|Table of Contents|
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. The community during the first year of base development
Chapter 3. The impact of development on the commercial fishery
Chapter 4. The impact of base development on supplementary subsistence activities
Chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix 1. Community interview schedule
Appendix 2. Institutional survey form
Appendix 3. Energy model calculations, 1940
Appendix 4. Energy model dynamo program, 1940
Appendix 5. Energy model calculations, 1978
Appendix 6. Energy model dynamo program, 1978
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF NAVAL BASE DEVELOPMENT ON A
CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA
MARY MARGARET OVERBEY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Mary Margaret Overbey
To the memory of Solon T. Kimball, who taught me about communities, and to
the people of Camden County,
who taught me about their community
The research upon which this dissertation is based was sponsored by the Florida Sea Grant Program and the National Science Foundation. I appreciate the support of these grants as they afforded me an objective viewpoint from which to observe the impact of naval base development on the community. Many social scientists conducting social impact assessments must rely on contracts with the developer that are of short duration and the results of their research often reflect these constraints.
Throughout the course of research, a number of agencies and
individuals aided me and to them I am forever indebted. The Kings Bay Steering Committee sponsored the study in the county and it is to the members of the committee and other local officials that I hope the results and recommendations prove beneficial. The Camden County Board of Commissioners and associated staff were very helpful in providing me information about themselves and the plans for handling the impact. Mayor Dickey of St. Marys, Mayor Edenfield of Kingsland, and Mayor Clark of Woodbine and their staffs were most helpful in presenting the concerns and expectations of the towns as well as their own impressions of development.
The Camden County Tax Assessor's office provided access to the tax rolls from which the sample of county households was drawn. Jack Pettyjohn was especially helpful in advising me about the content and representativeness of the tax rolls as well as providing me with some iv
county maps and use of aerial photos for locating those isolated households in the rural areas.
The Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission was
especially helpful in providing me with their impact assessment publications. I particularly appreciate the counsel and friendship of Mac Burdett, Bob Hammond, and Packie Elliott, then planners in the Camden Office of the CAPDC.
I greatly appreciate the aid of the U.S. Navy in providing me a view of the "other side" of development. Although the "innovating organization" in Third World development programs is usually considered a part of the analysis this is rarely the case in environmental impact assessments. Without a better understanding of the Navy, accurate estimates of the impact and interpretations of the first year of base development could not be made. The permission of the Navy to interview a sample of naval personnel on the base afforded me this view of the other side. The friendship, candor, impressions, and expectations presented by the naval personnel interviewed were wholly refreshing and informative. I would particularly like to thank Captain Richard Currier and Lieutenant Commander Jim Britt for their time, patience, and insights. Dr. Ann O'Keefe and Bill Elder with the Department of the Navy in Washington, D.C., were also helpful in providing me with information about the nature of the impact and aspects of Navy life.
Gilman Paper Company and Union Carbide provided me with information on plant production and personnel and also allowed me to tour the plants. I thank them for their help in addressing the industrial economy of the county.
I would also like to thank the Camden County Historical Society and particularly Eloise Bailey for the use of historical information and old newspapers that helped me in my analysis. The Georgia Department of Archives and History in Atlanta provided me with copies of historic-photos of Camden County from their "Vanishing Georgia" series.
I greatly appreciate the aid of the National Marine Fisheries Service in providing me with the fishery statistics of Camden County landings and the number of fishermen and vessels. Ted Flowers at the district office in Brunswick, Joseph Pileggi in Washington, D.C., and personnel at the regional office in St. Petersburg, Florida, were especially helpful. Further thanks are extended to the manager-owners of the three shrimping firms and other commercial fishermen who added flesh to the bones of those statistics. I appreciate the kind assistance of George Burgess, Senior Biologist in Ichthyology at the Florida State Museum, who reviewed the chapter on commercial fishing and offered helpful suggestions.
To the people of Camden County, I am forever thankful for their friendship and openness. To those residents interviewed in the survey sample in the summers of 1979 and 1980, and to those residents who allowed me to tape record their life histories, I cannot adequately express my thanks. The former provided the breadth of the data base and the latter the depth. I have utilized these sources of information extensively throughout the dissertation. Through my acquaintance with all of these residents and others with whom I came in daily contact, I feel that I have come to understand and appreciate Camden County.
My thanks are extended to my field assistants for their help
in interviewing the survey sample of county residents. Dwight Schmidt, who aided me in the summer of 1979, and Karen Ronald and Alan Bailey
in the summer of 1980 were invaluable in completing this facet of the research schedule.
I would like to thank Dr. Paul L. Doughty, my chairman and
advisor throughout my graduate studies at the University of Florida. His enthusiasm and support throughout the research period, analysis and writing of the dissertation have been greatly appreciated. To the members of my graduate committee, Drs. John Alexander, Elizabeth M. Eddy,
Solon T. Kimball, Otto von Mering, Anthony Paredes, and Carol Taylor, I am fully indebted. The knowledge, expertise, and inspiration that they gave me through graduate courses and in their criticisms of the draft have guided my course in the discipline, andI think, made me a better anthropologist.
