA NA Town of Hephzibah NA 1978 59,317 — 1975 50,807 NA — Town of Blythe NA NA NA NA Total revenues 8,026,184 6,606,210 1, 002,061 1 ,670,771 See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.9 Revenues by major categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Fees and fines Revenues from Federal Government Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change year Dollars year Dollars change Aiken County 1975 521,523 1978 690,957 10.8 1975 597,009 1978 736,984 7.8 City of Aiken 1975 80,149 1979 97,115 5-3 NA 1979 415,457 — Town of Jackson 1975 7,700 1979 9,404 5.5 1975 30,097 1979 39,386 7.7 City of New Ellenton 1975 39,250 1979 12,000 -17.4 1975 15,275 1979 25,000 15.9 City of North Augusta 1975 43,588 1979 79,879 20.8 1975 138,423 1979 110,125 -5.1 Town of Sa11ey NA NA NA NA Town of Perry NA NA NA NA Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 1974 55,953 1979 80,862 8.9 1974 222,336 1979 167,827 -4.9 Town of Allendale 1975 21,541 1979 18,035 -4.1 1975 155,910 1979 113,781 -6.8 Town of Fairfax 1976 5,553 1979 11,524 35.8 1976 57,186 1979 49,549 -4.5 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 59,778 1979 84,390 10.3 1975 237,217 1979 392,618 16.4 City of Bamberg 1975 11,442 1979 11,701 0.6 1975 82,088 1979 76,762 -1.6 City of Denmark 1976 19,194 1979 18,880 -0.6 1976 85,566 1979 95,389 3.8 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan NA NA NA NA Town of Olar 1975 2,508 1979 405 -21.0 1975 6,387 1979 5,952 -1.7 Barnwell County 1975 57,624 1979 124,804 29.2 1975 153,324 1979 3",582 25.8 City of BarnwelI 1975 23,832 1979 20,543 -3-5 1975 92,044 1979 130,223 10,4 Town of Blackvl 1le NA NA NA NA Town of Mko 1976 2,526 1979 1,123 -18.5 1976 1,388 1979 1,443 1.3 Town of rl 11 da 1975 695 1979 632 -2.3 1975 3,147 1979 2,790 -2.8 Town of Kline NA NA NA NA Town of Snelllng NA NA NA NA Town of Wllllston 1975 8,790 1979 19,951 31.7 1975 7,996 1979 40,000 100.1 Columbia County 1975 72,843 1979 137,565 22.2 1975 132,345 1979 15,005 -22.2 City of Grovetown 1975 133,382 1979 90,480 -8.0 NA 1979 17,000 -- City of Harlem 1975 25,000 1979 16,501 -8.5 NA NA Richmond County NA NA NA NA City of Augusta 2,037,396 1978 488,028 -25.4 1975 1,552,596 1978 2,130,414 12.4 Town of Hephzibah 1975 1978 15,011 31.4 1975 19,056 1978 56,807 66.0 City of Blythe 1975 7,727 NA NA NA NA Total revenues 3,237,994 2,029,790 3,589,390 4,934,094 See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.9 Revenues by major categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Other revenue sources Total revenues Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Doliars change year Dollars year Dollars change Sources' Aiken County 1975 429,806 1978 40,929 -30.2 1975 4,725,388 1978 4,847,467 0.9 12 City of Aiken 1975 71,046 1979 182,600 39.3 1975 1,943,654 1979 3,340,766 17.3 13 Town of Jackson 1975 3,235 1979 1,204 -15.7 1975 138,979 1979 135,613 -0.6 14,15 City of New Ellenton 1975 6,500 1979 30,000 90.4 1975 119,115 1979 267,000 10.1 16,17 City of North Augusta 1975 19,035 1979 77,871 77.3 1975 1,213,176 1979 1,750,835 11,1 18,19 Town of Sal ley NA HA NA KA Town of Perry NA HA NA NA 20 Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County ' 97^ 104,370 1979 278,149 33-3 1974 712,768 1979 1,024,860 8.8 21,22 Town of Allendale 1975 3,489 1979 3,642 1.1 1975 379,621 1979 360,009 1.3 23,24 Town of Fairfax 1976 37,880 1979 3,804 -30.0 1976 219,469 1979 216,800 -0.4 25,26 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA To**i of Ulroer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 32,325 1979 86,044 41.5 1975 861,235 1979 1,128,932 7.8 27,28 City of Bamberg 1975 55,078 1979 125,636 32.0 1975 300,069 1979 384,617 7.7 29,30 City of Denmark 1976 7,279 1979 81,190 338.5 1976 287,576 1979 427,475 16.2 31,32 Town of Ehrhardt NA HA NA NA Town of Govan NA 1979 500 NA 1979 1,570 33 Town of 01 ar 1975 8,234 1979 10,804 7.8 1975 27,494 1979 31,990 4.1 Barnwell County 1975 137,677 1979 432,167 53.5 1975 1,783,860 1979 1,760,736 -0.3 35,36 City of Barnwell 1975 118,566 1979 43,292 -15.9 1975 727,733 1979 818,854 3.1 37,38 Town of Blackvllle NA NA NA NA 1979 Town of Eiko NA '979 23 1976 22,760 23,936 1.7 39 Town of Hilda NA NA 1975 10,255 1979 11,064 2.0 40 Town of Kline NA NA NA NA Town of Snelling NA NA HA NA 41 Town of Williston 1979 1979 1975 4,612 4,773 0.9 1975 200,371 383,943 22.9 42,43 Columbia County 1979 1979 1975 52,938 1,120,962 504.4 1975 1,879,298 3,140,681 16.8 44,45 1979 1979 City of Grovetown 1975 9,155 9,000 -0.4 1975 268,605 366,982 9.2 46,47 City of Harlem 1979 1979 1975 14,000 104,578 161.8 1975 124,900 223,382 19.7 48 Richmond County 1979 1979 1975 <154,536 10,754,330 566.5 1975 10,658,797 15,171,597 10.6 49 City of Augusta 1978 1978 1975 8,733,285 21,466,518 48.6 1975 19,532,080 27,085,245 12.9 50,51 Town of Hephztbah 1978 1978 1975 1,926 2,587 11.4 1975 106,048 138,101 10.1 52,53 City of Biythe NA NA NA NA 54 Total revenues 10,304,972 34,860,603 46,243,251 63,041,455 "Data not available. bNot applicable. CNumbers In this column refer to references at end of chapter. 7-36 The taxing jurisdictions in the study area generate revenue from a number of sources, including property taxes on real and personal property, li- censes and permits, charges for services, fees and fines, and from other sources. In addition, the local taxing jurisdictions in South Carolina obtain revenues from taxes levied by the state. In South Carolina, alco- holic liquors and beer/wine are separately taxed. A share of these taxes is distributed to counties and incorporated communities based on popula- tion. A share of income taxes collected by the state is also distributed 55 to county governments based on population. Taxes such as bank and insurance taxes are directly allocated to counties and incorporated com- 2» munities, although a certain percent are retained by the state. Gaso- line taxes are also directly allocated by the state, but only to coun- ties.55 One of the main sources of revenue for all the taxing jurisdictions is the property tax. In both states, real and personal property are taxed. Real property consists of housing and commercial establishments. Per- sonal property is defined as motor vehicles and boats. These properties are appraised at total market value, and this value is then multiplied by an assessment rate to obtain the assessed value. The assessment rate on real and personal property in South Carolina is set by the state legis- 1ature. The South Carolina Tax Commission determines the appraised value of util- ity and manufacturing property, and applies an assessment rate to deter- mine the assessed value. The counties and incorporated communities then apply an assessment rate to determine the tax.5^ In 1975, legisla- tion was passed requiring that by 1981 all South Carolina counties reas- sess property to determine the true market value. Prior to 1976, counties had different assessment rates and different procedures for determining the true market value of real property. The procedure for determining the true market value is now prescribed by the state. As of late 1980, none of the counties had completed this reassessment.5^ In 1975, the assessment rate for real property varied from 5 percent in Bamberg and Allendale Counties to 8.1 percent in Barnwell County. Aiken County's 7-37 1975 assessment rate was 6 percent. In 1979> the assessment rate for real property state-wide was percent for owner-occupied residential property and 6 percent for rental residential and commercial proper- ty."^ The assessment rate for all personal property in 1975 was pre- scribed by the legislature at 9-5 percent; however, in 1979 the rate was changed to 10.5 percent for all personal property except business inven- tory, which was taxed at a 6 percent rate, and farm machinery, which was taxed at a 5 percent rate. The counties in South Carolina determine the appraised value of property and calculate the assessed value, and the incorporated communities use these assessed values to determine property taxes. 59 The assessment rate for real and personal property in Georgia was AO percent in 1975 and 1979. The state legislature sets the assessment rate in Georgia. In both states, the local governments are responsible for determining the millage rates for real and personal property (Table 7-10). In Georgia, the local taxing jurisdictions also obtain revenues from a local optional sales tax of 3 cents on the dollar, which is collected by the state and distributed to the counties. The counties distribute the funds according to a formula agreed to by the taxing jurisdictions in each county. Local governments may also levy property, sales, vehicle, hotel-motel, insurance premium, alcoholic beverage, and business license taxes.55' 79 Revenues and expenditures for each county and incorporated community that levies taxes is shown on Tables 7-9 and 7.11, respectively. The figures shown in these tables are derived from the audits of the taxing jurisdic- tions. Due to inconsistencies in audit procedures within and between the taxing jurisdictions, it is not possible to present precisely comparable data for each jurisdiction. Accordingly, the figures given in Tables 7«9 and 7-11 and in the following discussion should be viewed as approxima- tions rather than exact figures or results. Table 7.10 Ml 11 age rates for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area Real property Personal property Average Average annual annual percent percent 3 Taxing Jurisdiction Year Rate Year Rate changi Year Rate Year Rate change Sources Aiken County 1975 23.0 1979 32.0 9.8 1975 23.0 1979 32.0 9.8 60 City of Aiken 1975 112.0 1979 142.0 6.7 1975 112.0 1979 142.0 6.7 61 City of Jackson 1975 65.0 1979 65.0 0.0 1975 65.0 1979 65.O 0.0 62 City of New Ellenton 1975 28.0 1979 40.0 10.7 1975 28.0 1979 40.0 10.7 17,63 City of North Augusta 1974 67.0 1979 90.0 5.8 1974 67.0 1979 90.0 5.8 64 Town of Sa 11 ey NAb NA NA NA Town of Perry NA NA NA NA Town of Wagener 1975 30.0 1979 40.0 8.3 1975 30.0 1979 40.0 8.3 65 Allendale County 1975 23.0 1979 36.0 14.1 1975 23.0 1979 36.0 14.1 66 Town of Allendale 1975 75.0 1979 75.0 0.0 1975 75.0 1979 75.0 0.0 24 Town of Fairfax 1975 75.0 1979 75.0 0.0 1975 75.0 1979 75.0 0.0 67 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 12.5 1979 12.5 0.0 1975 12.5 1979 12.5 0.0 68 City of Bamberg 1975 45.0 1978 55.0 4.4 1975 45.0 1980 55.0 4.4 29 City of Denmark 1975 75.0 1979 75.0 0.0 1975 75.0 1979 75.0 0.0 69 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan NA 1979 0.0 NA 1979 16.0 33 Town of Olar 1975 40.0 1979 40.0 0.0 1975 40.0 1979 40.0 0.0 34 Barnwell County 1975 25.0 1979 25.0 0.0 1975 25.0 1979 25.0 0.0 70,71 City of Barnwell 1975 59.0 1979 65.0 2.5 1975 59.0 1979 65.0 2.5 72 Town of Blackvllle NA NA NA NA Town of Elko 1976 20.0 1979 30.0 16.7 1976 0.0 1979 0.0 0.0 39 Town of Hilda 1976 0.0 1979 0.0 0.0 1976 20.0 1979 20.0 0.0 40 Town of K1ine NA NA NA NA Tcwn of Snelllng NA NA NA NA Town of Wl11Iston 1975 60.0 1979 60.0 0.0 1975 60.0 1979 60.0 0.0 73 Columbia County 1975 7.3 1979 5.6 -5.7 1975 7.3 1979 5.6 -5.7 73,74 City of Grovetown 1975 8.0 1979 8.0 0.0 NA NA 75 City of Harlem 1975 12.5 1979 6.0 -13-0 1975 12.5 1979 6.0 -13.0 76 Richmond County 1975 15.6 1979 19.1U 5.6 1975 15.6 1979 19.1U 5.6 77 12.31 -5-3 12.31 -5.3 City of Augusta 1975 20.5 1979 18.0 3-1 1975 20.5 1979 18.0 3.1 78 Town of Hephzibah 1975 0.0 1979 0.0 0.0 1975 0.0 1979 0.0 0.0 54 Town of Blythe NA NA NA NA Abbrev I at ions: U » Unincorporated. I - Incorporated. aNumbers In this column refer to references at end of chapter bData not available. Table 7.11 Major expenditures by categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area General administration Average annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change Aiken County 1975 71,956 1978 120,295 22.4 City of Aiken 1975 68,161 1979 80,945 4.7 Town of Jackson 1975 35,321 1979 46,958 8.2 City of New Elienton 1975 24,300 1979 53,000 29.5 City of North Augusta 1975 79,383 1979 52,294 -8.5 a Town of Sal ley NA NA Town of Perry NA 1979 0 —b Town of Wagener NA NA Allendale County 1974 1979 16,700 — Town of Allendale 1975 28,493 1979 57J239 25.2 Town of Fairfax 1976 41,980 1979 27,427 -11.6 Town of Sycamore NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA Bamberg County 1975 19,122 1979 60,108 53-6 City of Bamberg 1975 30,405 1979 45,411 12.3 City of Denmark 1976 34,594 1980 42,727 5.9 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA Town of Govan 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 Town of Olar 1975 14,204 1979 18,290 7.2 Barnwell County 1975 45,563 1979 87,328 22.9 City of Barnwell 1975 82,257 1979 130,126 14.5 Town of Blacky I lie NA NA Town of Elko 1976 4,493 1979 4,748 1.9 Town of Hilda NA NA Town of K11ne NA NA Town of Snelilng NA NA Town of Wllllston 1975 23,994 1979 59,530 37.0 Columbia County 1975 60,080 1979 367,610 128.0 City of Grovetown 1975 62,288 1979 45,679 -6.7 City of Harlem 1975 69,000 1979 99,227 11.0 Richmond County 1975 230,168 1979 487,674 28.0 City of Augusta 1975 131,204 1978 138,917 2.0 Town of Hephzibah 1975 85,097 1979 109,265 7.1 Town of Blythe NA NA Total expenditures 1,242,063 2,151,498 See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.11 Major expenditures by categories for taxing jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Tax Administration Judicial Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change year Dollars year Dollars change Aiken County 1975 276,585 1978 371,796 11.5 1975 427,756 1978 553,997 9.8 City of Aiken 1975 1979 1975 1979 Town of Jackson 1975 1979 1975 1979 City of New Ellenton 1975 1979 1,000 1975 1979 2,000 — City of North Augusta 1975 68,931 1979 69,027 0.03 1975 8,637 1979 13,937 15.3 Town of 5aI ley NA NA NA NA Town of Perry NA 1979 0 NA 1979 0 — Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 1974 5,759 1979 62,024 195.0 1974 32,071 1979 58,572 16.5 Town of Allendale 1975 684 1979 1975 1,984 1979 Town of Fairfax 1976 1979 1976 321 1979 615 30.5 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 24.3B3 1979 96,913 74.4 1975 74,864 1979 61,742 -4.4 City of Bamberg 1975 1979 1975 1979 City of Denmark 1976 1980 1976 1980 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan 1975 0 1979 0.0 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 Town of 01ar 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 Barnwell County 1975 38,508 1979 99.3 1975 38,583 1979 58,168 12.7 City of Barnwell 1975 1979 191,515 1975 1979 Town of BIackv111e NA NA NA NA Town of Elko 1976 106 1979 51.3 1976 1979 Town of Hilda NA NA 269 NA NA Town of Kline NA NA NA NA Town of Snelllng NA NA NA NA Town of WillIston 1975 1979 1975 1979 Columbia County 1975 106,052 1979 189,336 19.6 1975 99,561 1979 174,145 18.7 City of Grovetown 1975 1979 1975 1979 City of Harlein 1975 1,500 1979 3,085 26.4 1975 1979 Richmond County 1975 125,456 1979 1,787,567 331.2 1975 1,155,134 1979 1,691,235 11.6 City of Augusta 1975 371,198 1978 441,022 1975 53,734 1978 68,400 9.1 Town of Hephzibah 6.3 1975 1975 1979 Town of 8lythe 1979 NA NA NA NA Total expenditures 1,019,162 3,213,554 1,892,645 2,68^,811 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.1' Major expenditures by categories for taxing jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Pub Iic safety Community development Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change Dollars year Dollars change Aiken County 1975 871,024 1978 1,014,313 5.5 1975 41,218 1978 62,634 17.3 City of Aiken 1975 33,896 1979 1,064,761 760.3 1975 9,346 1979 11,307 5.3 Town of Jackson 1975 33,696 1979 46,025 9.1 1975 1979 City of New Ellenton 1975 36,200 1979 59,000 15.7 1975 1979 City of North Augusta 1975 448,067 1979 574,335 7.1 1975 1979 Town of Sal ley NA NA NA NA Town of Perry NA 1979 NA 1979 0 Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 1974 43,954 1979 64,952 9.6 1974 5,200 1979 16,892 45.0 Town of Allendale 1975 78,618 1979 139,077 19.2 1975 1979 Town of Fairfax 1976 54,140 1979 70,899 10.3 1976 1979 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Towi of Uliner NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 81,786 1979 128,589 14.3 1975 7,583 1979 12,701 16.9 City of Bamberg 1975 115,170 1979 184,353 15.0 1975 6,702 1979 7,343 2.4 City of Denmark 1976 134,940 1980 218,462 15.5 1976 1980 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 1975 Q 1979 0.0 TOMI of 01ar 1975 10,647 1979 6,725 -9.2 1975 1979 Barnwell County 1975 42,477 1979 96,296 31.7 1975 88,617 1979 6,012 23.0 City of Barnwell 1975 153,456 1979 261,297 17.6 1975 1979 Town of Blackvllle NA NA NA NA Towi of Elko 1976 5,410 1979 1,422 -24.6 1976 1979 Town of Hilda NA NA NA NA Town of Kline NA NA NA NA Town of Snelllng NA NA NA NA Town of Wl111ston 1975 84,959 1979 136,876 15.3 1975 1979 Columbia County 1975 273,207 1979 505,107 21.2 1975 59,817 1979 297,425 99.3 City of Grovetowi 1975 3,315 1979 179,003 1325.0 1975 1979 City of Harlem 1975 3,500 1979 12,250 62.5 1975 1979 Richmond County 1975 3,780,536 1979 5,606,978 12.1 1975 1979 City of Augusta 1975 3,386,644 1978 3,959,238 5.7 1975 51,591 1978 118,090 43.0 Town of Hephzlbah 1975 1979 1975 1979 Town of Blythe NA NA NA NA Total expenditures 9,672,847 14,329,958 190,074 532,404 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.11 Major expenditures by categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Recreation Health and welfare Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change year Dollars year Dollars change Aiken County 1975 8,236 1978 1975 1^8,579 1978 267,232 26.6 City of Aiken 1975 144,351 1979 231,378 15.1 1975 259,640 1979 515,922 24.7 Town of Jackson 1975 1979 1975 18,245 1979 36,477 25.0 City of New Ellenton 1975 8,000 1979 3,000 -15.6 197S 28,900 1979 47,000 15.7 City of North Augusta 1975 76,739 1979 147,903 23.2 1975 1979 Town of Sal ley NA NA NA NA Town of Perry MA 1979 0 NA 1979 0 -- Town of Wegener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 1974 1979 1974 760 1979 13,543 336.4 Town of Allendale 1975 1979 8,546 1975 1979 Town of Fairfax 1976 1,070 1979 1,219 1976 195 1979 — Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 1979 4,000 — 1975 42,019 1979 96,626 32.5 City of Bamberg 1975 3,211 1979 1,628 -12.3 1975 1979 City of Denmark 1976 1980 9,600 — 1976 1980 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of tiovan 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 Town of 01ar 1975 1979 1975 1979 Barnwell County 1975 1979 1975 142,036 1979 192,739 8.9 City of Barnwell 1975 16,273 1979 29,359 20.1 1975 1979 Town of Blackvllle NA NA NA NA Town of Elko 1976 1979 500 — 1976 2,561 1979 1,150 -18.4 Town of Hilda NA NA NA NA Town of Kline NA NA NA NA Town of Sne111ng NA NA NA NA Town of Williston 1975 18,028 1979 38,029 27.7 1975 1979 Columbia County 1975 1979 266,160 — 1975 262,579 1979 214,083 -4.6 City of Grovetown 1975 1979 1975 1979 73,744 — City of Harlem 1975 1979 1975 1979 38,317 — Richmond County 1975 1.453,446 1979 2,354,692 15.5 1975 2,990,770 1979 3,381,578 3-3 City of Augusta 1975 240,522 1978 498,656 35.8 1975 550,514 1978 671,958 7.4 Town of Hephzibah 1979 1975 1979 Town of Blythe 1975 NA NA NA NA Total expenditures 1,969,876 3,594,670 4,446,798 5,550,369 See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.11 Hajor expenditures by categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Transportation and public works Other expenditures Average Average annual annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars change year Dollars year Do)lars change Aiken County 1975 669,789 1978 910,768 12.0 1975 627,491 1978 1,169,696 28.8 City of Aiken 1975 303,305 1979 438,224 11.1 1975 1,135,894 1979 813,699 -7.1 Town of Jackson 1975 1979 1975 40,353 1979 31,681 -5.4 City of New Ellenton 1975 670 1979 — 1975 900 1979 -- City of North Augusta 1975 398,831 1979 518,741 7.5 1975 165,786 1979 321,546 23.5 Town of Sal ley NA NA NA NA Town of Perry NA 1979 0 — NA 1979 0 — Town of Wagener NA NA NA NA Allendale County 1974 29,045 1979 32,863 2.6 1974 243,973 1979 291,343 3.9 Town of Allendale 1975 81,467 1979 148,474 20.6 1975 113,332 1979 171,108 12.7 Town of Fairfax 1976 78,244 1979 104,544 11.2 1976 22,851 1979 24,957 3.1 Town of Sycamore NA NA NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA NA NA Bamberg County 1975 44,069 1979 44,935 0.5 1975 503,700 1979 801,944 11*.8 City of Bamberg 1975 77,271 1979 118,512 13.3 1975 1979 14,339 -- City of Denmark 1976 82,554 1980 114,071 9.5 1976 4 1980 6,100 381.0 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA NA NA Town of Govan 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 Town of Olar 1975 2,567 1979 2,808 2.3 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 Barnwell County 1975 152,413 1979 183,594 5.1 1975 622,114 1979 768,936 5.9 City of Barnwell 1975 318,783 1979 337,630 1.5 1975 252,626 1979 246,039 -0.7 Town of BlackvlIle NA NA NA NA Town of Elko 1976 11,578 1979 14,699 9.0 1976 0 1979 898 — Town of Hilda NA NA NA NA Town of Kline NA NA NA NA Town of Sne111ng NA NA NA NA Town of Wllllston 1975 63,460 1979 112,153 19.2 1975 109,553 1979 78,407 -7.1 Columbia County 1975 43,601 1979 1,204,123 665.4 1975 643,091 1979 — City of Grovetown 1975 11,571 1979 11,600 0.7 1975 63,777 1979 84,556 8.1 City of Harlem 1975 3,000 1979 1,302 -14.2 1975 37,453 1979 86,189 32.5 Richmond County 1975 2,483,240 1979 2,804,356 3.2 1975 5,134,475 1979 2,884,024 -11.0 City of Augusta 1975 10,148,602 1978 11,160,274 3.3 1975 7,789,585 1978 9,108,366 5-6 Town of Hephzibah 1975 1979 1975 1979 Town of Blythe NA NA NA NA Total expenditures 15,004,060 18,263,671 17,506,958 16,903,828 See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.11 Hajor expenditures by categories for taxing Jurisdictions within the primary study area (continued) Tota1 expenditures Averags annual Fiscal Fiscal percent Taxing Jurisdiction year Dollars year Dollars chanqe Soun Aiken County 1975 3,142,634 1978 4,470,731 14.1 12 City of Aiken 1975 1,954,593 1979 3,156,236 15.4 13 Town of Jackson 1975 127,615 1979 161,141 6.6 14,15 City of New Ellenton 1975 98,970 1979 165,000 16.7 16,63 City of North Augusta 1975 1,246,374 1979 1,697,783 9.1 15,18 Town of Sal ley NA NA Town of Perry NA 1979 0 -- 20 Town of Wagener NA NA Allendale County 1974 360,762 1979 556,889 10.9 21,22 Town of Allendale 1975 304,578 1979 524,444 18.0 23,24 Town of Fairfax 1976 198,801 1979 229,662 5.2 25,26 Town of Sycamore NA NA Town of Ulmer NA NA Bamberg County 1975 797,526 1979 1,307,558 16.0 27,28 City of Bamberg 1975 232,759 1979 371,586 14.9 29,30 City of Denmark 1976 252,092 1980 390,960 13.8 31,32 Town of Ehrhardt NA NA Town of Govan 1975 0 1979 0 0.0 33 Town of 01ar 1975 27,418 1979 27,823 0,4 34 Barnwell County 1975 1,170,311 1979 1,584,588 18.8 35,36 City of Barnwell 1975 823,395 1979 1,004,451 5.5 37,38 Town of B1 ackvllle NA NA Town of Elko 1976 24,148 1979 23,686 -0.6 39 Town of Hilda NA NA Town of Kline NA NA Town of Snel1Ing NA NA 41 Town of Williston 1975 299,994 1979 424,995 10.4 42,43 Columbia County 1975 1,547,988 1979 3,217,989 27.0 44,45 City of Grovetown 1975 140,951 1979 394,5P2 45.0 46,47 City of Harlem 1975 114,453 1979 240,370 27.5 48,80 Richmond County 1975 17,353,225 1979 20,998,104 5.3 49 City of Augusta 1975 22,723,594 1978 26,164,921 5.0 50,51 Town of Hephzibah 1975 85,097 1979 109,265 7.1 52,53 Town of Blythe NA 54 Total expenditures 53,027,278 67,222,763 aData not available. bNot applicable. cNumbers In this column refer to references at end of chapter. 7-^5 Property tax revenues within the primary study area have generally de- creased in taxing jurisdictions in Georgia due to the enactment of a local sales tax option, while property tax revenues in the South Carolina taxing jurisdictions have increased. The only taxing jurisdictions in Georgia which did not experience a decrease in the amount of general property taxes were Columbian-County and the City of Grovetown. In South ' : f' Carolina, the only exception to the increasing reliance on property taxes was in Barnwell County, where a significant decline in property tax reve- nues was offset by a significant increase in other sources of revenue. Jursidictions which experienced the largest increases in general property taxes for the periods surveyed included Allendale County (31.2 percent increase between 1974 and 1979), the Town of Jackson in Aiken County (17.9 percent increase between 1975 and 1979)> the Town of Williston in Barnwell County (18 percent increase between 1975 and 1979), and the Town of Fairfax in Allendale County (15.2 percent increase between 1976 and 1979)- Increase in revenues from property taxes has resulted not only from the addition of property to the tax base but also from increases in the millage rate. As indicated on Table 7.10, many jurisdictions have increased their millage rates between 1975 and 1979. Other major sources of revenues to local taxing jurisdictions in the primary study area include revenue derived from the the Federal and state governments. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, intergovernmental revenues increased nationally for both cities and counties during the last decade, with city governments receiving increasing proportions of their general revenues from Federal and state grants-in-aid and tax shar- ing. Although on a total county-wide basis, particularly in Allendale and Bamberg Counties, a significant percentage of total revenues are derived from state and Federal sources, taxing jurisdictions in the area have experienced a decline in the percentage of total revenues derived from these sources. Assuming constant rates of change in revenue sources and amounts, local sources of revenue in 1975 (total revenues excluding Federal and state sources of revenue) expressed as a percentage of total revenues were 63 percent in Aiken County,' k5 percent in Allendale County, 3b percent in Bamberg County, 72 percent in Barnwell County, 69 percent 7-46 in Columbia County, and 82 percent in Richmond County. In 1979, local sources of revenues constituted 63 percent of all revenues in Aiken Coun- ty, 57 percent in Allendale County,. 45 percent in Bamberg County, 64 percent in Barnwell County, 86 percent in Columbia County, and 89 percent in Richmond County. As a percentage of total revenue sources, Federal sources of revenues account for a greater share of total revenues for taxing jurisdictions in the South Carolina portion of the primary study area than taxing jurisdictions in the Georgia portion of the primary study area. Assuming a 1979 population derived by proportioning the 1970 and 1980 U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates, the 1979 per capita amount of local revenue sources for all taxing jurisdictions in a county amounted to approximately $71 per capita in Aiken County, $86 per capita in Allendale County, $50 per capita in Bamberg County, $98 in Barnwell County, $86 per capita in Columbia County, and $234/'in Richmond County. The per capita amount of total revenues sources for all taxing jurisdictions in a county in 1979 amounted to approximately $104 per capita in Akien County, $152 per capita in Allendale County, $111 per capita in Bamberg County, $152 per capita in Barnwell County, $100 per capita in Columbia County, and $261 per capita in Richmond County. The difference between the per cap- ita revenues derived from local sources of revenues and the per capita amount of total revenues underlies the importance of state and Federal sources to taxing jurisdictions in South Carolina as opposed to the tax- ing jurisdictions in Georgia. In South Carolina, on a per capita county- wide basis, non-local sources of revenues ranged between 32 to 55 percent of total revenues, while in Georgia the range was between 10 and 14 percent. Of course, as shown on Table 7.12, all the taxing jurisdictions did not supply the same services, nor did they supply them to the same level. However, almost all the taxing jurisdictions provided funding for general administration, transportation and public works, and public safety. Of 7-47 these three services, the transportation and public works category repre- sented 27 percent of all service expenditures in 1979. As would be ex- pected, the counties with the largest population or with increased devel- opment would need to make greater investments in road, sewer, and water facilities. The more urbanized and growing counties of Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond had the largest expenditures for this category. i\ Compared to the transportation and public works category, the category with the next highest level of expenditures is public safety. In 1979, approximately 21 percent of the total expenditures by the taxing juris- dictions in the primary study were for public safety1'. Once again, the more urbanized counties (Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond) had the largest expenditures for public safety, reflecting their response to the needs of a larger population. The major urban centers (the cities of Aiken, North Augusta, and Augusta) also had large expenditures for public safety representing 24 percent, 17 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of each city's 1979 total expendi- tures. Of the incorporated places with smaller populations, the City of Barnwell in 1979 expended the largest amount, 261,297, or 26 percent of the total expenditures for public safety. General administration is another category of expenditure for which al- most all the taxing jurisdictions in the primary study area had budgeted. Of the total funds expended in the region in 1979, approximately 3 per- cent were for general administration. Those funds that could not be placed in any expenditure categories were placed in the category entitled "Other." In 1979 this category amounted to $16,903,828 (25 percent) of the total expenditures. Table 7.12 lists the estimated per capita expenditures for all taxing jurisdictions on a county-wide basis for 1979 in the primary study area. ff Table 7.12 1979 estimated per capita expenditures County--wide per capita estimates for taxing jurisdictions (dollars) Expenditure category Aiken AI1endale Bamberg Barnwel1 Co 1umb i a Richmond General administration 3.AO 9.60 9.AO 1A.A0 13. 70 A. 20 Tax administration 4.30 5.90 5.50 9.80 5. 20 12. 70 Judici al 5.50 5.60 3.50 3.30 A. 70 10. 00 Public safety 26.70 26.10 30.50 25.30 18. 70 5A. 50 Conrounity development .70 1.60 1.10 .30 8. 00 • 70 Recreation 3.AO .90 .90 3.50 7. 10 16. 30 Health and welfare 8.AO 1.30 5.50 9.90 8. 70 23. 10 Transportation and public works 18.10 27.10 15.80 33.00 23. 60 79. 60 Other 22.60 A6.30 A6.60 55.80 A. 60 68. AO Total3 93.30 12A.A0 119.00 15A.90 103. 30 269. 60 aNumbers may not add due to rounding. 7-49 As listed on Table 7.12, taxing jursidictions in Richmond County expended approximately 74 percent more per capita in 1979 than Barnwell County, which had the next highest per capita expenditure rate. 7.2.1.2 General obligation and revenue bonds General obligation bonds and revenue bonds are two methods used by public agencies to finance large capital investments. They differ in the source of the revenue to pay the debt service. While general obligation bonds rely on the revenue from the taxing jurisdiction's general revenue fund, the debt source for revenue bonds is paid by the revenue generated from the operation of the facilities. In the primary study area, there are 14 jurisdictions that currently do not have outstanding obligation bonds. These jursidictions have not had to go to the bond market to obtain financing because no major capital expenditures have been undertaken in the recent past. In cases where major capital expenditures were undertaken, alternative means of financ- ing were used. Funds for financing capital projects were obtained from bank loans, grants from Federal agencies (e.g., Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- tion), and from Federal revenue sharing funds.^ ^^ In the primary study area, four jurisdictions in 1979 had outstanding obligation bonds, as shown in Table 7.13. In addition, Table 7.13 shows the bonding limit and bonding capacity of the taxing jurisdictions. Bond- ing limits is the total dollar value of all bonds the city is allowed to issue under state law whereas bonding capacity is the dollar value of the bonds that the jurisdiction can issue before obtaining the bond limit. The level of bonded indebtedness of a taxing jurisdiction is regulated by state law. In South Carolina, the bonded indebtedness in general obliga- tion bonds can be no greater than 8 percent of the assessed value, and in Georgia no larger than 7 percent. The higher the indebtedness, the more problems a community could have in accommodating increased growth because of the limitation that could be placed on constructing facilities requir- ing a large capital investment. Elected local officials, however, can Table 7.13 Bond Indebtedness, bonding capacity, and percent Indebtedness of local governments within the primary study area Bonding limit' Bonding capacity1* Bond Indebtedness Taxing Jurisdiction Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Percent Source0 Aiken County I9B0 7, <139,307 1980 MOO,^ 1979 59 60 City of Aiken 1979 885,113 1979 885,113 1979 Od 61 Town of Jackson No general obligatlon bonds No general obl Igatlon bonds 1979 0 62 City of New Ellentan No general obiIgatIon bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 17 City of North Augusta No general obligation bonds No general obl Igatlon bonds 1979 0 61) Town of Sal ley NA® NA 1979 NA 107 Town of Perry No general oblIgatIon bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 20 Town of Magener No general obl1 gallon bonds Ho general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 65 Allendale County NA NA 1979 NA 21,22,108 Allendale Industrial Park NA 1979 686,285 1979 NA IDB Water and sewerage district No general obligation bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 Town of Allendale NA NA 1979 NA 23,109 Towi of Fairfax NA NA 1979 NA Town of Sycamore NA NA 1979 NA Town of Ulner NA NA 1979 NA Bamberg County (Hospital) NA 1979 88 s,116 1979 NA 27,110 City of Bamberg No general oblIgatlon bonds No general obl1 gat Ion bonds 1979 0 29 City of Denmark NA NA 1979 NA Town of Ehrhardt NA NA 1979 NA Town of Govan No general oblIgatlon bonds No genera) oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 33 Town of Olar No general oblIgatlon bonds No general obl Igatlon bonds 1979 0 3<. Barnwell County No general obl IgatIon bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 36 City of Barnwell No general oblIgatlon bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 37 Town of Blackvl1le NA NA 1979 HA Town of Elko NA NA 1979 NA Town of Hilda No general oblIgatlon bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 Ii0 Town of Kline NA NA 1979 NA Town of Sne111ng NA NA 1979 NA hi Town of V!111ston NA NA 1979 NA Columbia County Ho general oblIgatIon bonds No general oblIgatlon bonds 1979 0 bS City of Grovetown No general obligat1 on bonds No general obl Igatlon bonds 1979 0 75 City of Harlem 1979 54,199 1979 26,558 1979 51 <18 Richmond County 1979 98,21(5,793 1979 911,002,793 1979 53 49 City of Augusta 19/9 17,421,200 1979 9,536,000 1979 <•3 77 Town of Hephzibah NA NA 1979 NA Town of Blythe No general oblIgatIon bonds No general oblIgation bonds 1979 0 5 As would be expected, the jurisdictions having the largest value of out- standing bonds are the more urbanized jurisdictions, such as Aiken County with $3,038,873, outstanding, Richmond County with $4,243,000, and the City of Augusta with $7,885,200. These jurisdictions have had large capital investments in facilities that result from a need to supply a large variety of services. I! None of the four jurisdictions that have outstanding obligation bonds were more than 60 percent indebted in 1979. Aiken County, with $3,038,873 of outstanding bonds, has the highest indebtedness, at 59 percent in 1979- Of the jurisdictions having general obligation bonds, the City of Augusta has the lowest 1979 bond indebtedness, at 43 percent. As mentioned earlier, an alternative to financing large capital invest- ments by obligation bonds is to issue revenue bonds. The revenue bonds that are currently outstanding within the study area have been used for the construction and improvement of sewer and water systems, airports, and hospitals. In many cases, the department or district responsible for these bonds is separate from the town, city, or county government, and has a separate set of accounting ledgers. As shown in Table 7.14, all but one of the facilities for which these revenue bonds were issued had a net income in 1979- The single exception was the sewer and water system of the Town of Fairfax, which lost $21,976 in 1979. The largest net income ($1,831,544), was associated with the City of Augusta's sewer and water system. The City of North Augusta's water and sewer system has the largest revenue bond indebtedness, with $2,099,000 outstanding in 1979- In contrast, the water system of the Town of Hephzibah has the smallest indebtedness, with only $50,000 of revenue bonds outstanding. Table 7.14 Outstanding revenue bonds, expenditures, and revenues of selected local governments Revenue Bonds Total revenue Average Average annual annual percent percent Local governments Year Dollars Year Dollars change Year Dollars Year Dollars change Aiken County HA NA •NA NA City of Aiken"(sewer system) 1975 983,374 1979 2,539,000 40.0 1975 983,374 1979 1,784,697 20.4 Town oF Jackson (Public Works Conmlsslon) 1975 51,005 1979 54,737 1.8 1975 69,816 1979 88,357 6.6 City of Kew Ell enton (Public Works Commission) NA NA NA NA City of North Augusta (Water S Sewer System) 1975 67,718 1979 2,099,000 749.9 1975 501,487 1979 848,715 17.3 Town of Vagener (Water I Sewer System) NA NA NA NA Allendale County (Allendale Industrial Park) HA NA 1975 6,627 1979 5,600 -3.9 (County Hospital) NA NA NA NA Town of Allendale (Water i Sewer System) 1975 260,000 NA --C 1975 189,475 1979 198,161 1.2 Town of Fairfax (Sewer t Water District) 1976 786,000 1979 734,000 -2.2 1976 78,369 1979 92,774 6.1 Bamberg County (Bamberg County Hospital) NA NA 1975 94,161 1979 127,397 B.8 City of Bamberg (Board of Public Works) 1975 761,332 1979 1,074,883 10.3 1975 55,018 1979 123,636 30.7 City of Denmark (Public Works) 1976 292,000 1979 260,000 3.7 1976 140,674 1979 241,901 24.0 Town of Govan (Water System) NA NA NA 1979 1,700 — Town of Olar NA NA NA HA Barnwell County NA NA NA NA City of Barnwell NA NA NA NA Town of Blackvl1le NA NA NA NA Town of Elko (Water Department) NA NA 1976 11,418 1979 15,934 11.0 Town of Hilda NA NA NA NA Town of K1Ine NA NA NA NA Town of Snelling NA NA NA NA Town of Wllllston (Sewer S Water) 1975 217,060 1979 158,000 -6.8 NA NA Columbia County (Sewer t Water) 1975 2,975,000 1979 1,030,000 -164.0 1975 651,582 1979 460,663 7-3 City of Grovetown NA NA NA NA City of Harlem 1975 510,000 1979 50,000 -0.5 1975 62,000 1979 9,951 15.3 Richmond County (Hospital) 1975 5,095,000 1979 4,155,000 -4.6 NA NA (Sewer i Water) 1975 7,245,000 1979 7,395,000 1.0 1975 1,541,302 1979 2,477,662 15.0 City of Augusta (Sewer « Water) 1975 12,255,000 1979 10,950,000 -2.7 1975 3,764,000 1979 5,631,693 12.4 (Airport) 1975 1,393,000 1979 1,279,000 -2.1 1975 10,990,947 1979 4,781,137 35.0 Town of Hephzlbah (Water System) 1975 60,000 1978 50,000 -5.6 1975 55,955 1978 64,448 5.1 City of Blythe KA NA NA NA Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.14 Outstanding revenue bonds, expenditures, and revenues of selected local governments (continued) Expenditures Net Income Average Average annual annual percent percent Local governments Year Dol1 or Year Dollars change Year Dollars Year Dollars change Aiken County NA NA NA NA City of Aiken (sewer system) 1975 810,567 1979 1,199,626 12.0 1975 172,807 1979 585,071 59.6 Town of Jackson (Public Works Ccmnlsslon) 1975 56,67"( 1979 70,487 6.1 1975 13,142 1979 17,870 9.0 City of New Ellentcn (Public Works Commission) NA NA NA NA City of North Augusta (Water 6 Sewer System) 1975 443,415 1979 683,965 13.7 1975 58,072 1979 164,750 45.9 Town of Wagener (Water s Sewer System) NA NA NA NA Allendale County (Allendale Industrial Park) 1975 6,7*2 1979 5,269 -5.5 1975 -115 1979 331 47.0 [County Hospital) NA NA HA NA Town of Allendale (Water f Sewer System) 1975 116,018 1979 167,691 11.1 1975 73,457 1979 30,469 -14.7 Town of Fairfax (Sewer S Water District) 1979 42,817 1979 114,751 56.0 1976 5,395 1979 -21,876 -126.8 Bamberg County (Bamberg County Hospital) 1979 49,612 1979 58,816 4.6 1975 44,550 1979 68,589 13.5 City of Bamberg (Board of Public Works) 1975 77,271 1979 118,512 13.3 1975 -22,228 1979 5,124 -133.6 City of Denmark (Public Works) 1976 138,700 1979 252,458 27.3 1976 1,974 1979 1,055 -15.5 Town of Govan (Water System) NA 1979 1,200 - NA 1979 500 — Town of Olar NA NA NA NA I v-n V-O Barnwell County NA NA NA NA City of Barnwell NA NA NA NA Town of Blackvllle NA NA NA NA Town of Elko (Water Department) 1976 11,578 1979 14,699 9.0 1976 160 1979 735 119.8 Town of Hilda NA NA NA NA Town of K1Ine NA NA NA NA Town of SnelIIng NA NA NA NA Town of Wllllston (Sewer & Water) MA NA NA NA NA Columbia County (Sewer S Water) 1975 331,457 1979 809,455 36.0 1975 320,125 1979 651,208 25.9 City of Grovetown NA NA NA NA City of Harlem 1975 50,868 1979 92,260 20.3 1975 11,132 1979 7,691 7.7 Richmond County (Hospital) NA NA NA NA (Sewer S Water) 1975 1,199,756 1979 1,633,078 9.0 1975 341,546 1979 584 39.74 City of Augusta (Sewer l Water) 1975 1,417,936 1979 3,800,149 42.0 1975 2,346,064 1979 1,831,544 5.5 (Airport) 1975 1,860,286 1979 4,594,522 36.7 1975 130,661 1979 276,615 2.8 Town of Hephzlbah (Water System) 1975 61,729 1978 84,146 12.1 1975 5,774 1979 19,699 60.3 City of Blythe NA NA HA NA •Sources: See references 13, 16, 24-27, 30-3lt, 36, 39, 41-43, 48, 52, 53, 61, 72, 75-77, 80, 81, 108-113. ''Data not available, or local government does not have revenue bonds. cNot applicable. 7-5* 7.2.2 School systems Within the primary study area, there are nine school districts. Five of the school districts (the Consolidated School District of Aiken County, Blackville School District No. 19, Williston School District No. 29, Barnwell School District No. hS, and the Board of Education of Richmond County) are taxing jurisdictions. The remaining school districts have their tax revenue collected by the county in which they are located. 7.2.2.1 Revenues and expenditures School system revenues are obtained from local, state, and Federal sources, with the major source of local revenue being provided by proper- ty taxes. The amount of revenues generated for use by school systems are dependent on the total real value of property, the assessment rate, and the millage rate. The official responsible for setting the millage rate varies among the school systems. Of the school districts being studied, only the Richmond County Board of Education sets its own millage rate. Columbia County Board of Education recommends a millage rate and the County Council approves and collects the taxes. Like the Columbia Board of Education, the school districts in Barnwell and Bamberg County recom- mend the mi 11 age rate and the County Council approves the rate. Allen- dale procedures differ from those of other school districts in that the school board determines the amount of taxes needed, two state senators and one state representative review the budget, and the county auditor and three state appointees determine the millage. Although the Consoli- dated School District of Aiken County is a separate taxing jurisdiction, the state legislature determines the millage because the school system is a bicounty system that includes part of Saluda County. As identified in Table 7• 15» the Richmond County Board of Education had decreases in their millage rates during the period 1975-79. In contrast, the Consolidated School District of Aiken County had the largest percent- age increase in the millage rate, rising from ~]k to 92 mills for a 6.1 percent average annual increase. Table 7.15 Outstanding obligation bonds, Indebtedness, and mltlage oF school systems within the primary study area3 Outstanding obllgaton bonds Bond Indebtedness (I) milage rate School districts Tear Dollars Tear Dollars Year Percent Year Percent Year HI I Is Year Hills South Carolina Aiken County The Consolidated School District of Aiken County 1975 68,501,962 1979 16,515,000 1975 NAb 1979 76.34 1975 74 1979 92 Allendale County Allendale County School District 1975 0 1979 0 1975 0 1979 0 1976 81 1979 9' Bamberg County V Denmark-Olar School District 2 1975 366,000 1979 230,000 1975 25 1979 25 1975 83 1979 95 DistricBambergt Schoo 1 l 1975 0 1979 0 1975 0 1979 0 1975 85 1979 93 Barnwell County Blackville School District 19 1975 0 1979 0 1975 0 1979 0 1975 HA 1979 NA Ul 111ston School District 29 1975 0 1979 0 1975 0 1979 0 1975 80 1979 100 DistricBarnwellt 4Schoo5 l 1975 0 1979 D 1975 0 1979 0 1975 92 1979 92 GeorqI a Columbia County Columbia County Board of Education 1975 NA 1979 7,765,000 1975 NA 1979 39 1975 16 1979 16 Richmond County The Board of Educa- tion, Richmond Co. 1975 6,067,000 1979 4,230,000 1975 10 1979 10 1975 18.75 1979 16.25 •Sources: See references 114-124, 153, 156. bData not available. 