To my parents, Dr. and Mrs. David T. Overbey, I owe much gratitude for their support and love. I am particularly grateful to my husband, Alan Emerson McMichael whom I married shortly after finishing the 13 months field research in Camden County. His love and encouragement have sustained me.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Social Impact Assessment . . . . . . . 6
Theoretical Bases of the Social Impact
Assessment of Naval Base Development on
Camden County . . . . . . . . . . 8
Community Study . . . . . . . . 9
Regionalism . . . . . . . . . 10
Development . . . . . . . . . 12
Ecological Anthropology . . . . . . 15
The Kings Bay Setting: Camden County . . . . 17
The Navy's Plans for Development . . . . . 26
Methodology of the Social Impact Assessment
of Naval Base Development on Camden County . . 32
II THE COMMUNITY DURING THE FIRST YEAR
OF BASE DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . 36
Social Impact Assessment for Communities . . . 37
Community Responses to Impacts ... . . . . . 44
Boom Towns . . . . . . . . . . 50
Military Impacts . . . . . . . . 59
The Camden County Community . . . . . . 65
The Community in a Regional Context . . . 72 Social Characteristics of the Community 83
Economic Characteristics of the Community . . 91
Small-scale economic activities . . . 93
The paper company . . . . . . . 97
Other industry . . . . . . . . 106
Political Characteristics of the Community . . 108
The Impact of Base Development on the
Community . . . . . . . . . . . 112
The Costs and Benefits of Base Development . . 114 The Navy Community . * i * . * * 120
Community Impressions of Development
In 1979 . * * ' ' * ' ' 127
The First Year of Base Development . . . . 130 Housing and commercial growth . . . . 131 Factors inhibiting development . . . . 138 The presence of the Navy in community life . . . . . . . 145
Expectations for Development in 1980:
The Community vs. the Navy . . . . . 147
The Impact of Attitudes on Development . . . 155 The attitudes of naval personnel . . . 156 The attitudes of community residents . . 162 The role of attitudes in the future of Camden County . . . . . . . 172
The Future of the Comunity: Three Scenarios . . 175 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . 180
III THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL FISHERY . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Anthropological ApprQaches to Commercial
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Commercial Fishing in Camden County . . . . 192
Menhaden Fishing . . . . . . . . 194
Commercial Shrimping . . . . . . . 201
The biology of shrimp . . . . . . 205
The history of shrimping . . . . . 209
Technological changes in shrimping . . . 219 Hazards and satisfactions of shrimpers . . 223 Community integration of shrimpers . . . 228 The Impact of the Pulp and Paper Company
on the Commercial Fishery . . . . . . . 230
The Effects on Labor Resources * * * 231
The Effects of Pulp Mill Wastes on the
Estuary and Estuarine Resources . . . . 233
The Adaptation of Commercial Fishermen
to Estuarine Pollution . . * i * * 238
Illustrating and Predicting the Impact
of the Pulp Mill on the Commercial Fishery
through Energy Modeling . . . . . . 243
The Impact of Base Development on the
Commercial Fishery . . . . . . . . 255
The Effects of Dredging and Dredge Disposal . 256 Other Base-Related Impacts . . . . . . 264
Future Adaptations of Shrimpers Tempered
by Limitations . . . . * * * * 271
An Energy Model for the Impact of Base
Development on the Commercial Fishery . . . 279
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . 286
IV THE IMPACT OF BASE DEVELOPMENT ON SUPPLEMENTARY
SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . 289
Fishing, Hunting, and Gardening as Subsistence . . 289 Fishing, Hunting, and Gardening in Camden County 293
Historic Precedent for Subsistence
Activities . . . . . . . . . 294
Present Subsistence Practices . . . . . 300
The Impact of Base Development on Subsistence
Activities . . . . . : : : * 308
Change in Community Subsistence Activities:
1979-1980 : * * * ' * ' 309
Fishing, Hunting, and Gardening among
Naval Personnel . . . . . . . . 311
Anticipated Impacts of Development . . . . 312
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . 314
V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 316
Recommendations: The Independency Scenario . . 320 Specific Recommendations . . . . . . . 322
I COMMUNITY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . . . . . 331
II INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY FORM . . . . . . . . 337
III ENERGY MODEL CALCULATIONS-1940 . . . . . . 342.
IV ENERGY MODEL DYNAMO PROGRAM-1940 . . . . . . 346
V ENERGY MODEL CALCULATIONS-1978 . . . . . . 350
VI ENERGY MODEL DYNAMO PROGRAM-1978 . . . . . . 353
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . 371
LIST OF TABLES
1. Navy estimates of impact population, 1977 . . . . 28 2. Navy estimates of impact population, 1980 . . . . 31 3. Camden County population, 1900-1980 . . . . . 71
4. Comparison of survey sample to total population . . 84 5. Religious affiliation of survey sample . . . . . 87
6. Military background of survey sample . . . . . 89
7. Description of energy storages . . . . . . . 249
8. Description of energy flows . . . . . . . 250
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Location map of Camden County, Georgia .. ...... ....2
2. Map of Camden County showing the principal towns,
Kings Bay Naval Base, and the Cumberland
Sound estuary. .. ..... ....... ...........19
3. View of downtown St. Marys from the
waterfront in 1980. ... ....... ........ ...20
4. View of downtown Kingsland on U.S. Highway 17
in 1979 .. .. ........ ....... ..........22
5. View of downtown Woodbine on U.S. Highway 17
in 1979 .. .. ........ ....... ..........24
6. Number of institutions in the principal towns and
rural area, 1964-1980 .. .. ........ ..........68
7. View of downtown St. Marys along the major road,
Osborne Street .. ..... ........ ..........69
8. Downtown street scene of Kingsland at the intersection
of U.S. Highway 17 and State Road 40. ... ..........70
9. Camden County Courthouse in the county seat,
Woodbine. .. ........ ....... .........73
10. Aerial view of downtown St. Marys from the waterfront in 1940 .. .. ........ ....... ..........74
11. Housing on Osborne Street in St. Marys, 1979 .. .... ...75
12. Housing on Osborne Street in St. Marys, 1915 .. .... ...76
13. Street sceneof Kingsland, early 1920s. .. ...... ...77
14. Wedding party on steps of Orange Hall in St. Marys, 1979. ... ....... ....... ........ ...90
15. Gilman Paper Company pulp mill and main offices .. .. ....98
16. New housing in St. Marys built to accommodate workers for Gilman Paper Company, 1954 . . . . . 102 17. Billboard on State Road 40 advertising housing in Jacksonville . . . . . . . . . 135
18. Mobile home sales on State Road 40 137
19. Newly built bar constructed at the "flowing well,"
a local landmark, on State Road 40 . . . . . . 139
20. Law offices and mobile home sales on State Road 40 . . 140 21. Land ownership map indicating the limited extent of land available for immediate development. Not