7-56 Although the Aiken school system had the highest increase in the millage rate between 1975 and 1979, the Richmond school system generated the largest revenues, equalling $16,827,443 (Table 7.16). The Denmark-01ar School District No. 2 generated the least local revenue in 1979 from local property taxes (Table 7.16). In total local revenues were 32 per- cent of total revenues in 1975 compared to 35 percent in 1979. On a per-pupil basis, however, the amount of revenue from general operating funds from local sources of revenue for the 1979 school year included: $428 per pupil in Aiken County, $377 per pupil in Allendale County, $268 per pupil in the Bamberg School District No. 1, $310 per pupil in the Denmark-Olar School District, $465 per pupil in the Blackville School District, $571 per pupil in the Williston School District, $543 in the Barnwell School District, approximately $263 per student in Columbia County, and approximately $540 per student in Richmond County. Revenues from state government as a percent of total revenues is also increasing. State government revenues constituted 56 percent of the total 1975 revenues received by the school systems in the primary study area and increased to 62 percent in 1979. On a per-pupil basis, the amount of revenue from general operating funds from state sources of revenue for the 1979 school year included: $594 per pupil in Aiken Coun- ty, $617 per pupil in Allendale County, $629 per pupil in the Bamberg School District No. 1, $663 per pupil in the Denmark-Olar School Dis- trict, $634 per pupil in the Blackville School District, $624 per pupil in the Williston School District, $618 per pupil in the Barnwell School District, approximately $810 per pupil in Columbia County, and approxi- mately $743 per pupil in Richmond County. For the period 1975 to 1979, the local revenue sources have increased at a faster rate than state sources of revenue in all the districts except for the Denmark-Olar School District and those in Columbia and Richmond County. Poor counties received proportionally higher funding from the state than more wealthy school districts. This is primarily due to the South Carolina Finance Act of 1977, which seeks to equalize the expenditures for educating a 131 student among the school districts in the state. Table 7-16 Revenues by major sources for school systems within the primary study area LocaI revenues State revenues Annual Annual average average percent percent School districts Year Dollars Year Dollars change Year Dollars Year Dollars change South Carolina Aiken County The Consolidated School District of Aiken County 1975 5»124,026 1979 10,651,745 27 1975 10,899,510 1979 13,829,536 7 Allendale County Allendale County School District 1975 432,075 1979 72B,664 17 1975 1,194,358 1979 1,514,984 Bamberg County Denmark-Olar School District 92 1975 293,986 1979 347,802 5 1975 815,063 1979 1,079,610 8 i Bamberg School vr» District 1 1975 300,494 NA® --b 1975 845,298 NA Barnwell County Blackvl!le School District 19 1975 194,334 1979 375,136 23.3 1975 563,891 1979 795,734 12 WillIston School District 29 1975 182,724 1979 393,400 29 1975 457,317 1979 641,801 10 Barnwell School Olstrfct 45 1975 482,000 1979 800,000 16 1975 1,007,000 1979 1,250,000 6 Georgia Columbia County Columbia County Board of Education 1975 1,578,516 1979 2,283,000 11 1975 3,254,464 1979 7,039,000 29 Richmond County The Board of Educa- tion Richmond County 1975 10,092,309 1979 16,827,443 17 1975 13,171,988 1979 23,149,236 IS See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.16 Revenues by major sources for school systems within the primary study area (continued) Federal revenues Federal Impact revenues Annual Annual average average percent percent School districts Year Dollars Year Dollars change Year Dollars Year Dollars change South Carolina Aiken County The Consolidated School District of Aiken County 1975 2,136,590 1979 3,809,588 20 1975 516,276 1979 380,218 -7 Allendale County Allendale County School District 1975 23,671 1979 37,053 21 1975 11,000 1979 11,000 Bamberg County Denmark-OInar School District 2 1975 398,277 1979 373,961 -.2 1975 3,688 1979 1,492 -15 Bamberg School District 1 1975 354,227 NA -- 197 5 9,089 NA Barnwell County Blackvl11e School District 19 1975 117,577 1979 205,466 19 1975 8,010 1979 7,046 -3 Wllllston School District 29 1975 113,975 1979 164,007 11 1975 27,313 1979 23,187 -4 Barnwell School District 45 1975 429,000 1979 400,000 -2 1975 43,000 1979 50,000 4 Georgia Columbia County Columbia County Board of Education m 1S75 263,483 1979 250,000 -1 Richmond County The Board of Educa- tion Richmond County 1975 1,355,715 1979 2,039,426 13 NA NA Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 7.16 Revenues by major sources for school systems within the primary study area (continued) A Other revenues Total revenues Annua 1 Annual ' average average percent percent School districts Year Dollars Year Dollars change Year Dollars Year Dollars change Sources'- South Carolina Aiken County The Consolidated School Olstrict of Aiken County 1975 0 1979 0 1975 18,676,402 1979 28,671,087 13 80 Allendale County Allendale County School District 1975 16,353 I979 0 1975 1,677,457 1979 2,291,701 116,125,126 Bamberg County Denmark-Olar School District 2 1975 0 1979 401,822 0 1975 1,511,014 1979 2,204,687 11 117 Bamberg School District 1 1975 30,913 1979 0 0 1975 1,540,021 1979 2,640,032 18 127 Barnwell County BlackvlIle School District 19 1975 0 1979 339,724 0 1975 883,812 1979 1,723,106 24 120 Will Iston School District 29 1975 1979 0 1975 781,329 1979 1,222,395 14 120 Barnwell School District 45 1975 0 1979 350,000 0 1975 1,961,000 1979 2,850,000 121,156 Georgia Columbia County Columbia County Board of Education 1975 64,159 1979 1,189,808 438 1975 5,160,622 1979 10,761,808 27 123,128,153 Richmond County The Board of Educa- tion Richmond County 1975 758,369 1979 1,041,050 9.3 1975 25,378,381 1979 43,057,155 17 129,130 aData not available. bNot applicable. cNimbers In this column refer to referrences at end of table. 7-60 In the South Carolina portion of the primary study area, on the average, the Federal government contributed 14 percent, the state contributed ,54 percent, and the local school district contributed 32 percent toward the 1979 cost:;,,of educating a child in both the primary and secondary grades. The•percentage varied from district to district, based on the district's wealtiV v-,vthe-assessed value of all property). A similarV. distribution pattern can be seen in Georgia's operating and maintencsW.'-'.' costs for the 1977-1978 school year. In this case, the Fed- eral Government contributed 11.6 percent, the state government contrib- averaguted 50.e 7dail percenty attendanc, and eth ecosts loca. 13l 2schoo l districts 37-7 percent toward the Federal revenues (excluding impact funds) represent 9 and 8 percent of the total revenues for 1975 and 1979, respectively. The largest part of Federal education funds for local school districts are obtained under \V t/ provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The major sections under which local school districts obtain funds are Ti- tle I (Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged), Title 4 (Educa- tional Improvement and Resources and Support) and PL 94-142 (Education of •iiq l„ 1 iii All Handicapped Children Act). Relative to other local sources of school district revenues, Federal revenues for the period of 1975 to 1979 rose only in the Allendale County School District. In two c of the school districts—Demark-Olar and Barnwell—the amount of Federal funding actually decreased. In addition to Federal funds for education, the school jurisdictions received aid under provisions of Public Law 874, which provides funds to school systems impacted by Federal installations. Five of the seven school districts for which fiscal data are available experienced decreases in impact aid funds between 1975 and 1979. Four of the five school systems (the Consolidated School District of Aiken Coun- ty, Denmark-Olar School District No. 2, Blackville School District No. 19, and Williston School District No. 29) experienced a reduction because 7-61 there were fewer children of Savannah River Plant (SRP) employees in the school systems. Columbia County also experienced a reduction in impact funds resulting from a change in P.L. 87A. The law does not require the Federal government to pay funds to a school district in one state if the parents of the students work in another state. This change has resulted in a loss of payment for an estimated 150 to 200 students. The only- system to have an increase in the impact funds was the Barnwell School District b5, which had a slight increase in the number of children of SRP employees enrolled.133'135-137'139"141 Between 1979 and 1980 the Consolidated School District of Aiken County, Allendale County School District, Bamberg School District No. 1 and Wil- liston School District No. 29, experienced decreases in the number of i i students whose parents are employed at SRP. Even though the ()Consol idated School District of Aiken County did experience a decrease in SRP-related students from 1979 to I98O, the school system still enrolled the largest number of students who were the dependents of SRP employees. In con- trast, Blackville School District No. 19 enrolled the smallest number of SRP-related students: 5 and 6 students in 1979 and 1980, respectively. Similar data for Columbia County Board of Education and the Board of Education for Richmond* County for 1980 was not available because of a change in Federal law as described above. ^ - - 1 - As shown in Table 7.17, there appears to be no trer'/ds among the different systems as to the funds available per SRP student/} (note: the difference in Federal impact aid shown on Tables 7.16 and 7.17 is due to different estimates received from the sources utilized to compile each of the tables). This may be the result of funds being accrued during a fiscal year other than the fiscal year for which a request for funds -is ap- proved. As a result, part of the funds shown for fiscal year 1970 and 1980 may have been received because of student enrollments in past years. As shown in Table 7• 17» there is a large variation from year to year for a school system and between school systems for a particular year. In Table 7.17 Inpact funds (PL 874) for 1979 and 1980 for SRP related dependents* Total PL 874 Total SRP Total PL 874 Total SRP Funds funds per SRP related Funds per funds per SRP related per SRP related stu- student SRP student related stu- student student 8 School districts dents 1979 1979 1979 dent 1980 1980 1980 Sources South Carolina Aiken County The Consolidated School District of Aiken County 386,641 2,332 155 225,227 2,047 110 142 Allendale County Allendale County School District 5,497 63 87 6,066 62 143 Bamberg County Denmark-0Iar School District 2 2,670 24 111 3,148 26 121 144 Banberg School District 1 5,777 58 100 11,408 56 204 145 •vj Barnwell County 1 BlackvlIle School CN District 19 641 5 128 1,113 6 186 146 to UlI listen School District 29 22,457 123 183 9,796 114 36 147 Barnwell School District 45 58,821 271 270 28,06b 275 102 148 Georgia Co limb I a County Colunbla County Board of Education 16,592 98 169 149 Richmond Count? The Board of Educa- tion, Richmond Co. 138,367 413 335 No funds received for SRP 150,151 related dependents because of a change In PL 874 •For all school systems (except Allendale County School District) the funds shown are all funds available to the school system In the fiscal year 1979 or 1980. Funds may be accrued In a fiscal year for a year other than the one for which a request for funds was approved. Since these funds are used to meet expenditures for the year they are received, the total funds for a fiscal year were used to determine average funds per student. 8Huntbers In this column refer to references at end of chapter. 7-63 1979, the Richmond County school system had the largest amount of funds per SRP student ($335) compared to $201 per SRP student which the Bamberg School District No. 1 had available in 1980. On a district-wide per-pupil basis in South Carolina, the total amount of Federal funding for the 1979 school year accounted for $177 per pupil in Aiken County, $264 per pupil in Allendale County, $298 per pupil in the Bamberg School District No. 1, $356 per pupil in the Denmark-Olar School District, $350 per pupil in the Blackville School District, $279 per pupil in the Williston School District, and $291 per pupil in the Barn- well School District. The total revenues received by the school systems from all sources have increased from 1975 to 1979* The largest increase was experienced by the Columbia County school system, whose total revenues rose from $5,160,000 in 1975 to $9,572,000 in 1979 (Table 7.16). These increased revenues were needed to meet the needs of one of the fastest growing school sys- tems in Georgia. All of the Barnwell County school districts experienced an increase in total revenue with Blackville having the largest percent increase (24 percent). The percent increase in the total expenditures of the Columbia County Board of Education was the largest for all the school systems in the primary study area. Richmond County was the second largest, with the increase being attributed to inflation and the introduction of new pro- 133,137 grams. ' All the South Carolina school systems (except the Allendale County School District) experienced large increases in expenditures between 1975 and 1979, partly due to inflation and to new programs. Some state and local officials indicate that the South Carolina Finance Act of 1977 had the effect of increasing the expenditures of poorer school districts. Simply stated, the law required that expenditures per student be equalized and 7-64 the law includes a salary schedule indicating the minimum salary certi- fied staff could be paid by a school district. Because a large percent- age of a school system's budget goes to pay salaries, this has had an 131 impact on especially poor systems. When total revenues are compared to total expenditures, the following school systems encountered expenditures that were greater than the reve- nues received: Williston School District No. 29, and the Board of Educa- tion of Richmond County (Table 7.18). Williston School District revenues were within 3 percent of the revenues and, as a result, are not consid- 15 ered to be in a deficit spending. All other Barnwell County school systems had adequate funding. Richmond County expenditures were larger than revenues collected in order to reduce excess funds that had resulted from previous years. The estimated revenue for general operating funds received from local, state and Federal sources for the 1979 school year on a per-pupil basis amounted to $1,162 per pupil in Aiken County, $1,258 per pupil in Allen- dale County, $1,194 per pupil in the Bamberg School District No. 1, $1,330 per pupil in the Denmark-Olar School District, $1,449 per pupil in the Blackville School District, $1,474 per pupil in the Williston School District, and $1,452 in the Barnwell School District (data for Georgia districts was unavailable). 7.2.2.2 Obligation Bonds School systems, like other local governmental bodies, use obligation bonds to finance large construction projects. Five of the nine school districts did not have any outstanding obligation bonds in 1979, which is the result of their not having undertaken any large construction pro- jects . 1 In contrast, the Consolidated School District of Aiken County had $16,515,000 in general obligation bonds and was 76 per- cent indebted. Table 7.15 presents data on the amount of general obliga- tion bonds outstanding for each school system, the percent indebted, and the mi 11 age rate. 7-65 Table 7-18 Expenditures of school systems within the primary study area Total expenditure Average annual School districts Year Dollars Year Dol1ars percent change Sources3 South Carolina Aiken County The Consoli dated School District of Atken County 1975 19,240,2611 1979 28,563,903 12.1 114 Allendale County A11 endale County School District 1975 1,889,519 1979 2,165,016 3.6 125,126 Bamberg County Denmark-Olar School District 2 1975 1,577,541 1979 2,203,217 9.9 28 Bamberg School District 1 1974 1,592,519 1979 2,567,984 12.3 127 Barnwell County Blackvl11e School District 19 1975 1,033,876 1979 1,646,005 17.3 120,152 W1I{Iston School District 29 1975 749,776 1979 1,234,090 16.1 120,152 Barnwell School n|strjet 45 1975 1,945,631 1979 2,800,000 11.0 121 Ufenl 111" Coiumbja CoUnty Columbia County Board of Education 1975 4,826,850 1979 9,953,475 25.8 123 RI cMnr>onr| {jqUllty , l UliaN of fe uen- Hon, hmkfh |ij?!i 2i||l!DMI)j 43,667,765 20.3 129,130 aHiimhers In this ...lunn rtil H I tR I E| >M'ti||M REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 1. S. Lukowski and C. T. Grayson, Jr., Eds., State Information Book, Potomac Books, Inc., Washington D.C., 1977• 2. M. W. Mixon, State Auditor, Report of the State Auditor of Georgia, Year Ending June 30, 1979, Atlanta, Ga., December 31, 1979. 3- South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, State of General Fund Revenue, Columbia, S.C. 4. League of Women Voters of South Carolina, Know Your State - South Carolina Government, Columbia, S.C., 1977. 5. League of Women Voters, Georgia's Government, Atlanta, Ga., December 1977. 6. South Carolina Association of Counties, 1980 Directory of County Officials, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 7. Compiler, Aiken County League of Women Voters, Directory of Public Officials of Aik en County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., July 1979. 8. S. L. Wise, Ed., 1979 Guide and Directory to South Carolina Govern- ment , Wing Publications, Columbia, S.C., 1979. 9. League of Women Voters of the Augusta Area and the Chamber of Com- merce of Greater Augusta, Government Directory, Augusta, Ga., March 1978. 10. Georgia State Department of Archives and History, Georgia Officials and Statistical Register. 11. W. E. George, 1980 Directory of Georgia Municipal Officals, Georgia Municipal Associ at ion, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., April 1980. 12. Aiken County Planning Commission, Capital Improvement Program and Capital Budget 1979-1980: Aiken County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., June 1979. 13. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and R. H. Windham, City Manager of the City of Aiken, S.C., May 8, 1980. 14. Griffin, Dixon, and Whitehurst, Town of Jackson, Jackson, South Carolina: General Financial Statements as of June 30, 1976 and 1975, and Accountant's Report, Jackson, S.C., September 1, 1976. 15« Griffin, Whitehurst, and Wade, Town of Jackson, Jackson, South Caro- lina: General Financial Statements as of June 30, 1979 and 1978, and Accountant's Report, Jackson, S.C., September 21, 1979. 7-67 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 16. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and C. Langley, Mayor, City of New Ellenton, S.C., June 11, 1980. 17. Personal communications between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and C. E. Langley, Jr., Mayor, City of New Ellenton, S.C., April 28, May 19, and June 2, 1980. 18. Cherry, Bekaert, and Holland, City of North Augusta, South Carolina: Report of Certified Public Accountant's Financial Statement Year Ended December 31, 1975, North Augusta, S.C., December 31, 1975. 19. G. C. Baird and Company, City of North Augusta, South Carolina, December 31, 1979, North Augusta, S.C., February 22, 1980. 20. Personal conmunication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and A. L. Brodie, Town of Perry, S.C., May 21, 1980. 21. C. C. McGregor and Company, Allendale County, South Carolina: June 30, 1974, Allendale, S.C., June 30, 1974. 22. Rogers, Brigman, Peterson and Co., Public Accountants, Al1endale County, South Carolina Financial Statement: June 30, 1979, Allen- dale, S.C., July 27, 1979. 23. C. C. McGregor and Company, Town of Allendale, South Carolina, June 30, 1975, Allendale, S.C., July 22, 1975- 24. C. C. McGregor and Company, Town of Allendale, South Carolina, June 30, 1979, Allendale, S.C., July 26, 1979- 25. Brittingham, Deal and Jeffcoat, CPA, Town of Fairfax, South Caro- lina: September 30, 1979, Fairfax, S.C., September 30, 1979. 26. J. H. Spaks, Public Accountant, Town of Fairfax, South Carolina: Report on Examination September 30, 1976, Fairfax, S.C., December Jh, 1978. 27. C. C. McGregor and Company, Accountant's Report: Bamberg County, South Carol ina, Bamberg,. S.C/7, August 28, 1975. IS 28. County Council of Bamberg County, Bamberg County Budget: Fiscal Year Beginning July 11, 1978, and Ending June 30, 1979, Bamberg, S.C., June 30, 1979. 29. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. G. Benton, Bamberg, S.C., May 5, 1980. 30. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. G. Benton, Bamberg, S.C., June 9, 1980. 7-68 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 31. Rogers, Brigman, Peterson and Co., Public Accountants, Financial Statement, City of Denmark, South Carolina: Year Ended April 15, 1976, Denmark, S.C., April 15, 1976. 32. Rogers, Brigman, Peterson and Co., Public Accountants, City of Den- mark, South Carolina, Financial Report, June 30, 1979, Denmark, S.C., October 18, 1979. 33. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and L. B. Owens, Mayor of Govan, -S.C., June 6, 1980. 34. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and E. Smoak, Town Clerk of Olar, S.C., May 29, 1980. 35. Barnwell County, Financial Statements, Barnwell County, South Caro- lina; Year Ending June 30, 1975, Barnwell, S.C., June 30, 1975, 36. Rogers, Brigman, Peterson and Co., Public Accountants, Barnwel1 County, South Carolina, Financial Report June 30, 1979, Barnwell, S.C., October 12, 1979. 37. Rogers, Brigman, Peterson and Co., Public Accountants, City of Barn- well, South Carolina: Financial Report, September 30, 1979, Barn- well, S.C., October 26, 1979. 38. Rogers, Gregory, Brigman and Co., Public Accountants, Financial Statement: City of Barnwell, South Carolina: Year Ended September 30, 1975, Barnwell, S.C., Novemeber 26, 1975. 39. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and V. Mills, Clerk, Town of Elko, S.C., May 29, 1980. 40. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B. Black, Town of Hilda, S.C., May 1, 1980. 41. Personal communications between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Moore, Town Clerk of the Town of Snelling, S.C., May 17 and May 21, 1980. 42. Fleischman and Associates, Accountant's Report: Town of Williston, South Carolina, October 1, 1978 - September 30, 1979, Williston, S.C., December 11, 1979. 43. B. S. Fleischman, Accountant's Report: Town of Williston, South Carolina, October 1, 1974 - September 30, 1975, Wi11iston, S.C., November 21, 1975. 44. Victor Markwalter and Co., Columbia County, Georgia, Financial Re- port: December 31, 1975, Martinez, Ga., June 1, 1976. " \s_ 7-69 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 45. Board of Commissioners, Columbia County Georgia) Annuai Report; 1979, Martinez, Ga., December 31, 1979. 46. Victor MarkwaIter and Co., City of Grovetown Financial Statements; December 31, 1975, Martinez, Ga., December 31, 1975. 47. City of Grovetown, Budget Summary, Grovetown, Ga., 48. Personal comtiuni cati on betwen G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Sullivan, City of Harlem, S.C., April 29, 1980. 49. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and D. Williams, Richmond County Board of Commissioners, May 21, 1980. 50. Year Book of the City Council of Augusta, Georgia; 1975, Augusta, Ga., 1975. 51. Year Book of the City Council of Augusta, Georgia; 1978, Augusta, Ga., 1978. 52. Wade E. Stevenson, CPA, Town of Hephzibah, Georgia; Audit Report, December 31, 1975, Hephzibah, Ga., April 12, 1976. 53. Wade E. Stevenson, CPA, Town of Hephzibah, Georgia: Audit Report, December 31, 1978, Hephzibah, Ga., March 12, 1979. 54. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and A. Hayes, Town Clerk, Blythe, Ga., May 1, 1980. 55- Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and D. Pearce, South Carolina, Department of Education, Columbia, S.C», November 14, 1980. 56. Personal communication between G. Edgley,^ NUS Corporation, and G. Firner, South Carolina Tax Commission, Columbia, S.C., November 20, 1980. ^ ) 57. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and H.T. Clarkeson, South Carolina Tax Commission, Columbia, S.C., August 18, 1980. 'vi 58. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and P. Chellis, Georgia Revenue Department, Atlanta, Ga., November 20, 1980. 59. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and P. Cheliis, Georgia Revenue Department, Atlanta, Ga., November 29, 1980. 60. Personal Communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Williams, Aiken County Tax Assessment Office, Aiken, S.C., December 23, 1980. 7-70 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 61. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and T. M Hendrix. City Clerk and Treasurer, City of Aiken, S.C., May 30, 1980. 62. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and C Weeks, Town of Jackson, S.C., June 6, 1980. 63. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and C Langley, Mayor, Town of New Ellenton, S.C., June 2, 1980. 64. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J Potter, Administrator, North Augusta, S.C.> May 30, 1980. 65. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation and J Shumpert, Town Clerk of Wagener, S.C., November 26, 1980. 66. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and L Cones, Auditor, Allendale County, S.C., December 23, 1980. 67. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and H Schramek, City of Fairfax, S.C., June 10, 1980. 68. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and H Zorn, Administrator, Bamberg County, S.C., May 29, 1980. 69. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Ms Martin, Town of Denmark, S.C., June 10, 1980. 70. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and E Moore, Barnwell County Auditor, Barnwell, S.C., November 26, 1980. 71. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and T Ray, Barnwell County, Barnwell, S.C., December 11, 1980. ~ ff 72. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation^ and A. P Black, City Administrator, City of Barnwell, S.C., May 28, 1980. 73- Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and R Allen, Comptroller, Columbia County, Ga., June 18, 1980. 74. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B Willson, Columbia County Tax Assessor's Office, Appling, Georgia November 26, 1980. 75. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and E Lynn, City of Grovetown, Ga., week of June 2, 1980. 76. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M Sullivan, City of Harlem, S.C., June 11, 1980. 7-71 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 77- Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and K. Selling, Comptroller, City of Augusta, Ga., June 16, 1980. 78. Personal communication between, G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Butts of Wade and Stevenson, Atlanta, Ga., June 10, 1980. 79« 0. Ersenkal et al., Local Government Finance in South Carolina, 1978-1980, Local Government Finance Research Group, Clemson Uni- versity, Clemson, S.C., March 1978. 80. Griffin, Dixon, and Whitehurst, Public Works Commission, Jackson, South Carolina; Finanical Statement as of June 30, 1976 and 19757 and Accountant's Reports, Jackson, S.C., September 10, 1976. 81. Griffin, Whitehurst, and Wade, Public Works Commission, Jackson, South Carolina: Financial Statement as of June 30, 1979 and 1978," and Accountant's Report, Jackson, S.C., September 21, 1979. 82. Personal communication between D. V/icks, NUS Corporation, and R. Allen, Columbia County Commissioner's Office, Martinez, Ga., Novem- ber 21, 1980. / // 83. Personal commuineation between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Benton, City of Bamberg, Bamberg, S.C., November 21, 1980. 84. Personal communication between D. Wicks,. NUS Corporation, and C. Weeks, Town of Jackson, Jackson, S.C., November 21, 1980. 85. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Smoak, Town of Olar, 01ar, S.C., November 21, 1980. 86. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and L. Owens, Town of Olar, Town of Govan, Govan, S.C., November 21, 1980. 87. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Black, Town of Hilda, Hilda, S.C., November 21, 1980. 88. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Shrumpert, Town of Wagener, Wagener, S.C., November 21, 1980. 89. Personal communicati on between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and A. Brodie, Town of Perry, Perry, S.C., November 21, 1980. 90. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Potter, City of North Augusta, North Augusta, S.C., November 21, 1980. 91. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and P. Rinehart, Barnwell County Commissioner's Office, Barnwell, S.C., November 24, 1980. v 7-72 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 92. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and W. Binnicker, City of Denmark, Denmark, S.C., November 24, 1980. 93. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and H. Zorn, County of Bamberg, Bamberg, S.C., November 24, 1980. 94. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Lemon, City of^Barnwel1, Barnwell, S.C., November 24, I98Q. 95* Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and T. Hendrix, City of Aiken, Aiken, S.C., November 24, 1980. 96. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and C. Phillips, City of Augusta, Augusta, Ga., November 24, I98O. 97. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and F. Walker, Aiken County Commissioner's Office, Aiken, S.C., November 24, 1980. 98. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and V. Mills, Town of Elko, Elko, S.C., November 24, 1980. 99. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and C. Langley, Town of New Ellenton, New Ellenton, S.C., November 24, 1980. 100. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and L. Cone, Allendale County Auditor's Office, Allendale, S.C., November 24, 1980. 101. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. McMillan, Bamberg County Auditor's Office, Bamberg, S.C., November 24, 1980. 102. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and A. W. Flynn, Town of Williston, Williston, S.C., November 24, 1980. 103. Personal communications between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and A. Slavens, Richmond County Board of Commissioners, Augusta, Ga., November 25, 1980. 104. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and M. Sullivan, City of Harlem, Harlem, Ga., November 25, 1980. 105. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Baltus, Allendale County Administrator's Office, Allendale, S.C., November 25, 1980. 106. Personal communication betweeen D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Lynn, Town of Grovetown, Grovetown, Ga., November 25, 1980. 7-73 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 107. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Able, Mayor of the Town of Sal ley, S.C., May 30, 1980. 108. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and D. Baltus, County Administrator, Allendale County, S.C., August 1, 1980. 109. C. C. McGregor and Company, Town of Allendale, South Carolina, Waterworks and Sewer System: June 30, 1975, Allendale, S.C., July 21, 1975. (I ' 110. C. C. McGregor and Company, Bamberg County, South Carolina: June 30, 1979, Bamberg, S.C., August 30, 1979-J 111. George C. Baird and Company, Water and-SeWer System of the City of North Augusta, South Carolina: May 31,' 1975, North Augusta, S.C., September 30, 1975. v 112. George C. Baird and Company, Water and S'iwer System of the City of North Augusta, South Carolina: December 31, 1979, North Augusta, S.C., February 22, "19&0. ~ J 113. Personal communication between\G./Edgl ey, NUS Corporation, and A. Slavens, Comptroller, Richmond County, Ga., June 18, 1980. 114. The Consolidated School District of Aiken County, The Consolidated School District of Aiken County. The State of South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., February 20, I98O. 115. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B. T. Brinkly, Director of Fiscal Affairs, Aiken County Public School System, Aiken, S.C., June 17, 1980. 116. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Dr. R. Hubright, Superintendent of Allendale School District, Allen- dale, S.C., June 16, 1980. 117. Personal communications between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Quattelbaum, Bamberg School District 2, Bamberg, S.C., April 30, 1979, and June 16, 1980. 118. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and P. Taylor, Bamberg'School District No. 1, Bamberg, S.C., January 19, 1981. \ 119. Personal communic.ition between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B. McLel1 an, Barnwell\County District hS, Barnwell, S.C., November 13, 1980. 7-74 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 120. Financial Statements: Barnwell County, South Carolina, Year Ended June 30, 1979, Barnwell County, S.C., June 30, 1979. ' 121. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. E. Benson, Barnwell School District 45, Barnwell, S.C., May 6, 1980. 122. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B. McLellan, Barnwell School District 45, Barnwell, S.C., June 16, 1980. 123. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Ms. McLead, Columbia County Board of Education, Appling, Ga., April 30, 1980. 124. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. B. Blount, Richmond County Board of Education, City of Augusta, Ga., June 17, 1980. 125. Rogers, Brigman, Peterson, and Co., Public Accountants, Aliendaie County Schools, Allendale. South Carolina: Finanical Report, Al - lendale, S.C., June 30, 1980. 126. Rogers, Gregory and Brigman, CPA, Financial Statements: Allendale County Schools, South Carolina: Year Ended June 30, 1975, General Fund Lunch Fund, Allendale, S.C., June 30, 1975. 127. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and P. Taylor, Bamberg School District 1, Bamberg, S.C., June 16, 1980. 128. Personal contnuni cati on between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Finley, Business Manager, Columbia County Board of Education, June 16, 1980. 129. Victor Markwalter and Co., Board of Education, Richmond County, Georgia, Financial Report: June 30, 1975, Augusta, Ga., November 25, 1975. 130. Victor Markwalter, and Co., Board of Education, Richmond County, Georgia: June 30, 1979» Augusta, Ga., February 12, 1980. 131. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Parrlsh, South Carolina Department of Education, Columbia, S.C., November 14, 1980. 132. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B. Alredge, Georgia Department of Education, Atlanta, Ga., November 17, 1980. 7-75 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 (continued) 133. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Finley, Columbia County Board of Education, Appling, Ga., November H, 1980. 134. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and S. West, Allendale School District, Allendale, S.C., November 13, 1980. 135. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and S. Darnell, Blackville School District, BlackvUU, S.C., November 14, 1980. 136. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and B. T. Brinkley, Consolidated School District of Aiken County, Aiken, S.C., November 13, 1980. i) 137. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Turner, Richmond County Board of Education, Augusta, Ga., November 13, 1980. 138. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and P. Taylor, Bamberg School District 1, Bamberg, S.C., November 14, 1980. 139. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and D. Sullivan, Allendale School District, Allendale, S.C., November 13, 1980. 140. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and A. Ruthfulmer, Williston School District 29, Williston, S.C., November 11, 1980. 141. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Quattlebaum, Denmark-Olar School District 2, Bamberg, S.C., Novem- ber 13, 1980. ^ 142. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation and B. Brinkley, Aiken Consolidated School District, Aiken, South Caro- lina, March 16, 1981. 143. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation and G. West, Allendale County School District, Allendale, S.C., March 16, 1981. 144. Personal communication between G. Edgley of NUS Corporation and M. Quattlebaum of Denmark-Olar School Distdricts 2, Denmark, S.C., February 27, 1981. 145. Personal communication between G. Edgley of NUS Corporation and R. Coker of Bamberg Schooi District 1, Bamberg, S.C., January 20, 1981. 5-8 8.1 EDUCATION There are nine public school systems or school districts in the six coun- ties that make up the primary study area: two in Georgia and seven in South Carolina. Public education facilities in the six counties include 78 elementary schools, 27 intermediate schools, 21 high schools, 10 spe- cial schools, and eight vocational/technical schools. Currently, approx- imately 43 private elementary, intermediate, high school or vocational schools, and six public or private colleges or universities service resi- dents of the primary study area.1 The nine public school systems however, enroll the majority (93.6 percent) of the school-age children in the six-county area, each individual school system educating between 90 and 99 percent of the school-age children within its district boun- 16—23 daries. A total of 612 buses transport the public school students 7 13 14 24-29 to school each day. ' ' Table 8.1 contains an inventory of public schools and public and private universities in the study area and Figure 8.1 depicts public school system boundaries during the 1979-1980 school year. The attendance-area boundaries in Aiken County are cur- rently being revised due to the creation of Attendance Area 5 (Silver Bluff Zone). As of March 1981, however, the new boundaries had not been decided upon. Thus, figure 8.1 depicts only four attendance areas in Aiken County. In the primary study area, approximately 72,100 school age children are enrolled in the nine public school districts and together the school dis- tricts have an excess capacity of 8600 students.7'9*1 ^MMS*27,29-35 Table 8.2 lists each elementary, intermediate, or high school in the pri- mary study area, its 1979-1980 student enrollment, and the number of additional students each school can accommodate with existing facilities. The Richmond County School District is the largest school system in the study area, with a 1979-1980 student enrollment of 31,142, and the Wil- liston School District is the smallest system with a student enrollment of 1069. Three of the school systems are operating at 81 to 90 percent 8-3 SCALE S 10 13 20 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE 8.1 LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES OF EACH SCHOOL SYSTEM LEGEND SCHOOL DBTMCr BOUNDARY SAVANNAH RIVEfl PIANT BOUNDARY NOTE: AIKEN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTENDANCE AREA BOUNDARIES ARE AS OF MARCH 1981. SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA V y Table 8.1 Number of public schools and private and public universities in the primary study area, 1979-1980 school year3 Elementary Intermediate Vocational/ Colleges/ County school school High school Special school technical school universities Aiken 21 9 6 6 3 1 Allendale 3 2 1 0 1 1 Bamberg 3 k 2 0 1 1 Barnwell 3 2 3 1 1 0 Columbia 9 2 2 0 0 0 Richmond 39 8 7 3 2 3 Total 78 27 21 10 8 6 aSources: See references 1-1A. \ Table 8.2 Enrollment and capacity of public elementary and secondary schools in the primary study area, 1979-•1980 school year3 County School system Name of school Current enrollment Capac ity Available space Aiken Aiken County Aiken Elementary 449 600 151 School District East Aiken Elementary 612 780 168 Attendance Area No. 1b J .D. Lever Elementary 361 360 0 Laurens Street Elementary 513 550 37 Mlllbrook Elementary 405 540 135 North Aiken Elementary 362 540 178 Oakwood-Uindsor Elementary 206 240 34 Kennedy Middle 614 624 10 Schofield Middle 1,082 1,010 0 Aiken High 1,448 1,448 0 South Aiken High 862 925 63 Aiken County School Belvedere Elementary 906 840 0 District Haiwnond Hill Elementary 649 720 71 Attendance Area No. 2b North Augusta Elementary 512 930 418 Suntnerfield Elementary 493 620 127 North Augusta Junior High 541 800 259 Paul Knox Junior High 687 686 0 North Augusta High 1,271 1,280 9 Aiken County School Byrd Elementary 499 450 0 District Clearwater Elementary 430 600 170 Attendance Area No. 3b Gloverville Elementary 277 245 0 Jefferson Elementary 683 1,096 413 Warrenvtlle Elementary 221 330 109 Leavette-McCampbel1 Middle 537 832 295 Langley-Bath-Clearwater High 639 1,080 441 Aiken County School Busbee Elementary 539 540 1 District Ridge Sprlng-Monetta Elementary 570 600 30 Attendance Area No. 4b A. L. Corbett Middle 447 688 241 -1- Ridge Spring-Monetta Middle 308 448 140 Ridge Spring-Monetta High 394 538 144 Wagener-Salley High 446 460 14 Aiken County School District Downer Elementary 338 336 0 Attendance Area No. 5 Greendale Elementary 402 390 0 (Silver Bluff Zone)b Jackson Elementary 320 426 106 New Ellenton Middle School 216 220 4 Silver Bluff High 699 825 126 (currently Jackson High) District total 21,307 24,951 3,644 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.2 Enrollment and capacity of public elementary and secondary schools In the primary study area, 1979-1980 school year" (continued) County School system Na.iie of school Current enrolIment Capacity Available space c Allendale Allendale County School Allendale Primary 394 H/A District Fairfax Primary 223 N/A 0d Allendale Elementary 385 N/A 0<* - Allendale Middle 402 N/A 0<* Fairfax Middle 352 N/A 0** Allendale-Fairfax High 745 N/A 0<* District total 2,501 N/A 0<> Bamberg Bamberg School District Bamberg Elementary 599 N/A 10-15** No. 1 L. L. Butler Elemenlary 128 N/A 10-15** Richard Carrol Hiddle 430 N/A 10-15** Ehrhardt Hiddle 111 N/A 10-15** Richard Carrol Junior High 351 N/A 10-15** Bamberg-Ehrhardt High 428 N/A I0-I5d District total 2,047 N/A 60-90** Denmark-Olar School Denmark-Olar Elementary 929 950e 21 e District No. 2 Denmark-Olar Junior High 260 300 40 00 Denmark-Olar High 545 575e 30 1 District total 1,734 1,825e 91 Barnwell Barnwell School Barnwell Elementary 1,100 1,200 100 District No. 45b Gulnyard-Butler Middle 515 590 75 Barnwell High 680 780 100 District total 2,295 2,570 275 Blackvllle School Blackvllle Elementary 380 450e 70 District No. 19 Macedona Middle 521 650® 129 Blackvllle Hlgt- 396 496e 100 District total 1,297 1,596® 299 Wllllston School Kelly Edwards Elementary 599 N/K 50 d District No. 29 Wlllston - Elko High 470 900 ' 430 District total 1,069 N/A 480<* Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.2 Enrollment and capacity of public elementary and secondary schools In the primary study area, 1979-1980 school year8 (continued) County School system Name of school Current enrollment Capacity Available s| Columbia Columbia County Bel Air Elementary 862 840 0 School System Evans Elementary 4 56 420 0 Grovetown Elementary 552 660 108 Hart Inez Elementary 932 900 0 North Columbia Elementary 362 480 118 North Harlem Elementary 464 420 0 South Columbia Elementary 777 900 123 South Harlem Elementary 336 360 24 Westmant Elementary 668 660 0 Columbia Junior High 466 840 374 Evans Junior High 1,012 1,100 88 Evans High 1,259 1,500 241 Harlem High 543 777 234 District total 8,689 9,875 1,168 Richmond Richmond County Barton Chapel Elementary 851 800 0 School System Bayvale Elementary 532 550 18 Blythe Elementary 295 350 55 Bungalow Road Elementary 374 500 126 Collins Elementary 590 875 285 Copeland Elementary 398 575 177 Craig Elementary 322 475 153 Davidson Elementary 215 375 160 Fleming Elementary 200 450 250 Forest Hills Elementary 386 400 14 Garrett Elementary 413 375 0 Glen Hills Elementary 645 575 0 Gracewood Elementary 856 800 0 Floyd Graham Elementary 481 475 0 A. C. Griggs Elementary 309 350 41 Ha Ins Elementary 355 375 20 Hephzibah Elementary 612 525 0 Hornsby Elementary 312 400 88 Houghton Elementary 307 425 118 Jenkins Elementary 140 250 110 Lake Forest Elementary 288 300 12 Joseph Lamar Elementary 290 325 35 Meadowbroofc Elementary 1,102 975 0 A. B. Merry Elementary 966 625 59 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.2 Enrollment and capacity of public elementary and secondary schools tn the primary study area, 1979-1980 school year8 (continued) County School system Name of school Current enrollment Capacity Available s] Richmond Richmond County hi 11 edge Elementary 550 600 50 (continued) School System Monte Sano Elementary 270 300 30 (continued) National Hills Elementary 207 225 18 Reynolds Elementary 388 375 0 Sue Robinson Elementary 286 425 139 Rollins Elementary 573 600 173 South Bar Ferry Elementary 388 400 12 Southslde Elementary 556 550 0 Terrace Manor Elementary 810 900 110 Walker Elementary 498 800 302 Warren Road Elementary 596 600 4 Wheel ess Road Elementary 712 675 0 Levi White Elementary 355 625 270 Wilkinson Gardens Elementary 513 500 0 Windsor Spring Elementary 886 925 39 Hephzibah Junior High 757 775 18 A. R. Johnson Junior High 663 650 17 Langford Junior High 764 775 11 00 Murphey Junior High 504 675 171 1 VO Sand Bar Ferry Middle 474 700 226 Sego Junior High 787 750 0 Tubman Junior High 343 725 382 Tutt Junior High 594 675 81 Richmond Academy Comprehensive High 1,422 1,600 178 Butler High 1,337 1,225 0 Glen Hills High 1,317 1,275 0 Hephzibah High 894 975 8l Josey High 1034 1,125 91 Laney High 820 975 155 WestsIde High 1,005 975 0 District total 31,142 33,725 2,583 Primary study area total 72,081 N/A 8,600-8,630^ •Sources: See references 7-9, 11-14, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29-35. >>1980-1981 school year. cInformation not available. ^Estimated available space. ^Estimated capacity. jA, School officials throughout the primary study area generally anticipate slight enrollment increases over the next decade—approximately;,'one or 34 35 40-46 two percent a year. ' ' Several of the districts have individ- ual schools that are crowded or may become crowded with increased enroll- ments. Approximately 45 of the schools in the urban counties of Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond have no available space, or space for less than 25 additional students. Of these schools, 85 percent are elementary schools, many of which are located in or near the cities of Aiken and Augusta or the urbanized area of Martinez-Evans in Columbia County, Georgia. In the more rural school districts, Allendale, Bamberg and Denmark-Olar can ac- commodate less than 100 additional students without overcrowding. The three school districts in Barnwell County can each accommodate between approximately 275 and 480 additional students.7"9' n-]lt»2,»»25, 27,29-35 To alleviate existing or potential problems with crowded or overcrowded conditions, all nine school districts have added mobile units to many of 7 24 32-3*5 40-46 their facilities to increase classroom space. ' ' ' Addi- tionally, seven of the districts have constructed-, or plan to construct new facilities. In South Carolina, Bamberg School District No. 1 is currently making plans to construct a new high school to replace the existing deteriorating facility. Blackville School District No. 19 plans 8-11 to construct a new elementary and a new high school, although funding sources had not been decided upon as of March 1981. Barnwell School District No. 45's current development plans consist of a five-classroom addition to the Guiyard-Butler Middle school within the next five years, will accommodate a total of approximately 200 additional students. Whether these plans proceed depends upon actual district enrollment in- creases and the availability of funding. The Williston School District plans to construct two new wings to the Kelly Edwards Elementary School. As of March 1981, the financial arrangements for such a project had not been decided upon. in Aiken County, the school district is involved in an active development and expansion program, which includes the construc- tion; of three new high schools and the addition of classrooms to the Busbee and Greendale Elementary Schools. The new Midland Valley High School opened in the fall of 1980, and the new South Aiken and Silver Bluff High Schools scheduled to open by the fall of 1981, have a combined total capacity of 3275 pupils with expansion capabilities to approxi- mately 3600 pupils. The Greendale and Busbee Elementary schools will have a combined total capacity of 900 students when construction is com- plete. The Aiken County School District is also creating a new atten- dance area for the new Silver Bluff High School and realigning the boun- daries of the existing attendance areas.33,34,40,43,44,46,48,49 c- ln Georgia, the Columbia County School District is constructing a new Evans and a new Harlem High School. Scheduled to open between the fall of 198O and 1982, the two new facilities are projected to have a combined total capacity of 2500 students, with expansion capabilities to 3200 students. The old Evans high school facility, currently housing both the Evans High and Junior High School, will be used exclusively for the junior high students upon completion of the new Evans High School facil- ity. The school district is also constructing 14 new classrooms to the Westmont Elementary School. This addition will increase the school's total capacity by approximately 400 students upon its scheduled comple- tion during the spring of 1981. In Richmond County, the school district is currently constructing a new middle school in Hephzibah and expanding 8-12 three existing high schools, increasing the district's total capacity by approximately ,2000 students. If Richmond County obtains the necessary funding, the district also plans to iponstruct a new middle school near Ft. Gordon with a projected capacity of 800 students.