illustrated is the amount of freshwater swamps . . . 142 22. Navy Color Guard in St. Marys' July 4th parade, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . 148
23. The Simon Lake tender and U.S.S. James Monroe Poseidon submarine, Kings Bay Naval Base open
house, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
24. Memorial Day services at Oak Grove Cemetery in St. Marys, 1980 . . . ... . . . . . 150
25. A Navy "float" in St. Marys' July 4th parade, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
26. Camden County landings of finish and shellfish, 1923-1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
27. Locally owned shrimp boats docked on the St. Marys waterfront . . . . . . . . . 204
28. Shrimp boats docked on the St. Marys waterfront in the early 1900s . . . . . . . . . 221
29. Modern shrimp boat docked on the St. Marys waterfront, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . 224
30. Number of Camden County commercial fishermen, 19231979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
31. Energy model symbols used in the energy models
for Camden County . . . . . . . . . . 245
32. Simplified energy model of the relationship between the commercial fishery and the pulp mill
in Camden County . . . . . . . . . . 245
33. Simplified energy model of the relationship between the commercial fishery and the pulp mill
in 1940 with the calculated storages and flows . . 251
34. Simulation of the 1940 energy model of the commercial fishery (F) and the pulp mill (P) with drain,
k1l, turned on: natural system (N), natural
energy (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
35. Simulation of the 1940 energy model of the commercial fishery (F) and the pulp mill (P) with drain,
k1l, turned off: natural system (N), natural
energy (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
36. Shrimp boat passing through the St. Marys Entrance from the Atlantic-going home. The view, from Fort Clinch in Fernandina, Florida, illustrates the width of the channel to be shared by shrimp
boats and submarines. Cumberland Island, Georgia,
is in the background . . . . . . . . . 272
37. Simplified energy model of the relationships among the naval base, the commercial fishery, and the
pulp mill in Camden County, 1979 . . . . . . 280
38. Simplified energy model of the relationship between the commercial fishery and the pulp mill in 1978
with the calculated storages and flows . . . . . 283
39. Simulation of the 1978 energy model of the commercial fishery (F) and the pulp mill (P):
natural systems (N), natural energy (A) . . . . 284
40. Hypothetical simulation of the 1979 energy model of the relationships among the naval base
(NB), the commercial fishery (F), and the pulp
mill (P) . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
41. Cows and chickens ranging freely on Ready Street in St. Marys, 1905 . . . . . . . . . . 298
42. The bloodying ceremony of a youth's killing his first deer, Camden County, 1969 . . . . . . 303
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF NAVAL BASE DEVELOPMENT ON A
CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA
Mary Margaret Overbey
Chairperson: Paul L. Doughty
Major Department: Anthropology
This study is a social impact assessment of the development of a nuclear submarine base on a coastal community. The theoretical approaches of community study, regionalism, developmentand ecological anthropology, and the methods of participant observation, interview schedule surveys, institutional inventories, energy modeling, a photographic inventory, oral life histories, and historic research provide the framework and the means of defining the Camden County community within the Barrier Island Region and determining the changes associated with base development.
Three research questions are addressed: (1) What is the impact of base development on the community during the first year of base operation? (2) What is the impact of base development on the commercial fishery? and (3) What is the impact of base development on a
traditional form of community life, the supplementary subsistence activities? Additionally, three hypotheses posited prior to field research are evaluated: (1) base development and the associated population influx will alter community institutions; (2) base development and the associated population influx will result in a changed lifestyle; and (3) base development and the associated population influx will produce conflict between oldtimers and newcomers.
Parallels among the social impacts associated with base
development in Camden County, energy boom towns in the western United States, and communities undergoing military installation impacts of base development or withdrawal are presented. The experiences of other communities provide the context for analyzing the impact as well as the basis for recommendations for mitigating the impact.
The impact of base development on the commercial and noncommercial fisheries and related subsistence activities is analyzed within the context of maritime and ecological anthropology literature and the local history of these activities. The maintenance of these economic activities depends upon the productivity of the estuarine and terrestrial environment which is threatened by base development. Through energy modeling, parallels between the historic disruption of the estuary by the local pulp and paper mill and the naval base are examined and predictions for future changes made.
The study reported herein examines the social impact of a large military installation on a coastal community in the state of Georgia. The military base has been developed by the United States Navy to accommodate a submarine fleet formerly based in Rota, Spain. The removal of the fleet from Spain by 1980 was a condition of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation signed by the United States and Spain. The fleet's
relocation site is Kings Bay, located in Camden County, Georgia (see Figure 1).
As of 1979, Camden County was a rural county with a sparse population of 12,500 divided among three small towns and the surrounding county. St. Marys, the largest of these towns and the closest to the base site, had a 1978 population of 3,700 (Kings Bay Steering Committee 1979). The principal means of employment in the county is the pulpwood industry with a local paper company employing 70 percent of the county's work force. Commercial fishing provides another means of employment for county residents.
Development of the naval'base entailed the immediate placement of approximately 4,300 naval personnel and their dependents in Camden County from 1979 to 1981. The original plans specified that only 400 on base housing units would be built. The majority of naval personnel and their dependents are expected to find housing in the community and
So --_ATLANTA \.
BRUNSWICK ICAMDEN COUNTY F 0 FERNANDINA
Figure 1. Location map of Camden County, Georgia
surrounding area. The Navy assumed that Camden County would become a "base community" and develop the necessary housing and services. Plans further include the development of Kings Bay to accommodate the Trident nuclear submarine complex. Between 1982 and 1998, an additional 25,000 naval personnel are expected to relocate at Kings Bay.
The incoming population of 4,300 naval personnel is greater than any of the existing towns in the county and will increase the original county population by 34 percent. The projected additional population of 25,000 naval personnel will increase the original county population by over 200 percent. Population expansion alone signals a dramatic alteration in the traditional character of the area and its cultural, economic, and political institutions.
As a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, environmental impact assessments were conducted by the Navy in 1976 for the initial base development (Department of the Navy 1977ab) and in 1979 for expansion for Trident (Department of the Navy 1980ab). The environmental impact assessments concentrate on the anticipated physical impact of base development on a regional basis but neglect the social consequences of base development on the community.
This research is intended to introduce social and cultural
factors into the environmental impact assessment process. To this end, the objectives of the study were an analysis of Camden County life in a cultural and historical context as it existed before base development, and an assessment of the social impact of the first year of base development.
A social impact assessment must be considered in the context
of the environmental impact assessment so that the environment, the economy, and the social characteristics of the community are presented as interrelated. Bowles (1981) has suggested that a social impact assessment of communities should consider two concepts: community social
vitality and theviabilityof the local economy.
Patterns of community social life depend on, or are conditioned by, economic activities and environmental
conditions. The assessment of social impacts goes beyond the assessment of economic and environmental impacts, but
it continues to depend on these two types of analysis.
[Bowles 1981: 331
Thus, changes to the local environment wrought by a development project effect changes in the economy and community life.
The social impact assessment reported here concentrates on two aspects of the community and its economy that are especially susceptible to disruption during the early stages of development: the effects of development on the commercial and noncommercial fisheries and related subsistence activities; and the effects of an influx of outsiders on the traditional institutions and patterns of behavior of original residents.
The ecological orientation of the research is partially an outgrowth of the orientation of Camden County residents to their environment; residents fish, hunt, and garden extensively to supplement the household diet. Indeed the county's major economic activities, commercial fishing, and pulp and paper production, are based on the exploitation of local natural resources, pine trees, and shrimp, crab, and finish.
The maintenance of these economic activities depends upon the productivity of the terrestrial and estuarine environment. Naval base
development threatens these local natural resources, particularly the estuarine resources on which commercial and noncommercial fishermen depend. An understanding of the ecology and local environment is therefore essential to estimating the impacts of base development on the community.
This dissertation addresses three research questions: (1) what is the impact of naval base development on the community during the first year of base operation, 1979-1980? (2) what is the impact of naval base development on the commercial fishery? (3) what is the impact of naval base development on a traditional form of community life, the supplementary subsistence activities? While the first two research questions were posed prior to field research, the significance of the latter research question became apparent early in the field experience.
Additionally, three predictions posited prior to field research are evaluated: (1) base development and the associated population influx will alter community institUtions; (2) base development and the associated population influx will result in a changed lifestyle; (3) base development and the associated population influx will produce conflict between oldtimers and newcomers.
This dissertation seeks to enhance the anthropological dimensions of the environmental impact assessment process and thus improve their overall utility. Anthropologists are not always so fortunate to find a research problem with such significant implications. The results of the study were intended from the outset to be of practical application to the problems raised by base development. It is hoped that the study will be
of value to both the community and the governmental agencies responsible for base development, as well as a contribution to the theoretical and methodological framework of social impact assessment.
Social Impact Assessment
Social impact assessment (SIA) is a new concept, interdisciplinary in scope, with methods and theory at an early stage of development. Social impact assessment origins can be traced to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); NEPA establishes policy, sets goals, and provides the means of meeting those goals in order to protect the environment (Council on Environmental Quality 1978). "Environment" in the language of NEPA is defined as the human and physical environment.
Environmental impact assessments are the vehicle for meeting NEPA requirements by providing a published analysis, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), of the projected impacts o development on the environment. The assessment information is then made available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions taken. The usual form of dissemination is a public hearing.
While environmental impact assessments explicitly address the
biological, geological, hydrologicaland atmospherical impacts, they are also required to address social impacts or impacts on the human environment. Unfortunately most environmental impact assessments are weighted heavily in terms of the natural and physical impacts. If social impacts are addressed, the analysis is typically limited to projected trends in the regional distribution of race, age, sex, income, and other census data.
Social impact assessments are an effort to improve the human
dimension of environmental impact assessments. Social impact assessments evaluate the ". . human consequences resulting from the implementation
of potential projects, plans, and other developments" (West 1975: 429). In examining impacts on demography, institutions, displacement and relocation, economy, community cohesion, and individual lifestyles, SIA attempts to ameliorate the impact of development projects on communities (Shields 1974). Social impact assessments include qualitative and quantitative data in analysis of the project and the development area. Documents and published data such as census statistics as well as direct data gathering such as field observations, interviews, and questionnaire surveys provide the information necessary to conduct an adequate social impact assessment (Finsterbusch 1980: 22).
At present, SIA consists of a growing inventory of case studies specific to the United States, but it has yet to define a common methodology (Finsterbusch and Wolf 1977; Shields 1974). Dixon's (1978) analysis of the effects of the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline on the community of Fairbanks is an exemplary case study. In this case, the pipeline construction boom attracted a large, transient population, many of whom were unable to secure employment on the pipeline or in Fairbanks. The incoming population increased demands for local services that the community could not provide. Numerous adverse consequences were noted including increased crime, medical needs, and the cost of living. LaPorte (1978) has noted that the construction and operation of largescale nuclear waste management facilities may produce anxiety and other "unsettling changes" in the communities and regions in which they locate.
A variety of disciplines are concerned with the effects of development on communities, which accounts for the diversity of theoretical approaches and methodology used in SIA. Anthropologists have become increasingly involved in SIA in recent years. Anthropological methodology and theoretical perspectives enable them to address the processual effects of stress and change on community and family life. Applying anthropological methods predictively rather than retrospectively is not only possible but necessary for adequate planning (West 1975) and for advances in theory as well as technique.