^>/,2>'f7>50 In contrast to the seven school districts with development programs, the Denmark-Olar School District does not plan to construct any new facil- ities or expand existing ones at this time. Although Allendale County school officials acknowledge the need for new facilities, neither the 35 45 plans nor the funding for such a project have been decided upon. ' All of the school systems in the primary study area have been accredited by the Georgia Standards Commission or the South Carolina Department of Education.5""5^ The schools in Richmond and Columbia County areas have 51-53 also been accredited by the Georgia Accrediting Commission. Addi- tionally, Richmond County's high schools and Columbia County's elementary and secondary schools 5hav3 e been accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Two of the school districts in South Carolina, the Barnwell and Blackville Districts, have an overall All Clear accredi- tation with the State Department of Education, which is the highest ac- creditation classification awarded. The remaining five districts have an Advisory classification, the second highest accreditation class ifice- tJon. 51 Approximately 67 percent of the elementary and secondary schools in the four South Carolina counties have been accredited by the 54 Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. In Georgia and South Carolina, a school district must fulfill the state's 7 minimum standards concerning programs to receive state accreditation. ' 55 In South Carolina and Georgia, the minimum standards Include offering a kindergarten, primary, secondary, handicapped, vocational, and adult 7 f, educational program. ' All the school districts in the study area offer these programs. All but one of the districts also offer a Gifted and Talented Program and a Home Bound Program.2"Z,'7>9>11'12,23,32,48,58 2-4 7 All the districts have Title I remedial reading and math programs.' ' 8-13 Depending on the school system and the state, various other programs are offered, such as career education, music, art, and advanced placement 2 0 courses for college-bound high school students. ®'*' ' 53s46,57 Within the study area, the average student-teacher ratio for each dis- trict, as a whole, ranges from 18.5:1 in the Williston School District to 25:1 in both the Columbia and Allendale School Districts. Five of the South Carolina districts are below the 1978 statewide average student- teacher ratio of 23:1.8'9'11"11*'17'25'27'30'59'60 In contrast, both of the Georgia districts have student-teacher ratios above the 1979 state- wide average of 16.8;1.^ All nine school systems supplement their teaching staff with paraprofessionals.7"9'12"1^'25'27'28 Table 8.3 lists the state and county student-teacher ratios and the number of para- professionals or teacher aides in each school system. Throughout the study area, 50 to 77 percent of each school system's pro- fessional staff have a bachelor's degree, 23 to 47 percent have a mas- ter's degrees, and less than four percent have six-year certificates or a Ph.D. The highest percentage of bachelor degrees are found in the Black- ville and Columbia County School Districts. In contrast, the Bamberg and Denmark-Olar School Districts employ fewer individuals with bachelor degrees and more with master's degrees than the statewide average. Both of the Georgia counties' staffs have a slightly higher percentage of bachelor's and a lower percentage of master's degrees than the statewide average; nevertheless, both Richmond and Columbia Counties have two of the highest percentages of six-year certificates or Ph.D's in the study 8,9,11-13,16,25,48,52,59,60 _ . . « - ...... area. ' ' ' ' ' ' Table 8.3 lists the educational tlevel of each district's professional staff and the statewide averages. Over the past decade, the individual school districts have experienced different degrees of enrollment growth or decline. Enrollments in seven of the school districts have declined between 1970 and 1980, as have total public school enrollments in the nation and the states of Georgia and South Carolina. In contrast, Columbia County's total public school Table 8.3 Number of teacher aides and staff educational leyels of public school teachers and professional staff in the primary study area 1979-1980 school year8 Educational level of professional staff Number of Bachelor's Master's 6 Year cert ificates(Ph.D's) paraprofesslonal State School system (In t) (In %) (In S) or teacher aides South Carolina 57.0 38.7 1.3 N/Ab Aiken County School District 60.7 38.2 1.1 465 Allendale County School Oistrict 63.6 32.9 .7 27 Bamberg School Olstrlct No. 1 50.1 47.3 1.7 11 Denmark-Olar School District No. 2 51.9 45.4 1.9 21 Barnwell School District No. 45 61.6 35.5 2.9 27 Blackvl1le School District No. 19 76.8 23.2 N/A 10 Willlston School District No. 29 57.2 38.1 1.5 9 Georgia 54.9 38.8 4.7 N/A Columbia County School System 70.5 24.7 3.0 100 Richmond County School System 63.7 26.0 3.8 413 "Sources: See references 7-9, 11-14, 17, 25, 27, 28, 48, 52, 59, 60. bInformatI on not available. 8-15 enrollments increased due to the county's 75 percent increase in popula- tion between 1970 and 7980. Blackville School District No. 45 also ex- perienced an increase in enrollment during this 10-year period. Enroll- ment in the Blackville School District may have been affected by the construction of new facilities at Allied Nuclear General Services between 7 8 1970 and 1980. ' ' "-14,25,27,29,48, 62,65,66-69. In conjunction with student enrollments, student-teacher ratios have also fluctuated. From the information available, six of the nine school dis- tricts had lower student-teacher ratios in 1980 than they had in 1976, paralleling the decrease in student-teacher ratios in the states of Geor- C r 7,8,11-14,25,27,29,48,52,62-69 . . . , gia and South Carolina. ' * , , n ."» , » A brief overview of enrollment and student-teacher ratio trends in the six counties, the two states, and the nation during the past decade is presented in Table 8.4. Table 8.4 Total enrollment and student/teacher ratio for selected years In the primary study area, the United States, South Carolina, and Georgia0 Total enrollment Student-teacher ratio National/State School system 1969-1970 1975-1976 1979-1960 ij6j-i?70 1975-1976 1979-1980 United Statesb>c 45,618,548 44,7.90,946 41,578,665 N/Ad N/A N/A e South Carollnab 671,908 651,358 638,623 23.8:1 24.1:1 23.0:1 Aiken County School District 25,248® 22,959 21,307f 24.5:1 25.8:1 22.7:1 Allendale County School District 2,920® 2,362 2,047 20.7:1 22.1:1 25.0:1 Bamberg School District No. 1 2,203® 2,123 1,977 N/A 24.3:1 24.0:1 Denmark-Olar School District No. 2 2,019® 1,629 1,734 N/A 21.7:1 19.0:1 Barnwell School District No. 45 2,315® 2,137 2,295C N/A 21.2:1 20.0:1 Blackvllle School District No. 19 l,279e 1,330 1,297 N/A 24.0:1 19.0:1 Wllllston School District No. 29 1,389® 1,020 1,069 N/A 22.4:1 18.5:1 Georglee 1,220,855® 1,192,129 1,126,878 21.0:1 18.2:1 16.8:1 Columbia County School System 6,979e ?,554 8,689 24.4:1 19.7:1 25.0:1 Richmond County School System 40,569® 37,853 31,142 19.8:1 16.2:1 22.9:1 •Sources« See references 8, 9, 11-14, 25, 27, 29, 48, 52, 62-69. ••Public school enrollment. cFa11 1969, 1975,1979 data. ^Information not available. ®Does not include kindergarten students. f1980-1981 school year data. 8-17 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1 1. Central Savannah Area Regional Planning and Development Commission, CSRA Human Resources Directory, Augusta, Ga., July, 1979- 2. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Tri-County Directory of Human Services 1979, Aiken, S.C., 1979- 3. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Barnwell Directory of Human Services 1980, Aiken, S.C., 1980. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Aiken Directory of Human Services 1978, Aiken, S.C., 1978. 5. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Allendale Directory of Human Services 1930, Aiken, S.C., 1980. 6. School District of Aiken County, Guide to Schools in Aiken County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C. 7. Personal communication between D, Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Wright, Denmark-Olar Schoo! District No. 2, Denmark, S.C., May 22, 1980. 8. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Dr. R. Hubright, Allendale School District, Allendale, S.C., May 13, 1980. 9. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Cely, Williston School District No. 29, Williston, S.C., May 16, 1980. 10. Columbia County Board of Education, Teaching in Columbia County, Georgia, Augusta, Ga., undated. 11. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Coker, Bamberg School District No. 1, Bamberg, S.C., April 9, 1980. 12. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Huggins, Blackville School District No. 19, Blackville, S.C., May 2, 1980. 13- Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Benson, Barnwell School District No. 45, Barnwell, S.C., May 6, 1980. 14. Meeting between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and D. Mack, Richmond County Board of Education, Augusta, Ga., April 2, 1980. 15. South Carolina Department of Education, 1979-1980 Directory of South Carolina Schools, Columbia, S.C., 1979. 8-18 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1 (continued) 16. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and M. Quattlebaum, Denmark-Olar School District No. 2, Denmark, S.C., April 30, 1980. 17. South Carolina Department of Education, Rankings. Columbia, S.C., 1980. 18. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Dr. Green, Aiken County School District, Aiken, S.C., May 5, 1980. 19. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. McLeon, Columbia County School District No. 1, Appling, Ga., May 27, 1980. 20. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and R. Coker, Bamberg School District No. 1, Bamberg, S.C., May 27, 1980. 21. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and R. Huggins, Blackville School District No. 19, Blackville, S.C., April 30, 1980. 22. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Benson, Barnwell Public School District No. bS, Barnwell, S.C., May 27, 1980. 23. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Aired, Georgia State Board of Education, Atlanta, Ga., May 22, 1980. 2b. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Dr. R. Hubright, Allendale County School District, Allendale, S.C., May 23, 1980. 25. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Davidson, Aiken County School District, Aiken, S.C., May 19, 1980. 26. Williston School District, Fall Newsletter, Williston School Dis- trict No. 29,1(3), Williston, S.C., Fall, 1980. 27. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Thornhill, Columbia County Board of Education, Appling, S.C., May 23, 1980. 28. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Coker, Bamberg School District No. 1, Bamberg, S.C., May 2, 1980. 29. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and F. Black, Columbia County Board of Education, Appling, S.C., May 2, 1980. 8-19 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1 (continued) 30. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and S. Creech, BlackvMIe School District No. 19, Blackville, S.C., May 22, 1980. 31. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Cely, Williston School District No. 29, Williston, S.C., May 5, 1980. 32. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. Lawimori, Barnwell School District No. 45, Barnwell, S.C., May 23, 1980. 33. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Davidson, Aiken County School District, Aiken, S.C., March 2, 1981. 34. Personal Communication beween D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Benson, Barnwell School District No. 45, Barnwell, S.C., February 28, 1981. 35. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Wright, Denmark-Olar School District No. 2, Denmark, S.C., February 28, 1981. u 36. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Popula- tion Characteristics: Georgia^ 1970, Census of Population, Washing- ton, D.C., September 1971. 37. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, General Popula- tion Characteristics: South Carolina, 1970 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., August 1971. 38. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, South Carolina, Washington, D.C., January 1981. 39. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, Georgia, Washingtohn, D.C., January 1981. 40. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Coker, Bamberg School District No. 1, Bamberg, S.C., February 28, 1981. 41. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Mack, Richmond County School District, Augusta, Ga., February 28, 1981. 42. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Thornhill, Columbia County School District, Appling, Ga., March 2, 1981. 43. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Davidson, Aiken County School District, Aiken, S.C., March 3, 1981. 8-20 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1 (continued) 44. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Cely, Williston School District No. 29, Williston, S.C., February 28, 1981. 45. Personal communicatlon between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Hubright, Allendale County School District, Allendale, S.C., March 3, 1981. 46. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Huggins, Blackville School District No. 19, Blackville, S.C., March 2, 1981. 47. Personal communication betweeen D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Turner, Richmond County School District^ Augusta, Ga., Feburary 28, 1981. 48. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Tyler, Aiken County School District, Aiken, S.C., May 23, 1980. ii !l 49. The Aiken Standard, Wednesday, May 17, 1980. 50. The Columbia News, Wednesday, August 15, 1977- 51. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and K. Phillips, South Carolina Department of Education, Columbia, S.C., May 23, 1980. 52. Columbia County Board of Education, The Newsletter, 3(2), 'Winter, 1979. 53• Richmond County Board of Education, Richmond County Public Education Sampler, Augusta, Ga., undated. 54. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Proceedings, 32(5), Atlanta, Ga., 1980. 55. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Tyler, Aiken County School District, Aiken, S.C., May 27, 1980. 56. Georgia State Department of Education, Standards for Public Schools In Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., I98O. 57. South Carolina State Department of Education, Defined Minimum Pro- gram for South Carolina School Districts, Columbia, S.C., 1977- 58. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Cely, Williston School District No. 29, Williston, S.C., May 27, 1980. 8-21 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1 (continued) 59. Meeting between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and G. Wright, Denmark- Olar School District No. 2, May 14, 1980. 60. Richmond County Board of Education, Status Report January 1979» Augusta, Ga., 1979- 61. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Aired, Georgia State Department of Education, Atlanta, Ga., October 23, 1980. 62. South Carolina Department of Education, Educational Trends, Colum- bia, S.C., 1979. 63. South Carolina Department of Education, 1969-70 Annual Report to the State Superintendent of Education, Statistical Section, Rankings of the Counties and School Districts of South Carolina, 1969-70 arid 1975-76, Columbia, S.C., 1970. 64. South Carolina Department of Education, 1975-1976 Annual Report to the State Superintendent of Education, Statistical Section, Rank- ings of the Counties and School Districts of South Carolina, 1975- 1976, Columbia, S.C., 1976. ~?j 65. Columbia County Board of Education, Columbia County Schools Report of Progress, 1949-1959-1968-1975, Appling, Ga., 1975. 66. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and D. Mack, Richmond County Board of Education, Augusta, Ga., May 29, 1980. 67. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and L. Stroud, Georgia Department of Education, Atlanta, Ga., March 16, 1981. 68. Personal communication betweeen D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and M. Farr'ter, South Carolina Department of Education, Columbia, S.C., March 16, 1981. 69* Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and T. Snyder, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1981. 8-22 8.2 RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES A broad range of recreational and cultural facilities and opportunities exist ir, the region surrounding the Savannah River Plant site. The rec- reational and cultural spectrum consists of both public and private fa- cilities and includes elements that contribute to the quality of life within tho region. Often, these elements also serve important ecological and preservation functions. Consequently, they have the potential to meet important future, as well as existing needs within the region. The recreational and cultural facilities discussion is divided into two sections: outdoor recreation, which includes both active and passive pur- suits; and cultural resources, which consist of the general cultural activities and facilities available within the region. 8.2.1 Outdoor recreation Outdoor recreation typically involves passive recreational activities such as sightseeing, picnicking, camping, and driving for pleasure, as well as more active pursuits like hunting, hiking, boating, swimming, field games, and team sports. Participation in various recreational activities and demand for appropriate facilities vary markedly from re- gion to region and often within a single region. The variations are generally ascribable to differences in resource bases, existing facil- ities, urban/rural characteristics, and demographic factors. Provisions for various specific recreational activities greatly influence the loca- tion, size, and number of facility types. A wide variety of both public and private outdoor recreational facilities are available within the study area. Public facilities include those within Federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Their locations are shown on Figure 8.2. Federal outdoor recreation facilities within the study area include por- tions of the Sumter National Forest, the Santee National Wildlife Refuge, 8-23 SUMTER NATIONAL FOREST / a*"""" MISTLETOE STATE PARK>« xfe-. ORNL-DWG 81-15220 FIGURE B2 MAJOR FEDERAL AND STATE RECREATIONAL AREAS (WITHIN 50 MILE RADIUS OF SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT) LEGEND PARK AREA m ft SCALE 5 0 S *> 15 20 Mli.ES SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE M«Sf| CHARACTERIZATION J OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 8-25 and the Clarks Hill Reservoir of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There are four developed recreation areas within the Sumter National Forest which are located within the study area. They offer a wide range of outdoor activities from picnicking to camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and sightseeing. Santee National Wildlife Refuge, located on Lake Marion, serves as a major refuge for migratory waterfowl. Facilities include a one-mile interpretive nature trail and observation tower. Lake Marion adjoins the 171,000-acre Lake Moultrie, which is renowned for its fishing. Both 1 2 lakes offer major opportunities for all water-related recreation. ' The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has established six recreation areas in the study portion of its 72,000-acre Clarks Hill Reservoir.5 As shown in Table 8.5, these sites range from an overlook at the reservoir dam to fully developed recreation attractions. Some sites are administered by local jurisdictions, others by the Corps itself. The reservoir, strad- II dling the Georgia-South Carolina border, contains over 1200 miles of shoreline and is the scene for numerous other public recreation attrac- 3-7 tions just beyond the study area. Total visitation at the Clarks Hill Reservoir was 6.1 million recreation visitor days in 1979.5 Five state parks, four in South Carolina and one in Georgia, are located within the study area. The four South Carolina State Parks include San- tee State Park, Rivers Bridge State Park, Barnwell State Park, and Aiken County State Park. Mistletoe State Park is the only Georgia state park within the study area. One additional Georgia state park, Magnolia Springs State Park in Jenkins County, is within 50 miles of the Savannah River Plant site, as is Dreher Island State Park in South Carolina. All of these state parks are major, water-based recreational attractions. They offer facilities for camping, swimming, hiking, boating, and fish- ing, as well as opportunities for passive recreation. Most of the parks provide rental cabins or cottages and several of the eight parks are Table 8.5 Existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public outdoor recreational facilities on Clarks HI II Reservoir, 1979a * Use rating Name Location Activities ~ Acreage Operator (recreation daysb) Clarks Hill Clarks HIII Picnic area (will 121 Corps of Light Recreation Area Reservoi r (not be converted Into Engineers (8,170) on reservoir but a reserve picnic within the view area in future) the reservoir) West Dam Access Clarks Hill Picnic area and a 25 Corps of Moderate Reservoir boat ramp Engineers (41,357) Winfteld Clarks Hill Camping and boat 99 Corps of .ioderate Reservoir ramp (an expan- Engineers (58,677) sion is planned to Increase the number of camp sites from 19 to 45) Ridge Road Clarks HI 11 Camping and 59 Corps of Moderate ^Reservoir picnic area Engineers (51,283) Keg Creek Clarks Hill Picnic area, boat 20 Corps of Moderate Reservoir ramp Engineers (39,444) WIIduood Park Clarks Hill Camping, picnic 991 Columbia County Moderate Recervoi r area, beach, Leases Land from (101,982) boat ramp and 2 State/Corps rental trailers Old Petersburg Clarks Hill Camping, boat ramp 50 Corps of Moderate Reservoir Engineers (61,439) Lake Springs Clarks Hill Picnic area and 180 Corps of Moderate Reservoir boat ramp (Largest picnic Engineers (61,439) area operated by Corps of Engi- neers) West Dam Clarks Hill Scenic view 22 Corps of Heavy Overlook Reservoir Engineers (257,644) (Over 300,000 in the past; the facility is overused) Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.5 Existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public outdoor recreational facilities on Clarks Hill Reservoir, 1979a (continued) Use rating Name Location Activities Acreage Operator (recreation daysfa) Richard Russell Dam I) South Caro- lina side Clarks Hill Picknlcking, 6000 U.S. Army Corps Reservoir Camping, Swim- ming, Hiking 2) Georgia side Clarks Hill Plcknlcking, 22,01(0 U.S. Army Corps Reservoir Camping, Swim- ming, Hiking Columbia County Clarks Hill Plcntc area Georgia Dept. Light Wayside Reservoir of Transporta- (13,207) tion (leased from Corps) 00 1 Tormy Shaw's Clarks Hill Boat rentals, 30 Private (leased Moderate ts> Marl na Reservoi r cabin rentals, from Corps) (154,639) boat storage (wet and dry) camping, gas sales, some private mobile homes Trade Winds Clarks Hill Boat storage 180 Private (leased Moderate Marina (Lake Reservoir (wet and dry), from Corps) (124,865) Spring Conces- boat sales and sion service, cabin rentals, gas sales, boat docking capabil- ity up to 60 feet. (Future plans include a restaurant, camp grounds, snack bar, yacht club, etc.) Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.5 Existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public outdoor recreational facilities on Clarks Hill Reservoir, 1979" (continued) Use rating Name Location Activities Acreage Operator (recreation days'1) Mistletoe Clarks HU1 Boat dock and 1920 Ga. Dept. of Moderate State Park Reservoir boat launch, Natural Resources (155,000) fishing, swimming, (leased from Corps) picnic area, trailer spaces with w/ water 6 electric hockup "Sources* Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and T. Lewis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clarks Hill, S.C., May 21, 1980. Personnel communication between B. Matthews, NUS Corporation, and T. Sanders, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Recreation Resource Management. Branch, Washington, DC, March 18, 1981. Campground and Trailer Park Guide, Rand McNally, New York, NY, 1977. 00 I fo b1979 data. oo 8-29 designated as state resort parks, as shown In Table 8.6. In addition to numerous, we11-developed facilities, the state parks typically offer high- quality activity programs and natural attractions. The larger, more developed Federal and state outdoor recreation facil- ities are developed around regional water resources rather than on spa- tial population distributions, even though in South Carolina there is an effort to locate at least one state park for each county. These parks are destination-type parks, in that users will travel relatively long distances to reach them and will often stay for a long duration. Conversely, the location and type of county and local parks developed are more urban oriented, particularly as most facilities are associated with neighborhood schools. These facilities are typically geared for day or special-event use. The county and local parks range from miniparks, playgrounds, and boat ramps to city and district parks. Although most are located in urban areas, due to their association with schools, a few are found in rural areas. The size, available activities, and use estimates of the county and local parks vary among the counties in the primary study area. Aiken County has 72 outdoor recreation areas or parks totaling over 477 acres in use. Eight are classified as having heavy to extensive use, seven have moder- ate to heavy use, and 20 are used moderately. More than 200 acres at 40 sites are school-related facilities where the primary activities are limited to team sports and playgrounds. North Augusta has 15 outdoor recreation areas totaling 147 acres. Four of these areas, including the 100-acre River View Park, are classified as having heavy to extensive use. The town of Aiken has 14 recreation areas encompassing 107 acres. Two of the sites with the most extensive recreational facilities are classified as having heavy to extensive use. Boating, camping, fishing, and hiking are each aval labile at only two of the county's facili- Table 8.6 Location, activities and facilities of parks In and near the study area, 1980a State Name Location Activities and facilities Acres Georgia Magnolia Springs 5 mlles north 45 tent and trailer sites; pump stations; 1,162 of Mlllen, via 5 cottages; swimming pool; picnicking; U.S. 25 fishing; pioneer camping; group picnic shelters; trails; group camps Mistletoe 12 miles north 107 tent and trailer sites; pump stations; 1,920 of Interstate 5 cottages; beach picnicking; boating ramp Highway 20, and dock; fishing; pioneer ccnplng; group Exit No. 60 picnic shelters; water skiing; trails South Carolina Aiken Windsor, S.C. 25 family campsites; youth camping; ptcnlc 1,067 area with shelters; lake for swimming; nature trail; lake, river, and dock fishing; pedal and fishing boat rentals Barnwell Blackville, S.C. 25 family campsites; 5 vacation cabins; 307 youth camping; community recreation building; picnic area with shelters; lake for swimming; nature trails; lake and dock fishing; row/pedal-boat rentals Dreher Island Prosperity, S.C. 30 family campsites; community recreation N/Ab building; picnic area with shelters; nature trail; lake fishing; boat ramp and gas for boats Rivers Bridge Ehrhardt, S.C. 25 family campsites; youth camping connunlty 390 recreational building; picnic area with shelters; swimming pool; nature trail; rtver fishing Santee Santee, S.C. 150 family campsites; 30 vacation cabins; 2,364 youth camping; camper and community recreational building; picnic area with shelters; lake for swimming with bath house and pavlilion; nature trail; carpet golf; rental bicycles; lake and dock fishing; pedal-boat rentals; tennis courts; boat ramp and gas for boats aSources: See references 4, 6, and 7. hInformatI on not available. 8-31 Allendale County has 10 outdoor recreation areas covering 44 acres. Two of these areas experience heavy to extensive use and five experience mod- erate use. Five areas, encompassing 36 acres, are school-related. Ac- tivities at the county's recreational areas are limited to playgrounds 2 and team sports; picnicking is available at one facility. Bamberg County has 33 acres of outdoor recreation areas situated at 16 sites, all of which are five acres or smaller. Nine of these areas, encompassing 23 acres, are located at schools. Eight areas are res- tricted to team sports only. Two areas in the county experience heavy to 2 extensive use, and one experiences moderate to heavy use. Barnwell County has 14 outdoor recreation areas or parks encompassing 132 total acres. Nine of these sites, covering 90 acres, are school-related and team sports and playgrounds are the primary activities at these fa- cilities. Picnicking is available at two areas. Williston Park, a 15- acre municipal recreation area, offers facilities for team sports and playground activities. The park experiences heavy to extensive use; whereas four other recreational areas within the county (totaling 40 2 acres) experience moderate to heavy use. Columbia County has nine outdoor recreational areas, five of which have facilities for team sports only. Blanchard Park, totaling 26 acres, offers playground and associated equipment, a picnic area, and facilities for team sports. Camping and fishing are available at the Wildwood Coun- ty Park at the Clarks Hill Reservoir which covers 991 acres. Four boat ramps at the Reservoir are located in the Winfield subdivision in Colum- bia County. No estimates of public use are available for Columbia Coun- 8 9 ty's parks. ' Richmond County has 37 outdoor recreation areas covering over 264 acres. Julian Smith Park in Augusta, which offers team sport and playground activities, has 28 acres of land and 86 acres of water. Swimming is available at six of the county's park sites and boating at three, but the 8-32 primary activities at county recreation areas involve team sports and playgrounds. Estimates of public use are also unavailable for Richmond 8 9 County's recreational areas. ' Several special places exist either within or adjoining the study area that are considered potential outdoor recreational attractions and op- portunities. These include the nature conservancy and National Audubon Preserve, and Four Holes Natural Swamp Area adjoining Orangeburg County, which contains the largest virgin stand of cypress and tupelo in the nation.1 The Orangeburg National Fish Hatchery, Edisto Gardens and the thoroughbred horse country around Aiken provide interesting attractions as well. In addition, the Bartram Memorial Trail in Augusta, Georgia, consists of nine miles of Wilderness Trail for hiking, biking, and canoe- ing along the Augusta Canal, starting from the Lock and Dam north of the city and terminating in downtown Augusta. Five additional miles of His- torical Trail in the city, also considered part of the Bartram Trail, have been marked for motoring, biking, and hiking. The Augusta Canal Industrial Historic District is listed on the National Register of His- toric Places. Similarly, several historic trails, including the American Revolution Trail, the Cherokee Path, and the Sherman Trail traverse the 2 region. No state forest or game-management lands exist within the study area, but some privately owned hunting lands are open to the public. Participation in outdoor recreation activities reflects both the avail- able opportunities and the character of the region. Several pursuits, such as hunting, fishing, boating, swimming, and picnicking, are very popular.11 Some activities, such as biking, and court and field games often have very high participation rates among young people. The popula- tion growth and increasing urbanization of the study area itself will likely influence future outdoor recreational preferences, but these in- fluences will tend to parallel the future growth. Nevertheless, large sections of the study area will continue to have a rural orientation. The use estimates discussed previously generally reflect local views of degree of use rather than actual visitor counts or surveys. Reliable 8-33 /; •7 estimates of recreation demand are complicated by the inability to esti- mate demand for facilities that do not exist, and by participation rates, which account for activities that people, especially children, engage in almost ubiquitously. Furthermore, there is no direct means for estimat- ing what percentage of demand is met by private facilities. Privately owned, but publicly available, recreational facilites are espe- cially important in providing recreational services in the South, and they are similarly important in the study area. This condition derives, in part, from the general lack of public facilities and from a tradition of leasing or otherwise conveying franchises to private operators on public lands or waters. Consequently, privately owned and/or operated swimming and fishing ponds, fishing and boating cabins/trailers, group and church camps, and golf, tennis, and general recreational clubs play an important part in the recreational spectrum of the region. These sites do not usually appear in any formal inventory of recreational fa- cilities. Counting all the facilities and creating an inventory that includes all the various forms of private recreational sites—from a tennis club to a privately owned open field—is often difficult to do. Nevertheless these areas may experience a significant amount of recrea- 10 tion use. The adequacy of existing public outdoor recreation facilities in the 2 study area has been evaluated by the respective planning authorities. ' In general, the region is sorely lacking in recreational facili- ties, programs, and leadership, and no major improvemen2 t programs are planned, in spite of an overall increasing demand. Some counties have extremely limited facilities, even in the private sector. Many of the school facilities, although often heavily used, are inadequately sized or 2 poorly maintained. Recreational opportunities in Aiken and Richmond Counties reflect the presence of the cities of Aiken, North Augusta, and Augusta. Numerous and varied municipal and private facilities are located in these areas. 8-34 In both the urban and rural counties, however, specific expansion and development needs have been underscored by the local planning authori- ties.2'9 Given this condition of inadequate local and county recreational facili- ties, it is not surprising that most people favor patronizing the state 2 and Federal parks. One new state park in Hampton County has been authorized, some expansion of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facilities on Clarks Hill Reservoir is planned, and long-range regional needs have been assessed and included in state comprehensive outdoor recreation plans. 10-12 Additionally, portions of the Savannah and Congaree Rivers have been proposed for federally designated wild and scenic status and the associ- ated Congaree Swamp has been proposed as the site of two future state parks.2 8.2.2 Cultural activities The cultural activities and opportunities available within the study area are, for the most part, associated with its major cities, Aiken and Augusta. These metropolitan areas offer museums, libraries, historic sites and tours, and programs or events similar to those found in metro- politan areas across the nation. There are also golf and tennis clubs and events of special note, including the famous Masters Golf Tournament held each April in Augusta. Augusta possesses the Greater Augusta Arts Council and offers theatre, opera, symphony, and dance. Local arts companies are augmented by pro- grams from state and local institutions of higher learning. Aiken pos- sesses a horse racing track. Auto racing, particularly stock car racing, is an important attraction throughout the region. In spite of the number of urban cultural facilities, however, the local planning authority deems the area as lacking depth in its cultural offerings and as having inade- 9 quate facilities for staging cultural events. 8-35 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.2 t. South Carolina Division of Tourism, South Carolina Points of Inter- est, Columbia, S.C., 1978. 2. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan, Aiken, S.C., 1980. 3. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and T. Lewis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clarks Hill, S.C., May 21, 1980. South Carolina State Parks, South Carolina State Parks, Columbia, S.C., 1979. 5. Personal communication between B. Matthews, NUS Corporation, and T. Sanders, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Recreation Research Manage- ment Branch, Washington, D.C., March 18, 1981. 6. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Parks, Recreation and His- toric Sites Division, Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites, Atlanta, Ga., undated. 7. Campground and Trailer Park Guide, Rand McNally, New York, N.Y., 1977. 8. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and S. Williams, Metropolitan Council of Governments, Augusta, Ga., May 20, 1980. 9. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Analysis of the Popula- tion and Economy of the Augusta Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, Metropolitan Council of Governments, Augusta, Ga., 1975. 10. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, The Georgia Recreation Planning Process, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Atlanta, Ga. 1977- 11. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and J. Noll, Low Country Council of Governments, Yemassee, S.C., May 7, 1980. 12. South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, South Carolina Overall Recreation Plan, Executive Summary, Columbia, S.C., 1975. 8-36 8.3 FIRE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SERVICES 8.3.1 Fire services Fire service In the primary study area is provided by 41 public and pri- 1-27 vate fire departments. The Savannah River Plant has its own fire fighting equipment in addition to mutual-aid fire service agreements with the Aiken City Fire Department, the Sout28 h Carolina Forestry Commission, and Allied General Nuclear Services. Of the 41 public and private departments, the Kline and the Snelling Fire Departments in Barnwell County and the Ulmer Fire Department in 7Allendal 8 13 e County, are relatively new departments, organized since 1978. ' Twenty -three of the 41 departments are private ones and are responsible for raising their own funds. These departments, as well as 8 of the 18 public, community- 1 _o7 supported departments, rely on an all-volunteer staff. Tables 8.7 and 8.8 list the study area's fire departments, their manpower, Insurance Service Office (ISO) classification, and equipment. In the study area, fire service and service payment requirements vary from county to county and from community to community. In approximately 17 cotrmunlties, residents living within the town limits pay indirectly for fire service through taxes and donations. In 88 percent of these communities, the fire department charges residents living beyond the town limits a per run fee or provides them with service on a contractual basis. The remaining fire departments in the study area charge all their 1—18 21 27 30 31 customers a per run fee or an annual subscription fee. ~ ' ' ' A major drawback to the service contract system, however, is that it leaves a percentage of a community's population without protectio2 n unless each individual signs a contract and pays for the service. In Colum- bia County, the fragmentation of service and service areas has left 54 percent of the county's total area, including 11.4 L percent of the coun- ty's population, without adequate fire protection. Currently in Aiken County, fire department service boundaries are relatively undafined, Table 8.7 Profile of fire protection In the primary study area, 1980a Ratio of firefighters Type Personnel per 1000 county resldentsb Insurance service office County Fire department Private Public Paid Volunteer Paid Paid/volunteer classification c Aiken Aiken X 62 nc 5C C Bath X OC 30C 7 C C Beech Island X 0 25c 8 s C c C / Belvedere X 0 25 8 i c Center Community X OC 26 9 AAAC C Clearwater X 0 20C 9C Couchton X OC 36c gc Eureka X OC 14c 9C Gran 1tev111e-Vaucluse gc Warrenville X OC 34C Jackson X OC 21C BC C Langley X OC gc 8 Monetta X OC 23 c 9 Ac gc Hontmorenc1 X OC 19C New Ellenton X OC 30C 8c C North Augusta X 40c I6c 6 C Sal ley X OC r 21C 8 C Wegener X OC 15c 8 Windsor X OC 17c 9C -Total 102 392 0.98 4.73 Allendale Allendale X 2 23 7 Fairfax X 0 18 7 Ulmer X 0 20 unclassified Total 2 61 0.19 5.93 Bamberg Bamberg X 2 32 7 Denmark X 2 33 7 Ehrhardt X 0 15-20 8f Olar X 0 18 8 Total Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.7 Profile of fire protection In the primary study area, 1980° (continued) Ratio of firefighters Tvoe Personnel per 1000 county residents1" Insurance service office County Fire department Pr 1 vate1 Public Paid Volunteer Paid Paid/volunteer classification Barnwell Barnwell X 3 20 7 Blackvl lie x 1 26 8 Elko X 0 20 N/A9 Hilda X 0 46 8 Kline X 0 24 unclassified Snelling X 0 28 unclassified WillIston X 0 25 8 Total 4 189 0.20 9.76 Columbia Grovetown X fld 2jd 8d d Harlem X 0d I8d 7 Leah X Od 2ld tad Hart 1nez-Evans X gd food 7d Total 9 160 0.23 4.34 Richmond City of Augusta X 136® 0e 3C Hephzlbah X 4 26 8 McBean X 0 21 10 Oak Ridge X 0 15-35 10 Richmond County*1 X 98c 20 6C Total 238 82-102 1.39 1.91 'Sources: See references 1-27. bThe rate of firefighters per county residents Is based upon the population of the entire county, due to the unavailability of population data for each Individual fire department service area. The 1980 preliminary Census figures were used to calculate the ratio In each county. It was assumed that In the fire departments where 1976, 1978, or 1979 personnel data was presented, that staff personnel levels have remained constant. C1979 data. <•1978 data. «1976 data. f1975 data. 9Information not available. ^During 1980, the Richmond County Fire Department began providing fire service to those areas formerly protected by the Blythe and West Richmond County Fire Departments. 8-39 Table 8.8 Fire department equipment In the primary study area, 1980a Fire equipment County Fire department Knocker Ladder Pumper Tanker Other Aiken Aiken 8"> 1" b Bath k b 1 Beech Island 2b 1b b Belvedere 2b 1 b Center Coninunlty 2b 1 Clearwater 5b b Couchton 3b 1 b Eureka 1b 1 Granltevll le-Vaucluse- 2b 1b Varrenvllle Jackson lb 1b Langley 3b 1b b Monetta t 3b b MontmorencI 2b 1 b New Ellenton 2b l North Augusta j,b Sal ley 1b 1b Vagener lb b Wl ndsor 1 3b Allendale Allendale 3 Fairfax 1 Ulmer 1 Bamberg Bamberg 3 1 Denmark 3 1 Ehrhardt 2 Olar Barnwell Barnwell 3 1 Blackvllle 2 1 Elko 2 Hilda 2 1 Kline 1 i; Snelllng 1 1 WUUston 2 3 Columbia Grovetown t,b b Harlem 1b 2b l Leah lb 1b b Mart Inez-Evans 1b 4 3" Richmond City of Augusta 13 HephzI bah 1 McBean 3 Oak Ridge Richmond County 14 5 aSources: See references 1-4, 27. b1979 data. 8-40 19 thereby causing a problem in county fire protection. Table 8.9 and Figure 8.3 provide an identification of fire department service areas and service payment requirements. Despite any problems associated with the service areas, fire service is adequate for 61 percent of the fire departments in the primary service area to receive an Insurance Service XTfice (ISO) classification of 8 or The ISO grading system provides a means of evaluating the adequacy of a fire department's service. The system involves comparing existing con- ditions with several factors that Influence a department's fire-ffghting capabilities. These factors Include water supply, fire service communi- cations, fire safety control, and a department's response time, training programs, equipment, and operations. The ISO evaluates each factor and assigns the department 1 of 10 classifications, each based upon the num- ber of deficiency points Identified. A class 10 assignment usually sig- nifies no protection, and therefore, the lowest ISO gradisvg; A depart- ment classified as 1 Is a department with the highest level of protec- 4 tion. Within the study area, Augusta and the City of Aiken received classifications of 3 and 5, respectively, signifying a high degree of 3 4 " fire protection. ' Two of Richmond County's rural fire departments and one In Columbia County received classifications of 10 as a result of 1 3 4 21 providing little or no effective fire protection. ' ' ' In Aiken County, slightly less than half of the county's fire departments received 2 3 classifications of 9. Except for Richmond County, the remaining counties averaged classifications of 7 or 8, even though many of their 1-19 27 departments are private, volunteer, or rural fire departments. ' For ISO grading purposes, the on-duty firefighter Is considered more ii readily available for Immediate response than a volunteer. The ratio of paid firefighters per 1000 county residents ranges from 1.39 in Rich- 1 _27 mond County to 0.20 in Barnwell County. ' The 1978 statewide ratio Table 8.9 Fire department service area profile In the primary study area, 1?60a Type of payment Fee Per Run Annual subscription Mutual aid County Fire department Service area In town outside town In town Outside town agreements Aiken Aiken City limits; 3-1/2 miles beyonde x9 x Bath H/fiP x x X Beech Island 1 to 8 miles beyond statlone x x X Belvedere 1 to 2 miles beyond statlone x x X Center Community k to 8 miles beyond statlone x x X Clearwater 1/2 to 3-1/2 miles beyond statlone x x x Couchton N/A x x X Eureka N/A N/A x Granitevllle-Vaucluse- x e Warrenvllle 1 to 5 miles beyond statlon Jackson N/A X Langley Town limits X Monetta 1 to 3 miles beyond statlone x X Montmorencl 3 to 5 miles beyond statlone x x X. New Ellenton N/A x x9 X North Augusta Town limits? 1/2 to 1-1/2 miles beyonde x9 X Sal ley City limits; 1 to 2 miles beyonde X X Wegener Town limits x X X Windsor Town limits*, certain areas beyonde x X x N/A x Al lendale Allendale Town limits; 3 miles beyond X Fairfax Entire county X X U liner Entire county N/A Bamberg Bamberg Town limits; 5 miles beyond x Denmark Town limits; 5 miles beyond X Ehrhardt Town limits; 5 miles beyond 01 ar Town limits Barnwell Barnwell Town limits; 3 to k miles beyond X BlackvMIe Entire county N/A X Elko Town limits; 3 miles beyond X Hilda Entire county X Kline Entire county N/A X Snelllng Entire county x x WillIston Town limits; 3 miles beyond x x Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.9 Fire department service area profits in ths primary study area, 1980® (continued) Type of payment l^ee per run Annual subscription Mutual aid County Fire department Service erea !n town Outside town In town Outside town agreements Columbia Grovetown Town limits; 4 miles beyond^ Harlem Town limits; 4 miles beyond^ Leah 5 miles beyond station^ Martinez-Evans 3 to 5 miles beyond station^ Richmond City of Augusta City of Augusta^ x Hephzlbah Town limits; 8 miles beyond xc X McBean Town limits; 8 miles beyond N/A X Oak Ridge Town limits; 5 miles beyond N/A X Richmond County Unincorporated Richmond County^ X (not covered by other fire departments) "Sources: See references 1-24, 27, 29, 30, 32. bInformation not available. department sends the bill, but does not always receive payment. dFee Is In the form of a donation. e1979 data. f 1978 data. 91975 data. 8-43 SCALE 5 0 5 10 15 20 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE &3 FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREAS AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL/ RESCUE STATIONS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA / LEGEND / A FIRE STATION EMERGENCY MEDICAL/RESCUE STATION FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE • AREA 1 COUNTYWIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT -...! SERVICE ARCA SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA y 8-45 of full-time equivalent firefighters per 1000 population was 1.07 in 30 Georgia and 1.49 in South Carolina. Within the study area, only Richmond County compares favorably with the state average. A low ratio of paid firefighters, however, does not necessarily indicate inadequate fire service. An active volunteer organization is extremely important in fire protection.1 The total number of firefighters (paid and volunteer) per 1000 county residents in the study area ranges from 1-27 1.91 to 9.76. In addition to manpower, the volunteer departments in the study area utilize a variety of conmunication systems, mutual-aid agreements and training programs in conjunction with their volunteer 1-19 31 32 forces. ' ' For example, the majority of departments train their 1 — 18 21 24 personnel or send them to instructional classes. ' ' All but three of the volunteer departments have mutual-aid agreements, and sev- 1 — 18 31 32 eral departments will also answer calls outside the county. ' ' In certain counties, such as Barnwell, a countywide central dispatch system aids fire service. In other counties, a siren, the telephone, and the local sheriff, police, or fire department dispatcher are the forms of 1-18 communication among residents, fire departments, and firefighters. Each fire department in the study area is characterized by individualized practices designed to provide the best fire protection possible utilizing the resources available. 8.3.2 Emergency medical and ambulance service Emergency medical and ambulance service in the six counties is not uni- formly associated with the counties' fire departments, although rescue squads and ambulance services often house their equipment together with community fire equipment. ' Table 8.10 provides an inventory of rescue squads and ambulance services in the six-county study area. In Bamberg, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties the rescue squads are equipped with ambulances and some have other rescue vehicles. They are manned by volunteers and are financially supported by the county or com- munity to some degree. They charge a fee for their services, although Table 8.10 Emergency medical/rescue service In the primary study area, 1980a No. of vehi cles County Organization Ambulances Other Fee paid Volunteer staff Aiken Aiken County Emergency Medical Service 7 0 X x Aiken County Rescue Squads 6 19 X X Al lendale Allendale County Rescue Squad 2 0 X X Bamberg Bamberg Rescue Squad 2 2 X X Denmark Fire and Rescue Squad 2 2 X X Barnwel1 Barnwell Rescue Squad 2 2 X X Blackville Rescue Squad 2 2 X X Williston Rescue Squad 2 2 X X Columbia Columbia County Civil Defense/ 0 10 N/Ab Emergency Team King Ambulance Service 3 0 X Richmond University Hospital 7 A X aSourcest See references 32-36. ''Information not available. 8-47 or they do not always receive payment. ' In Aiken County, the five rescue squads are private squads that are manned by volunteers and charge a fee for their service. In contrast, the Aiken County Emergency Medical Service is a county-supported paramedic, emergency ambulance service that 3 33 also bills users to supplement its support. Ambulance service in Richmond County is primarily handled by the University Hospital in Augusta. The hospital ambulance service stores its ambulances at the hospital and at three fire stations in the county. The service is funded through direct billing per user and by Richmond County. 3 34 The King Ambulance Service provides ambulance service in Columbia County from its 32 headquarters in Martinez and charges a fee for its service. Addi- tionally, a rescue squad operates within the county in conjunction with the Columbia County Civil Defense Department. Although the squad does not provide ambulance service, their volunteer staff responds 3 t3o2 emer- gency rescue situations involving natural or man-made disasters. 8-48 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.3 1. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Richmond County Fire Defense Improvement Program, Augusta, Ga., July 1978. 2. Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council, Areawide Fire Protection Study 1975, Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., April 1975. 3. Metropolitan Council of Governments of Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Community Facilities Inventory, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 4. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Evaluation of the Use of Service Districts as an Alternative Method in Providing Service for Columbia County, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 5. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and W. Griffin, Allendale Fire Department, Allendale, S.C., May 6, 1980. 6. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Hv- Shramek, City of Fairfax, Fairfax, S.C., May 6, 1980. 7. Personal coirmuni cation between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Mathias, Ulmer Fire Department, Ulmer, S.C., May 8, 1980. 8. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Houlk, Kline Fire Department, Kline, S.C., May 13, 1980. 9. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and W. Sharp, Hilda Fire Department, Hilda, S.C., May 7, 1980. 10. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and W. Carrigg, Blackville Fire Department, Blackville, S.C.,. May 6, 1980. 11. Personal conmunication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. Shipes, Town of Williston, Williston, S.C., May 8, 1980. 12. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and A. Gries, Elko Fire Department, Elko, S.C., May 6, 1980. 13. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Morris, Snelling Fire Department, Snelling, S.C., May 7, 1980. 14. Personal conmunication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and L. C. Victory, Barnwell Fire Department, Barnwell, S.C., May 6, 1980. 15. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Smoak, Town of Olar, Olar, S.C., May 13, 1980. 16. Personal cormiunication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and 0. Sandifer, Denmark Fire Department, Denmark, S.C., May 8, 1980. 8-49 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.3 (continued) 17. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and V. Morris, Bamberg Fire Department, Bamberg, S.C., May 6, 1980. 18. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Chief Hiott, Ehrhardt Police Department, Ehrhardt, S.C., May 9, 1980. 19. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Thompson, Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken, S.C., May 2, 1980. 20. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Thompson, Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken, S.C., May 6, 1980. 21. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Wood, Hephzibah Fire Department, Hephzibah, Ga., May 15, 1980. 22. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Toole, Oak Ridge Fire Department, O.ak Ridge, Ga., .May 14, 1980. 23. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and K. Dozier, Blythe Fire Department, Blythe, Ga., May 14, 1980. 24. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. A. DeBon, McBean Fire Department, McBean, Ga., May 14, 1980. 25. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, South Carolina, Washington, D.C., January 1981. 26. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary Reports, Georgia, Washington, D.C., January 1987- 27. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and G. Syzmik, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., March 16, 1981. 28. Personal communication between P. Stone, Savannah River Plant, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tn., February 2, 1981. 29. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and M. Senn, Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commis- sion, Augusta, Ga., May 22, 1980. 30. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Public Employ- ment 1978, GE78 No. 1. Washington, D.C., 1979. 31. Personal corrmunication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Thompson, Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken, S.C., May 22, 1980. 8-50 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.3 (continued) 32. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Cato, Columbia County Planning and Development Commission, Martinez, Ga., May 2, 1980. 33. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Thompson, Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken, S.C., May 15, 1980. 34. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Syzmik, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., May 2, 1980. 35. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Williams, Lower Savannah Regional Planning Council, Aiken, S.C., May 2, 1980. 36. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Williams, Lower Savannah Regional Planning Council, Aiken, S.C., May 15, 1980. 8-51 8.4 POLICE PROTECTION AND COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL JAILS 8.4.1 Pol ice protection In the primary study area, law enforcement is principally provided by county sheriff departments and community police departments. Addition- ally, state law enforcement agents and state troopers are assigned to each county to provide police protection and to assist county and local 1 2 law enforcement officers. ' Table 8.11 is an inventory of the various law enforcement agencies and their manpower in the study area. Figure 8.4 locates the law enforcement facilities in the primary study area. Within each of the six counties, the sheriff is responsible for county- 3 wide law enforcement. Department staff not only includes police offi- -!. 2 cers, but jailers, juvenile officers, and investigators. In addition to the sheriff, certai1 3n 4cities , towns, and communities maintain their own police departments. ' ' The manpower of these departments ranges from one full-time sworn officer to 143 officers. In the larger depart- ments, such as those of the cities of Augusta and Aiken, department per- sonnel includes auxiliary officers, cadets, and administrative personnel as well as the officers listed in the inventory in Table 8.11. 2 5 The total number of full-time police employed by state, county, and local agencies varies from 351 in Richmond County to 24 in Allendale Coun- 2 3 ty. ' Per individual community or city police departments, the number of full-time officers varies from 143 to 1. According to a report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the 1978 average ratio of full- time law enforcement officers per 1000 population in the South Atlantic states ranged from 2.0 for cities with populations between 25,000 and 49,999 to 2.1 in cities with populations between 10,000 to 24,999 to 2.8 in cities with 10,000 inhabitants or less. Within the study area, Augusta has a police per 1000 population ratio of 3.06, which is above the average ratio of 2.0 for cities the approximate size of Augusta. Concurrently, the populations of Aiken and North Augusta are between 10,000 and 24,999 and they both have police per 1000 population ratios Table 8.11 Profile of the police manpower the primary study area, 1980a No. of full-time Ratio of full-time police County Jurisdiction Agency sworn officers per 1000 population Atken Aiken County Sherrlff's Off!ceb 42 0.40 Aiken Public Safety Deparmentb 54 3.65 Gran ttevll le Police Department15 11 __e b North Augusta Public Safety Department 37 2.75 13 Burnettown Police Department 1 2.81 b Jackson Police Department 2 1.14 b New Ellentown Police Department 5 1.94 15 Sal ley Police Department 1 1.71 5 Wagener Police Department* 2 2.27 Monet t a Police Department*5 1 8.10 Aiken County South Carolina Highway Patrol 18 N/Ad Aiken County South Carolina Law Enforcement Agency 1 N/A Total 175 N/A Allendale Allendale County Sheriff's Office15 5 0.47 Allendale Police Departmentb 7 1.61 15 Fa i rfax Police Department 5 2.27 Al lendale County South Carolina Highway Patrol 6 N/A Allendale County South Carolina Law Enforcement Agency 1 N/A Total 24 N/A Bamberg Bamberg County Sheriff's 0fficeb 6 0.34 5 Bamberg Police Department* 6 1.65 5 Denmark Police Department* 8 1.93 5 Ehrhardt Police Department* 2 5.63 5 Olar Police Department* 1 2.56 Bamberg County South Carolina Highway Patrol 5 N/A Bamberg County South Carolina Law Enforcement Agency 1 N/A Total 29 N/A Note: See footnote at end of table. Table 8.11 Profile of the police manpower In the primary study area, 1980a (continued) No. of full-time Ratio of full-time police County Jurisdiction Agency sworn officers per 1000 population Barnwell Barnwell County Sheriff's Offlceb 5 0.25 Barnwell Police Department 10 1.80 Blackville Police Department13 7 2.44 Elko Police Department15 1 2.96 Sne111ng Police Department'' ^ 1 Wllllston Police Department 8 2.57 Barnwell County South Carolina Highway Patrol 6 N/A Barnwell County South Carolina Law Enforcement Agency 1 N/A Total 39 N/A Columbla Columbia County Sheriff's Department 19 0.49 Grovetown Police Department 7 2.07 Har1 em Police Department 5 3.41 Columbia County Georgia State Patrol 7 N/A Columbia County Georgia Bureau of Investigation 1 N/A 00 I Total 39 N/A Ul Richmond Richmond County Sheriff's Department 200 1.13 Augusta Police Department 143 3.06 Hephzibah Police Department 1 0.69 Richmond County Georgia State Patrol 7 N/A Richmond County Georgia Bureau of Investigation 1 N/A Total 352 N/A aSources: See references 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 22. b1978 data. cThe ratio of full-time officers associated with each county sheriff's office Is per 1000 county residents. The ratio of officers associated with each conmunty/clty police department is per the coirmunIty/city's population. Ratios are based upon 1980 census population fl.gures. ''information not applicable. eInformation not available. 8-54 above the average ratio of 2.1 (2.65 and 2.75, respectively). Of the 21 inventoried communities/cities with populations below 10,000, 15 have police per population ratios of less than the average 2.6. Of these, six have ratios between 2.0 and 2.57 and eight have ratios between 1.99 and n.69.6,7,8 Each county's 1979 crime totals and crime rates are presented in tables 8.12 and 8.13- The tables reveal that the counties with the higher num- ber of police officers do not necessarily experience the lowest incidence of crime. Of the six counties, Richmond County has the most law enforce- ment officers (352). In 1979, Richmond County also had the highest abso- lute number of violent and property crimes and the highest rate of vio- lent crimes per 10,000 population. Concurrently, Aiken County has the second highest number of law enforcement officers (175), the second high- est number of violent and property crimes, and the second highest rate of violent and property_ crimes per 10,000 population. In contrast, Allen- dale and Bamberg Counties have the least number of law enforcement offi- cers (29 and 24, respectively). Within the study area they also had the lowest number of property crimes in 1979. The number and rate of violent crimes in Bamberg County was also one of the lowest in the study area, although Allendale County had the highest rate of violent crimes per 10,000 population. Barnwell and Columbia Counties have the same number of state, county, and local law enforcement officers (39). However, in 1979 Columbia County had a higher incidence of property crimes than Barn- well County, whereas Barnwell County had a higher incidence of violent 6-12 crimes. There are several reasons for the discrepancy between police manpower and crime rates. Geographical location is one of the strongest factors for this discrepancy. Urban areas usually require more police and have higher crime rates than less populated areas. This is reflected in the different FBI average ratios of full-time law enforcement officers per 8—12 1000 population in cities of differing sizes. Table 8.12 1979 crime totals In the primary study area® Aggravated Burglary Motor vehicle .Total Total County Murder Rape Robbery assault breaking and entering Larceny theft violent property Aiken 14 30 70 658 1,472 1,986 224 772 3,682 AIlendale 2 5 8 66 93 91 6 81 190 Bamberg 2 2 3 33 131 99 5 40 235 Barnwel1 5 1 6 88 131 235 20 100 386 Columbia 0 5 10 25 335 503 85 40 923 Richmond 37 109 415 393 4,021 6,426 751 954 11,198 . Total 60 152 512 1,263 6,183 9,340 1,091 1,987 16,614 aSourcess Personal communication between 0. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and M. Sherberger, Georgia State Crime Commission, April 8, 1980. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Crime In South Carolina, 1979, Columbia, S.C., 1980. Table 8.13 1979 county crime rates per 10,000 population In the primary study area3 Aggravated Burglary Motor vehicle Total Total County Murder Rape Robbery assaul t breaking and entering Larceny theft violent property Aiken 1.4 3.0 7.1 66.3 148.1 200.2 22.6 77.8 370.9 Al lendale 2.0 4.9 7.8 64.7 91.2 89.2 5.9 79.4 186.3 Bamberg 1.2 1.2 1.8 20.0 79.4 60.0 3.0 24.2 142.4 Barnwel1 2.6 .5 3-1 44.9 66.8 119.9 10.2 51.1 196.9 Columbia 0 1.5 3.0 7.4 99.1 148.8 25.1 11.9 273.0 Richmond 2.3 6.9 26.3 24.9 254.7 407.0 47.6 60.4 709.3 Average rates 2.3 4.5 15.2 37.5 183.3 276.9 32.4 58.9 487.0 aSources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates, P-26, No. 78-40, Washington, D.C., November, 1979. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates, P-26, No. 78-10, Washington, D.C., October 1979. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and M. Sherberger, Georgia State Crime Commission, April 8, 1980. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Crime In South Carolina, 1979, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 8-57 Another factor influencing crime rates and police manpower is the indi- vidual law enforcement agency operating in each county. Although two agencies may have similar manpower, the efficiency of the agency is af- fected by their budget, facilities, equipment, organization, administra- tion, and the attitude of the officers. In addition, the public's atti- tude toward the agency and toward crime may also influence the agency's 2 5 8 12 responsibilities or ability to undertake certain activities. ' ' ' A third consideration when comparing the counties are the factors influ- encing crime rates and the crime reporting process. Some of the compon- ents affecting crime rates inventoried by the South Carolina Law Enforce- 12 ment Division are: o Density and size of community o Variations in composition of the population, particularly age structure o Stability of the population with respect to transient factors. o Economic conditions, including job availability o Cultural conditions, such as educational or religious characteristics o Policies of the criminal justice system o Administrative and investigative emphasis of law enforce- ment o Attitudes of citizenry toward crime o Crime-reporting practices of citizenry Simultaneously, crime totals are influenced by the type of persons in- volved in a crime. An area's crime rate is artifially inflated when a large number of visitors and nonresidents become crime victims. Also, a higher incidence of property crime is associated with areas (such as 8 12 cities) that are the location of a large number of businesses. ' 8-58 8.4.2 Municipal and county jails Jail facilities in the study area consist of six county jails and six 12 4 13 local detention centers or municipal jails. ' ' ' The Richmond Coun- ty Correctional Institute is a state facility operated by Richmond County but is not included in 1thi4 s section due to its limited connection with county law enforcement. Table 8.14 lists the region's county and local jail facilities and their capacities, and Figure 8.4 locates the municipal and county jails in the primary study area. Except for the Augusta Stockade, the municipal jails are holding facil- ities designed to hold prisoners 11 to 48 hours at most, depending on the faci1ity.^'^'^'^ Unless arrested individuals raise bond, they are only held at the local jails until they are processed into the county jail.^'^'^ They remain at these facilities until their case comes before the court, which may take several weeks or more. If convicted, the prisoner then returns to the county jail to await sentencing and, after sentencing, the prisoner is transferred from the county jail to a 17 18 state faci1ity. ' Several of the jails in the region fulfill different functions from their neighboring counterparts. In Bamberg and Barnwell, for example, the county jail holds state as well as county prisoners. The state prison- ers, known as working-gang prisoners, do much of the maintenance work, 19 20 cleaning, and cooking around the county jails. ' Also, the Allen- dale County Jail no longer functions as a county jail, because as an older facility it could not meet state standards. Therefore, the county sends its prisoners to the Bamberg County Jail. Allendale's county jail does, however, function as a temporary holding facility where arrested individuals are held until they are processed into the Bamberg County 16 21 Jail. ' In contrast, the Augusta Stockade is not a holding facility similar to the other municipal facilities; rather, it is a facility that only holds individuals who have violated city ordinances. Unless freed or released on bail, individuals remain in the Stockade until their cases come before the Recorder Court. If sentenced, prisoners fulfill the 8-59 SCALE 5 O 5 10 15 20 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE 8.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA / LEGEND / • SHERIFF'S OFFICE A POLICE STATION • JAIL SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT V AREA y Table 8.14 County and municipal jail faciliti n the primary study area, 1980a Average no. Average length County Fac i1i ty Capacity of inmates of stay Aiken Aiken County Jail 82 50-60 60 Days Aiken City Jail 16 (b) (b) North Augusta Jail 16 (b) (b) Allendale Allendale County Jail . 24 1-2 (b) Bamberg Bamberg County Jail/Prison 48/13 19/12 60 days/depends on prisoner's sentence Denmark Local Detention Center 4 (b) (b) 00 1 Barnwel1 Barnwell County Detention Center/ cr» Prison Complex 34/20 12/15 60 days/depends — on prisoner's sentence Columbia Columbia County Jail 14 N/Ac N/A Grovetown Jail 4 (b) (b) Harlem Jail 4 lb) lb) Richmond Richmond County Jail 176 130-135 N/A Augusta Stockade 100 25 30 days aSources: See references 1, 4, 17-21, 23, 24. ''Temporary holding facility. cInformation not available. 8-62 requirements of their sentence in the Stockade and are not transferred to 13 "] § any other county or state facility. ' ' Currently, a Federal judge has decreed that the Richmond County Jail must be upgraded. The city and county officials are considering combining the county jail and the Stockade into one facility. This possibility however, is only one of many options under consideration by the County and as yet no decision has been reached.^ 8-63 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.A 1. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Williams, Lower Savannah Regional Planning Council, Aiken, S.C., April 2, 1980. 2. Metropolitan Council of Governments of Aiken, Columbia and Richmond Counties, Community Facilites Inventory, Augusta, Ga., 1979- 3. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Tidwell, South Carolina Office of Criminal Justice Programs, Divi- sion of Public Safety, Columbia, S.C., April 29, 1980. 4. Meeting between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and R. Cato, Columbia County Planning and Zoning Commission, April 2, 1980. 5. D. L. Baker, Community Facilities and Services Study for Augusta Neighborhoods, Augusta, Ga., Augusta-Richmond County Planning Com- mission, 1976. 6. 1980 Census of Population & Housing, Preliminary Reports, South Carolina, Washington, D.C., January 1981. 7. 1980 Census of Population & Housing, Preliminary Reports, Georgia, Washington, D.C., January 1981. 8. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1978, Washington, D.C., 1979. 9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates, P-26, No. 78-40, Washington, D.C., November, 1979. 10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates, P-26, No. 78-10, Washington, D.C., 1979. 11. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and M. Sherberger, Georgia State Crime Commission, Atlanta, Ga., April 8, 1980. 12. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Crime in South Carolina, 1979, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 13. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Syzmik, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., May 2, 1980. 14. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Syzmik, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., May 13, 1980. 8-64 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.4 (continued) 15. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Cato, Columbia County Planning' and Zoning Commission, Augusta, Ga., May 2, 1980. 16. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Williams, Lower Savannah Regional Planning Council, Aiken, S.C., May 15, 1980. 17. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and H. Kirkland, Aiken County Sheriff's Office, Aiken, S.C., April 2, 1980. 18. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Thomas, Augusta Stockade, Augusta, Ga., May 6, I98O. 19- Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and S. Sanders, Barnwell County Sheriff's Office, Barnwell, S.C., May 6, 1980. 20. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and P. Chitty, Bamberg County Sheriff's Office, Bamberg, S.C., May 6, 1980. 21. Personal comnsynicat ion between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Sher- iff Frank Coates, Allendale County, Sheriff's Department, Allendale, S.C., May 13, 1979. 22. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Lieu- tenant Morris, South Carolina Highway Patrol, Columbia, S.C., May 2, 1980. 23. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Todd, Columbia County Sheriff's Department, Appling, Ga., May 6, 1980. 24. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and Cap- tain Culpepper, Richmond County Jail, Augusta, Ga., May 8, 1980. 8-65 8.5 HEALTH SERVICES The major function of the health care infrastructure is the provision of health services including long- and short-term patient care. The quality of such care depends in part on an adequate number of medical personnel and on the presence of well-equipped facilities. Thus, this section will present an overview, of these and other components that characterize health care facilities and services in the primary study area. 8.5.1 Health services areas One of the necessary components of providing adequate health care is the management of health care services in a region. The agencies associated with Health Services Areas (HSA) help provide such management. In addi- tion, these HSA agencies develop plans for health systems and review project activities, data management and analysis, coordination and public information. Three Health Services Areas (numbers 2, 4, and 5) are 2 within the primary and secondary study area. Health Service Area 2 includes Edgefield, Saluda, and Lexington Counties of South Carolina. The South Carolina Counties of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Hampton, and Orangeburg are part of HSA 4. The Interstate HSA 5 includes Aiken Coun- ty in South Carolina, and Burke, Columbia, Richmond, and Screven Counties i n Georgia. 8.5.2 Hospitals A general hospital is defined as a health facility that supplies general medical and surgical services. Within the primary study area, seven such facilities operate with a combined bed capacity of 1758 in 1979 and an average occupancy rate of 64.6 percent. There are two additional hos- pitals in the primary study area—the Veterans Administration Medical Center and the Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center. However, these hospitals are federally operated and primarily serve military per- sonnel and their dependents. Table 8.15 lists the name of each hospital 8-66 Table 8.15 Characteristics of hospitals within the primary study area, 1979a Bed Occupancy Patient Name Location Ownership capacity days Aiken Community Aiken, S.C. Investor- 190 72.1 42,988 Hospital owned corp- oration (for profit) Al1endale Allendale County Fairfax, S.C 26 70.1 5,797 Hospital County b Bamberg Bamberg County Bamberg, S.C. 77 N/A 18,149 County Memorial Hospital Barnwell Barnwell County Barnwell, S.C. 60 34.8 6,500 Hospital County Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 Richmond Eugene Talmadge Augusta, Ga. 478 68.8 N/A Memorial Hospital and Clinics State Saint Joseph Augusta, Ga. 217 74.2 N/A Hospital Church University Augusta, Ga. Hospital 710 67.5 N/A Hospital Author Ity Veterans Admin- Augusta, Ga. Veterans 1,184 73.1 N/A istration Medical Administration Center Dwlght David Fort Gordon, Ga. Federal - 378 78.8 116,821 Elsenhower Army Armed Forces Medical Center aSources: American Hospital Association, American Hospital Association Guild to the Health Care Field, Chicago, 111., 1979. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resources File (ARF) for the State of South Carolina, 1979, Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower, Washington, D.C., (HRP-09QIA9Z), 1979. U.S. Department of Health, Rducatlon, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resource File (ARF) for the State of Georgia, 1979 Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower, Washington, D.C., (HRP-0901462), 1979. State of Georgia, State Health Planning and Development Agency, Joint Hospital Data Questionnaire - 1978, State Center for Health Statistics, Atlanta, Ga., 1979- Personal conmunlcatlon between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and F. Still, Barnwell County Hospital, Barnwell, S.C., June 10, 1981. bInformation not available. 8-67 in the primary study area and the type of care, the location, ownership, bed capacity, and patient days associated with each institution. Figure 8.5 depicts the location of the nine hospitals in the six counties. Five of the nine hospitals in the primary study area are located in Rich- mond County, Georgia (see Figure 8.5). Collectively, the five Richmond County facilities provide the greatest variety of services in the six- county region: the three general hospitals alone account for 80 percent of the bed capacity of general hospitals in the primary study area. Additionally, the Veterans Administration Medical Center and the Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center have bed capacities of 1184 and 378, respectively. The services provided by these hospitals are presented in Tables 8..16 and 8.17. M. The abundant public and private health services within Richmond County also serve the needs of Columbia County, which has no hospital within its boundaries. Additionally, about one-ha If the population of Aiken County, primarily the residents of North Augusta and the surrounding area, use the health services in Richmond County, owing to their easy access to the county's facilities. The indigent population of South Carolina, however, has limited access to emergency medical care from the Richmond County facilities. The health care system of Georgia is not structured to sup- port their medical needs because Medicaid and state medical funds in g Georgia cannot be used for South Carolina residents. Each of the remaining counties of Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell in South Carolina has one general hospital. The four hospitals have a total bed capacity of 353, or 20 percent of the bed capacity of general hospitals in the primary study area. The largest of the four hospitals is Aiken Community Hospital in Aiken, with a capacity of 190 beds. With the exception of South Carolina indigents, the health services in HSA 5 are considered adequate for all areas of medical care, and there are no known problems in supplying medical services to the population of g Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond Counties. Table 8.16 Number of beds, Inpatient days, and outpatient visits In general hospitals within the primary study area, 1979a Number of Number of Number of Number of Inpatient days/ general Number of beds/1,000 outpatient Outpatient/visits Inpatient 1,000 Location hospitals beds populat Ion visits 1,000 population days population Aiken County 1 190 1.9 29,983 312 42,988 447 Allendale County 1 26 2.5 6,758 669 5,797 574 Bamberg County 1 77 4.7 5,401 325 18,149 1,093 Barnwell County 1 60 3.1 7,771 416 6,500 348 Columbia County 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 c Richmond County'3 3 1,405 8.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Pr Imary Impact area 7 1,758 5.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Georgia 176 22,079 4.8 5,957,791 1,199 5,962,837 1,200 South Carolina 81 10,939 4.4 3,658,901 1,285 3,452,261 1,212 aSources: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources from the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resources File (ARF) for the State of South Carolina, 1979, Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower, Washington, D.C., (HRP-0901492), 1979. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources from the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resource File (ARF) for the State of Georgia, 1979, Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower, Washington, D.C., (HRP-0901462), 1979. bDwlght David Elsenhowar Army Medical Center and the Veterans Administration Medical Center are not Included. cInformation not available. 8-69 N, BLYTHtHEPHZID A IS SCALE 5 0 5 10 15 20 ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE 8.5 HOSPITALS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA «Y / LEGEND y' OWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER EUGENE TALMADGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND CLINICS s SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL 6 AIKEN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 7 BARNWELL COUNTY HOSPITAL BAMBERG COUNTY MEMORIAL I HOSPITAL 9 ALLENDALE COUNTY HOSPITAL SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA Table B.17 Number of general hospitals and their services In the primary study area, I979a Aiken Allendale Bamberg Barnwe11 Co 1umb1 a RIchmond Primary Impact area Georgia South Car Intensive care 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 107 47 Intensive cardiac 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 62 23 Open heart surgery 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 13 6 Recovery room 1 1 0 1 0 1| 7 153 70 Premature nursery 1 0 1 0 0 3 5 63 24 X-ray therapy 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 47 22 Cobalt therapy 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 21 8 Radium therapy 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 30 13 Radioisotope therapy 1 0 0 1 0 4 6 82 43 Hlstopathology laboratory 1 a 0 0 0 4 5 70 38 Organ bank 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 00 Blood bank 1 0 1 1 0 4 7 124 1 Electroencephalography 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 68 59 Physical therapy 1 0 1 1 0 4 7 104 28 Occupational therapy 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 24 54 Inhalation therapy 1 0 1 1 0 4 7 137 10 Full-time registered pharmacist 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 109 61 Part-time registered pharmacist 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 57 50 Dialysis (Inpatient) 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 30 76 Dialysis (outpatient) 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 16 10 Self-care unit 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 Psychiatric foster care D 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Psychiatric (Inpatient) D 0 0 0 0 3 3 26 15 Psychiatric (outpatient) 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 19 9 Psychiatric (part, hospital) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 3 Psychiatric (emergency) 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 9 Social work 1 0 0 1 0 4 6 84 52 Family planning 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z 6 7 Extended care 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 10 3 Rehabilitation (Inpatient) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 l Rehabilitation (outpatient) 0 0 e 0 0 1 1 10 2 Home care 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 Hospital auxiliary 1 0 i 1 0 3 5 107 35 Organized outpatient department D 0 0 0 0 3 3 18 17 Abortion (Inpatient) 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 30 8 Abortion (outpatient) 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 aSources: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resources File (ARF) for the State of South Carolina, 1979, Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower, (HRP-0901492), Washlng- ton, B.C., 1979. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resource File (ARF) for the State of Georgia, 1979 , 01 vis I on of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower, (HRP-0901462), Washington, O.C., 1979. 8-72 In HSA 4, however, three major improvement goals pertaining to health services have been identified relative to the counties of Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell. The first goal identifies the need to coordinate health education efforts in HSA 4, including the efforts of the medical profession (public and private), voluntary agencies, medical institu- tions, school health educators, community organizations, and state and local governments. The second goal involves increasing the availability of primary health care physicians and physician support personnel such as physician assistants and nurses. The third goal identifies the necessity of reducing the barriers to primary health care caused by transportation 9-11 problems, financial limitations, or restricted hours of service. 8.5.3 Nursing homes !l In 1975 there were 17 nursing homes within the primary study area with a combined bed capacity of 1109 (see Table 8.18). Eight nursing homes are found in the City of Augusta and one nursing home is located outside Augusta's city limits. These nine nursing homes have a comb i ned jy-b^d capacity of 700. The remaining nursing homes in the primary studyij'area are located in Aiken, New Ellenton, North Augusta, Barnwell, Blackville, and Williston in South Carolina, and Martinez in Georgia. No communities 1 9-12 located in Allendale and Bamberg Counties have nursing homes. 8.5.4 Health manpower Ten counties within the study area are designated by the Manpower Analy- sis Branch, Bureau of Health Manpower, Health Resources Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Section 332 of the Public Health Service Act as having health manpower shortages (see Table 8.19). The act designated a geographical area as having a shortage of medical care manpower if three criteria were met. The first criterion states that the area must be a rational area for the delivery of medical care 8-73 Table 8.18 Nursing homes within the primary study area, 1975a Number of Total number County Community nursing homes of beds Al1endale 0 0 Ai ken Ai ken 1 83 New El 1enton 1 26 North Augusta 1 41 Total 3 150 Bamberg 0 Barnwel1 Barnwel1 1 36 Blackvi1le 2 111 Wi 11i ston 1 20 Total ¥ 167 Columbi a Marti nez 92 Total 1 92 Richmond Augusta 8 N/Ab Adjacent to Augusta's city 1imi ts N/A Total 9 700 Primary study 17 1,109 area aSource: • U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, South; Volume of the Director of Nursing Home Facilities, National Center for Health Statistics, Health Resources Administration, Public Health Services, December 1975. bInformation not available. 8-74 Table 8.19 Health manpower shortages within the study area3'*5 Pr imary Vision County care Dentistry care Pharmacy Podiatry Nursing Pr imary Aiken O O o o * o Allendale £ % o o o o Bamberg Q £ o o • o Barnwell 3 O o o • o Columbia Q Q o o 0 o Richmond O O o o G o Secondary Burke O O o o o • Edgefield (J Q o o • o Hampton Q Q o o • • Lexington (J Q o o • o Orangeburg £ Q o o • o Screven 3 £ o o o • Saluda Q (J o o • o £ - High degree of shortage (J - Low degree of shortage O - Not designated aSources: Federal Register, Vol. 41, pp. 26168-26171. Federal Register. Vol. 44, pp. 46183-46231. Federal Register. Vol. 43, pp. 1588-1596. bNurslng shortage determined in 1976, all other shortages as of 1979. 8-75 services. The second criterion states that a shortage has occurred if the medical care manpower in contiguous areas are overutilized, exces- sively distant, or inaccessible to the population of the area under con- sideration. The third criterion presents minimum levels of service or population-to-medical-care manpower ratios that must be met if the area's residents are to receive a satisfactory level of medical services. The ratios, or minimum levels of service, as stated in Section 332 of the Public Health Service Act for each of the medical services presented in Table 8.19 are as follows: a primary medical care (physicians) ratio of at least 3500:1; a population-to-dentist ratio of at least 5000:1; and a population-to-podiatrist ratio of at least 28,000:1. If an area's popu- lation- to-medical manpower ratio is less than these standards, then the area has an excessively high need for a certain type of medical care and is still considered to have a medical manpower shortage. A shortage of pharmacists was determined if the area needed the services of one addi- tional pharmacist. If a shortage of 1500 visits existed between the estimated number of visits supplied by vision care manpower and the esti- mated requirements of an area's population for such visits, then the area was determined deficient in vision-care manpower. Lastly, minimum cri- teria for nursing are as follows: 29.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) nurses per 100 average daily census (ADC) of patients in a short-term general hospital, 5-2 FTE nurses per 100 ADC in long-term hospitals, 2.2 FTE nurses per 100 facility residents in a nursing home or extended-care facility, 0.125 FTE nurses per one office-based physician, and 17.1 13-15 nurses per 100,000 resident civilian population. As of 1979, the primary study area had 737 physicians, 116 dentists, 25 optometrists, 175 pharmacists, 6 podiatrists, and 2426 nurses (see Table 8.20). Over 80 percent of the health care manpower, or 1969 health pro- fessionals, are located in Richmond County. Allendale has only 10 per- cent of the total health manpower In the study area, or 31 persons. In the primary study area, only Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Caro- lina, are designated to have a shortage in primary care manpower. Allen- dale and Bamberg Counties have a shortage of dentists. Vision care, Table 8.20 Health manpower In the primary study area, Georgia and South Carolina, 1979a County or region Physicians Dentists Optometrists Pharmacists Podiatrists Nurses Aiken 68 24 3 44 0 283 (71)b (23) Al lendale 3 1 1 2 0 31 (30) (9) Bamberg 9 4 1 8 0 46 (54) (24) BarnwelI 9 6 1 7 0 54 (48) (32) Columbia 21 4 0 5 0 43 (72) (12) Richmond 627 77 19 109 6 1,969 (400) (46) Total Primary impact area 737 116 25 175 6 2,426 Georgia 6,227 1,652 282 2,398 70 22,893 (125) (33) South Carolina 3,132 811 176 1,270 16 12,107 (110) (28) aSources: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,. Selected Geographic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resources File (ARF) for the State of South Carolina, _i979, Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower (HRP-0901492), 1979. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geographic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resource File (ARF) for the State of Georgia, 1979, Dlvl- sion of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower (HRP-0901462), 1979. b( ) denotes number per 100,000 population. 8-77 nursing, and pharmaceutical manpower Is considered adequate throughout the primary study area. The number of doctors specializing in podiatry 1 4 5 13 14 is inadequate in Aiken, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties. ' * ' ' 8-78 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.5 1. East Central Georgia Health Systems Agency, Inc. Health Systems Plan 1980-84, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 2. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Service Areas Designated Under the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974, Bureau of Health Planning and Resource Development, Health Resources Administration, Public Health Ser- vices, DHEW Publicat ion No. (HRA) 78-13014, Washington, D.C., 1974. 3. American Hospital Association, American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field, Chicago, 111., 1979. 4. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geo- graphic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Re- sources File (ARF) for the State of South Carolina, 1979, Division of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower (HRP-0901492), Wash- ington, D.C., 1979. 5. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Selected Geo- graphic Resources From the Bureau of Health Manpower's Area Resource File (ARF) for the State of Georgia, 19791 D i v i s i on of Manpower Analysis, Bureau of Health Manpower (HRP-0901462), Washington, D.C., 1979. 6. State of Georgia, State Health Planning and Development Agency, Joint Hospital Data Questionnaire - 1978, State Center for Health Statistics, Atlanta, Ga., 1979. 7. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and F. Still, Barnwell County Hospital, Barnwell, S.C., June 10, 1981. 8. Personal Communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and H. Henninger, East Central Georgia Health System Agency, Inc., Augusta, Ga., May 21, 1980. 9. Palmetto-Lowcountry Health Systems Agency, Inc., The Allendale Coun- ty Report—Draft, Summerville, S.C., 1980. 