To be truly effective, social impact assessments need to be incorporated into the design and implementation of the environmental impact assessment.
Incorporating this schema into planning procedures would
have implications for various professional groups.
Economists, engineers, and others, traditionally at the
centre of planning procedures would be obliged to make room for sociologists and others trained to give prominence to social concerns. Similarly, sociologists and
others who might do social impact assessment would have to
abandon the sometimes comfortable status of outside
specialists brought in to do a quick job and adopt the
more demanding role of continuous participants in the "real world" of decision making, with all of the attendant risks.
[Bowles 1981: 27]
Social impact assessment, particularly the social impact assessment of communities, is given further consideration in Chapter II.
Theoretical Bases of the Social Impact Assessment of
Naval Base Development on Camden County
Due to the holistic nature of social impact assessments and the diversity of disciplines involved, a variety of theoretical approaches are utilized in conducting social impact assessment. For the research
undertaken in Camden County, a series of theoretical approaches proved appropriate. No single theory is espoused as each approach utilized was necessary to fully comprehend the impact of naval base development on the community. The fields of community study, regionalism, development, and ecological anthropology have provided the theoretical framework from which to analyze and present the data on which this
dissertation is based.
Anthropologists view the community as the microcosm representative of society and culture (Arensberg and Kimball 1972). The community is viewed as an object of study for the researcher in which observations are made and the interrelationships between institutions and members are described (Arensberg and Kimball 1972: 8). The institutions, relationships, and behavior of the community are considered to exemplify those of the larger group and thus, theoretically, by understanding the microcosm, community, one can better understand the macrocosm: the region, society, and culture. Since the inception of the community study approach in the 1930s, many community studies have been conducted in rural settings (Arensberg 1968; Davis and Gardner 1941; Dollard 1937; Doughty 1968; Foster 1967; Kimball and Pearsall 1954; Lewis 1955; West 1945) and in urban settings as well (Gans 1962; Lynd and Lynd 1929; Warner 1961; Whyte 1955).
Many community studies have analyzed the impact of externally controlled events on community social lifeandassuch provide appropriate methods for conducting social impact assessments (Bowles 1981).
Community study can provide the theory and methodology for the social impact assessment of communities.
Community studies as social impact assessment, however, differ from conventional community studies in that social impact assessments are undertaken for the express purpose of guiding decision-making processes whereas conventional community studies are undertaken for
the more detached purpose of adding to the body of social science literature" (Bowles 1981: 39).
The form of community adopted for the analysis and presentation of data in this dissertation is that suggested by Arensberg and Kimball (1972: 109) for the American South, the county. Aspects of community studies related to "boom towns" and the impact of military installations that are relevant to analyzing the impact of naval base development on Camden County are presented in Chapter II. Further discussion of the Camden County community is also included in Chapter II. Regionalism
Regionalism is an ideological and heuristic device for delimiting, analyzing, planning, and administering areas defined as "regions": . homogeneous area[s] with physical and cultural characteristics distinct from those of neighboring areas" (Vance 1968: 377).
The community is part of a region. While many community studies make little attempt to define the region, the concept is implicit. The community as a "representative microcosm" implies the wider context of a region, or macrocosm.
Relating the community to the region and the region to the
community is accomplished through micro- and macrolevel analysis. "Comparative community study" and "regional ethnography" are two aspects of the same process and require new techniques for analysis. For the community researcher this entails observation of human living in a new context, the community's relationship to other communities and the macrosystem that impinges on it.
For such data, it will often be necessary to conduct a
new kind of fieldwork, one whose intention is to establish a basis for comparison across communities within
a context set by the analysis of a larger system or
region. [Olsen 1976: 47]
Micro- and macrolevel analysis would define the relationship of the community to other communities and the larger system or region. This in turn would lead to more adequate definitions of regions. Microlevel analysis of communities would "preclude overgeneralization on the entire region" and analysis of the linkages between communities and the larger system would provide insight into the patterns of communication and interaction between groups and the patterns of social cultural change (Hill 1977: 313).
The application of micro- and macrolevel analysis is even more important for social impact assessments. A reliable SIA considers impacts of development projects on the community (microlevel) and the region (macrolevel). In assessing the social impact of a reservoir development project in Texas, Singh (1977) utilized micro- (community) and macro- (region) level analysis and found the two perspectives essential to estimating impacts.
The microlevel analysis provided a definite structural
context of community where real impacts and their
recipients could be understood and interpreted . studying the project in light of a larger area [macro] we were able to relate the Cooper project to other communities and programs in the region. . It seems necessary that the
regional analysis of social impacts be supplemented by
more intensive community studies. [Singh 1977: 97]
In assessing the impact of naval base development, the environmental impact assessment (Department-of the Navy 1977a) defines the region as the Kings Bay region, a seven-county area, economically dependent on the central place of Jacksonville. This definition of region, however, is based on false assumptions. A more useful definition of region, adopted in this dissertation, is referred to as the Barrier Island Region. This definition is based on shared geographical, economic, historical, and social features and is defined in detail in Chapter II.
The effects of planned development on society have been addressed by anthropologists under the topic of technology and social change. The majority of American anthropologists studying the effects of technological developments on the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics of the recipient people or "target groups" as well as the attendant problems associated with implementing the projects of the "innovating organizations" have done so since World War II. A greater awareness of the social, political, and economic problems of the Third World and a
desire for creating stable governments have stimulated an increase in development programs (Foster 1969: 22).
Recent case studies of technological development programs by
anthropologists include the following examples. Poggie (1972) examines
the impact of the construction of three major factories on a rural area in Mexico and notes the developing contrasts between the life styles and cultural values of locally employed factory workers and the traditional farmers.