10. Palmetto-Lowcountry Health Systems Agency, Inc., The Bamberg County Report—Draft, Summerville, S.C., 1980. 11. Palmetto-Lowcountry Health Systems Agency, Inc., The Barnwel1 County Report—Draft, Summerville, S.C., 1980. 12. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, South: Volume of the Directory of Nursing Home Facilities, National Center for Health Statistics, Health Resources Administration, Public Health Services, Washington, D.C., December, 1975. 8-79 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.5 (continued) 13. Federal Register, Vol. 41, pp. 26168-26171. 14. Federal Register, Vol. 44, pp. 46183-46231. 15. Federal Register, Vol. 43, pp. 1588-1596. 8-80 8.6 SEWAGE TREATMENT 8.6.1 Municipal sewage treatment facilities Information on the sewage treatment facilities in the primary study area is presented In Table 8.21. Included in the table are the design capac- ity, the daily flow, the treatment type, and the population served for the major plants in the area. A substantial number of package plants exist In Aiken County, and some of these have also been included. All 1-12 the facilities have separate wastewater and storm sewer systems. In the Augusta system, however, a portion of the system is combined and about 15 percent of the wastewater from the system is currently dis- charged untreated.^'^ A comparison of the capacity and daily flow columns in Table 8.21 reveals that capacity Is exceeded In three plants, Blackville, Allendale, and Denmark. In two other plants, Wagener, and Bamberg, capacity problems may exist. Allendale and Bamberg Counties have the most serious prob- lems. The former has two public systems: one that exceeds its capacity and the other that is at capacity. As indicated In the table, separate expansions are planned that will Increase the total capacity of both systems from 0.8 to 1.5 mgd. In Bamberg County, the dally flow at the Denmark plant Is more than double its design capacity. The City of Den- mark is currently proposing the construction of a new land application system.1'3'5'8 Some problems also exist In Barnwell County, however, both Blackville and Williston are proposing Improvements to existing facilities. In Aiken County, the new Horse Creek plant Is operating at 50 percent of its de- sign capacity. This facility serves the western half of the county, in- 1 3 10 13 eluding North Augusta and Aiken. ' ' ' In Columbia County, the Crawford Creek and Reed Creek treatment plants are expandable. The Reed Creek Treatment Plant is expandable to 5 mgd Table 8.21 Municipal treatment systems within the primary study area3 Design Dally capacity flow Population Plant (mgd) (mgd) Treatment type served Comments Aiken County Alken/Alrport 0.15 Average Tertiary 9 Industries Industrial Park 0.13 Wegener 0.062 NA>> Secondary 833 Proposing to construct a new 0.125 mgd treatment plant. Belvedere Housing 0.05 Maximum Secondary Development 0.02 (lagoon) Glovervllle Housing 0.0375 Max Imum Secondary 98 units Authority 0.015 (package plant) Green Acres 0.01728 Maximum Secondary 50 trailers Trailer Park 0.005 (package plant) 0.040 (package plant) South Carolina 0.01 NA Secondary 520 Town of Salley Is proposing to construct a new 0.051 mgd Regional Housing treatment plant. Authority No. 3 at Salley Horse Creek 20.0 10.0 Primary and 80,000 Covers alt of western Aiken County, Including Aiken and secondary North Augusta. (activated sludge) Allendale County Allendale 0.5 Average Secondary 3,854 (1975) Proposing to construct a new 1.0 mgd land application 0.85 (lagoon) system. Fairfax 0.3 Average Secondary 1,948 (1975) Proposing to construct a new 0.5 mgd land application 0.3 (lagoon) system. Note: See footnotes at end of table. r Table 8.21 -Municipal treatment systems within the primary study V'w^tcoh'tlnuVlO. Design Dally capacity flow • Population Plant (mgd) , (mgd) Treatment type served Comments Bamberg County Bamberg 0.5 HA Secondary 4300 Recently converted from lagoon to land spray. (spray field) Denmark 0.54 Average Secondary About 1200 Proposing to construct a new 0.910 mgd land application 1.26 (oxidation) families (all system, of Denmark) Barnwell County BarnwelI 1.0 Average Secondary 6500 (Barnwell Upgrading Is planned. Land spray will be used. Improve- 0.57 (trickling and Snelling) merits will Increase capacity to 1.09 mgd. filter) 00 1 Blackville 0.26 Average Secondary NA Capacity exceeded due to InfIltratlon/lnflow. Rehabili- OO G 0.455 tation program progranmed In FY 1982. to WillIston/Chll1 0.19 Average Secondary The three to- Chest 0.18 gether serve 93 to 97% of Wl11Iston-Maln Plant 0.8 Average Secondary Wl11Iston's The Town of Wllllston Is proposing to construct a new 0.2 populat Ion, 1.4 mgd treatment facility to replace the existing three which was fact IItles. Wl11Iston-Sprlng- 0.03 Secondary about 4000 field Road Plant In 1980 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.21 Municipal treatment systems within the primary study area® (continued) Design Dally capacity flow Population Plant (mgd) (mgd) Treatment type served Comments Columbia County Reed Creek 1.7 Average ^Secondary The two to- The remainder of the Martinez-Evans area Is served by (Martinez) 0.9 /'(activated gether serve septic-tanks. Tle-ln to the sewer system Is possible and ,'/ sludge) about 8000 Is encouraged when septic tank problems arise. ! people, cr Crawford Creek 0.5 Average Extended 31? of the (Evans) 0.23 aeration area's popu- lation, which was 25,529 In 1970 0 Harlem 0.25 Average Secondary 1000 people, 0.125 (activated or 60? of sludge) Harlem's pop- ulation co 1 00 Richmond County VAJ Augusta 30.0 Average Secondary About 95,000 Aboutr152 cf effluents enters sewers and Is discharged 24 .. (activated untreated. Expansion to other parts of the county, In- sludge) cluding Hepztbah, Is planned. City Is currently propos- ing to expand treatment capacity and eliminate points of raw waste water discharge. Gracewood State 1.0 Average Trickling 3,200 School 0.46 filter "Sources: See references 1-5, 7-13• & Information not available. 8-84 and the Crawford Creek Treatment Plant Is expandable to 2 mgd. The ex- pansion of these treatment facilities, however, is complicated by their location and discharge points. With respect to the Reed Creek Treatment Plant, the point of discharge is currently into the canal from which the city of Augusta draws its water supply. The expansion of the Reed Creek Treatment Plant may, therefore, require upgrading to tertiary treatment or a relocation of t.he discharge point to another basin. The expansion of the Crawford Creek Treatment Plant is complicated by development pres- sures occurring within the area which may ultimately lead to a relocation of the plant to provide service to a greater area than it now encom- passes. Currently however, there are no capacity problems at the Mar- tinez, Evans, or Harlem treatment plants, although a large number of residences in the service areas are not tied into the sewer lines and use septic tanks instead. In Richmond County, the Augusta plant, which is the only municipal plant, is operating below capacity.^'^'^'1^'12 , 8.6.2 Suitability for septic tank filter fields The factors used to determine the level of a soil's suitability to accom- modate septic tanks is based on the following: flooding conditions, water table levels, soil percolation, depth to bedrock, percent of slope, and the potential for water supply contamination. Therefore, soils are clas- sified as being slight, moderate, or severe in limiting the proper opera- tion of a septic tank filter field. Table 8.22 presents the percentage of the primary study and each county in each class. As indicated in Table 8.22, approximately 34 percent of the primary study area is considered to have slight limitations, 37 percent have moderate limitations, and approximately 24 percent have severe limitations. More than three-fourths of the area with slight limitations and over half the area with moderate ones are in Barnwell and Aiken Counties. The county with the greatest percent of soils with slight limitations is Barnwell County. About 75 percent of Bamberg County is considered to have soils classified as moderately limited, and 80 percent of Columbia County's area has severe limitations on septic systems,^'^ Table 8.22 Distribution and percentages of soil limitations for septic tank fields for the primary study area3 Percent of county Percent of limitation Percent of limitation land In the primary in the county in the primary study area County study area Slight Moderate Severe SIight Moderate Severe Aiken 33 50 30 20 17 10 6 Allendale 14 25 25 50 3.5 3.5 7 Bamberg 13 0 75 25 0 10 3 Barnwel1 19 55 40 5 10 8 1 Columbia 10 15 5 80 1.5 0.5 8 Richmond 11 15 45 40 2 5 4 Total 100 34 37 29 aSources: Lower Savannah River Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Update: Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., April 1978. Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development Plan, Martinez, Ga., 1979. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Soil Associations: Richmond County, Georgia, Augusta, Ga., December 1966. 8-86 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.6 1. Robert Naves, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Administra- tion, Municipal Wastewater Section, Columbia, S.C., June 12, 1980. 2. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and B. Meyers, Resident Engineer, Aiken County Engineering and Public Works, Aiken, S.C., June 13, 1980. 3. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and R. Stowers, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Con- trol, 201 Facilities Planning Section Manager, Columbia, S.C., June 12, 1980. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and Secretary to Ervin Korn, Executive Director, Glouvervi1le-Aiken Housing Authority, Aiken, S.C., June 13, 1980. 5. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and Secretary to Mayor of Denmark, Denmark, S.C., June 13, 1980. 6. Personal comnunlcation between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and D. Bartles, Assistant County Engineer, Columbia County Engineering Office, Martinez, Ga., June 13, 1980. 7. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and B. Turnipseed, President of Ben Turnipseed Engineer, Inc., June 13, 1980. 8. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and B. Harman, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Con- trol, 201 Facilities Planning Section, Columbia, S.C., June 12, 1980. 9. Personal conmnunicatlon between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and D. Bartles, Assistant County Engineer in the Columbia County Engineer- ing Office, Martinez, Ga., June 13, 1980. 10. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and A. W. Flynn, Mayor, Town of Williston, Williston, S.C., June 13, 1980. 11. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and J. Maserly, Augusta City Engineer, Augusta, Ga., June 13, 1980. 12. Personal communication between t. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and W. Winn, Environmental Specialist, Georgia Department of Natural Re- sources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Ga., June 17, 1980. 13. Personal communication between 0. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and S. Wager, Aiken County Public Works, Aiken, S.C., June 15, 1981. 8-87 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.6 (continued) 14. Lower Savannah River Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Update; Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., April 1978. 15. Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development- Plan, Martinez, Ga., 1979. 16. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Soil Associations; Richmond County, Georgia, Augusta, Ga., December Tsi^ 8-88 8.7 COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS There are approximately 120 public water systems In the primary study area. Five percent of the systems are associated with individual subdi- visions, 13 percent are water districts, 2k percent are trailer park water systems, and 32 percent are small miscellaneous systems associated with individual resturants, nursing homes, motels, or schools. This section concentrates on the 30 municipal or county water systems that comprise 25 percent of the public water systems and serve 75 percent of the population in the six-county primary study area.1 An inventory of these systems and data concerning their capacity, service population, and water source are presented in Table 8.23. Richmond County has the highest percentage of residents (88 percent) receiving public water service supplied by a municipal or county water system. Allendale County has the second highest percentage of residents receiving this form of public water service (82 percent), although it is the least populated of the six counties. In the remaining counties, the percentage ranges from 73 percent in Barnwell County to 68 percent in Columbia and Bamberg Counties. The largest public water systems in the primary study area are the county systems In Richmond and Columbia Coun- ties and the municipal systems In Aiken, Augusta, and North Augusta. Together, these systems supply water to 191,400 persons, comprising 58 percent of the study area's total population. In areas not served by any form of public water, individual wells primarily supply the residents with water.1 Figure 8.6 delineates the boundaries of the service areas asociated with each municipal or county public water system. Of the 30 county or municipal water systems, 90 percent obtain their water from deep wells. A total of 102 wells pump groundwater to munici- pal or county storage tanks, where it is held until needed. The largest number of wells (26 percent) are located in Richmond County, and Allen- dale County has the smallest number of wells (7 percent).2"5'17 How- ever, four of the systems obtain their water from surface-water sources. Table 8.23 County and municipal public water systems In the primary study area3 capac1ty Average capacity Percent of County Name of system Population served igd) (mgd) total capacity Source Aiken Aiken 32,000 7.5 4.6 61.3 Shaws Creek, Shilo SprIngs, 2 wel1s Jackson 3,152 1.0 0.175 17.5 2 wells Monetta 770 0.086 0.025b 29.1 3 wel1s New Ellenton 4,000 1.0 0.30 30.0 2 wells North Augusta 15,100 4.0 2.0 50.0 Savannah River Perry 660 0.173 0.025 14.5 2 wells Sal ley 637 0.26 0.025 9.6 2 welIs Wagener 1,400 NAC 0.200 NA 2 wells Al lendale Allendale 5,134 1.6 0.325 20.3 3 we 11s Fairfax — 2,800 0.187 0.150 80.2 2 we 11s Sycamore NA 0.050 0.005 10.0 1 well Ulmer 380 0.130 0.080 61.5 1 well Bamberg Bamberg 4,900 1.00 0.490 49.0 5 welIs Oenmark 4,550 1.50 0.450 30.0 5 wells Ehrhardt 875 0.300 0.087 29.0 3 we 11s Govan 115 0.060 0.005 8.3 2 wells 01 ar 692 0.250 0.100 40.0 2 wells Barnwell Barnwel1 6,800 4.75 4.0 84.2 11 wells Blackville 2,975 0.936 0.300 32.1 3 we 11s Elko 360 0.144 0.018 12.5 1 well Hilda 315 0.149 0.009 60.0 1 well WillIston 3,800 2.90 0.800 27.6 I* we 11 s Columbia Columbia County 18,000 8.0 4.0 50.0 Savannah River Grovetown 1,800 1.14 0.556 48.8 10 wells Harlem 3,164 NA 0.200 NA 6 we 11s Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 8.23 County and municipal public water systems In the primary study area0 (continued) Total capacity Average capacity Percent of County Name of system Population served (mgd) (mgd) total capacity Source Richmond Augusta 84,oood 30.0 21.0 70.0 Savannah River Blytbe 333e NA NA NA 1 well Hephzibah MOO 0.7 0.17 24.3 3 wells f Pine Hlll 7,500 2.0 2.0 100.0 4 wells Richmond County 45,000d 19 wells Plant 1 10.0 8.5 85.0 Plant 2 5-0 4.5 90.0 "Sources: See references 1-14. bAn average during a 2-month period. cInformation Is not available. **An approximation. e1975 data? number of customers. *The Pine Hill Water and Sewerage Authority became part of the Richmond County Water System during June 1980. 8-91 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-15219 HGURE 8.6 WATER SERVICE AREAS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA LEGEND >y • WATER SERVICE AREAS u SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA V 8-93 The cities of Augusta and North Augusta, and Columbia County draw their water from the Savannah River. The City of Aiken receives its raw water supply from Shaws Creek and Shilo Springs. Additionally, the city uti- 2-5 lizes groundwater from its two wells. All but one of the county and municipal systems reviewed in this section can accommodate additional usage. Throughout the six-county region, the difference between a system's total capacity and average daily capacity ranges from 9.0 million gallons per day (mgd) in the City of Augusta to 0.05 mgd in the town of Ulmer in Allendale County. The Pine Hill System, however, is currently operating at capacity, and this problem is par- tially responsible for the Richmond County water system accepting respon- 2-15 sibility for operating the Pine Hill System since June 1980. All together, approximately 10 of the systems are operating at or above // 50 percent of their capacity,^ are operating between 25 percent and percent, and 8 systems are operating below 25 percent of their total capacity. Of these, the two Richmond County plants are operating at 85 percent and 90 percent of their total capacity, respectively. In con- trast, the system in Govan, South Carolina, is operating at 8,6. percent of its tot/il capacity. Within each county as a whole, Allendale County has the most additional capacity. The county's four municipal water systems together are operating at 29 percent of their combined total capacities. Of the remaining counties, Bamberg County's four systems are operating at 36 percent of their combined capacities, whereas the Rich- mond County systems are operating at approximately 76 percent of their total combined capacities. Columbia County's systems can also accommo- date additional customers as the county's water system has recently raised its total capacity to 8 mgd from its previous capacity of 2 2-15 mgd. Additionally, the county has a tie-in with the Augusta City 2 12 water system and can receive 2 mgd from this system, if necessary. ' Total capacity is also adequate in Harlem, as the city is currently oper- ating only four of its six wells.1^ See Table 8.23 for the total and average capacity for each of the 30 systems. 8-94 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.7 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates, P-26, No. 78-40, Washington, D.C., 1979. 2. Metropolitan Council of Governments of Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Community Facilities Inventory, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 3. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Area Development Plan, Augusta, Ga., 1980. 4. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Water Supply Division, Inventory of Public Water Supply Systems, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 5. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Water and Sewerage Systems and Plans, Augusta, Ga., 1975. 6. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and L. Graham, Richmond County Water and Sewerage System, Augusta, Ga., June 11, 1980. 7. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Thompson, Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken, S.C., June 24, 1980. 8. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Castle, Richmond County Water and Sewerage System, Augusta, Ga., June 24, 1980. 9. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. Patty, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., June 24, 1980. 10. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and V. Mills, Town of Elko, Elko, S.C., June 11, 1980. 11. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and H. Maddox, Augusta City Water Treatment Plant, Augusta, Ga., June 11, 1980. 12. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and R. Pollard, Columbia County Water Treatment Plant, Martinez, Ga., June 11, 1980. 13. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Plunkett, City of Grovetown, Grovetown, Ga., June 11, 1980. 14. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and F. Williams, City of Hephzibah, Hephzibah, Ga., June 28, 1980. 8-95 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.? (continued) 15. Personal communication between 0. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Fulcher, City of Harlem, Harlem, Ga., June 11, 1980. 16. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates, P-26, No. 78-10, Washington, D.C., 1979- 17. Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council, Regional Water and Sewer Study, Aiken, S.C., 1974. r v 8-96 8.8 PUBLIC DOMESTIC SANITARY LANDFILLS AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM Seven public domestic sanitary landfills are located in the primary study area (see Table 8.24 and Figure 8.7). Five of the seven sites are pub- licly owned and all are publicly operated. The number of public sites per county ranges from three in Aiken County to none in Allendale County. The three public landfills in Aiken County are the Aiken County Sanitary Landfill (Domestic Waste Permit (DWP) numbers 97 and 72) and the City of Aiken Sanitary Landfill. The Aiken County Sanitary Landfill (DWP-79) is located near Langley, South Carolina, and is owned by the J. M. Huber Corporation. This landfill, and the Aiken County Sanitary Landfill (DWP-72) near Wagener, are both operated by Aiken County. The DWP-72 Landfill is projected to last 10 years, whereas the DWP-97 will only last one year, unless permitted to expand.^ The City of Aiken owns and operates the City of Aiken Sanitary Landfill, which is-projected to have 2 the capacity to operate for five more years. In Aiken County, 15 percent of the population in the unincorporated county areas use private collectors. Of the remaining population, 15 percent are commercial users who transport their refuse to one of the county's landfills, and 70 percent use centrall2 y located "green boxes" which are emptied by county- funded collectors. In contrast, the City of Aiken operates a house- 3 to-house solid-waste collection system. Bamberg and Barnwell Counties each operate sanitary landfills that have a capacity to operate for 20 years. Each county operates a green box collection system for the rural portions of the counties, while the ma- jority of the incorporated communities maintain house-to-house collection 4 5 systems that use the county landfills for disposal. ' As of June 1980, Allendale County was paying Hampton County for solid- waste disposal at the Hampton County Sanitary Landfill. At that time, however, Allendale County officials were negotiating a possible contract with a private state-permitted sanitary landfill operator to avoid in- creasing costs of hauling sanitary solid waste to the Hampton County \ Table 8.24 Public domestic sanitary landfills 1 the primary study area, 1980a Ccunty Site name Location Operator Life span Acreage Aiken Aiken County Hear Langley, Aiken Permitted for 1 year; N/Ab San Itary Landf111 South CarolIna County however, It could last DWP-97 Indefinitely with expansion. Aiken Aiken County Near Wegener, Aiken Ten years 30 Sanitary Landfill South Carol Ina . County DWP-72 Aiken City of Aiken City of Aiken City of Five years 57 Sanitary Landfill Aiken Bamberg Bamberg County Near Bamberg, Bamberg Twenty years 83.7C Sanitary Landf111 South Carolina County DWP-52 Barnwel) Barnwell County Near Blackville, Barnwell Twenty years Sanitary Landfill South Carolina County DVP-001 Columbia Columbia County Intersection of Columbia Will close when the new 20 Sanitary Landfill Lewlston Road County landfill opens (existing) and Interstate 20 Columbia County North side of Columbia not yet determined 126 Sanitary Landf111 120 and lichee County (new)d Creek Richmond Richmond County Adjacent to Richmond Two years 74 Sanitary Landfill Tobacco Road County In south-cen- tral portion of county. aSources: See references 1-11. ^Information not available. cCurrently, only 45 acres have been cleared for use. dls expected to open In late summer of 1981. 8-99 Y\0 'i / \© / / fl KKN / V ve- "'iT-. UkllJ . <\ II u\" X )i»i( : |NI * HUMOS © X R>Ul^I>\\Vk - . ^ -A ©rx-rw in rii/ui MI l I \ C X^' ^ B I \ N SAVANNAH/ RIVER PLAN/T SITE / J3 "T^. .fcyU BSDAV^-J^'^ \ SCALE 0 5 10 15 JO ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE 8.7 PUBLIC DOMESTIC SANITARY LANDFILLS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA LEGEND 1 COLUMBIA COUNTY 1 SANITARY LANDFILL 0 RICHMOND COUNTY * SANITARY LANOFILL AIKEK COUNTY 3 SANITARY LANDFILL. DWP-B7 A CITY OF AIKEN SANITARY LANDFILL 5 AIKEN COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL. DWP-72 c BARNWELL COUNTY " SANITARY LANDFILL. DWP-001 7 BAMBERG COUNTY ' SANITARY LANDFILL, DWP-52 SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 8-101 V/ site, and the shrinking capacity of that site. By July 1980, the county was utilizing the Appleton Landfill, a private landfill operated by George Cadle of Appleton, South Carolina. It is predicted that even- tually the towns will follow this county's example.^ The capacity at the 20-acre Columbia County sanitary landfill is essen- tially exhausted. The present site, when leased in 1973, was initially believed to be adequate well into the 19801s; however, the population of the county has doubled since 1970, thereby reducing the lifespan of the site.7 To accommodate the county's future needs, a new 126-acre land- fill near the existing landfill is being developed and is expected to open by late summer, 1981. At that time, the existing landfill will be 11 cIosedi . Columbia County does not operate a collection system. All residential, commercial, and industrial collection is handled by private contractors utilizing both house-to-house and green box methods. Collection serv- ice is available at a reasonable rate to all areas of the county. Incor- porated Grovetown is the only area of the county served by a publicly funded solid-waste collection system. Thus, about 70 percent of the population of Columbia County is served by private collectors; the Grove- town public collection system serves about 10 percent of the county's population, and the remaining 20 percent dispose of their own sanitary g solid waste at the county landfill. Except for Fort Gordon, Richmond County also owns and operates a landfill that is the disposal site for most of the solid waste generated in the county's incorporated and unincorporated areas. The county's 7^-acre site was expanded from its previous size of 55 acres in 1979, increasing the site's capacity to accumulate waste for an additional two years. The county is, however, beginning a preliminary effort to acquire another site.7 All portions of Richmond County are served by private contrac- tors, except for the City of Augusta, which provides its residents with q residential and commercial refuse collection service. In Fort Gordon, 8-102 sanitary collection and disposal service is available to all residents of the post. The service is provided by reservation personnel and disposal is carried out at a site on the post.^ 8-103 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.8 1. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and J. Cresswell, Domestic Waste Section, Solid and Hazardous Waste Manage- ment Division, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, S.C., June 22, 1980. 2. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and L. C. Green, County Administrator, Aiken County, S.C., June 16, 198O. 3- Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and R. Windham, City Manager, City of Aiken, S.C., June 17, 1980. A. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Burckhalter, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, S.C., July 10, ig80. 5- Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and H. Zorn, County Administrator, Bamberg County, S.C., Bamberg, S.C., June 17, 1980. 6. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and J. Cresswell, Domestic Waste Section, Solid and Hazardous Waste Manage- ment Division, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, S.C., June 16, I98O. 7. Central Savannah River Areas Planning and Development Commission, Regional Solid Waste Management Plan for the Central Savannah River Areas Planning and Development Commission, Part One of Two, Augusta, Ga., January, 1980. 8. Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and J. Ivey, Columbia County, Georgia, Engineer's Office, Martinez, Ga., June 17, 1980. 9* Personal communication between J. Young, NUS Corporation, and G. Patty, Augusta-Richmond Planning Commission, Augusta, Ga., June 16, 1980. 10. Personal communication between J, Young, NUS Corporation, and F. F. Badiford, County Supervisor, Barnwell County, Barnwell, S.C., June 17, 1980. 11. Personal communication between B. Matthews, NUS Corporation, and J. Ivey, Columbia County Engineer's Office, Martinez, Ga., March 11, 1981. 8-104 8.9 SOCIAL SERVICES A wide variety of public and private social service agencies serve the primary study area. Federal, state, county, and local agencies provide county residents with legal counseling, medical care, educational and employment opportunities, and recreational activities.1 See Table 8.25 for an inventory of the social service agencies, by service type, serving each county. Within the study area, Richmond County has the largest number of agencies serving its residents, whereas Columbia County has the least. OF the agencies serving Richmond County, 90 percent are located in Augusta, while 70 percent of Aiken County's agencies are located in the City of Aiken. In the remaining counties, social service agencies are primarily located in the towns of Martinez, Evans, Bamberg, Denmark, Allendale, and Barnwell. Certain agencies serve several counties, such as the Aiken Youth Bureau, which is listed in the Aiken, Bamberg, and Barnwell Human Services Directory.1 Approximately 21 percent of the social service agencies serving the four South Carolina counties are state agencies, and 27 percent of the agen- cies are county agencies. The remaining agencies are regional, local, or private organizations, or county and local chapters of nationwide agen- cies such as the United Way, the Boy Scouts of America, or the American Red Cross. All of Columbia County's social service agencies are region- al, county, or local organizations. Approximately 68 percent of the agencies serving Richmond County are private or local organizations, all but two of which are located in Augusta. In relation to other population centers in the study area, Augusta's larger population enables it to support a variety of services, such as a symphony, a braille club; spe- cialized medical research and treatment centers; and a wide variety of legal, medical and social services for children. Thus, the largest num- ber and the greatest diversity of social services are located in Richmond County. 8-106 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.9 Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, CSRA Human Resources Directory, Augusta, Ga., July 1979. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Tri-County Directory of Human Services 1979, Aiken, S.C., 1979. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Barnwell Directory of Human Services, 1980, Aiken, S.C., 1980.. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Allendale Directory of Human Services 1980, Aiken, S.C., 1980. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, 1978 Aiken County Directory of Human Services, Aiken, S.C., 1978 8-107 8.10 LIBRARIES Library services in the primary study area are provided by three regional library systems: the Aiken-Bamberg-Barnwell-Edgefield Regional Library System (ABBE), the Allendale-Hampton-Jasper Regional Library System, and the Augusta Regional Library System. Table 8.26 lists the names and locations of the various libraries that are part of the three systems. The Aiken-Bamberg-Barnwell-Edgefield Regional Library serves a four- county area. In Aiken, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties, library facili- ties include the regional library headquarters in Aiken, three county libraries, six branch libraries, and one bookmobile which serves the four 1 2 ABBE counties. ' As part of the ABBE regional system, all the li- braries have rotating collections that may be moved from facility to facility, with the exception of the Aiken County Library and the North Augusta Branch Library, each of which have their own permanent collec- 11 on • 2 Within the ABBE regional system, 168,402 volumes, 336 periodicals, and 22 newspapers are available to library patrons.1 During the period 1978- 1979, 340,524 volumes were circulated within the system's adult sections •7 and 172,626 volumes were circulated in the juvenile sections. Accord- ing to the Public Library Association's guidelines for small libraries, the size of the ABBE system's book collection is below the recommended standard for the service population in Aiken, Bamberg, and Barnwell Coun- ties. To fulfill the Association's basic guidelines, approximately 11,000 volumes would have to be added to those currently available to the tri- county residents. In addition to books, films, filmstrips, cassettes, and records, framed 1 2 prints may be checked out from the ABBE libraries. ' Twenty-five full and part-time librarians and three to four student assistants staff the libraries in Aiken, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties. These libraries provide the residents of the county with summer reading programs, film programs, and special services to the disadvantaged. Table 8.26 Libraries serving the primary study area8 State Regional IIbrary system Regional library system Location facilities South Carolina Alken-Bamberg-Barnwel1- Alken-Bamberg-BarnwelI- Aiken, Aiken County Edgefleld Regional Edgefleld Regional Library Library System Aiken County Library Aiken, Aiken County Bamberg County Library Bamberg,'Bamberg County Barnwell County Library Barnwell, Barnwell County Blackvllle Branch Library Blackvllle, Barnwell County Denmark Branch Library Denmark, Bamberg County New Ellenton Branch Library New Ellenton, Bamberg County North Augusta Branch Library North Augusta, Aiken County Wagener Branch Library Wagener, Aiken County Wllllston Branch Library Wllllston, Barnwell County A11endaIe-Hampton-Jasper AIIenda1e-Hampton-Jasper Allendale, Allendale County Regional Library System Regional Library Georgia Augusta Regional Library Augusta-Richmond Countyb System Public Library Augusta, Richmond County Appleby Branch Library Augusta, Richmond County Jeff Maxwell Branch Library South of Augusta, Richmond County Wallace Branch Library Augusta, Richmond County •Sources: See references 1, 2, 8, 10. ^Facility houses both the county library and the regional library headquarters 8-109 The AlIendale-Hampton-Jasper Regional Library is located in Allendale County and serves a three-county region. In Allendale County, the re- gional library also serves as the county library. Additionally, the regional library's one bookmobile serves the county's rural residents. An interlibrary loan system exists within the library system and the system's total volume count is approximately 55,000 books. Of these, approximatelg y 18,000 volumes are currently housed in the regional library building. The size of the county and the regional system's book col- lection is more than double tha guideline set by the Public Library Asso- 3 4 5 ciation for a service population the size of Allendale County. ' ' During 1979, approximately 51,000 volumes were circulated throughout the regional system and the Allendale County Library circulated approximately g 13,170 volumes. The Al1endale-Hampton-Jasper Regional Library also lends films and cas- settes to groups and schools, but will not lend these materials to indi- viduals. The Regional Library is staffed by one county librarian and one assistant. Library programs include a summer reading program and story g hours for children. The Augusta Regional Library System serves a six-county region, of which Columbia and Richmond Counties are a part. Facilities in Richmond County include the main branch of the Augusta-Richmond County Public Library, which serves as the system's library headquarters; three branch li- braries; and two bookmobiles that serve the entire six-county region.^ Columbia County does not have a library within its borders and is served only by bookmobile service from the Augusta-Richmond County Public Li- . 2,11 brary. ' Volumes in the Richmond County portion of the library system total 361,904, with over 400 periodicals. During the period from June 1979 to June 1980, the Richmond County Public Library and its branches circulated 710,485 volumes.10 This book collection adequately fulfills the sug- gested standard for a population the size of Richmond County, but is ap- proximately 21,000 volumes below the standard for a population the size 8-110 3 4 5 of Richmond and Columbia Counties. ' ' However, through the regional li library system's interlibrary loan system and through thejjGeorgia Library Information Network, library patrons in the two Georgia counties have access to a much larger collection than what the Richmond County library system offers.11 The main branch of the Augusta-Richmond County Public Library is staffed by 15 professional librarians, 7 librarians, 26 student assistants, and 39 clerical aides. The library system's special programs include story hours, puppet shows, summer reading programs, and special film presenta- tions. The Augusta-Richmond County Public Library's main branch has a Talking Book Service for the blind and handicapped which serves an 11- county area in South Carolina and Georgia.11 One additional library, the Reese Library (the Augusta College Library) .also provides library services to the local population. Reese Library is part of the statewide university library system for the State of Geor- gia. Local citizens can utilize the resources of the library but are restricted in their use of published material outside the library unless they are students of the university or staff. The library has an associ- ated learning center which local citizens can use for a fee. The center 12 has books, films, filmstrips, cassettes and records. As of June 1980, the Library itself had 260,647 bound volumes, 1644 periodicals, and more than 3000 reels of microfilm1.3 Concurrently, the Reese Library is a repository for Federal documents. 8-111 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.10 1. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and C. Bowling, Aiken-Bamberg-Barnwel1-Edgefield Regional Library, Aiken, S.C., April 3, 1980. / ^ 2. Metropolitan Council of Governments of Aiken, Columbia and Richmond County, Community Facilities Inventory, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 3. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation,, and Carol Bowling, Aiken-Bamberg-Barnwel1-Edgefield Regional Library, Aiken, S.C., May 12, 1980. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates, P-26, No. 78-40, Washington, D.C.7'' 1979- 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Esti- mates, P-26, No. 78-10 Washington- D.C.., 1979. 6. Public Library Association, Interim Standard for Small Public Li- braries; Guidelines Toward Achieving the Goals of Public Library Service, Public Library Association, 1962. 7. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Tri-County Directory of Human Services, 1979, Aiken, S.C., 1979. 8. Personal corrmunication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Dryden, Al lendale-Hampton-Jasper Regional Library, Allendale, S.C., May 2, 1980. 9. Pesonal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Dryden, Al1endale-Hampton-Jasper Regional Library, Allendale, S.C., May 12, 1980. 10. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Tyson, Augusta-Richmond County Public Library, Augusta, Ga., June 18, 1980. 11. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Tyson, Augusta-Richmond County Public Library, Augusta, Ga., May 2, 1980. 12. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mary Craven, Reese Library, Augusta, Ga., March 3, 1981. 13. Personal communication between B. Matthews, NUS Corporation, and V. DeTreville, Augusta College Library, Augusta, Ga., March 19, 1981. 8-112 8.11 UTILITIES The primary study area is generally well served by electric and natural gas utilities. The utility companies consist of a mixture of private, investor-owned, municipal, and rural cooperative companies. The Savannah River Plant site is served by its own electric generating facility, al- though it continually purchases approximately half of the power it uses from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G).1 The great bulk of the electric power supplied to the area is generated by either the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company or the Georgia Power Company. The municipal and cooperative utilities purchase wholesale power primarily from these companies. The South Carolina Electric and o Gas Company utilizes coal, natural gas, and oil to generate power at its steam plants, but also produces power from six hydroelectric plants. Its capacity was 3,660,635 kW on January 1, 1979, with a summer system peak of 2,469,000 kW. The Savannah River Plant is the largest single customer of SCE&S, having purchased approximately $14 million of elec- tricity in 1979. The Georgia Power Company generates most of its elec- tricity from coal, utilizing some natural gas, nuclear power, and light oil. Its capacity on January 1, 1979, was 10,570,7^0 kW with a summer 2 system peak of 10,113,000 kW. There appear to be no unusual restric- tions to the expansion of electrical service in the primary study area.1 Other than the facility at the Savannah River site, there is only one power generating plant within the primary study area. It is the Urquhart Steam Plant, a coal/natural gas facility of 250,000 kW capacity, located on the Savannah River in Aiken County. A new generating facility, the Vogtle Nuclear Plant, is being constructed for the Georgia Power Company in Burke County. It is expected to become operational sometime after 1988.3 Natural gas is brought to the study area by the Carolina Pipeline Com- pany. The gas is then distributed by the South Carolina Electric and Gas 8-113 Company, the Bamberg Board of Public Works, the Atlanta Gas Light Com- pany, and the Georgia Natural Gas Company. The South Carolina Electric and Gas Company has been slowly expanding its natural gas service. Na- tural gas lines in the Columbia County portion of the primary study area, however, tend to be small and limited in their capacity. This is viewed as having a restrictive effect on potential industrial expansion. No other supply-related problems have been indicated. Most of the natural gas available in the six counties is consumed by industrial customers, while residential customers use most of the elec- tricity generated.^ In Aiken County, the communities of Aiken, Jack- son, and North Augusta receive electrical and natural gas service from South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Electricity is supplied to the remainder of the county by the Aiken Electric Cooperative and the Mid- Carolina Electric Cooperative, both of which purchase power from Central Electric Power Cooperative Incorporated (CEPCI). The communities of Allendale and Fairfax in Allendale County receive electrical and natural gas service from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. The remaining portions of the county receive electrical service from Edisto Electric Cooperative, which purchases it from CEPCI, and from Palmetto Electric Cooperative, which also purchases power from CEPCI and from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. In Bamberg County, the town of Bamberg receives electricity and natural gas from its municipal Board of Public Works, which purchases power from the Southeast Power Administration and gas from the South Carolina Public Service Authority. The community of Denmark receives utility service from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Two cooperatives, Coastal Electric and Edisto Electric, purchase power from CEPCI and dis- tribute it to rural portions of the county. In Barnwell County, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company supplies power and gas to the communities of Barnwell, Blackville, and Williston. 8-114 Remaining portions of the county receive power through the Aiken and Edisto Electric Cooperatives. In Columbia County, the communities of Grovetown and Harlem, as well as other portions of the county, receive electricity from the Georgia Power Company. Other parts of the county are served by the Jefferson Electric Membership Corporation, which purchases power from the Oglethorpe Power Corporation. Natural gas is supplied to parts of the county by Georgia Natural Gas. The City of Augusta and surrounding area in Richmond County receive elec- trical service from the Georgia Power Company. Other parts of the county are served by the Jefferson and Planters Electric Membership Corpora- tions. The Planters Cooperative purchases its power from Georgia Power Company. Natural gas is supplied to Augusta and other portions of the county by the Atlanta Gas Light Company. 8-115 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.11 1. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Update, Aiken, S.C., 1978. 2. Electrical World, Directory of Electric Utilities, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y., 1980. 3. Central Savannah_ River Area Planning and Development Commission, Area Development Plan, Augusta, Ga., 1980. Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development Plan, Martinez, S.C., 1979. 8-9 9. HOUSING This chapter discusses housing conditions in the primary and secondary study areas. This chapter discusses conditions, tenure, and financial characteristics of the housing stock in the study area. The data pre- sented include the percentages of units that are owner occupied, renter occupied or vacant, and the median value and rent of housing. A descrip- tion of the vacancy trends and the physical conditions of the housing stock is provided, including the percentage of housing that is crowded and the percentage that has inadequate plumbing. This is followed by a brief description of hotel and motel accommodations in some of the coun- ties. In the final section, a discussion of the size of the housing construction labor force in the area is included in order to estimate whether increased demand for housing can be met. Ii 8-2 9.1 TRENDS IN THE HOUSING STOCK FROM 1950 As expected, most of the housing in the area is located in the counties that comprise the two Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs): Richmond, Aiken, and Columbia Counties in the Augusta, Georgia SMSA, and Lexington County, which is part of the Columbia, South Carolina SMSA. In addition, these are the counties that are growing the fastest (see Figures 9.1 and 9.2 and Tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3). (Burke County, Geor- gia has also grown rapidly; most of this growth occurred during the 1950s). Figure 9.1 is a plot of the number of housing units in the 12 3 counties within the primary study area for 1950, 1960, and 1970. ' ' The plot is based on the data presented i n Table 9.1 and on data for 1977 where it was available. In addition, the growth in these counties during the last 10 years was obtained by adding the number of building permits that were issued for housing units from 1970 through February 1980 to the 1970 figures. The same procedure was followed for the secondary study area (see Figure 9-2), which is based on the data in Table 9.2. f Although the number of permits indicate the growth in the housing market during the last decade, simply adding the number of permits to the number of unijts existing in 1970 does not give the number of units in 1980, becaus|2 some units may have been demolished or destroyed during the per-- iod. Also, the issuance of a permit does not necessarily mean that the housing unit was constructed. Some jurisdictions do not require permits for new construction, and mobile homes (which do not require building permits) have been added in many areas. This lack of equivalence is reflected in the figures for counties for which 1977 data are available. In these counties, the increase in units between 1970 and 1977 is greater than the number of permits issued during these years, and in some coun- ties (Barnwell, Bamberg, Orangeburg, and Allendale) the increase between 1970 and 1977 is greater than the number of permits issued during the decade. ORNL-DWG 81-15222 FIGURE 9.2 HOUSING STOCK IN SECONDARY STUDY AREA THOUSMDS OF UNITS 35 h 30 h 25 h VJO t 20 HOUSING PERMITS' 15 H HOUSING STOCK 10 h 1950 1960 1970 1963 'Enifiiatu of housing stock Imtd iijon housing pttmits YEARS Table 9.1 Housing characteristics in the primary study area3 Number Contract of owner- Hedian Number median Crowded With Total unit County Number Number occupied value of rental rentb (greater than all Increase and year of units of vacancies units ($) units ($) ' 1.0 per room) plumbing 1950-1970 Aiken, S.C. 1977 35,893 2,974 24,360 8,559 1970 29,333 2,360 19,951 12,700 itB 2,923 25,253 14,103 1960 25,365 7,002 1950 15,230 1,161 6,038 4,265 14 3,211 7,999 Allendale, S.C. 1977 3,511 143 2,002 1,426 1970 3,002 282 1,599 9,400 ... 1,141 30 461 1,852 -48 1960 2,857 1950 3,070 275 922 3,806 1,872 12 1,688 685 Bamberg, S.C. 1977 5,663 238 3,380 2,045 1970 4,748 188 2,658 10,100 1,607 30 720 2,291 -110 1960 4,006 1950 4,858 729 1,648 4,459 2,463 13 1,357 1,263 Barnwell, S.C. 1977 6,968 334 4,186 2,448 1970 5,379 514 3,075 10,600 1,795 30 760 3,759 505 1960 4,522 1950 4,874 670 1,495 4,067 2,702 8 1,396 1,031 Columbia,\Ga. 1977 \ 1970 \ 6,740 253 4,419 16,100 1,806 72 811 5,910 4,230 1960 3,686 1950 2,510 224 918 4,078 1,365 13 798 697 Richmond, Ga. 1977 1970 47,754 2,482 26,119 14,500 18,345 64 4,787 45,466 17,926 1960 38,201 1950 29,828 1,382 12,421 5,238 15,992 18 7,227 19,932 •Sources: See references 1 —» 13, 18. Table 9.2 Housing characteristics In the secondary study areaa Number Contract of owner- Median Number med i an Crowded With Total unit b County Number Number occup1ed value of rental rent (greater than all Increase and year of units of vacancies units ($) units - ($) 1.0 per room) plumbing 1950-1970 Burke, Ga. 1970 5,563 206 2,521 10,500 2,568 30 1,079 3,107 4,125 1960 5,890 1950 1,438 174 421 2,537 843 7.8 346 1,239 Edgefield, S.C. 1970 4,552 338 2,733 11,905 1,481 30 809 3,181 261 1960 4,618 1950 4,291 349 1,537 5,442 2,404 14 1,236 1,354 Hampton, S.C. 1970 5,080 230 2,934 9,600 1,599 30 637 3,182 230 1960 4,795 1950 4,850 473 1,842 3,713 2,529- 9 1,424 3,502 Lexington, S.C. 1970 29,678 1,149 20,615 17,000 5,643 : 57 2,169 26,958 17,585 1960 17,916 _ 1950 12,043 881 6,792 5,344 4,412 - 16 2,932 5,276 Orangeburg, S.C. 1977 28,421 2,658 16,205 9,558 1970 20,853 2,005 11,861 11,300 6,987 33 2,989 13,870 3,498 1960 18,602 1950 17,355 1,553 6,946 3,521 8,849 15 , 5,111 5,027 Saluda, S.C. 1970 4,656 511 2,948 11,164 1,197 30 566 3,195 578 1960 4,162 1950 4,078 278 1,870 3,521 1,929 15 1,143 781 Screven, Ga. 1970 4,223 220 2,086 8,500 1,663 30 657 2,645 -1,087 1960 4,279 1950 5,310 959 1,594 2,987 2,755 12 1,445 846 aSources: See references 1-4, 13-17. Table 9.3 Permits for privately owned housing by county for 1970 to February, 1980s Parcent of Jan, Feb permits Issued County 1980 1979 1978 1977 J2ZS. 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 Total after 1974 Aiken 57 586 676>> 876 807e 507e 552® 6l4d 1,014d 1,342 830 7,861 44.6 Allendale 0 0 7 4« 2 5 1" 7 23 75 109 233 7,7 Bamberg 0 0 68' 149 22 12 8 25 77 73 67 366 31.7 Barnwell 0 0 25 28 16 131 116 62h 115 136 130 759 26.4 Burke 0 79 88 27 17 N/A 46 67 3* 72 4 4J4 48.6 515 Columbia 49 660 777' 806 742 502 475, 412 . 368 361 5,667 62.4 Richmond 13* 2,064 1,420 1,060 885 723 1,337-J 1,242 2,1151 2,923J 2,344 16,247 38.7 Edgefield 6 133 199 181 146 114 117 12 8 132, 177 151 1,484 52.5 Hampton 0 0 61 212 122 65 94 110 1 243 907 50.6 Lexington N/A 1,0*61 2369 2569 1,277™ 1,756 168 274 742 179 293 7,237 77.1 Orangeburg 131 402 515 628 471 508 421 686 909 1,087 1,062 6,820 38.9 Saluda 7 94 110 120 83 91 99 123 150 131 131 1,139 44.3 Screven 0 0 30 30 10 15 20 21 20 1 0 167 62.9 'Sourcei U.S. Department of Conneree, Bureau of the Census, Housing Authorized by Building Permit end Public Contracts. Construction Report CM). Wash- ington, D.C., annually and monthly. ^Excludes Naw Ellenton, which did not report. 'Excludes Jackson and Salley. Data not available. ^Excludes Salley. Data not available. "Excludes Fairfax town, which did not report 'Excludes Ehrhardt, which did not report. 3Excludes unincorporated area, which did not report. hExcludes BlackvMIe, which did not report. 'Excludes Grovetown, which did not report. JExcludes Hephzibah, which did not report. ^Information not available. 'Excludes Batesburg and Lexlngtown towns. No data. "Excludes Lexington town. No data. ^Excludes public housing. 8-8 Even so, the permit figures provide an indication of the rate of growth in the housing stock of each of the counties during the last 10 years. The most rapidly growing county in the primary study area between 1950 and 1970 was Columbia, whose housing stock grew from about 2500 to about 67OO at an annual rate of 5.1 percent. This growth is undoubtedly due to the growth in the Augusta suburbs. As the permit data in Figure 9.1 indicate, the growth from 1970 to 1980 has been even more rapid. Other counties with high annual rates of increase between 1950 and 1970 are Burke (7.0 percent), Aiken (3.3 percent), Richmond (2.4 percent), and Lexington (4.6 percent). Figures 9.1 and 9.2 indicate that growth in Burke County has leveled off during the last 20 years, while the others have grown at about the same rate during the last decade as they did during the previous two decades. Figure 9.2 also indicates that Orange- / burg County, which was growing at a slower rate between 1950 and 1970 (0.9 percent), is now growing very rapidly. By contrast, the other counties in the primary and secondary study areas have increased their housing stocks very slowly, if at all. Between 1950 and 1970, the housing stock of Bamberg and Allendale Counties both de- creased at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent and Screven County at a rate of 1.1 percent. Figures 9.1 and 9.2 indicate that the housing stock in Bamberg and Allendale Counties decreased between 1950 and 1960, but started increasing between 1960 and 1970. Screven County's stock de- creased during both decades. Because nearly 5000 employees of the Savannah River Plant live in Aiken County, much of the increase in this county can be attributed to the demand generated by these workers. About half of these workers (about 2400) have settled in the City of Aiken. Housing stock for this city has risen from just over 2300 in 1950 to nearly 4800 in 1970, and permit figures indicate a total of about 5800 in 1980 (see Figure 9.3 and Tables 9.4 and 9-5). Thus, the SRP employees are responsible for the majority of Aiken's increased housing demand. ORNL-DWG 81-15223 FIGURE 9.3 HOUSING STOCK IN CITIES AND TOWNS THOUSANDS OF UNITS 'Estimttti of tawufsttdi bm^ spis hcnM| pci nits Table 9.4 Housing characteristics In selected cities and towns8 Number Contract of owner- Median Number median Crowded With Location 1970 Number Number occupied value of rental rent (greater than all and year Population of units of vacancies units ($) units ($) 1.0 per room) plumbing mmmm^mmmmm Aiken 1970 13,436 4,759 402 2,950 16,100 1,377 48 330 4,423 1950 2,321 158 862 4,917 1,273 15 490 1,431 Allendale 1970 3,620 1,238 127 712 9,000 399 30 148 861 1950 755 32 33t> 4,519 387 18 Augusta 1970 59,864 21,159 1,272 0,674 11,800 11,203 49 1,985 19,928 1950 20,704 731 7,508 4,670 1,2457 16 5,158 9,120 'Barnwel1 1970 4,439 1,466 119 797 13,500 548 33 162 1.185 1950 662 17 276 6,395 329 13 Jackson 1,928 1970 591 65 431 12,600 95 51 58 513 New Ellenton 2,546 1970 768 79 519 11,000 169 39 95 649 N. Augusta 12,883 1970 4,342 333 2,912 16,300 1,097 75 234 4.186 1950 1,164 66 621 8,487 477 38 1,238 51.7? WillIston 2,594 1970 878 85 537 11,100 256 31 78 715 aSources: See references 1, 3, 15, 17-19- Table 9.5 Permits for privately owned* housing for cijjes and towns for 1970 to February 1980s Percent of Jan, Feb permits issued 1980 JiZi ml m 1976 1975 nzi 1973 1322. 1221 1970 Total after 1974 Aiken 4 65 79 78 204 100 56 110 188 67 98 1,049 50.5 Allendale 0 0 6 4 1 2 1 3 9 52 53 131 9.9 Augusta 0 0 29 34 57 37 58 28 412 254 164 1,173 21.9 Barnwel1 0 0 15 21 9 124 47 98 78 22 59 473 35.7 Jackson 0 N/Ab 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 1 5 9 9 24 0.0 New Ellenton 0 N/A N/A 9 9 6 9 8 It 18 23 92 15.2 N. Augusta 0 N/A 46 209 68 30 71 70 235 511 106 1,346 26.2 Williston 0 0 5 3 7 6 15 11 32 96 7 182 11.5 aSource: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Housing Authorized by Building Permit and Public Contracts, Construction Report C40, Washington, D.C., annually and monthly. '"Information not available. *Excludes public housing. 9-12 Mobile home data for the primary study area are presented in Table 9.6. it can be seen from this table and from Figure S.k that the number of mobile homes is increasing rspidly in the study area, particularly in Aiken County. In this county, much of the difference between the change in housing stock and the number of building permits issued is explained by the mobile home data. Over 3100 mobile homes were placed in the county between 1970 and 1975^ while about 500 building permits were i ssued. The number of mobile homes is increasing almost as rapidly in some of the other counties. For example, the projections for Richmond County indi- cate that the total for 1980 was more than twice the 1970 figure. Colum- bia was the only county in which the number of mobile homes did not at least double. 8-13 Table 9.6 Mobile homes within the primary study area3 Average number of mobile homes Number of mobile homes per year added to State/county T970 1975 1980 est. stock—1975-1980 South Carolina Aiken County 1,656 4,775 6,877 420 Allendale County 102 320 497 35 Bamberg County 249 670 1,000 66 Barnwell County 388 1,026 1,280 36 Georgia b Columbia County 1,381 N/A 2,029 65 Richmond County 2,031 3,682 5,333 330 aSources: See references 30-38. ''Information not available. ORNL-DWG 81-15224 FIGURE 9.4 MOBILE HOMES IN SELECTED COUNTIES IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA UNITS YEARS 8-15 9.2 TENURE AND COST CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING STOCK Figures 9-5 and 9.6, which present the tenure characteristics of the primary and secondary study areas (and are based on data presented in Tables 9.1 and 9.2), indicate that the majority of housing is owner- 's occupied. The 1970 percentages range from 45.3 percent in Burke Coun- ty to 69-5 percent in Lexington County. The 1970 number of rental units ranges from 46.2 percent of the total number of housing units in Burke County to 19.0 percent in Lexington County. As might be expected, the largest number of rental units in 1970 is correlated with the urban coun- ties of Aiken, Richmond, and Lexington, which contained approximately 59 percent of the total number of rental units in the study area. Figure 9.7 indicates 1970 tenure and type of occupancy characteristics for se- lected cities and towns in the primary study area. The number of rental units in these cities and towns varies from 52.9 percent of the total housing units in the City of Augusta to 16.1 percent in the Town of Jackson. The median value of owner-occupied units in 1970 ranged from $8,709 in Screven County to $17,233 in Lexington County (see Figures 9.8 and 9-9 and Tables 9.1 and 9.2). The high value for Lexington and the low value for Screven are probably related to their respective rates of growth. The great demand for housing and the relative newness of the housing stock are responsible for the high prices in Lexington County, while the opposite is true in Screven County. Other counties with relatively high values are Columbia ($16,269), Richmond ($14,666), and Aiken ($13,028). Although Orangeburg County figures were rather low in 1970, a much higher value can be anticipated in 1980 because of its rapid growth during the last decade. Besides Screven, the median values of owner-occupied units in two other counties were below $10,000 in 1970: Allendale ($9,516) and Hampton ($9,768). All three of these counties grew slowly between 1970 and 1980 and, as a consequence, the 1980 median va'ues are expected to remain relatively low. With respect to cities and towns in the study area, North Augusta, which grew at the fastest rate between 1950 and 1970, also had the highest median value for housing units, $16,300. Allendale's median value of $9,000 was the lowest (see Figure 9.10). ORNL-DWG 81-15225 FIGURE 9.11 TENURE CHARACTERISTICS IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA, 1970 UNITS 50060 VACANT sx RENTED 39% 35000 V777m 30000 10 OWNER- I OCCUPIED 25000 a\ 15000 - 58X 5000 - 10% //////34/ % /////// mm S6S AIKEN ALLENDALE BAW3ERG BARNWELL COLUMBIA RICHMOND COUNTIES ORNL-DWG 81-75226 FIGURE 9.6 TENURE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE SECONDARY STUDY AREA, 1970 UNITS VACANT 4% 21% RENTED Tzzm OWNER- 33% OCCUPIED 15000 75% 57% 4X 5% ,11% 5000 7% S% 48% 33% '//Am //// 33% V// 42% 48% 60% 62% 53% w VWi m BURKE EDGEFIELD HAMPTON LEXINGTON ORANGEBURG SALUDA SCREVEN COUNTIES ORNL-DWG 81-15227 FIGURE 9.7 TENURE CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS. 1970 UNITS 250K9 VACANT 6K RENTED 15000 U5 wzzm 53X I OWNER- 00 OCCUPIED 5330 41% 8X I1X fOS 37X tax 16* I 22X irr /]79X 55X •I V V V I73S 68X- IY Y Y1B1K AIKEN ALLflCALE AUGUSTA BAMELL JACKSON N ELLENTON N AUGUSTA WILLISTON CITIES AND TOWNS ORNL-DWG 81-15228 FIGURE 9.8 VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS AND GROSS RENT IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA. 1970 RENT IN DOLLARS VALUE IN DOLLARS RENT IN DOLLARS 90 - VALUE IN DOLLARS 70 - 12000 vo VD 50 40 20 10 0 ALLENDALE AIKEN BARNWELL COLUMBIA RIOHOND COUNTIES ORNL-DWG 81-15229 FIGURE 9.9 VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS AND GROSS RENT IN SECONDARY STUDY AREA. 1970 RENT IN DOLLARS VALUE IN DOLLARS 100 20000 RENT IN DOLLARS VALUE IN DOLLARS 70 - V777m vo i 50 0000 ro 8000 30 - 10 - 2000 0 BURKE EDGEFIELD HAMPTON LEXINGTON ORANGEBURG SALUDA SCREVEN COUNTIES ORNL-DWG 81-15230 FIGURE 9.10 VALUES OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS IN SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS. 1970 DOLLARS ALLENDALE AUGUSTA BARWELL JACKSON N ELLENTON N AUGUSTA WILLISTON CITIES AND TOWNS 10-22 As Figures 9-8 and 9-9 show, the median gross rent in the primary and secondary study areas is highly correlated with the value of owner- occupied homes. Gross rent includes the cost of utilities as well as rent paid to the landlord (contract rent) and is used for consistency because contract rent may or may not include utility costs. Again, Scre- ven County had the lowest value, $44, and Columbia County the highest, $95. Rents in Aiken, Richmond, and Lexington Counties were relatively high, and those in Burke, Edgefield, and Hampton Counties were low, re- flecting the high and low demands for housing in these counties. Data for gross rent figures for some of the smaller towns was not available; therefore, no rental figures are presented. Current data on housing values have been obtained from some of the real estate companies in the primary area. A representative of the Augusta Realty Board estimates that the median price of a new home in southern Augusta is between $36,000 and $37,000, end the corresponding figure for 1 q western Augusta is $45,000. The realtor estimates that the median price of existing housing is about $2,000 less in both areas. These prices are much higher than the 1970 median value of $11,800 reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. These differences may be partly explained by inclusion of all homes by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, while the realtor figures are only for those homes that are for sale. Regardless, it is clear that prices have risen rapidly since 1970. A realtor in Barnwell indicates that the average price for homes in Barn- well County is about $40,000 and that contract rent in the county starts at about $185 per month for a one-bedroom apartment and $240 for a 4-bed- 20 room apartment. Mobile home space rentals (including trash, water, and sewage service) are about $40 per lot. Comparing these data with the 1970 Census figures Indicates that large increases have also been experi- enced in Barnwell since 1970. 9-23 9.3 VACANCY TRENDS AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS In 1970, the percentage of units lacking some plumbing facilities in the primary study area ranged from 4.8 percent in Richmond County to 38.3 percent in Allendale County (see Figures 9.11 and Table 9.1). The cor- responding figures in the secondary study area were 12.5 percent in Lex- ington County and 44.1 percent in Burke County (see Figures 9.12 and Table 9.2). In general, the percentages of units lacking plumbing were much lower in the counties comprising SMSA's than in other counties. The rates in Columbia and Aiken Counties that, along with Richmond County, make up the Augusta SM5A were 12.3 percent and 12.9 percent, respective- ly. The lowest rate in non-SMSA counties was 22.9 percent in Saluda Coun- ty. Inadequate plumbing is therefore predominantly a rural phenomenon. The percentage of units that were crowded (more than 1 person per room) 3 4 in 1970 was also lower in the metropolitan areas. ' Richmond, Aiken, and Columbia County figures were 10.0 percent, 10.8 percent, and 12.0 percent, respectively. The percentage in Lexington County in the Colum- bia SMSA, was 7.3 percent. In the remaining counties, the portion of the housing units considered crowded ranged from 12.2 percent in Saluda Coun- ty to 19.4 percent in Burke County. Crowding also seems to be concen- trated in the rural area. For the cities and towns included in the study, the 1970 percentages for vacancy, crowding, and inadequate plumbing are presented in Figure 3 4 9.13. North Augusta had the lowest percentages of housing units with crowding and inadequate plumbing (5.4 percent and 3.6 percent, respec- tively), while New Ellenton's housing stock had the highest percentage of crowding (12.4 percent), and Allendale had the highest percent with inad- equate plumbing (30.4 percent). While Barnwell had a rather high percent of units with inadequate plumbing, the remaining cities had low rates in both categories compared with the counties. ORNL-DWG 81-15231 FIGURE 9.11 PERCENTAGE VACANT. CROWDED. AND LACKING PLUMBING IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA. W70 PERCENTAGE 40 VACANT wm CROWED 30 - LACKING PLUMBING 20 - 10 - ALLENDALE AIKEN BAHERG BARNBELL COLUMBIA RIOMH) COUNTIES ORNL-DWG 81-15232 FIGURE 9.12 PERCENTAGE VACANT. CROWDED. AND LACKING PLUMBING IN THE SECONDARY STUDY AREA, 1970 PERCENTAGE 50 VACANT 45 mm 40 CROWDED 35 - 30 V0 I LACKING N> PLUMBING 25 VJ1 mm 20 15 10 5 0 BURKE EDGEFIELD HAMPTON LEX1NGM ORANGEBURG SALUDA SCREVEN COUNTIES . FIGURE 9.13 ORNL-DWG 81-15233 PERCENTAGE VACANT, CROWDED, AND LACKING PLUMBING IN SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS, 1970. PERCENTAGE 40 VACANT mm 30 CROWDED 7\/ / / LACKING / PLUMBING 20 / / V / / / v\ / / / / / * / 10 / / / r-i / R 5 V 71 x / H / X x / / / X / X 71/ / / V X 7i/ X / / X V X / / X / / X / X / X y / X / / X / / X / y / 0 X X / L k / L i .X L / AIKEN ALLENDALE AUGUSTA BARNWELL JACKSON H ELLENTON N AUGUSTA WLLISTON CITIES AND TOWNS 9-27 Figures 9.14, 9.15, and 9.16, which show trends in the vacancy r^ais since 1950 (based on data presented in Tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4). indi- cate that, in general, vacancy rates are decreasing in unincorporated areas and increasing in incorporated towns and cities. This corresponds to the general movement from central cities to the suburban/rural areas in the United States during the period. In 1970, the lowest vacancy rate was in Columbia County (3.8 percent). Of the five counties for which data are available for 1977, the lowest rate was in Allendale County with 4.0 percent. The vacancy rates in the towns and cities in 1950 ranged from 2.7 percent in Barnwell to 6.8 percent in Aiken. In 1970, the range was from 6.0 percent in Augusta to 11.0 percent in Jackson. This compares with a 1970 county range from 3.8 percent in Columbia County to 10.8 percent in Saluda County, the only county that experienced a large increase in vacancy rate during the period. Currently, about 100 to 150 units are for sale in Barnwell County, and 20 about 15 of these are vacant. Several contractors plan to build new housing developments, and it is anticipated that about 20 new homes will be buiIt. In Augusta, there is very little vacancy in the rental market, and units 19 are rented almost as soon as they are available. Although home sales have been slow during the last 5 months (January through May 1980), sales are beginning to increase again. In Allendale and Bamberg Counties, there has been little growth during the last 10-year period and very little new housing has been built. There is only one new subdivision in the City of Allendale2i , and prices in the subdivision range from about $50,000 to $65,000. Prices in other parts of the town range from $13,000 to $110,000. Currently, there are about 12 units for sale in Allendale and about 15 units for rent. The total number of residential units currently for sale in the City of Aiken and its vicinity is 269, and the average price of these units is ORNL-DWG 81-15234 FIGURE 9.14 VACANCY RATES IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA 1860-73 PERCENTAGE TEARS ORNL-DWG 81-15235 FIGURE 9.16 VACANCY RATES IN SECONDARY STUDY AREA. 1950-77 PERCENTAGE YEARS ORNL-DWG 81-15236 FIGURE 9.16 VACANCY RATES IN SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS 1950-70 PERCENTAGE 15 10 h V£> I VjO 5 H 1965 1950 1955 1960 1970 YEARS 9-31 22 $59,618. These figures are not directly comparable with the 1970 U.S. Bureau of the Census figure ($16,000) because the average is increased substantially if there are a few houses with very high values. However, the differences between current estimates and the 1970 figure indicate that prices have risen rapidly in the last decade. Aiken has enough rental housing to serve present needs, although vacancy rates are 9-32 9.4 HOTELS AND MOTELS Conversations with local Chambers of Commerce indicate that the highest concentration of hotels and motels Is In Augusta, which has 2748 rooms and accounts for the majority of the rooms in Richmond County.^ g Orangeburg County has 1037 rooms, and there are 141 rooms in Screven 9 10 County, 76 in North Augusta, and 407 in the rest of Aiken Coun- 26 27 ty. Also, Allendale County has about 500 rooms, Bamberg about 28 29 11 200 rooms, Barnwell about 34 rooms, J and Columbia has none. The 1980 vacancy rates In the counties range from 15 percent in Aiken County to 80 percent in Bamberg County. The rates in Barnwell, Richmond and Allendale are 33 percent, 35 percent and 49 percent, respectively. Thus, the approximate number of available rooms in the counties in 1980 was as follows: Columbia, 0; Barnwell, 11; Aiken, 71; Bamberg, 160; Allendale, 245; and Richmond, 962. 9-33 9.5 HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LABOR FORCE The size of the housing construction labor force in the area is a good indicator of whether enough new housing can be built to accommodate in- creases in demand. Table 9.7 presents data obtained from the South Caro- lina Labor Department for Planning, District 5, which includes Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun, and Orangeburg Counties. Esti- mated 1976 employment and projected employment for 1982 for 12 types of construction workers are included. The percentage increases, which are also included, vary from 25 percent for bulldozer operators to 100 per- 23 cent for plasterers, roofers, and tile setters. These increases suggest that the construction work force will be able to meet a rather large increase in demand for housing in South Carolina. Total employment in the construction industry is presented in Table 9.8 and Figures 9.17 and 9.18 for all the counties in the primary and secon- dary study area for the years 1973 through 1978. These data were ob- 25 tained from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. An examination of the figures reveals that Lexington County has experienced a rapid in- crease in recent years and that Barnwell County had a very large increase in 1974 followed by a rapid drop. Saluda, Burke, Screven, and Bamberg Counties have each had a rather constant, small construction labor force during the period. Although no general trend among the counties is evi- dent, the variability from year to year in such counties as Lexington, 8arnwell, and Richmond indicates that the work force is responsive to changes in demand. Table 9.7 1976 employment and 1982 projected employment for construction occupations in planning District 5, South .Carol ina3^ Estimated Projected employment employment Net Percent 1976 1982 change change Carpenters 840 1,170 330 39.3 Brickmasons and stonemasons 80 130 50 62.5 Bulldozer operators 40 50 10 25.0 Cement and concrete finishers 70 100 30 42.9 Electricians 310 440 130 41.9 Excavating, and grading machine operators 360 500 140 38.9 Painters, construction workers, maintenance workers 220 300 80 36.4 Plasterers (c) 10 10 100.0 Plumbers and pipefitters 310 430 120 38.7 Roofers 30 60 30 100.0 Structural steel workers 90 140 50 55.6 Tile setters 10 20 10 100.0 Total construction crafts workers 2,360 3,350 990 41.9 aSource; South Carolina Labor Department, Employment Security Division, Nonfarm Wage and Salary Employment by Occupation in Planning District 5, 1976 and Projected 1982", Columbia, S.C., undated. ! bPlanning District 5 includes Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Cal- houn and Orangeburg Counties. cLess than 10. 9-35 Table 9.8 Construction employment in the primary and secondary study areas, 1973 to 1978a 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 County Primary study area construction employment Aiken 1,172 1,561 1,105 1,017 1,338 1,731 Al1endale 106 80 (b) (b) (b) (b) Bamberg 137 166 178 115 132 113 Barnwel1 263 1,915 765 273 297, 356 Columb i a 447 436 355 407 507 582 Richmond 4,651 4,452 4,146 4,734 5,515 5,123 Secondary study area construction i employment Burke (b) (b) (b) 161 98 195 Edgef i eId 158 122 100 88 132 124 Hampton 286 210 160 186 241 301 Lexi ngton 3,092 2,935 2,362 2,309 3,387 3,822 Orangeburg 1,435 1,295 1,188 1,077 1,231 1,050 Saluda 147 134 102 105 147 180 Screven 57 103 98 55 101 110 aSource: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Employment by Type and Broad Industrial Sources, 1973-1978, Washington, D.C., April 1980. ^Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential data. ORNL-DWG 81-15237 FIGURE 9.17 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA. 1973-78. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES YEARS ORNL-DWG 81-15238 FIGURE 9.18 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT IN SECONDARY STUDY AREA, 1973-78. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES YEARS 9-38 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1950 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, Washington, D.C., 1952. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1960 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristrcs, Washington, D.C., 1962. 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, Washington, D.C., 1971. 4. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, initial Housing Element Up- date, Lower Savannah Region, 1978, Aiken, S.C., 1978. 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Housing Author- ized by Building Permit and Public Contracts, Construction Report C40, Washington, D.C., annually and monthly. 6. Stephen Carter S Associates, Lower Savannah Regional Mobile Home Study, 1976, Aiken, S.C., 1976. 7. Chamber of Commerce of Greater Augusta, Inc., Hotel/Motel and Con- vention Guide, Augusta, Ga., undated. 8. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and S. Adcock, Greater Orangeburg Chamber of Commerce, Orangeburg, S.C., May 14, 1980, 9. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation and R. Brantley, Screven County Chamber of Commerce, Sylvania, Ga., April 28, 1980. 10. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation and K. Strack, North Augusta Chamber of Commerce, North Augusta, S.C., May 14, 1980. 11. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and V. Allen, Chamber of Commerce of Greater Augusta, Ga., April 28, 1980. 12. Augusta-Richmond Planning Commission, Neighborhood Analysis, 1978, Augusta, Ga., 1978. 13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977. 14. Upper Savannah Council of Governments, Housing Implementation Plan, Edgefield County, Edgefield, S.C., 1978. 15. Upper Savannah Council of Governments, Housing Implementation Plan, Saluda County, 1978, Edgefield, S.C., 197^ 9-39 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9 (continued) 16. Upper Savannah Council of Governments, Housing Implementation Plan, Strategies for Government, Regional Plan, 1978, Edgefield, S.C., 1978. 17. Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council, Town of Williston. Initial Housing Elements, 1975, Aiken, S.C., 1975. 18. Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council, Town of Jackson. Initial Housing Elements, 1976, Aiken, S.C., 1976. 19. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation and G. Waters, President, Augusta Realty Board, Augusta, Ga., May 28, 1980. 20. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation and G. Suter, owner of Century 21 Real Estate Company, Barnwell, Ga., May 28, 1980. 21. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation and K. Myrick of Allendale Real Estate Agency, Allendale, S.C., May 29, 1980. 22. Personal communication between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation and R. Laird, President, The Laird Real Estate Agency, Aiken, S.C., May 29, 1980. 23. South Carolina Labor Department, Employment Security Division, Non- farm Wage and Salary Employment by Occupation in Planning District 5, South Carolina, 1976 and Projected 1982, Columbia, S.C., undated. 24. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, Washington, D.C., 1971. ^ 25. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Employment by Type and Broad Industrial Sources, 1973-1978, Washington, D.C., April 1980. 26. The Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce, Hotels and Motels in Aiken, Aiken, S.C. 27. Personal communication between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and G. Loadholt, Allendale-Hampton Industrial Development Commission, Allendale, S.C., December 10, 1980. 28. Persona ^coirmunication between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and W. Thompson^ Bamberg Chamber of Commerce, Bamberg, S.C., December 12, 1980. 9-40 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9 (continued) 29. Personal communication between R. Bronstein, NUS Corporation, and S. Lyons, Lyons Enterprises, Barnwell, S.C., December 12, 1980. 30. Stephen Carter and Associates, Lower Savannah Regional Mobile Home St udy, Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council, Aiken, S.C., April 1976. 31. Federal Home Loan Bank, Housing Vacancy, Sunny Augusta Georgia, South Carolina, Federal Home Loan Bank, Atlanta, Ga., April 1979. 32. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission and the Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council, Metropolitan Mobile Home Survey, Metropolitan Council of Government of Aiken and Richmond Counties, North Augusta, S.C., January 1976. 33. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Detailed Housing Characteristics, HC (1) B12 SA, Washington, D.C., 1972. 34. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and J. Jowers, Bamberg County Assessor's Office, Bamberg, S.C., December 20, 1980. 35. Personal communication between G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and L. Cone, Allendale County, Allendale, S.C., December 20, I98O. 36. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Analysis of the Augusta Georgia-South Carolina Housing Market As of January 1, 1979, Atlanta, Ga., April 30, 1980. 37. Personal communications between L. DiMento, NUS Corporation, and R. Laird, President, The Laird Real Estate Agency, Aiken, S.C., May 28, 1980. 38. Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development Planning, Martinez, Ga., 1979. 10-1 10. TRANSPORTATION Of the principal modes of transportation, the road and highway network within the study area Is the most pervasive and utilized. Roads and highways which experience the highest traffic volumes within the primary study area occur In and around the City of Augusta, particularly the bridges crossing the Savannah River. Roads and highways leading to the Savannah River Plant (SRP) from Augus- ta, Georgia, and Aiken, South Carolina, are multilane. Within the SRP, travel by non-SRP vehicles is limited. Other modes of transportation within the primary study area include rail- roads, waterborne commerce, and commercial and general aviation. These modes of transportation, along with roads and highways, are characterized in the following sections. 10-2 10.1 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS Roads and highways are the primary transportation arteries within the study area. The existing roads and highways are the primary means of travel to areas outside the study area, as well as between population centers and workplaces within the study area. 10.1.1 Orientation of roads and highways in the study area Within the 13-county study area there are portions of three major inter- • state highways: 20, 26, and 95. Interstate 20, which has its eastern terminus in Florence, South Carolina, extends westward through the cities of Columbia, South Carolina, and Augusta and Atlanta, Georgia. Within th'ie study area, Interstate 20 crosses the counties of Lexington and Aiken V in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond in Georgia. Interstate 26, which extends through only part of Lexington and Orangeburg Counties within the study area, has a northern terminus near Asheville, North Carolina, and runs in a southeasterly direction to its other terminus in Charleston, South Carolina. Interstate 95, which runs north to south across the entire continental eastern shore of the United States, passes through limited portions of Orangeburg and Hampton Counties, South Caro- 1 2 lina, within the study area. ' In addition to these interstate highways, the major U.S. highways within the study area include U.S. Highway 321, which traverses the entire study area from north to south through the counties of Lexington, Orangeburg, Bamberg, Allendale, and Hampton in South Carolina; U.S. Highway 301, which extends in a southwesterly to northwesterly direction through the counties of Orangeburg, Bamberg, Allendale, and Screven; U.S. Highway 78, which extends through the counties of Orangeburg, Bamberg, Barnwell, Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia; U.S. Highway 25, which extends through the study area in a north to south direction through the counties of Edge- field, Aiken, Richmond, and Burke; U.S. Highway 378, which runs in an 10-3 east to west direction from Columbia to and through Saluda, South Caro- lina; and other U.S. highways, including U.S. 1, 178, 601, 278, 221, and 21.1'2 In addition to the interstate highways the only other multilane U.S. highways are portions of U.S. 301, 1, 25 , 378 , 601, and 278. The major multilane state highways include S.C. 125, which extends from Augusta through SRP to Allendale; S.C. 19, from Aiken, South Carolina, to its intersection with U.S. Highway 278 north of SRP; S.C. 64, from SRP to Barnwell, South Carolina; and various state roads in and around the imme- 1 2 diate Augusta, Georgia area. ' 10.1.2 Roads and highways in the primary study area The roads and highways within the primary study area can be separated into two distinct groups: those that are a part of the Augusta urbanized area and are primarily used for intracity travel, and those outside the Augusta urbanized area that are mainly used for intercity and rural travel. 10.1.2.1 Augusta urbanized area roads and highways For transportation planning purposes, the Augusta urbanized area encom- passes the North Augusta area as well as approximately one-third of both Richmond and Columbia Counties. Pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962, transportation planning for the Augusta urbanized area began in 1964 and technical work for the Augusta Regional Transportation Study •3 (ARTS) began in 1965. The Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission is the designated metropolitan planning commission for transportation planning and, with the Georgia Department of Transportation and the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, is responsible for carrying out continuing transportation planning within the urbanized area. 3 10-11 An Initial highway plan for the urbanized area was completed and adopted in 1970; however, in 1974, due to inconsistencies in base yeai* and pro- jected data, as well as deviations in the rates of change of projected variables, an updating of the initial highway plan was initiated. As part of this updating, a description of the road system was prepared consisting of the- existing major streets and highways, and the probable short-range Improvements to the street and highway system. Using compu- ter simulation techniques, year 2000 vehicular trips were then projected onto this road system for the purpose of identifying deficiencies. As a result of this updating, 25.9 percent of the 934 miles of urban highways and streets were identified as having a traffic volume to street/highway capacity ratio of greater than 1.00, or below a "C" level of service ("C" level of service Is defined as a condition with a stable flow, high traffic volume, and restrictions on speed and lane changing). In addition, approximately 13.0 percent of the network was defined as having a volume-to-capacity ratio of over 1.30, or below a "D" level of service wherein traffic conditions are such that there is little Indepen- dence of speed selection and maneuverabi I i ty and the accident potential Is high.3 Conclusions reached from the analysis of the projected year 2000 traffic on the existing and probable highway network indicated that, if no changes to the highway system were made, major congestion problems would 3 be most severe along the following principal arterials: Washington Road Gordon Highway Fifteenth Street Jefferson Davis Highway All river crossings 10-5 10.1.2.2 South Carolina roads and highways in the primary study area The method by which roads and highways are organized into classes, or systems, according to the kind of service they provide is called "func- tional classification." Functional classification defines the nature that a particular road or highway serves in channelling a particular trip from its origin to its destination. Pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, which directed states to realign the Federal Aid systems along functional lines, the South Caro- lina State Highway Department has developed a rural functional classifi- cation system of highways that includes: o Principal Arterials (interstate) — major limited access highways with separated intersections, which are designed to carry large volumes of traffic. o Principal Arterials — all principal arterials not on the inter- state system, many of which are of multilane or freeway design. o Minor Arterials — roads and highways that link cities and large towns and, in conjunction with the principal arterial system, form an integrated network providing interstate and intercounty service. o Major Collectors — roads and highways that generally serve intra- county rather than statewide travel. Trips along these roads and highways generally involve shorter travel distances and lower If c speeds than arterials. ' Figure 10.1 displays the 1980 func :ional classification system for the roads and highways within the South Carolina primary study area counties of Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell. Table 10.1 summarizes by functional classification the number of miles of roads and highways with- in these counties. 10-11 Table 10.1 Summary of functional classification of roads and highways within the South Carolina portion of the primary study area5 Estimated number of miles Primary arterial Pr imary Minor Major County (i nterstate) arterial arterial col lector Aiken 38 46 116 312 Allendale 0 34 14 82 Bamberg 0 62 50 76 Barnwel1 0 16 76 92 aSource: South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg and Barnwell — Functional Classification Maps (4 maps), Columbia, S.C., various dates. 10-11 ft SCALE 10 16 =2J0 ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE 10.1 FUNCTIONAL HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SELECTED HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA \ _ RRY / LEGEND V FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS wmaamm INTERSTATE MMMMMMM PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL • MINOR ARTERIAL •• ™ — MAJOR COLLECTOR HIGHWAY ROUTES INTERSTATE £3 U.S. © STATE SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT . AREA , 10-9 10.1.3 Roads and highways within the Savannah River Plant Figure 10.2 depicts the Savannah River Plant road system. Access to SRP may be achieved via the following South Carolina state highways: S.C. 125 from Jackson to the north; S.C. 19 from New Ellenton on the north; S.C. 54 and 781 from the northeast via U.S. Highway 278 to S.C. 19; S.C. 39 on the northeast from Williston, S.C. 64 on the east from Barnwell; S.C. 125 on the south from Allendale; S.C. 5, which is not in use; and Route 19 or 278 to State Highway 62 to SRP Road "D" on the north via Green Pond Road. The roads leading from the SRP which are multilane include: S.C. 64 to Barnwell, S.C. 125 to Augusta, and S.C. 19 to Aiken.^ There are seven barricades that either restrict access to SRP employees only, or allow public through-traffic with a pass. These seven barri- cades include Gatehouse 2 on SRP Road A and S.C. 125, which allows access by employees and through-plant traffic; Barricade 2 on SRP Road 2, which restricts access to employees only; Barricade 3 on SRP road 8, which restricts access to employees only; Barricade 4 on SRP Road B, which restricts access to employees only; Gatehouse 6 on SRP Road A and S.C. 125, which allows access by through traffic and SRP employees; Barricade 6 on S.C 5, which is a construction barricade and was only utilized in the past for construction workers at SRP; and Barricade 7 on SRP Road D, which restricts access to employees only and is open from 7:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. on weekdays.^ On SRP itself, six roads are open to the public: U.S. Highway 278, which is patrol 1ed\and maintained by the State of South Carolina; S.C. 125, which is state patrolled; a 1/2-mile section of SRP Road 2, which allows access to either S.C. 125 or S.C. 19 and is state maintained and SRP patrolled; and three other roads within the immediate vicinity of the SRL administrative building, which are SRP patrolled and maintained. SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA FIGURE 10.2 SRP ROAD SYSTEM ••i ROADS NOT RESTRICTED TO EMPLOYEE USE ONLY ^ BARRICADES 1-7* 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 BUILDINGS SCALE IN MILES •NOTE: •BARRICADES NOT IN USE • CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE ON OLD HIGHWAY 28 • BARRICADE 7 OPEN 7:15 AM TO 4.-I5 PW. WEEKDAYS ONLY 10-11 Through a Deed of Easement and state enabling legislation that gave South Carolina the responsibility for maintenance of the S.C. 125 easement, including the two barricades, S.C. 125 was reopened to the public in July 1967. No pedestrians, bicycles, or horse-drawn vehicles are allowed on S.C. 125. S.C. 125 through SRP is classified by the South Carolina De- partment of State Highways as a major collector, and U.S. Highway 278 is classified as a minor arterial.^ 10.1.4 Traffic characteristics 10.1.4.1 Primary study area Figure 10.3 depicts the average daily traffic volumes for major roads within the primary study area for 1978, except for Aiken County for which only 1975 data was available. As the figure shows, the highest traffic volumes within the primary study area are associated with the Augusta urbanized area, wherein traffic volumes on selected roads and streets exceed 30,000 vehicles per day. Outside the Augusta urbanized area, the highest 1978 average daily traf- fic volumes are along the corridor between Augusta and Aiken, where the highest volumes are associated with U.S. Highways 1 and 78, and S.C. 19 south of Aiken. Roads and highways in the vicinity of SRP for 1978 aver- aged less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Those roads and highways within the vicinity of SRP that had 1978 average annual daily traffic volumes between 2000 to 10,000 vehicles included S.C. 1.9, S.C. 125, U.S. 278, U.S. 78, S.C. 64, and U.S. 301.7,8 /r \\ Table 10.2 lists the^average number of daily vehicles at selected perma- nent traffic recording stations and key stations in the primary study area. 10-11 Table 10.2 Selected key station and permanent traffic recorder data3 Average number Location Year of daily vehicles Aiken County, South Carolina Intersection of Routes 1, 78, and 421 w. of Aiken ' > U.S. Routes 1 and 78, E. to Aiken 1974 16,540 1978 18,417 U.S. Route 421, SW to Warrenville 1974 4,594 1978 7,v065 U.S. Routes 1 and 78, W. to Augusta 1974 11,946 1978 V.,325 Intersection of Routes 215 and 4, W. of Wagner S.C. Route 4 SE to Springfield 1974 1,382 1978 1,873 S.C. Route 215, NE to Wagner 1974 932 1978 1,281 S.C. Route 215, W. to Aiken 1974 2,275 1978 3,122 Allendale County, South Carolina Intersection of Routes 301 and 321 at Ulmers U.S. Route 321, S. to Fairfax 1974 1,8^ 1978 2,070 U.S. Routes 301 and 321, NE to Bamberg 1974 6,486 1978 5,964 U.S. Route 301, SW to Allendale 1974 4,582 1978 3,823 Barnwell County, South Carolina Intersection of Routes 278 and 300, S. of Barnwell U.S. Route 278, S. to Allendale 1974 2,062 1978 2,432 U.S. Route 278, N. to Barnwell 1974 2,668 1978 3,209 U.S. Route 300, SE to Ulmers 1974 535 < 1978 725 Richmond County, Georgia Walton Way between Mil ledge Rd. and'Johns Rd. East Bound 1975 2,880,959 1978 3,062,804 West Bound 1975 2,892,0^7 1978 3,194,313 aSources: South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Traff i c Sunwary for Calendar Year 1975. Columbia, S.C,, 1976. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Traffic Summary for Calendar Year 1978, Columbia, S.C., 1979. State Highway Department of Georgia, Annual Recapitulation of Permanent Traf- fic Recorder Data for 1975. Statlon-640-2319, Augusta, Ga., 1976. State Highway Department of Georgia, Annual Recapitulation of Permanent Traf- fic Recorder Data for 1978, Station-640-2319, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 10-15 10.1.4.2 Savannah River Plant From 1975 through 1979, the number of through trips on S.C. 125, as re- corded by time-stamped travel passes issued at the SRP barricades, aver- aged 706 per day. For the same period, the number of through vehicles rose from an annual average of 600 vehicles daily in 1975 to 790 vehicles daily in 1979.6 As shown in Table 10.3, there were a total of 8038 employees in 1980 working within specific areas of SRP.^ Assuming that approximately the same number of people were employed at SRP during 1979 and the average number of passengers per employee vehicle was three, the total number of employee vehicles entering and leaving the plant was approximately 5376 (2 x 2688). Combined with the total number of through trips, approxi- mately 6150 trips per day are associated with SRP. Based on the information presented in Table 10.3 and the percentage dis- tribution of SRP employees presented in Chapter 2, Figures 10.4 and 10.5 depict the departure points and destinations of all the Savannah River Plant employees within the primary study area as well as within the plant itself. Within SRP, there are five congested areas during the afternoon shift change of 4 to 5 p.m.: the F Area Entrance at Roads C and E; the con- struction shop entrance at Roads 5 and C; the clover leaf at Roads 2 and C; the intersection of SRP Roads 4 and E; and SRP Road 4 and the 200-H Entrance/Exit Road.^ Figure 10.6 depicts selected traffic counts for 1978 and 1979 at certain points within SRP. 10-11 Table 10.3 Number of Savannah River Plant (SRP) vehicles by place of destination3 Number of Estimated number SRP area employees in 1980 of vehicles in 1980b 100-P 3>Sb 118 100-K 357 116 100-C 392 131 200-F 1056 352 200-H 1501 500 300-M 350 130 A00-D 387 129 CS 473 158 700 2080° 693 773 962 321 USFS 25 8 TC 101 32 Total 8038 2688 aSource: Provided by Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations, to I. Samec, NUS Corporation, May 6, 1980. ^Estimated number of vehicles assumes three passengers per vehicle. clncludes 703 DOE, cafeteria, maintenance, and Savannah River Envi- ronmental Laboratory personnel. 10-11 NORTH - 44.7% Note: Dotted Radius Represents 50% of Woik Force ind is Shown as a Symbolic Reference. ft ORNL-DWG 81-15219 FIGURE 10.4 ORIGIN OF WORK TRIPS WITHIN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA LEGEND PERCENTAGE OF THE WORK FORCE ARRIVING FROM EACH DIRECTION KORTN - 44.7% SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PUNT AREA ORNL-DWG 81-15240 f SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA — N FIGURE 10.5 DESTINATIONS OF SRP WORK TRIPS 1470 VEHICLES SCALE IN Ml BUILDINGS 1975 ADT = 1975 ADT = ORNL-DWG 87-15247 2900VEHICLES 2500 VEHICLES OCTOBER, 1979 1975 ADT = 2300 VEHICLES / 5-DAY AV.= 1859 VEHICLES / / 7-DAY AV. = 1470 VEHICLES AUGUST, 7979 5-DAY AV.= 1247 VEHICLES 7-DAY AV. = 922 VEHIC SEPTEMBER, 1979 5-DAY AV.= 1853 VEHICLES 7-OAY AV. = 147SSJ/5HICLES ADT = U VEHICLES 5-DAY AV. = 1853 VOTICLES 7DAY AV. = 147&&3>HICLES a iftp ADT = 5l0 VEHICLES SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE O CHARACTERIZATION I OF TK NO3 SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA FIGURE 10.6 SELECTED TRAFFIC COUNTS IN THE SRP VICINITY 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 baa* SCALE IN MILES BUILDINGS 10-21 10.1.5 Existing highway deficiencies and limitations in the primary study area 10.1.5.1 Highway accidents Within the primary study area for 1979, Richmond County, Georgia, re- corded the highest number of total motor vehicle accidents as well as deaths and injuries due to motor vehicle accidents. Aiken County re- corded the second highest number of total accidents, deaths, and in- . • 9,10,11 \ juries. ' ' ;| Within Richmond County, 3° percent of all accidents and 30 percent of all injuries due to motor vehicle accidents in 1979 occurred within the City of Augusta. Within Aiken County, 47 percent of all motor vehicle acci- dents and 47 percent of the motor vehicle injuries in 1979 occurred with- in the urban areas of Aiken and North Augusta.^'10'11 Similar rankings were observed with respect to highway accidents when the total number of accidents and the total number of persons injured for each jurisdiction were divided by the estimated daily vehicle miles of travel. The City of Augusta and Richmond County had the highest rates of vehicular accidents per 1000 daily vehicle miles of travel, 4.6 and 4.5 respectively. The City of Aiken and the North Augusta urbanized area were third and fourth with rates of 3.6 and 3*3 accidents per 1000 daily vehicle miles of travel, respectively. Table 10.4 lists the deaths and injuries due to motor vehicle accidents in the primary study area by counties and selected jurisdictions. 10.1.5.2 Highway capacity deficiencies As described in Section 10.1.2.1, the results of the analyses conducted under the updated Augusta Regional Transportation Study identified ap- proximately 25.9 percent of the street and highway network in the Augusta 10-22 Table 10.4 Deaths and injuries due to motor vehicle accidents in the primary study area3 Rateb Rate'3 Total per Total Total per no. of 1000 no. of no. of 1000 County or City Year accidents DVMT deaths injured DVMT Georgi a Columbia County 1979 751 1.9 1 292 0.7 Richmond County 1979 8,279 4.5 36 2,207 1.2 City of Augusta 1979 3,149 4.6 4 660 1.0 South Carolina Aiken County 1977 2,548 (c) 32 524 (c) 1979 2,693 1.9 29 637 0.5 Aiken Urbanized Area 1979 727 3-6 2 170 0.9 N. Augusta Urbanized 1979 550 3.3 6 131 1.0 Area 1977 190 (c) 5 41 (c) Allendale County 1979 187 0.8 1 52 0.2 1977 382 (c) 6 58 (c) Bamberg County 1979 347 0.9 9 90 0.2 1977 316 (c) 2 55 (c) Barnwell County 1979 336 0.7 11 85 0.2 aSources: Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and D. Graves, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Ga., June 18, 1980. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and D. Bieghan, South Carolina Office of Highway Safety, Columbia, S.C., June 18, 1980. South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services, South Carolina Statistical Abstract, Columbia, S.C., 1979. i) bRate of accidents and of number of injured derived through the use of 1975 daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) per 1,000 persons for rural, small urban, and urban categories, as contained in the National Function- al System Mileage and Travel Summary from the 1976 National Highway Inven- tory and Performance Study. cData not available. 10-11 urbanized area in the year 2000 as being at a level of service wherein drivers would be restricted in their freedom to select speed, to change lanes, or to pass, and 13 percent of the network would be at a level of 3 severe congestion. Figure 10.7 depicts the results of this analysis conducted as part of the updated Augusta Regional Transportation Study, and presents motor vehicle volumes for the year 2000 in relation to the 1975 existing and probable network capacity. With respect to roads and highways outside the Augusta urbanized area and within the primary study area, the Georgia Department of Transportation and the South Carolina State Department of Highways are responsible for the identification of major deficiencies. Once deficiencies are identi- fied, a 5-year (Georgia) or a 6-year (South Carolina) improvement program is developed; the program includes a listing of projects that is priori- tized for need and available funding. Section 10.1.6 of this document presents elements of these improvement programs. 10.1.6 Planned improvements to the road highway system in the primary study area Major road improvements within the primary study area may be grouped into two distinct categories: those associated with the Augusta urbanized area, which are identified through the Augusta regional transportation planning process and approved by the respective state highway agencies, and South Carolina primary road improvements. Table 10.5 lists the proposed transportation improvement program for fiscal years 1981 through 1985 for the Augusta urbanized area, and Table 10.6 summarizes the proposed primary road improvements in the South Carolina primary study area counties. Because of rising construction costs and the uncertainty of funding, the projects identified in Tables 10-11 SCALE 1 a o i ORNL-DWG 81-15242 FIGURE 10.7 AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO 1975 CAPACITY RATIOS J fLEGEND > ARTS YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO 1975 CAPACITY RATIOS .751 TQ 1.000 " 1.001 TO 1.300 1.301 TO 0.988 \\ AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 10-27 Table 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional TransportationStudy 3(continued) Project Proposed improvement Total cost 1-20 Reconstruct interchange at v Washington Road $550,000 1-20 .Reconstruct rest area building 62 and 63 in Columbia County 400,000 i -20 Construct truck weigh stations in Columbia County 1,940,000 15th Street Construct b-lane arterial from John C. Calhoun Expressway to Savannah River 1,889,000 Ga. 28 Construct bridge at Savannah River in Columbia County 1 ,620,000* John C. Calhoun Construct 4-1ane connector ( Expressway from 15th St. to Greene St. (jointly funded with South Carolina) 9,723,000 Highland Avenue ' Widen to 4 lanes from Gordon High- way to Central Ave. 910,985 Murray Road Construct jfk-] ane controlled access facility, Reynolds St., to Wishingtcn^Rd. '14,749,000 Berckman Road Widen to 4 lanes, Wheeler Rd. to \|ashington Rd. //,•495, 000 (I 15th Street Construct 6-lane bridge across Savannah River 6,700,000 Reed Creek Road Construct 2-lane facility from Stevens Creek Rd. to Washington Rd. 2,918,000 Milledgevi11e Road Widen to 5 lanes, 15th St. to Deans Bridge Rd. 970,850 1-520 Stage 2, interchange at Wheeler Rd. 1,468,000 Deans Bridge Road Widen to 5 lanes, Mi 11edgevi1le Rd. to Ft. Gordon Highway 1,006,150 Note: See footnote at end of table. 10-28 Table 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional Transportation Study3 (continued) Project Proposed improvement Total cost Washington Road Widen to 7 lanes, John C. Calhoun Expressway to 1-20 1 ,178,000 Davis Road Widen to 3 or 4 lanes, Wash- ington Rd. to Pleasant Home Rd. 500,000 15th Street Bridge Construct 6-lane bridge and connector from 15th St. to Bluff Ave. 8,533,000 Bobby Jones Expressway Construct 2/4-lane express- way from Savannah River to U.S. 25 14,552,798 Martintown Road Widen to 5 lanes, Georgia Avenue to Southern Railway overpass 712,000 Martintown Road Widen to 5 lanes, Southern Rail- way overpass to urbanized area boundary 522,000 Martintown Road Widen to 5 lanes, urbanized area •V boundary to 1-20 845,000 Milledgevi1le Road (TSM) Reconstruct bridge at Rocky Creek 200,000 Section 5(c) (TSM) Purchase 11 new, 35-foot diesel buses, per schedule 1,375,000, Section 5(c) (TSM) Purchase 35-passenger shelters, per schedu.le 122,500 Section l6B(c) (TSM) Purchase six 16-passenger mini- buses, per schedule 195,384 1-520 From 1-20 to New Savannah (Bobby Jones Expressway) Rd. (signs and traffic signals) 350,000 01ive Road Widen to 4 lanes, Ft. Gordon Highway to Central Ave. 4,079,794 Old Evans Road (TSM) Relocate 2-lane section, Georgia Railroad to Washington Rd. 276,100 Note: See footnote at end of table. 10-29 Table 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional Transportation Study3 (continued) Project Proposed improvement Total cost Ft. Gordon Highway Widen to 6 lanes, Dan Bowles Rd. to Mi 1ledgevi1le Rd. 3 ,720,200 Ft. Gordon Highway Widen to 6 lanes, Dan Bowles Rd., to Walton Way 10 ,578,000 Highway 56 Loop Relocate section to allow ex- pansion of Bush Field Rd. runway 857,760 Belair Road (TSM) New 2-lane connector from Wash- ington Rd. to Evans/Locks Rd. 350,000 . A'\ Columblia Nitrogen Construct overpass over the Dr i ve Seaboard Coast line Railroad 1 ,100,000 1-20 Lighting at rest area 64 5,000 New Road Construct new road along Georgia Railroad, from Old Evans Rd. to Baston Rd. 1 ,500,000 Old Belair Road Provide link from Columbia Rd. to Hereford Farm Rd. 1 ,500,000 Columbia Road Widen to 5 lanes from Washington Rd. to Reed Creek 3 ,500,000 U.S. 1 Resurface from study area boundary to Georgia state line 550,000 Richmond Hill Road Turn lanes and signal modification (TSM) at Lumpkin Rd. 65,000 Deans Bridge Road Channelization and signalizaton at (TSM) Mi 1ledgevilie Rd. 55,000 Pleasant Home Road Left-turn lanes and signalization (TSM) at Skinner Mill Rd. 40,000 Deans Bridge Road' Signalization and left-turn lanes (TSM) at Glenn Hills Dr. 15,000 Wrightsboro Road (TSM) Signalization at 12th St. 15,000 Note: See footnote at end of table. 10-30 Table 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional Transportation Study3 (continued) Project Proposed improvement Total Milledgevi11e Road Signa1ization and channelization (TSM) at Tubman Home Rd. 45 ,000 Highland Avenue (TSM) Channelization and signal modifi- cation at Central Ave. 20 ,000 Walton Way (TSM) Turn lanes and signal modification at Highland Ave. 75 ,000 Be lair Road (TSM) Realignment of Wrightsboro Rd. i ntersect i on 30 ,000 Belair Road (TSM) Channelization at Oakley Pirkle Rd. 20 ,000 Belair Road (TSM) Channelization at Owens 20 ,000 Evans to Locks- Road Redesign intersection at Ga. High- (TSM) way 28 30 ,000 Lumpkin Road (TSM) Intersection improvements at Wells Dr. and the Augusta Tech Access Rd. 75 ,000 01ive Road (TSM) Protect westbound left-turn lane from Olive Rd. at Mi11edgevi11e 5 ,000 East Boundary (TSM) Signalize intersection at Broad St. 10 ,000 Richmond Hill Road Widening and signal modification (TSM) at Windsor Sp. Rd. 20 ,000 Deans Bridge Road Geometric and signal modification (TSM) at Meadowbrook Rd. 100 ,000 Walton Way (TSM) Add through lanes on north and west approaches at 13th. St. 40 ,000 Sunset Avenue (TSM) Eliminate offset at 15th St. 50 ,000 Gordon Highway (TSM) Signal modification and add left- turn lanes at Walton Way 50 ,000 Richmond Hill Road Remove abandoned bldg., which re- (TSM) stricts sight distance at Bung- alow Rd. 10 ,000 Note: See footnote at end of table. 10-31 Table 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional Transportation Study3 (continued) Project Proposed improvement Total cost Mi 11edgevi1le Road Expand signal system 40,000 (TSM) Walton Way (TSM) Expand signal system, Fleming to Monte Sano 12,000 State Route 56 (TSM) From Burke County to Spirit Creek (resurfacing) 242,000 State Route 21 (TSM) From Burke County line to Lumpkin Rd. (resurfacing) 595,000 Walton Way (TSM) Expand signal system from Heard to D^uid Park 12,000 Wrightsboro Road (TSM) Install reversible lane signal system 450,000 Various locations 1ntersectionsrind safety improvements 250,000 Various iocatiotis (|SM) Install street lights 580,000 Various location'; finM) Install permanent count stations 40,000 Various locations (|5H) Resurfacing and maintenance., improvements 250,000 Various locations (TSM) BrlflflP llHPI Mvement and replace- ment 250,000 Various localjOllS (jsM) !!|M| Ml" Nl Hill! I'lMHtiel lotion \ i iuw l c«,uui > 50,000 Old Petersen) ftqHfl 888 h^fl Mglif-of-wtiv h Hlhvh (TSM) 8 Mil cp|irT|p|: 5,OOP HightoWer St|-^t (fsH) n Hga Httdrl l-hlifc-al'-way tu tilUvl- •w hi! ponfllot 5,000 Kuhlke Drive (T^H) Cjose Road pjght-of-Way to allevi- gte ha 11 conflict 5,000 Old Evans Road (TSM) Construct overpass over Seaboard C Coast line Railroad track 500,000 Note: See footnote at end of table. 10-32 Table 10.5 Transportation improvement program, FY 1981-1985, Augusta Regional Transportation Study9 (continued) Proposed improvement Total cost Baston Road (TSM) Construct overpass over Seaboard Coast line Railroad track 500, 000 Cox Road (TSM) Realign intersecton at Gibbs Rd. and Hereford Farm Rd. 25, 000 Peach Orchard Rd. Prohibit left turn from circular (TSM) dr i ve ^ 000 Gordon Highway (TSM) Protect northbound left-turn lane at Wheel ess Rd. 5, 000 Tubman Home Road (TSM) Signal modificaton at Highway 56 and Peach Orchard Rd. 5, 000 Laney-Walker Boulevard Provide left-turn lanes and signal ' ( (TSM) mod i f i cat i on 10, 000 Gordon Highway (TSM) Signal modification at Old Savannah Rd. and 01ive Rd. 25, 000 Bobby Jones Expressway Signal modification, warning lights (TSM) at Scott Nixon Rd. 10, 000 Wheeler Road (TSM) Channelization at Flowing Wells Rd. 5, 000 Wheeler Road (TSM) Channelization at Belair Rd. 5, 000 Var ious locations Signal Modification 40, 000 (TSM) Sec t i on 5(o) (TSM) Operating assistance 6,926,300 Section 5(c) (TSM) Signal preemption equipment 80, 000 Secti on 5(o) (TSM) Paratransit services for handicapped 125, 000 aSource: Georgia Department of Transportation, Transportation Improvement Pro- gram FY 81-85, Augusta Regional Transportaton Study, Atlanta, Ga., 10-11 Table 10.6 South Carolina priority 1 and 2 primary road improvements within the primary study area3 Aiken County 1. Route 1, from Road 26 to 1-20 with section from S190W to east side of Shaw Creek, to be expanded to 4 lanes (100$ of row acquired); Shaw Creek to 1-20 to be expanded to 4 lanes (row in process of being acquired). 2. Section of Route 1, west of Aiken to Georgia State line, to be resur- faced by early 1981 (3R Project). 3. Western connector from S.C. 109 to Route 1 west of Aiken. Bamberg County 1. Improvement of 9/10 mile section of U.S. 78 from 1 block West of 321 easterly to town limits (multilane project) in Denmark. 2. Reconstruction and vertical alignment of S.C. 70 from U.S. 321 in Den- mark northeasterly to Bamberg County line. Barnwell County 1. Proposed bypass northeast of Barnwell connecting routes 37 to 65 (cur- rently in corridor environmental/assessment stage). 2. Intersectioh^improvement on U.S. 78 in Elko. ~ 3. Resurfacing and widening to 24 feet of S.C. 3 from Blackville north to Barnwell County line. '' (j aSource: See reference 12. 10-34 10.5 and 10.6 should be viewed as "programmed" as opposed to "commit- ted." Each year the respective state highway agencies evaluate proposed highway projects as to their priority and available funding. In certain instances, such as primary versus secondary road improvements, differing funding streams limit the number of improvements which may be made on certain "classified" roads or highways. Thus, although the tables pre- sented are indicative of the improvements to be made within the primary study area, it is not certain that a given project not already under way may be constructed, or that the priority of a given project that has been programmed may not change. Figure 10.3 depicts the Augusta Regional Transportation Study Annual Element Projects for fiscal year 1$81. In addition to these projects, several additional road/highway and local street improvements have been identified as part of local comprehensive planning programs. With the exception of local street improvements and secondary road improvements, these other projects are either reflected in Tables 10.5 and 10.6 'or do not have a sufficiently high priority at this time to warrant inclusion in the state priority listing. 10-11 ORNL-DWG 81-15242 FIGURE 10.8 AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY ANNUAL ROAD STREET PROJECTS FOR FY 1981 LEGEND AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA BOUNDARY FY 19B1 IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT Ruam ROAD/STHEET IMPROVEMENT SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT i # •i 8 10-11 10.2 RAILROADS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA 10.2.1 Location of trackage and facilities The primary study area is currently served by three railroads: the Geor- gia Railroad, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, and the Southern Railway System. The Georgia Railroad main line track extends from the Harrisonvi 1 le yard in Augusta, westward to Atlanta, Georgia. The main line track from Au- gusta to Decatur, Georgia, is a single-track system, and passes through only Richmond and Columbia Counties within the primary study area. The Harrisonvi 11 e yard, which is located in the southern part of the City of Augusta, provides all major yard functions and serv/ices. During March of 1977j the Harrisonville yard handled over 22,7^8 cars, averaging 735 cars per day. Industrial service within the Augusts area is provided on the Georgia main line track to a point approximately 5 miles west of the yard to the Belt Line industries, and to the Savannah River Terminal indus- tries. The Georgia Railroad also provides freight service for Fort Gor- The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad maintains four main line tracks within the primary study area,, all of which are single-track systems. The first of these four main line tracks extends from Columbia, South Carolina, to Savannah, Georgia, and passes through Denmark in Bamberg County, and Fairfax in Allendale County within the primary study area.^ The second Seaboard Coast Line main line track that is within the study area extends from the southwestern portion of SRP to the east through the City of Barnwell in Barnwell County and the town of Denmark in Bamberg County. Railroad service to SRP is provided by this Seaboard Coast Line track. •/ The third Seaboard Coast Line track within the primary study, area extends from the town of Spartanburg in Greenville County, South Carolina, through 10-38 the primary study area to Port Royal, South Carolina. This third track intersects with the Seaboard Coast Line track within the boundaries of SRP. The track extends northward from SRP across the Savannah River into Augusta, Georgia, to the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad yard. During March 1977, the Seaboard Coast Line yard in Augusta handled an average of 1643 cars per day. Industrial service along the northern portion of this third track system includes service to industrial areas in Augusta, the Kimberly Clark area south of Beech Island, the Columbia Nitrogen complex, and the downtown Augusta business district and Savannah River Terminal industries. From SRP southward, this third Seaboard Coast Line Railroad track passes through Allendale and Fairfax in Allendale County. The fourth Seaboard Coast Line track that is within the primary study area extends from Ehrhardt in Bamberg County to Green Pond in Colleton 1 £ County, South Carolina. In addition to the Georgia and Seaboard Coast Line Railroads, the South- ern Railway System maintains three main line tracks, all of which are single-track systems. The first of these three single-track systems extends from Furman in Hampton County, South Carolina, northward to Co- lumbia, South Carolina, passing through Allendale, Barnwell, and Black- vine within the primary study area. The second Southern Railway System track extends from Edgefield, South Carolina, to Charleston, South Caro- lina, and passes through the cities and towns of Aiken, Blackville, and Denmark within the primary study area. The third Southern Railway track n extends from Columbia, South Carolina,, through Augusta and McBean, Geor- 15 16 gia, to Savannah, Georgia, roughly paralleling the Savannah River. ' In the Augusta area, the Southern Railway System operates two railroad yard facilities, the Nixon yard which is an industrial yard, and the main classificaton yard in Augusta located south of Laney-Walker Boulevard. During March 1977, the main classification yard handled an average of 1216 cars plr day.12* 10-39 10.2.2 Rail facilities within the immediate vicinity of the Savannah River Plant Within SRP and its immediate vicinity there are two main line tracks, both of which are owned and maintained by the Seaboard Coast Line Rail- road. In addition to these two main line tracks, the Savannah River Plant operates and maintains its own railroad system for providing direct rail service to various areas within SRP.^ The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks, which extend through the Savan- nah River Plant, enter the plant at three places: Gate 2 on the west side of the plant between the Jackson Barricade and the Savannah River adjacent to the Sumter National Forest; near Gate 25 on the south side of the plant between the Allendale Barricade and the Savannah River; and on the east side of the plant near Gate 19 just south of the Barnwell Barri- cade. The Seaboard Coast Line tracks that extend into the Savannah River Plant from these entrance points form a "Y" within the southern part of, the plant..,, In addition, another "Y" is formed by the intersection of the Seaboard Coast Line track, which enters the plant from the east, with the railroad track running to the Savannah River Plant railroad yard. From this railroad yard, the Savannah River Plant railroad system provides rail service to all areas within the plant except the ^00-D area.^ The Seaboard Coast Line Raiiroad track, which enters the Savannah River Plant from the east, extends eastward to Florence, South Carolina, pass- ing through Barnwell, South Carolina, and roughly paralleling State High- way 64 yon the south. From the Savannah River Plant to Barnwell, all rail and road or highway crossings are at grade.^ The other Seaboard Coast Line Railroad track, which passes through the Savannah River Plant from Gate 2 on the west to between Gates 24 and 25 on the south, roughly parallels State Highway 125 and extends from Au- gusta, Georgia, north of the plant to south of Allendale within the pri- iS mary study area. All rail and secondary road intersections from the 10-40 plant north to the Savannah River are at-grade intersect ions. From the plant southward to Allendale, all rail and secondary road intersections are at-grade intersections, and one overhead pass over State Highway 125 is utilized pear Martin, South Carolina, northwest of Allendale.17 With respect to track usage within the immediate vicinity of the Savannah River Plant, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad reports that there are a total of ten trains per day that pass through the Savannah River Plant. Of these ten trains, four (two going and coming) travel between Augusta, Georgia, and Florence, South Carolina; four (two going and coming) travel between Augusta, Georgia, and Savannah, Georgia; and two (one coming and going) travel between Augusta, Georgia, and Port Royal, South Carolina. Of these ten trains, only two (one going and coming) provide service to SRP. Approximately 98 percent of the rail cargo to SRP consists of coal, with the remaining percentage mainly consisting of heavy equipment. Cargo shipped on trains passing through SRP consists of highly diverse products 18 and varies according to each shipment. 10.2.3 Rail improvements and abandonments Under the 1976 amendments to the Federal Aid Highway Act, the Augusta, Georgia, area was designated as an area for a railroad demonstration project. This demonstration project, which seeks to improve the existing railroad, community, and overall transportation network interfaces, is being conducted in three phases: (1) identification of options for pro- viding rail system improvements and preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement; (2) preparation of right-of-way plans and construction plans, specifications, and contract documents; and (3) ac- quisition of right-of-way and actual construction. The project, which is being developed by the Georgia Department of Transportation, encompasses the entire metropolitan area, including Richmond and parts of Columbia County, the City of North Augusta, th14e unincorporated community of Beech Island, and segments of Aiken County. 10-41 In November 1978, the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was prepared for the Augusta Railroad Demonstration Project by thn Federal Highway Administration, Region IV, and the Georgia Department of Trans- portation. As part of the DEIS, several alternatives were evaluated with respect to their environmental impact and improvement of the overall transportation network pattern. Based on the DEIS, several alternatives were selected, and an environmental impact statement and field surveys are currently being conducted. These selected alternatives, as identl- 19 fied by the Georgia Department of Transportation, include: 1. Southern main line from Tobacco ;Road to the Southern line in South Carolina 2. Southern rail yard (north of Bush Field) 3. Georgia Railroad from 15th Street to the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 4. Georgia Railroad separation at Highland Avenue 5. Georgia Railroad separation at Kissingbower Road 6. Georgia Railroad separation at Olive Avenue 7. Georgia Railroad separation at 15th Street 8. Seaboard Coast Line from the existing Seaboard Coast Line in South Carolina south of Beech Island to the existing Sea- board Coast Line Railroad track north of Hawks Gully 9. Seaboard \Coast Line Railroad yard (south of Columbia Nitro- gen) 10-42 Figure 10.9 displays the existing rail system within the primary study area, and Figure 10.10 displays the existing rail system and selected alternatives associated with the Augusta Railroad Demonstration Project. I 10-43 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-75219 FIGURE 10.9 RAILROADS IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA »»¥ / LEGEND V RMLMAD UNE \ I SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 10-45 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-15243 FIGURE 10.10 AUGUSTA RAILROAD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SELECTED ALTERNATIVES LEGEND IMPROVEMENTS SOUTHERN RAILWAY n 1 TOBACCO ROAD TO SOUTHERN LINE IN S.C. J/ [T]RAIL YARD GEORGIA RAILROAD HB3 15TH STREETSCL LINE (4) HIGHLAND AVE. SEPARATION (]$) KISSING BOWER ROAD SEPARATION (t) OLIVE AVE. SEPARATION (7) 15TH STREET SEPARATION SEABOARO COAST LINE H8 SCL LINE IN SC TO SCL LINE NORTH OF HAWKS GULLY (ITj RAIL YARO TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT NEW TRACK CORRIDOR | [ NEW YARD LOCATION Q GRADE SEPARATION SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 10-47 10.3 AIRPORTS AND FACILITIES 10.3.1 Location and type of facilities I • i Both the Augusta, Georgia, and Columbia, South Carolina, areas are desig- nated as small air traffic hubs (i.e., communities emplaning from 0.5 to 0.24 percent of the total emplaned passengers in all services and all 20 operations) by the Federal Aviation Administration. Bush Field in Augusta and the Columbia Metropolitan Airport are the only airports with- in the study area which provide scheduled air passenger services. For the 12-month period ending June 30, 1977, Bush Field had a total emplanement of 176,878 passengers on three domestic airline carriers, and a total enplanement of 1046 tons of cargo and mail. For the same period, Columbia Metropolitan Airport had a total emplanement of 377,844 passen- gers on four domestic and international airline carriers, and a total 20 emplanement of 2600 tons of cargo. Currently two scheduled commercial airlines and two commuter airlines serve the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, and Bush Field is served by one commercial airline and one communter airline. In addition to Bush Field in Augusta and the Columbia Metropolitan Air- port, other airports and aviation facilities within the primary study area are described by location and type of facility in Table 10.7. 10.3.2 Restricted air space Within the primary study area, there are two areas designated as "re- stricted" air space areas, in which the operation of aircraft between designated altitudes and at designated times is prohibited. These two restricted air spaces are associated with Fort Gordon and encompass the entire military installation. One of these restrictions applies to air- craft below an altitude of 4000 feet, while the other restriction applies 21 to aircraft below an altitude of 17,000 feet. 10-48 Table 10.7 Aviation facilities within the primary study area3 State, county, and city Name of fac i1i ty TYPe Georgia Columbia County North of Grovetown Flying J Private Richmond county Augusta Bush Field Commercial £ general aviation Augusta Daniel Field General aviation Northeast of Blythe Patterson Bridge Private South Carolina Aiken County Aiken Aiken Municipal Airport General aviation Allendale County AI lendale Allendale County Airport General aviation AI1endale Sugar Hill Private North of Allendale Walker Private r // Bamberg County Bamberg Carl isle Airport General aviation (municipally owned) Barnwell County Barnwe,11 Barnwell County Airport General aviation aSourc 10.4 WATER TRANSPORTATION Under the River and Harbor Act of 1950, authorization was received for the construction of a channel 9 feet deep and 90 feet wide on the Savan- nah River from the upper end of Savannah Harbor to the head of navigation at Augusta, approximately 3 miles above Fifth Street in Augusta, for a total distance of 180.2 miles. Construction of the authorized channel was begun in July 1958 and completed in July 1965. Two upstream reser- voirs, CI arks Hill and Hartwell, in conjunction with certain channel im- provements, ensure minimum flow requirements. As part of the overall project, a lock and dam below Augusta at New Savannah Bluff was in- cluded. The original lock and dam was completed in 1937 to aid naviga- tion when there was only a 6-feet-deep channel for the inland waterway on 22 the Savannah River between Savannah and Augusta. Under a recent Savannah River Basin study to consider the advisability of revising the existing general plan for full development of the water resources within the Savannah River Basin, the feasibility of a 12-feet- 22- deep channel is being investigated. The annual average waterborne traffic for the 5-year period (1971-1975) along the Savannah River was 50,000 tons. The principal products that moved over the present channel were petroleum, concrete pipe, and some 23 minerals. For 1976, the total tonnage of materials and products transported on the Savannah River below Augusta was 111,213 and included: 1290 tons of crude tar, oil, and gas products; 2604 tons of distillate fuel oil, 100,154 tons of miscellaneous nonmetalli23 c mineral products; and 60 tons of fabricated metal products. Since 1976 the commercial waterborne traffic has declined because of failure to maintain a 3-m channel in the river. 10-50 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 1. Georgia Department of Transportation, Georgia Official Highway Map, Atlanta, Ga., 1979. 2. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, South Carolina 1980 Map — Primary Highway System, Columbia, S.C., 3. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, Augusta Regional Trans- portation Study Year 2000 Street and Highway Plan Documentation, Augusta, Ga., April 197^. b. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan Update, Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., April 1978. 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Functional System Mileage and Travel Summary from the 1976 National Highway Inventory and Per- formance Study, Washington, D.C., June 1977. 6. Provided by Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations, to I. Samec, NUS Corporation, May 6, 1980. 7. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Average Daily Traffic Volume Maps; Aiken (1975), Allendale (1978), Bamberg (1978), Barnwell (1978), Columbia, S.C. 8. Georgia Department of Transportation, Statewide 1978 Average Daily Traffic Volume Map, Atlanta, Ga., 1979. 9. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and D. Graves, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Ga., June 18, 1980. 10. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and D. Bieghan, South Carolina Office of Highway Safety, Columbia, S.C., June 18, 1980. 11. South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services, South Carolina Statistical Abstract, Columbia, S.C., 1979- 12. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and J. Bryce, South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transporta- tion, Columbia, S.C., April 7, 1980. 13. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Secondary Road Improvement Projects for Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties, Columbia, S.C., 1980. 10-51 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 (continued) 14. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminstration Region Four, Draft Environmental Impact Statement — Augusta-Richmond Demonstration Project, FHWA-GA-EIS-78-02-2, Atlanta, Ga., November 15, 1978. 15- U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Transportation Hap of Georgia, Washington, D.C., 1975. 16. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Transportation Map of South Carolina, Washington, D.C., 1975. 17. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, General Highway Maps for Aiken County (July 1979), Allendale County (July 1978), Bamberg County (October 1978), Barnwell County (April 1977), Columbia, S.C. 18. Personal communication between I. Samec, NUS Corporation, and Busi- ness Manager, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Augusta, Ga., June 3, 1980. 19. Transmittal of data from R. L. Alston, State Location Engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Ga., May 9, 1980. 20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers, 12 Months Ended June 30, 1977, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1977ir y. 21. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration, Atlanta Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 25th edition, Washington, D.C., October 2, 1980. 22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Water Re- sources Development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., March 1977. 23. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1976, Vicksburg, Miss., 1977. 11-2 11.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDYjAREA Prehistoric man first appeared in the study area about 10,000 to 12,000 1 years ago. These people, now referred to as American Indians, went through a long period of cultural evolution, with each period having a characteristic settlement pattern and culture. Archaic-type cultures first appeared around 8000-7000 B.C.1 This cul- ture represented an evolution from the large-herd-dependent nomadic hunter of the Paleo-lndian period. The archaic culture was characterized first by a slow transition to reliance on isolated big game (elk, deer), then on smaller game, wild plant collection, and fishing. During this time there was also a shift in primary settlement preferences from swamps 2 to rivershore areas. The earliest archeological findings in the study area are from shell heaps on islands in the Savannah River northwest of Augusta.1 The Burial Mound period, beginning around 1000 B.C., was a time of tran- sition from archaic traditions to those of the Woodland culture.1 Dur- ing this period (1000 B.C.-700 A.D.) there was a gradual change in the subsistence systems and a continued shift in settlement patterns, with a 2 trend toward an increased sedentary life. During the Burial Mound period, numerous mounds were constructed in what are now the Counties of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale, South Carolina.1 The Temple Mound period (700-1700 A.D.) saw the introduction and spread of Mississippi cultural traditions into the Eastern Woodland culture. The Mississippi culture represented an increased dependence on an agri- cultural subsistence base and a highly nucleated chieftain society. While burial mounds were the hallmark of the Woodland culture, truncated, 'ipyramidal mounds with temples on the top were characteristic of the Mis- sissippian period. Sites from these periods are located all along the Savannah River. The Steele Creek Landing Site and the Lawton Field Site are both important mound sites in the study area.1 11-3 The white man first explored this region during the later phases of the Temple Mound Period. In 1539, Hernando DeSoto led an expedition from Florida, which reached the vicinity of the Savannah River sometime in 1540. Although the region's first explorer was Spanish, both the English and French had claims in the area, and for many years there was a continuing struggle for control, especially between the Spanish and Eng- lish. England eventually became the dominant force in the settlement of the Atlantic Coast, although some period of time elapsed before the re- gion's interior areas were settled. The first European colonists settled in the study area toward the end of the 17th century, establishing an Indian trading post on the Savannah 1 River near Beech Island. Around 1715, Fort Moore was built at this point on the South Carolina side of the river. The presence of the fort se- cured the region for additional settlement, and more settlers began moving in.* In a few years, another settlement was established just upstream from Fort Moore on the Georgia side of the river and soon over- shadowed the ear 1ier-developed site downstream. The frontier settlement owed its importance to the fact that the Savannah River was not easily navigable above the rapids at the fall line. This settlement soon grew into a major trading community, with official recog- nition by Governor Oglethorpe in 1736. At that time, he named it Augusta in honor of his wife. At about this same time, George Galphin was es- tablishing a trading post to the east of Beech Island in Aiken County.^ The Revolutionary War period was a time of great confusion and conflict in the region. In addition to many battles and skirmishes between the British and the patriots, there were numerous conflicts between patriots and loyalists.* During this period, control of Augusta alternated between both sides and, by the end of hostilities, only 10 houses were reported standing in the town.^ 11-4 After the Revolution, the area began to grow and prosper. Soldiers, paid for their service with land grants, came to Georgia in increasing num- bers.^ Augusta began to boom with the expansion of the cotton and tobacco economy, and by 1820 the expanding city was a terminus for river traffic and wagon trails. In 1833, a rail line was completed from Charleston to Hamburg, across the river from Augusta. This line, reach- ing 136 miles into the interior, was at the time the longest continuous rail line in the world.The Charleston-Hamburg line, in fact, repre- sented a rivalry between the declining port city of Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia. It was hoped that the railroad would capture the commerce that was being transported by barge to the rival port of Savannah.^ During this period, the raising of cotton and tobacco and their export provided for a basic economy. It was increasingly apparent, however, that the South was falling behind the North in diversifying its economy and in capturing the increased revenue to be had from manufacturing, especially from finishing cotton textiles. The Augusta Canal, begun in 1845 and finished in 1847, represented a major attempt to overcome this problem. The canal provided power for one of the first cotton textile manufacturing plants in the South. It was to be the beginning of the development of Augusta as a great textile manufacturing center.^ At about the same time, William Gregg built the model mill town and factory 1 J of Graniteville in Aiken County. The Civil War dealt a major blow to the study area. Many men were lost and the area's economy suffered a major setback. Augusta was a major railroad center for the South as well as a major source for cloth pro- ducts, powder, and armaments. The Augusta-Charleston-Columbia Railroad line was a major strategic objective of Sherman's army. This action resulted in widespread devastation, destroying many homes and busi- 1 nesses. When the war was over, farms had been destroyed, buildings burned, and merchandise and property stolen. The local residents were forced to 11-5 adjust to strict governance under reconstruction and to forge a new basis for black-white relationships. The reconstruction period was a time of confusion and economic setback, from which the area took many years to recover. in the years that followed, trade and industry slowly redevel- oped, and public education and recreation areas grew. During the 20th century, the establishment of the Savannah River Plant (SRP) has been perhaps the most important event to take place in the study area. a 11-6 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 11.2.1 Nationally recognized resources There are, as of 1980, 55 National Register of Historic Places, sites in the 6-county study area. Richmond County has the largest number of sites, with 42 percent of the total, with all but one site being located in the City of Augusta. Richmond, Aiken, and Allendale Counties together contain 78 percent of the region's National Register of Historic Places si tes More than half of the sites listed are churches old homes of signifi- cance because of their architecture or because of associations with his- torical events or personages. Most of these sites are located in the centers of population. There are also a number of archeological sites, such as Indian mounds, that are generally located along the Savannah River. Five historic districts are also located in the study area. Two of these districts, the Graniteville and Augusta Canal Historic Dis- g tricts, both recognize the area's early industrial history. Table 11.1 lists the National Register of Historic Places sites that are also generally located on the map in Figure 11.1. 11.2.2 State and locally recognized cultural resources within the study area The State of Georgia does not have a statewide listing of historic re- sources beyond those listed in the National Register of Historic Places. South Carolina is presently working on an update of the local inventory discussed below. Within the four South Carolina counties in the study area, there are 489 archeological sites listed in the State Archeological Site File. Aiken County contains 219 sites, Allendale has 96, Bamberg includes 51 > and Barnwell contains 123. The precise location of these sites cannot be identified} however, there are geographical areas where the probability 11-7 Table 11.1 National Register sites within the primary study area, igBoa Site Name Site Location Aiken County, South Carolina 1. Chancellor James Carrol House Aiken 2. Coker Springs Aiken 3. Legare-Morgan House Aiken 4. Phelps House Aiken 5. Dawson-V/anderhorst House NE of Aiken 6. Fort Moore-Savano Town Site Beech Island vicinity 7. RedclIffe NE of Beech Island 8. Granltevllle Historic District Granltevllle 9. Sliver Bluff W of Jackson 10. Charles Hammond House North Augusta 11. Rosemary Hall North Augusta 12. Joye Cottage Aiken Allendale County, South Carolina 13- Antloch Christian Church SW of Allendale 14. Erwiri House SW of Allendale 15- Gravel Hill Plantation SW of Allendale 16. Red Bluff Flin: Quarrrles Allendale vicinity 17. Roselawn SW of Allendale 18. Smyrna Baptist Church S of Allendale 19. Lawton Mounds Johnsons Landing vlcln 20. Fennel 1 Hill Peeples vicinity Bamberg County, South Carolina 21. General Francis Marion Bamberg Bamberg House 22. Woodlands SE of Bamberg Ehrhardt vicinity 23. Rivers Bridge State Park Barnwell County, South Carolina Barnwel1 24. Banksia Hall Barnwel1 25. Church of the Holy Apostles 26. Church of the Holy Barnwel1 Apostles Rectory Barnwel 1 27. Old Presbyterian Church Barnwel1 28. Bethlehem Baptist Church Columbia County, Georgia 29. Kiokle Baptist Church ApplIng 30. Stallings Island NW of Augusta 31. Woodv111e Wtnfield vicinity 32. Columbia County Courthouse Appling See footnote at end of table. 