Doughty (1972) examines the social repercussions of the construction of a hydroelectric plant in the highlands of Peru and finds unexpected "ripple effects" of increased training, education, and employment of local inhabitants, increased medical services, and lowered infant mortality. The increased training and educational opportunities enhanced social mobility and allowed for successful migration to urban centers.
Sofranko, Fliegel, and Sharma (1977) examine the effects of
technical innovation and government supervision of tobacco production on local farmers in Ghana and India. They find that tobacco farmers who practice integrated farm production are satisfied with their careers, apply learned techniques to their other crops, and maintain traditional values.
Gonzalez (1972) notes the widespread support by all segments of society of the proposed construction of a hydroelectric dam in a rural area of the Dominican Republic. The peasants in the construction area perceived the dam to be beneficial to them, but in reality the dam was intended to further existing services to large landholders and urban areas. Cox (1975) also acknowledges differing perceptions or conflicts of interest between the Canadian government and local inhabitants, mostly American Indians, regarding a proposed natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Chicago.
These anthropological case examples attempt to examine the social implications of technological development on nonindustrial societies in order to understand the process of culture change. In each case study, there are implications for social impact assessment, but for the most part, anthropologists have not participated in the planning stages of development nor used their data to mitigate adverse effects of future developments.
In environmental impact assessments, economists and planners view the implementation of development projects as "top-down planning" (Bowles 1981) or "development from above" (Pitts 1976). One of the principles of development revealed through anthropological case studies, however, is that effective planning of development projects entails incorporating the target group into the planning process. This view is represented in "bottom-up planning" (Bowles 1981) or "development from below" (Pitt 1976).
This principle is applicable in analyzing the impact of naval base development on Camden County. The Navy, in taking a "top-down planning" approach, has encountered difficulty in implementing its development project. Results from the research reveal that if "bottom-up planning" had been utilized, the plans for development could have been more readily implemented and adverse impacts on the community minimized. Ecological Anthropology
The development of ecological anthropology is linked to the
field of biology and its outgrowth, ecology, the study of the relationship of plant and animal life to the environment. Ecological concepts of
nature have proved appropriate for analyzing human populations. Some of these concepts are the "web of life," the interdependence or symbiosis of plant and animal life, homeostasis as a regulating mechanism for maintaining a balance or equilibrium of nature, and adaptation as the mechanism of change.
The concept of "systems" forms the basis of the ecological
approach. A system is a ". . set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes" (Hall and Fagan 1956: 18). The system comprises a complex network of interdependencies between objects and the environment. Implicit in the concept of systems is the recognition of a hierarchy of systems that interrelate to the whole. The systems approach is thus a holistic approach.
The community is viewed as a population of a particular species within a specific environment or econiche whose interactions within and to the niche comprise an ecosystem. The community is a self-maintaining system.
Boundaries on the system can be imposed in order to analyze the components of the system and their interaction processes. Bennett (1976) differentiates systems theory from systems analysis. Systems theory ". . attempts to use system as a generalized model for reality" and systems analysis ". . is an empirical attempt to discover interdependencies, or energy flows" (Bennett 1976: 85).
Odum's (1971) energetics or energy modeling assumes system theory and is one means of analyzing systems. After initially defining the system boundary and its components by means of an energy model, energy
quantities are assigned to the components, storages, and the interdependencies or flows. While the calculations of storages and flows reflect the static state of the systems, the model can be analyzed by computer to provide a picture of the change in these relationships over time. Thus energy modeling can be used as a predictive technique.
Energy modeling (Odum 1971; Odum and Odum 1976) is utilized in this dissertation to analyze the historic relationship between the commercial fishery, the pulp mill, and the environment. Energy modeling is also employed to analyze the present relationship among the naval base, the commercial fishery, the pulp mill, and the environment. Further discussion of the application of this method to Camden County is presented in Chapter III-.
Historical influences on the development of ecological anthropology within the field of anthropology derive from the work of Julian Steward and Leslie White. Other contributions to the field derive from the work of neoevolutionists, represented by Elman Service, Karl Polanyi, and Morton Fried, and neofunctionalists, represented by Marvin Harris and the early work of Vayda and Rappaport (Orlove 1980: 236-245).
A processual approach characterizes the current forms of ecological anthropology. As the term implies, processual ecological anthropology is concerned with the process or interaction of the system and the mechanisms that regulate it (Orlove 1980). The homeostatic or equilibrium model that defines the system in other ecological approaches is replaced by one that emphasizes the system's resilience (Hardesty 1977: 16).
The recognition of historical processes, a diachronic viewpoint, and the impact of external events on the system is a distinguishing characteristic of processual ecological anthropology. Processual ecological anthropology incorporates conflict in its models. Finally, processual ecological anthropology attempts precise studies of productive activities and settlement patterns (Orlove 1980: 261). This new approach defines ecological anthropology as
...the study of the relations among the population
dynamics, social organization, and culture of human populations and the environments in which they live. It
includes comparative research as well as analyses of specific populations from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives.
In many cases, systems of production constitute important
links among population dynamics, social organization,
culture, and environment. [Orlove 1980: 235]
This study incorporates a processual ecological anthropology approach. The focus of analysis is the system and the change in the elements of the system and the interactions resulting from base development. The system is assumed to be resilient and in a state of conflict. The interaction of the system is viewed diachronically. The environmental problems stemming from historical and present development and the adaptive mechanisms invoked are examined.
The Kings Bay Setting: Camden County
Camden County is located on the coastal strand of southeastern Georgia. It is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Charlton and Brantley Counties, on the south by the St. Marys River, and on the north by the Little Satilla River. The county's land area is 657 square miles or 417,920 acres (Department of Commerce 1971: 12-18).
Historically, the land area of Camden County was much larger. In the 1840s, Camden County included 1,125 square miles; however, 468 of the square miles have since been incorporated into Charlton, Wayne, and Brantley Counties (Reddick et al. 1976: 1). Extensive marsh estuaries, rivers, and inlets crosscut the county and comprise 120,375 acres of the county's land area (see Figure 2). Land area alone makes Camden County the ninth largest county in the state of Georgia.