11-8 Table 11.1 National Register sites within the primary study area, 1930a (continued) Site Name Site Location Richmond County, Georgia 33. Academy of Richmond County Augusta 34. Augusta Canal Industrial Historic District Augusta 35. Augusta Cotton Exchange Augusta 36. Stephen Vincent Benet Home Augusta 37- Brahe House Augusta 38. First Baptist Church of Augusta Augusta 39. Fitzsimons-Hampton House Augusta 40. Gertrude Herbert Art Insititute Augusta 4i. Harris-Pearson-Walker House Augusta 42. Meadow Garden Augusta 43. Old Medical College Building Augusta 44. Old Richmond County Courthouse Augusta <15. Sacred Heart Catholic Church Augusta 1)6. St. Paul's Episcopal Church Augusta 47. Augusta National Golf Club Augusta 48. Gould-Weed House Augusta 49. Lamar Building Augusta 50. Refd-Jones-Carpenter House Augusta 51. Woodrow Wilson Boyhood Home Augusta 52. College Hill Augusta vicinity 53. Broad Street Historic District Augusta 54. Pinched Gut Historic District Augusta 55. Summerviiie Historic District Augusta aSource: See reference 11. il-9 ^ EL X Jil-YTHI^v^- HIPHZIH. A IS SCALE 5 tO 15 MILES ORNL-DWG 81-15219 l! FIGURE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC SITES AND GENERAL AREAS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE IN THE PRIMARY STUDY AREA RRY / LEGEND V t A NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER SITES ^ (REFER TO TABLE 11.2-1 FOR NAMES) NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER SITES WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS OF SRP • | GENERAL AREAS OF POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL VALOE SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AREA 11-11 of sites existing is high. These locations include the areas around the Savannah and Salkehatchie Rivers, along Route 78 in Bamberg County, and q along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries of the SRP. These areas are shown on the map in Figure 11.1. // In the Georgia section of the study area there are nearly 80 sites iden- tified in the State Archeological Site File.1® These are split fairly 3 evenly between Richmond and Columbia Counties. Littie systematic survey work has been done in these counties, however, and the present inventory does not represent a complete picture of the archeological significance of these areas. The Savannah River flood plain area has received a limited amount of survey work, and this area contains the majority of the Inventoried sites.*® Based on limited data, it is probable that archeological site density along the river is high. It is also assumed that the upland areas would contain evidence of prehistoric occupation. There is a tendency, however, for upland sites to be eroded and damaged by cu 11i vat 1 oil. * ® Locally recognized cultural resources in the South Carolina portion of the study area are identified in A Survey of Historical Sites in the Lower Savannah Region.* This inventory lists 113 archeological and historic sites beyond those contained in the National Register of His- toric Pieces. Nearly half of these are found in Aiken County, with the majority located in or near the town of Aiken. Most of these sites are associated with the winter retreats of wealthy northerners in Aiken. The remaining sites are mainly split between Bamberg and Barnwell Counties, with nine sites in Allendale County. Most of the sites in Barnwell Coun- ty are located in the City of Barnwell or the town of Blackville. In the other two counties, the sites are scattered throughout the rural ar- eas.* Table 11.2 lists these local historic sites and their general 1ocation. In the Georgia portion of the study area, locally recognized cultural resources have been identified by the Aiken, Richmond, Columbia County f( 11-12 || Metropolitan Council of Governments. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas w 7 and Sites of Historical Significance' lists 42 sites in addition to those included in the National Register of Historic Places.^ Most of these are older homes and churches, although there is also a fair repre- sentation of industrial facilities and on one site, Heggie Rock, there is a point of natural historical significance. The sites identified in Columbia County are spread throughout the county, while of those in Rich- mond, all but four are withi n the City of Augusta.^ Table 11.2 lists locally inventoried historic resources. 11-13 Table 11.2 Locally recognized historic sites within the primary study ares 1980s Site Nar.ie Site Location Aiken County, South Carolina Aiken Aiken County Courthouse Aiken Old Aiken County Jail Aiken Aiken Institute Aiken Banks la Aiken Butler House Aiken Chapel House Aiken Chlnaberry Aiken Crossways Aiken Edgewood Aiken Frederick Ergle House Highway 19, Aiken / Fairfield Aiken <[ Holly Trees 15 Aiken Horse Haven Aiken Hopelands Aiken Joye Cottage Aiken Lets Pretend Aiken Hayflelds Highway 19, Aiken Palmetto Golf Course Aiken Old U.S. Post Office Aiken The Squash Court Aiken Sandhurst Aiken (' Transit of Venus Aiken St. Thaddeus Episcopal Church Aiken ij Vale of Hontmorencl Banks Hill Road, Aiken I Whitehall Aiken Whitney Polo Field Aiken Wlllcox Inn Aiken Granite Hill Granltevllle Blue Row Aiken Rose Hill Aiken St. John Methodist Church Granltevllle St. Paul's Episcopal Church Granltevllle Old Pottery Site Bath Zubly Cemetery Beech Island All Saints Church Beech Island First Baptist Church Beech Island Galphin Dwelling Beech Island Campbe11 Town SIte North Augusta Old Hamburg Depot North Augusta Martintown Road North Augusta Elm Grove North Augusta J. S. Hammond House North Augusta Lookaway Gardens North Augusta Rose Cottage North Augusta Seven Gables North Augusta See footnote at end of table. 11-14 Table 11.2 Locally recognized historic sites within the primary study area 1980® (continued) Site Name Site Location Aiken County, South Carolina (continued) Star of Edgefield North Augusta John Town Memorial Salley Hemrlck House Salley Tabernacle Baptist Church West of Salley Allendale County, South Carolina Miss Annie Arnold's School House Allendale Beech Branch Baptist Church S of Allendale Belfast Martin Cedar Hall Allendale Gillette United Methodist Church W of Allendale Mt. Arnon Baptist Church N of Allendale Lopers Cross Roads Skirmish Site S of Allendale Robwood NW of Allendale Ulggln's Hill Allendale Bamberg County, South Carolina John Brabham House Ehrhardt vicinity U. S. Bamberg House Bamberg vicinity Bufords Bridge SW Bamberg County ' Old Brabham House Ehrhardt vicinity Denmark Hotel Denmark Copeland House Ehrhardt vicinity Folk Zetgler House No address Hartzog House Olar vicinity Forest Hane Ehrhardt vicinity Holmans Bridge Site On South Edlsto River Kinard Dwel 1ing Ehrhardt Kinard House Highway 301 Ehrhardt Town of Midway E of Bamberg Mt. Pleasant Lutheran Church Ehrhardt Mlzpah Methodist Church SW Bamberg County Old McMi11 tan Home Bamberg County "The Oaks" Highway 64 Olar The Oaks Olar vicinity The Old Home Col son Section Reed-Matthews House Bamberg Sprlngtown Baptist Church S of Bamberg Rice House Highway 120 Old Sojourner House Route 1 Denmark St. John the Baptist Church SW of Ehrhardt Voorhees College SW of Ehrhardt Salem United Methodist Church SW of Denmark See footnote at end of table. 11-15 Table 11.2 Locally recognized historic sites within the primary study area 1980a (continued) Site Name Site Location Barnwell County, South Carolina Aaron House Barnwell vicinity Barnwell Courthouse. Barnwell BuckIngham Barnwel1 Duncannon W of Barnwell Healing Springs N of Blackville Healing Springs Baptist Church Blackvllle Hagood House Barnwel1 Iris Hall Barnwel1 Holalr House Barnwel1 Nont Gallant Barnwel1 Horris Ford Battle Site S of BarnwelI Red Hill Battle Site Barnwell County Red Hill Memorial Cemetery Barnwel 1 Ryan House Barnwel1 Slaughter Field Battle Site Barnwel1 County St. Andrews Catholic Church Barnwel 1 VInee*s Fort Along 3 Runs Creek Old Shamrock Hotel Blackvllle BlackvlUa Passenger Depot Blackvllle The Hammond Museum li Blackville The First Baptist Church Blackville Blackvllle Courthouse Site Blackvllle Martin Keeler Boot Shop Blackvllle Patrick VIIHam Farrell Home Blackvllle L'Artlgue House Blackvllle John Ashley House Vi111ston Inman Scott House Wllllston vicinity Rosemary Baptist Church V of Wllllston Sprawls House SW of Ul11Iston Colisnbla County, Georgia Old Grovetown Hotel ApplIng Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay Co. Harlem Heggle Rock Old Louisville Road First Baptist Church in Georgia Route 3Q1* at Greenbrtar Creek Old Hotel ApplIng Voodvllle Columbia County Rose Hill Georgia Highway 150 See footnote at end of table. Table 11.2 Locally recognized historic sites within the primary study area 1980a (continued) Site Name Site Location Columbia County, Georgia (continued) Cobbham-Cedarvi11e Western Columbia County Shiloh Methodist Church Georgia Highway 150 Sharon Baptist Church Wlnfield Bauley Baptist Church Georgia Highway 150 Dunn's Chapel N of Appling Richmond County, Georgia Hephzltah Methodist Church Hephzlbah Twiggs Cemetery Augusta vicinity fierce Memorial Methodist Church Augusta Bel 1evue ' Augusta The Augusta Arsenal Augusta Heme of Richard Henry Wilde Augusta Montrose Augusta Home of John Forsythe Augusta Green Court Augusta Sutnmervllle Cemetery Augusta Harris House Augusta Confederate Powder Works Augusta Paine College Augusta Medical College of Georgia Augusta Birthplace of Augusta Chronicle Augusts Site of William Thackery's Visit Augusta Springfield Baptist Church Augusta '' Fort Grlerson Augusta Site of Lafayette's Visit to Augusta Augusta The Hayham Tower Augusta St. Johns Methodist Church Acgusta First Presbyterian Church Augusta First Academy of Richmond County Augusta Nicholas Ware Home Augusta History of Richmond County Marker Augusta The Signers Monument Augusta Site of William Bartram's Visit Augusta Georgia Railroad and Banking Company Augusta Liberty Methodist Church Hephzlbah "Source: See references 1, 7-11. 11-17 11.3 SCENIC RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA 11.3.1 General scenic description of the study area Much of the study area lies in the Coastal Plain. The fall line which separates the Coastal Plain from the Piedmont province crosses the study area from the west to the northeast, crossing the Savannah River at Au- gusta and following along the northern border of Aiken County. Thus, much of Columbia County lies in the Piedmont province. Aiken and Rich- mond Counties lie on or just below the fall line, and the other counties lie in the Coastal Plain. The topography above the fall line Is characterized by narrow, flat- bottomed, steep-sided valleys with gently rolling terrain on the higher ground. Below the fall line there are wide flats, rolling hills and, in some areas, "Carolina bays," oval-shaped water-filled depressions cover- ing from less than 1 to more than 100 acres.^ In the most southerly counties of the study area the land is nearly level. The area above the fall line is characteristically covered by a mixture of hardwoods and softwoods. In upland areas typical species are loblolly and short leaf pine and a variety of oaks. On lower slopes and along streams, the dominant flora are hardwoods: maple, elm, ash, willow, aider, oaks, and beeches.** Below the fall line softwoods predominate, the major vegetative cover being longleaf, loblolly, and slash pine. Along streams and lowland areas, hardwoods, including tupelo, sycamore, ^ yellow poplar, cypress, and some oaks are dominant.^ The main surface-water features of the area are rivers and the CI arks ,, Hill Reservoir. The study area is crossed by three main drainage areas, all running from the northwest toward the southeast. Beginning on the west, the major rivers are the Savannah, the Salkehatchie, and the north and south forks of the Edisto. Clarks Hill Reservoir, covering 78,000 acres, is the dominant surface-water feature In the study area. The 11-18 reservoir's primary purpose Is power generation, although It Is also used for recreation. Its original purpose was flood control and down- stream navigation. 11.3.2 Recognized scenic resources in the study area Although the study area is a region of scenic diversity with many scenic areas, there are few officially inventoried scenic resources. No sites designated as National Natural Landmarks occur in the study area.** There are no Federal- or state-designated wild and scenic rivers in the study area, although the South Carolina Water Resources Commission has recommended that part of the south fork of the Edisto River in Barnwell County be designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 12 System. There are no National Forest Wilderness Areas or Federal or state wildlife refuges within the study area. One locally inventoried scenic resource is included in Table 11.2. This site is Heggie Rock, the largest outcropping of solid rock in Georgia east of Stone Mountain. It is located in the northeastern portion of 2, Columbia County. In addition, there are a number of parks and recreation areas within the study area that can be considered as scenic resources. These are dis- cussed in Section 8.2 and listed in Table 8.8. 0 11-19 11. REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11 1. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, A Survey of Historical Sites In the Lower Savannah Region, Aiken, S.C., 1976. 2. K. A. Snyder and W. M. Gardner, A Preliminary Archeoiogical Re- sources Reconnaissance of Proposed Sewer Lines in the Rock Run Area, Montgomery County, Maryland, Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, Va., 1979. 3. Personal communication between S. Miner, NUS Corporation, and P. dulllian, State Archeoiogical Site Files Coordinator, State of Georgia, Athens, Ga., April 30, 1980, and May 21, 1980. k. Columbia County Planning Commission, Columbia County Development Plan, Martinez, Ga., 1979. 5. Aiken County Planning Commission, Aiken County 2000, A Land Use Plan for Aiken County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C.,1978. 6. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Area Development Plan, Augusta, Ga., 1980. 7. The Metropolitan Council of Governments of Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia Counties, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Sites of Historical Significance, Augusta, Ga., undated. 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recrea- tion Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1979, 1980. 9. Personal communication between S. Miner, NUS Corporation, and E. Mall in, Historic Survey Coordinator, State Department of Archives and History, Columbia, S.C., April 30, 1980. 10. P. M. Quillian, Summary of the Archeoiogical Site Densities In Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia, (unpublished) University of Georgia, Department of Anthropology, May 1980. 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recrea- tion Service, National Registry of Natural Landmarks, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, February 1979; March 1980; February 1981. 12. Lower Savannah Council of Governments, Land Use Plan and Initial Housing Element, Barnwell County, Aiken, Ga., 1977. ii 12-2 12.1 CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCIES All of the seven counties, except Allendale, have civil defense depart- ments. The departments consist of 1 or 2 full-time employees and between 100 and 300 volunteers. The Burke County department is an ail-volunteer organization, consisting of between 40 and 50 individuals, including the director. During an emergency in Allendale County, the county sheriff acts as the civil defense coordinator, and the county administrator acts as the assistant coordinator. The county is, however, currently in the process of establishing a civil defense agency, and they are interviewing individuals for the position of parttime civil defense director.*"^ Table 12.1 presents a summary of the agencies responsible for civil de- fense in the seven counties. County civil defense departments and county governments are responsible for directing local civil defense and emergency preparedness actions. During an emergency, county governmental resources are augmented by local public, private and volunteer organizations and agencies whose participa- tion accounts for the majority of each county's civil defense manpower. The individuals associated with these yarious organizations and agencies are the paid and volunteer members of county and municipal fire depart- ments, law enforcement agencies, rescue squads, hospitals, and ambulance services. These departments and agencies are either considered to be a part of the county civil defense department, or they are delegated civil defense responsibilities by the civil defense department under the county emergency preparedness plan. They supply ambulances, fire-fighting equipment, medical personnel, and vehicles for evacuation and for the transportation of civil defense personnel during an emergency. Details concerning the equipment and manpower associated with the departments, squads, and hospitals of six of the counties are presented in sections 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 Other volunteers assisting the civil defense depart- ments are from the Red Cross, the county's social service agencies, or are individual county residents.1~7»15-17 Tab1« 12.1 Civil defense agencies In the counties of Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Burke, Columbia, and Richmond, 1980s Funding State-qualified Meeting and Tralnlng-nasi-icale County agency Paid Volunteer" source emergency plan communication center exercises per year South Carolina Aiken County-City Civil Defense 2 300 Federal/ yes Interm Emergency Oper- 1 county gov- ating Center (Aiken ment County Complex) Allendale County SherIff/Allendale 0C 100 County no Sheriff's office 0 County Administrator govern ment Bamberg Civil Defense Agency 1 100-200 Federal/ yes County sheriff's 1 county complex government Barnwell County Civil Defense 2 100 Federal/ yes Civil Oefense 1 county Department government Georgia Burke County Civil Defense 0d 40-50 County/ yes Waynesboro City office 1-J Department local government Columbia County Civil Defense 1 220 State/local yes Civil Defense Depart- 1 Department governments ment! Rescue Squad local fund- Headquarters raisers Richmond County Civil Defense 2 185 Federal/ yes Civil Defense Depart- 2 department local ment government) local fund- raisers •Sources: See References 1-14,18-24. ^Approximate number eCounty government supports the offices of Sheriff and County Administrator, who handle civil defense emergencies In the county. ''The position of county civil defense director Is • volunteer position. 11-4 All of the county civil defense departments have exhibited various de- grees of activity since their creation, such as the Bamberg County de- partment which has existed for the past 20 to 25 years. The Richmond County Civil Defense Department has been active since 1977, when the county assumed full responsibility for it. The departments in Aiken, Bamberg, Barnwell, and Burke Counties have been active since 1974. In Allendale County, an active civil defense department existed in the c o 19S0's but, by the 1970's, had ceased to function. * Financial support affects a department's current level of activity, and each department receives funding in a variety of ways. Federal funds partially support the departments of those counties whose programs, pro- cedures, and organizations qualify. This is the case in Aiken and Barn- well Counties, where the civil defense departments receive 50 percent of their funds from the Federal government and 50 percent from the county. The Bamberg and Richmond County departments receive a little Federal funding, but their income primarily comes^from local or county govern- ments and from funds they raise themselves. In Columbia County, the rescue squads, which are considered part of the civil defense department, also raise their own funds; whereas the civil defense director's salary is supported by matching state and county funds. The Allendale County budget supports the office of sheriff and county administrator, who have responsibility for civil defense activities, although no funds are spe- cially targeted for these activities. The county's 1980-1981 budget, however, has set aside funds for the salary of a part-time civil defense director. In Burke County, the City of Waynesboro pays for the rescue squad's equipment and gasoline, the county funds the ambulance service and the county sheriff, and the local city supports the city fire and 1 —8 police departments. 11-5 12.2 CIVIL DEFENSE AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS Civil defense and emergency preparedness programs are federally sponsored through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and implemented through state and local levels of government. The federal government provides funding and technical assistance, and the state preparedness agency administers the program and allocates funding. Except for Allen- dale County, all of the counties have developed emergency preparedness plans in accordance with state specifications based on FEMA guidelines, thus each county's emergency prepardeness plan is qualified by their state civil defense agency, either the South Carolina Disaster Prepard- ness Agency or the Georgia Civil Defense Division. All of the plans were originally written in the 1950s. In South Carolina, the Aiken County plan was revised in 1975, Barnwell County's plan was revised and updated In 1974, and the emergency preparedness plan in Bamberg County was re- viewed in 1978, the addition of ordinances being the only major change made to the plan. In the three Georgia counties, the Richmond County emergency preparedness plan was revised in January 1981, the Columbia County plan and the Burke County plan were each reviewed and revised in 1980. In Allendale County, the only civil defense plans are those men- tioned in the Job description of the county sheriff, which specifies his responsibilities as civil defense coordinator. The county, however, will initiate the first step toward establishing an active civil defense de- partment and viable emergency plan once a civil defense director is hired during 1981.1"7'14"19 Each county's emergency preparedness plan consists of a basic plan as outlined by the state and various annexes or supplements to the basic plan. They address the civil defense responsibilities of Federal, state, county, and municipal agencies and departments in the county, as well as the types of natural and manmade disasters to which the county may be subjected. They also generally and specifically outline county civil defense operations and procedures, such as those concerning communica- tions, law enforcement, search and rescue, transportation, and medical and health services. The types of natural disasters these plans address 11-6 Include tornadoes and high velocity winds, hurricanes, winter storms (snow, ice, and sleet), landslides, electrical storms, earthquakes, and flooding. Manmade disasters include hazardous chemical releases; nuclear Industry and radiation hazards; structural fires; mass aircraft, automo- bile, or train accidents; explosions; and national emergencies such as * , u «. 1-17,25 fuel shortages or war. To prepare for these emergency situations, several of the county civil defense departments hold training sessions for their volunteers in addi- tion to the regular training they receive as members of the fire or po- lice departments or rescue squads. This training Includes one or two simulated mass-scale emergencies a year to evaluate the efficiency of civil defense personnel, procedures, communications, and equipment. The emergencies staged in 1980 by six of the counties included simulations of a tornado, an explosion, an aircraft crash, a bus/truck collision, and an accident involving a truck transporting hazardous materials. After eval- uating these simulated emergencies, all but the Burke County civil de- fense director felt that county civil defense communications and proce- dures adequately handled the emergency. It is anticipated that future 1-13 exercises in Burke County will reflect suggested improvements. None of the counties have had to deal with a major emergency within the last few years. However, minor emergencies involving winter storms or automobile or truck accidents have occurred. During an ice storm in February 1979, the Aiken, Barnwell, Burke, Columbia and Richmond County civil defense departments were mobilized within the county. They trans- ported medical personnel and emergency medical patients to and from the county hospitals. They also brought food, medicine, and medical person- nel to individuals unable to leave their homes because of the storm. After Hurricane David in 1980, the Burke County civil defense department 8—13 assisted the county in cleaning up. During any emergency, each department needs an organized facility or room for civil defense personnel to meet to coordinate civil defense opera- tions. The Federal government has set certain structural standards for 11-7 Emergency Operating Centers (EOC) related to a building's ability to protect Its occupants from various disasters and levels of radiation. None of the seven counties have an EOC fully qualified by Federal Emer- gency Management Standards, although the basement of the building housing the Aiken County-City Civil defense department qualifies as an Interim )} EOC. The remaining counties do, however, have buildings that serve as . their major communication centers and from which civil defense operations are coordinated. These buildings include the county sheriff's office, the civil defense department's office, the rescue squad's headquarters and the Waynesboro city office building. Using mobile radio units, the counties can simultaneously establish temporary onsite operating or com- . 4-t - 1-7,15,17 munlcation centers. ' ' One of the most Important elements in a civil defense program Is the communication network. The seven counties studied in this section uti- lize a wide variety of communication networks to relay Information and Instructions during an emergency. Although one universal network does not exist, each county utilizes communication networks having similar components. Five of the counties use the telephone to contact industries within their borders during a crisis. Allendale County supplements this form of com- munication with messengers. In Bamberg and Barnwell Counties, industries are contacted by way of commercial television and radio broadcasts, and this Is also done In Richmond County, where these broadcasts are made in conjunction with telephone calls. Simultaneously, the Bamberg County de- partment has direct radio contact with the Savannah River Plant, Allied General, and ChemNuclear, whereas Aiken County has radio contact with the Savannah River Plant only. The four South Carolina counties and Burke County, Georgia, also use the telephone to communicate with county schools and school officials. In contrast, the Columbia and Richmond County 1—7 8-11 departments alert county schools with a radio tone system. ' Six of the county civil defense departments use the county police, fire, or ambulance dispatcher, and/or the county police, fire, or ambulance 11-8 radio band to communicate with county and municipal agencies, and county hospitals; the Burke County department uses the telephone. When contacting municipal or county agencies within other counties located In the same state, the three Georgia county departments employ the Georgia civil defense radio network. Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell utilize the South Carolina state law enforcement channel. Aiken County uses the telephone, or relays its communications to the South Carolina Disaster Preparedness Agency which forwards the message. Contacting counties outside the state Involves the same procedure, whereby each civil de- fense department sends communications through its state civil defense agency, although they may use the telephone to contact nearby counties across the Savannah River. All of the counties, at one time or another, utilize amateur radio operators—either as a normal element in their communication network, as an alternative communication element when formal communication lines are busy or nonexistent, or as a method of 1—7 8—13 15—17 27 expediting communications during an emergency. "'* '' Despite all the various county, municipal, and local elements comprising each county's civil defense communication network, the two state civil defense agencies are an Important part of each county's network. In addition to forwarding messages for the county departments in their state, the state agencies are almost always notified of a county-level emergency in case the county, at some point, needs the aid of state re- sources. Concurrently, the state agency Is the county's source of na- tional weather and disaster information and will assume control of emer- gency situations involving two or more counties. The county departments in South Carolina primarily use the telephone to contact their state agency, and the Georgia County departments utilize the statewide civil defense communication network. The Aiken County department employs the phone, and local amateur radio operators, and both the Bamberg and Barn- well County departments, in addition to telephone communications, make use of a teletype machine that receives messages from their state agency. Simultaneously, the South Carolina Disaster Preparedness Agency has two 11-9 mobile radio units that it will send to a county during an emergency, to establish direct, uninterrupted communication between the county and the 1-7,8-13,26 state agency. 7 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) representing the Savannah River Plant has a memorandum of understanding between the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the South Carolina Disaster Pre- paredness Agency and a memorandum of understanding between the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division and the Georgia Department of Defense, Civil Defense Division concerning notification and emergency response during an emergency or potential emergency at the Savannah River Plant. An emergency or incident as de- fined in the two memorandums, would result in a potential or actual re- lease of radioactivity which presents or could present a serious threat to the populace of either state. As set forth in the agreements, DOE is responsbile for all on-site operations relating to an incident at SRP, the appropriate state agencies are responsible for all off-site opera- tions and DOE and the four state agencies agree to coordinate information 27 and manpower during an incident or potential incident. Throughout the seven counties, the individual components of each county's civil defense program vary in several instances. In a major emergency involving several counties or states, the partial lack of uniformity within the different programs and among the various communication net- works may hinder rescue operators and affect a county's ability to re- spond to the emergency. The stat& and county agencies, however, realize this problem, and many are taking the first steps toward a solution. In South Carolina, an appropriations bill (Act 519 of 1980) passed in June 1980 set a?-5de funds for developing recommendations which will lead to the develo;.'^.i?;l't of minimum emergency preparedness standards in the state. When implemented, these standards will promote civil defense and emer- gency preparedness program consistency in South Carolina. Concurrently, each of the seven counties has realized the importance of civil defense 11-10 planning and has prepared, or Is attempting to prepare, a civil defense program utilizing the maximum financial, material, and human resources at . i 1-1*, 22-24 1 their disposal. ' 11-11 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12 1. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Mauney, Aiken County-City Civil Defense, Aiken, S.C., October 21, 1980. 2. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Baitus, Allendale County Administrator, Allendale, S.C., October 8, 1980. 3. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Towers, Bamberg County Civil Defense Agency, Bamberg, S.C., October 20, 1980. k. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and H. Wald, Barnwell County Civil Defense, Barnwell, S.C., October 7, 1980. 5. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and W. Singley, Burke County Civil Defense Department, Waynesboro, Ga., November 10, 1980. 6. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and P. Darden, Columbia County Civil Defense Department, Evans, Ga., Octo- ber 10, 1980. 7. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. McEleveen, Richmond County Civil Defense Department, Augusta, Ga., October 14, 1980. ! 8. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and B. Mauney,- Aiken County-City Civil Defense, Aiken, ,<3.C., October 27, 1980. (' 9. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Baltus, Allendale County Administrator, Allendale, S.C., October 27, 1980. 10. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and J. Jowers, Bamberg County Civil Defense Agency, Bamberg, S.C., October 28, 1980. 11. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and H. Wald, Barnwell County Civil Defense, Barnwell, S.C., October 28, 1980. 12. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and P. Darden, Columbia County Civil Defense Department, Evans, Ga., Octo- ber 28, 1980. 11-12 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12 (continued) 13. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and G. McEleveen, Richmond County Civil Defense Department, Augusta Ga., October 27, 1980. 14. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Jones, South Carolina Emergency Preparedness Division, Columbia, S.C., October 8, 1980. 15. Aiken County Civil Defense Agency, Emergency Plan, Aiken County, South Carolina, Aiken, S.C., 1973. 16. Georgia Department of Defense, Civil Defense Division, Georgia Civil Defense Act of 1951 as Amended, Atlanta, Ga., April 1978. 17. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation and J. Morris, Georgia Department of Defense, Civil Defense Division, At- lanta, Ga., October 22, 1980. 18. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1978, Washington, D.C., 1979. 19. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and M. Sherberger, Georgia State Crime Commission, Atlanta, Ga., April 8, 1980. 20. Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Comnission, Evaluation of the Use of Service Districts as an Alternative Method in Providing Service for Columbia County, Augusta, Ga., 1979. 21. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and W. Griffin, Allendale Fire Department, Allendale, S.C., May 6, 1980. 22. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and H. Shramek, City of Fairfax, Fairfax, S.C., May 6, 1980. 23. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and E. Mathias, Ulmer Fire Department, Ulmer, S.C., May 8, 1980. 24. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Houlk, Kline Fire Department, Kline, S.C., May 13, 1980. 25. South Carolina Emergency Preparedness Agency, State of South Caro- lina Vulnerability Analysis, Columbia, S.C., 1975. 26. Personal communication between D. Wicks, NUS Corporation, and D. Jones, South Carolina Emergency Preparedness Division, Columbia, S.C., October 28, 1980. 12-13 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12 (continued) 27* Personal communication between P. Stone, Savannah River Plant, and E. Peelle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tn., February 2, 1981. 28. South Carolina Legislature, "Act 519 of 1980, Section 1, Item No. V, Columbia, S.C. 1980. A-T GLOSSARY Accreditation The approval of Institutions of learning by an official review board after the schools have met specific standards. Advanced placement College level courses taught in high school and courses acceptable for inclusion on a student's official college transcript. Archeologteal sites Areas associated with the scientific study of the (resources) material remains (e.g., fossils, relics, arti- facts, monuments) of past civilization. At-grade intersections An Intersection of two or more transportation routes (railways or roadways), none of which is an- overpass. Arterials The second grade in the classification of thor- oughfares. A road with limited vehicular access to adjoining properties, no direct access from individual driveways, and traffic flow Inter- rupted only at street intersections controlled by traffic signals. Average capacity The mean or normal volume of material a sewage or water system handles on a daily basis; capac- ity Is usua11y spec i f i ed In terms of ml 111 on gallons per day (MGD). Average daily traffic The total number of vehicles traveling on a par- vol umes ticular roadway each day during a given time period. Bedroom community A residential area adjacent to a city where a large number of individuals live who work in that city. Building code Legislative regulations that prescribe the mini- mum requirements, materials, and methods used In the construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and repair of buildings or other structures. Central dispatch A communication system in which individual in- system quiries and calls for assistance are directed to one individual who In turn relays the message (generally over a radio) to the appropriate person, agency, or organization. A-2 Demography A statistical stud,y .:iiman populations* with emphasis on population size and density, distri- bution, and other ,st4tisties. Destination-type park A park with enough attractions to be a travel destination in its'elf, rather than a place where travelers merely stop while on their way to some other area or site. Georgia library A statewide interlibrary loan service in which information network county libraries have access to the books in all other county libraries in the state. Georgia statewide A statewide FM-VHF radio network (45-56 MHz) civil defense network maintained by the Georgia Civil Defense Division for (1) disseminating severe weather information and (2) providing local government entities direct two-way communication between a local disaster operations control point and the State Emergency Operations Center. Gifted and Talented A program for intellectually gifted students in Program grades 1 through 12 that challenges the student and stresses the development of thinking skills. Hazardous lands Tracts of land that are subject to either na- tural or manmade hazards such as seasonally flooded stream and river bottomlands, areas with a high water table, areas with soils of a corro- sive nature, etc. No residential, commercial, or industrial structures are generally allowed In these areas. Heavy water Water containing the heavy isotopes of hydrogen such as deuterium. The sites, buildings, structures, and objects Historic resources deemed to be protected because of their associa- tion with historic events, persons, and social or artistic attractions. Workers residing in an area as distinguished Indigenous labor pool from workers moving into and residing in that area only during the term of a particular con- struction project. That sector of the general population that is Indigent population poor and otherwise impoverished. Interlibrary loan An association of libraries in which the members system lend their books and other equipment, to one another. A-3 Interpretive nature A nature trail with signs or other information trail devices placed at key location to explain or interpret relationships among environmental elements such as topography, vegetation, and hydrologtcal features. Irradiated materials Materials exposed to any form of radiant energy. Land-use Class I The first of three classifications of >»"£>an land use. Class I areas are those of the mosc' inten- sive urban activity: low-, medium-, and high- density residential areas; central business district commercial activity; heavy and light Industry; and supporting public and semi public facilities such as churches, schools, and parks. Land-use Class II The second of three classifications of urban land use. Class II areas are characterized by medIum-to-low-density residential areas; neigh- borhood and highway commercial activity; and schools, parks, churches, and government build- Inns. Land-use Class 11 I The third of three classifications of urban land use. Class III areas contain medium- and low- density residential areas; neighborhood retail and highway commercial activity; agriculture- related industrial activity such as ginning and lumber operations; churches; recreational facil- ities; and public buildings such as post offices, town offices, and public safety buildings. Land-use plan The official formulation and designation of uses of the land and the location, Intensity, and amount of land development required for each of the space-using functions of a population. Land-use inventory A survey of the way land Is used. It Is usually summarized in a map and/or a statistical format showing such things as developed or vacant land, streets, parks, or public buildings. Long-term hospital A medical establishment with an organized staff and permanent facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with specified medical conditions. The length of stay in this type of Institution is 30 days or more. Also known as a "specialty hospital." A-k Mutual aid agreements An agreement between two fire departments stat- ing that: (1) during a major fire or disaster, one department will send equipment and personnel to the another as required, and (2) when re- quested, each department force will stand by to answer calls while the other force Is fighting a fire. An individual fire department may have mutual aid agreements with more than one other fire department. National Register of A list maintained by the National Park Service of Historic Places architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural sites of local, state, or national significance. National Wild and A listing maintained by the National Park Ser- Scenic River System vice of rivers in the United States that are not to be developed or altered by man because of their environmental, scenic, historical, and cultural significance. National Forest Areas within National Forests designated and man- Wi Iderness Area aged by the U.S. Forest Service for the maximi- zation of wilderness values. Net migration The number of people moving into an area minus the number moving out during a specified time period. Package sewage A small sewage treatment plant serving a parti- treatment pi ant cular institution such as a school or hospital, or a particular residential subdivision. Population density The number of persons (population) per unit of land. Primary health care That type of medical care emphasizing Initial contact and then continuing care. Responsibil- ity for this care is shared by the individual and includes the treatment of illness, the res- toration of function, the prevention of disease, and health maintenance. Raw water Sewage water that has not been treated by a water purification process. Reforestation The process of planting trees in an area devoid of trees as a result of fire, lumbering and logging, farming, etc. A-5 Relocating workers Workers who move from one locale, state, etc., to another seeking employment on major construc- tion projects. Sanitary landfill An area of land designated for burial and com- paction of solid waste and covered with layers of earth. Scenic resources Areas of the landscape that are so aesthetically appealing as to be considered valuable and worthy of preservation. Service area The geographic area served by a particular pub- lic facility such as a school, library, fire department, or park. Sewage system Facilities used for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage generated in a given area, generally consisting of a collection network and a treatment facility. Treatment facilities may involve up to three stages of treatment: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Short-term hospital A medical establishment with an organized staff and permanent facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of patients ,with a variety of medical conditions. The length of stay in such an in- stitution is less than 30 days. Also known as a "general hospital." Six-year certificate The certificate granted a teacher who has a master's degree plus an additional 30 hours of education courses. Socioeconomic baseline A description and discussion of a study area's characterization socioeconomic characteristics including the local government, the housing supply, land use, public and private services, demography, trans- portation, systems, etc. Soil percolation The passage of water through soil media. South Carolina state law A statewide radio band used for communication by enforcement channel state, county, and local officials during any incident or emergency situation involving law enforcement personnel. Southern Association of A private association dedicated to improving edu- Schools and Colleges cation in the South through the promotion of cooperative efforts among colleges, schools, and related agencies. Its efforts include Identify- ing accreditable institutions, working with A-6 other regional and foreign agencies concerned with education, operating programs of action designed to bring about concrete Improvements In education, and discovering and disseminating information on the solution of educational prob- lems. Standard Metropoli tan An SMSA consists of a county or a group of Statistical Area counties containing at least one city (or twin (SMSA) cities) with a population of 50,000 or more, including any adjacent counties that are metro- politan in character and economically and so- cially integrated with the central city. Strip development Commercial development parallel and adjacent to a major thoroughfare in a long continuous strip. Study area A specific geographic area isolated from sur- rounding areas for the purpose of examining and analyzing specific characteristics and activi- ties occurring in the area. Subdivision regulations Local laws or covenants governing the process of dividing land into parcels for development, including standards for street location, lot size, land use, and other structural improvement. Tritium A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with atoms of three times the mass of ordinary light hydrogen atoms and a radioactive ha If-life of 12.33 years.