As mentioned earlier, the Camden County population resides among three small towns and the surrounding rural area. Figure 2 illustrates the location of these towns, St. Marys, Kingsland, and Woodbine, as well as the surrounding hamlets and the location of Kings Bay Naval Base.
St. Marys, the oldest existing town in the county, was planned in 1767.. The Colonial Council felt that the site, then known as Buttermilk Bluff and granted to Charles and Jermyn Wright, should be laid out as a town (Reddick et al. 1976: 145). This may have been due to the existence of a natural harbor at Buttermilk Bluff. The Wrights agreed to exchange their property at Buttermilk Bluff for land elsewhere.
By 1787, however, the 1,620 acres at Buttermilk Bluff had been granted to and surveyed by Jacob Weed. Plans were made between Weed and 19 other men to lay out a town on the land in 1788. The men each bought four-acre squares from Weed and the remaining acreage became common property (Reddick et al. 1976: 145). The town of St. Marys was officially established by the Georgia State Legislature in 1792, and incorporated in 1802. Figure 3 depicts downtown St. Marys as it appeared in 1980.
TO BRUNSWICK, GA.
.T AC sONVI n FLA.
TON A CUMBERLAND
rOMPKINS RIVER .
S.R.40 1Q MS
~KINGS BAY KINGSLAND C M E L N
Fiue2 a f adnCut shwn th principa BEtowNsKig
b ST.' I NOR TH RIVER
S M A R S S T. A R S
TO JACKSONVILLE, FLA. ORI
FERNANDINA, FLA. FLORIDA
Figure 2. Map of Camden County showing the principal towns, Kings
Bay Naval Base, and the Cumberland Sound estuary
Figure 3. View of downtown St. Marys from the waterfront in 1980
The town of Kingsland developed along the tracks of the
Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad. Kingsland was originally the site of one of the King plantations, Woodlawn. James King, a wealthy planter and son of John King who had established the Cherry Point plantation near Kings Bay in the 1700s, bought and developed the inland area for Woodlawn. The plantation was later held by John Madison King, a son of James King, as Longwood plantation. William Henry King, son of John King, built his home on the plantation lands (Reddick et al. 1976).
In 1893, the first train came through King's land, and thence comes its name. The town soon developed around the railroad depot and was incorporated in 1908 as Kingsland. When U.S. Highway 17 was constructed in 1927, many of the businesses in Kingsland moved one block east of the railroad tracks situated on the Old Dixie Highway to be located on the new highway (Reddick et al. 1976). Figure 4 depicts downtown Kingsland at the intersection of U.S. Highway 17 and State Road 40 in 1979.
The town of Woodbine, the county seat, developed along the tracks of the Seaboard Railroad. Originally the location of a rice plantation that was established along the south banks of the Satilla River before the 1800s, Woodbine plantation was later developed by J. K. Bedell for pine timber and rice. The plantation flourished due to its location along a main waterway for transporting rice, lumber, and lumber by-products. Bedell permitted the Seaboard Railroad to pass through the plantation if the first community to develop as a result of
Figure 4. View of downtown Kingsland on U.S. Highway 17 in 1979
its presence be named Woodbine in honor of the plantation (Reddick et al. 1976).
The town name was adopted in 1908. When U.S. Highway 17 was constructed one block east of the railroad in 1927, the town and its businesses also moved eastward to be situated along the new transportation nexus-the highway (Reddick et al. 1976). Figure 5 provides- a view of downtown Woodbine on U.S. Highway 17 in 1979.
A distinctive ecological feature of Camden County and other
coastal counties of the Barrier Island Region is the estuary. "Estuary"
by definition refers to a semi-enclosed coastal body of water
having a free connection with the open sea and within which the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water deriving from land drainage" (Smith 1974: vii). However, the areas surrounding the estuary are also associated with it. Thus the sounds, salt marsh, intertidal areas, and intruding freshwater habitats are also thought of as being a part of the estuary. By expanding the definition, "estuary" includes the "estuarine zone" and refers to ". . an environmental system consisting of the estuary and those transitional areas consistently influenced or affected by water from the estuary" (Smith 1964: vii).
Along the Barrier Island Region, the estuarine zone encompasses that area of waters lying between the barrier islands and the mainland. In this study, "estuary" will refer to the estuarine zone and be termed the Cumberland Sound estuarine complex. The Cumberland Sound estuarine complex is basic to the marine orientation of commercial and noncommercial fishermen in Camden County.
Figure 5. View of downtown Woodbine on U.S. Highway 17 in 1979
Rivers enter the sea through the estuaries and thus one characteristic of estuaries is a mixture of fresh and salt water. Estuaries are fertile, productive systems that support and spawn a chain of marine life.
Their content of organic detritus is continually renewed
from inflowing rivers, from the death of freshwater
organisms killed by seawater, and marine organisms
killed by fresh water, and by the mechanism of the socalled "nutrient trap." Inorganic nutrient salts
entering the estuary are trapped by the growth of plants
which incorporate them; plankton carried in is greater in
volume than that carried out, and both plankton and
detritus carried into the estuary are filtered off by many estuarine organisms such as worms and especially filter-feeding molluscs. After digestion, the faeces
of these filter feeders, often bound by mucus, further
build up the organic content of the estuarine soil. The worms and molluscs are food for many species of fish, and
their faeces feed the growth of benthic algae which in
turn feed fish such as the grey mullets and many species of
prawn. [Hickling 1975: 110]
The chain of marine life consists of producers and consumers.
Phytoplankton are the simple plants, or producers, that are consumed by zooplankton, fish larvae, and other estuarine organisms. Benthic invertebrates such as shrimp, crabs, clams, worms, and snails that consume detritus, zooplankton and phytoplankton in turn are consumed by many fish species (Department of the Navy 1977a: 3-148).
The productivity of the estuary is vital to the commercial and
noncommercial fisheries. "At least 65 percent of our nation's commercial fish and shellfish and most marine sport species inhabit the estuarine environment during all or part of their life cycle" (Smith 1964: vii).
The estuary maintains a delicate balance which can be upset by dredging, dredge spoil disposal, oil spills, and other pollutants (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 1975). One of the major impacts
of naval base development is the disruption of the Camden County estuarine system. The physical impact of development and its implications for the local economy and community lifestyle areaddressed in Chapters III and IV.
The Navy's Plans for Development
The Navy's plans for development are grouped by phases or levels of construction and operation. These phases are termed T-1 and A-1. These refer to the development of the base to accommodate Poseidon submarines (T-1) and the subsequent expansion of the base to accommodate the Trident nuclear submarine (A-1.).
The T-1 phase entails the construction of waterfront facilities for the mooring of a 650'-foot-long submarine repair ship tender "which serves as a base for a submarine to change crews, take on supplies, and conduct necessary maintenance before returning to patrol" (Department of the Navy 1977a: 1-16). The tender can accommodate four submarines at mid-mooring, i.e., ship's stern to pier, or two submarines lengthwise along each side (Department of the Navy 1977a: 1-18). Also included in T-1 development is a floating dry dock, approximately 535 feet long by 80 feet wide "for necessary maintenance and repairs to the hull of the submarines" (Department of the Navy 1977a: 1-16), submarine service craft, and maintenance and storage facilities (Department of the Navy 1977a: 1-17).
The T-1 development is mobile, essentially a water-based version of permanent, ashore facilities.
The tender and floating dry dock virtually form a
floating shipyard with industrial shops, maintenance
facilities, supply system, and personnel support accommodations, all providing a wide variety of services.
The various shops provide almost all the trade skills
of a shipyard, from draftsmen and pattern makers to
foundry workers and machinists. Maintenance facilities
include machine foundry, instrument, optical, and
electronic shops, plus many others. In addition, the
tender provides room and board for [submarine] crews during crew turnover. [Department of the Navy 1977a:
The Navy maintains a state of readiness which requires rotation
of offgoing and oncoming submarine crewmen. As no training facilities are included in T-1 development, offgoing crews return to their home ports of Charleston, South Carolina; New London, Connecticut;, or Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; after their duty of patrol (68 days) and refitting (32 days) and are then replaced by an oncoming crew (Department of the Navy 1977a:
Development of Kings Bay for T-1, the Poseidon submarine squadron, was scheduled to begin in January 1978 and be completed by early 1982. Further expansion through 1990 has been calculated to meet fleet requirements and provide a refit site for the Trident-1 backfit program (Department of the Navy 1977a: 1-28).
The impact population of naval personnel and dependents associated with the T-1 phase of the development is estimated at 4,247. This includes 1,839 military personnel, 189 civilian personnel, 1,651 military dependents, and 568 c civilian dependents (Department of the Navy 1977a: 2-47). Table 1 presents the Navy's estimates of the impact population anticipated in the 1977 environmental impact assessment.
Table 1. Navy estimates of impact population, 1977 Proposed Action
One Squadron Two Squadrons
Tender Refit Site:
Military 1,839 3,654
Civilian 189 284
Military Dependents 1,651 3,285
Civilian Dependents 568 853
Total Population Impact 4,247 8,076
Ashore Refit Facilities
Military 4,341 7,421
Civilian 2,790 3,985
Military Dependents 14,682 14,682
Civilian Dependents 4,883 6,974
Total Population Impact 20,339 33,062
Source: Department of the Navy 1977a: Table 2-3
The base support facilities developed for T-1 include
utilities, public works, base administration, medical and dental, community and family support, family housing, bachelor housing, and the required interconnecting roads and utilities to service each of these" (Department of the Navy 1977a: 1-21). On-base housing completed by 1982 for married and single naval personnel will consist of 400 married housing units and 35 single enlisted quarters. The remaining 562 military households would be expected to secure housing off-base in the surrounding community. According to a housing survey conducted by the Navy, 75 percent of military personnel would prefer to live off-base in Camden County. Civilian personnel employed on the base are expected to reside in Duval County (39 percent), Nassau County (24 percent), Glynn County (17 percent), Camden County (14 percent), and Charlton County (6 percent) (Department of the Navy 1977a: 4-176).
The A-1 phase of base development entails the construction
of anashore refit facility to maintain one Trident submarine squadron of 10 ships (Department of the Navy 1980a: 3-7). This facility would be permanent and replace the tender. The T-1 development would be expanded to include weapons storage and transfer, Trident missile production, offcrew training, administrative personnel support, and additional on-base housing (Department of the Navy 1980b: S-1 S-2).
Expansion of Kings Bay to accommodate the Trident nuclear submarine complex, the A-1 phase, began in early 198-2. The A-1 facility will be completed in 1992 and maximum development and personnel buildup is anticipated by 1998 (Department of the Navy 1980a: 3-20).
The impact of naval personnel and dependents anticipated wtth A-1 development is 22,361. The Navy expects 59 percent, or 13,242, of these new residents to settle in Camden County (Department of the Navy 1980b: S-3). The 1980 EIS does not provide information on the preferred or expected residences of military and civilian personnel comparable to that supplied for the T-1 phase.
Table 2 presents the Navy's estimate of the impact population anticipated in the 1980 environmental impact assessment. The primary impact population estimated for 1998 is 18,505, the work force required for Trident II missile production, yet 7,037 additional personnel will be required for Trident I missile handling and storage. Whether these personnel are additional to the A-1 figures is unclear.
Base personnel support facilities to be expanded for A-1 include the exchange retail store, exchange cafeteria, dining facility, exchange service outlets, family service center, recreation facilities, consolidated club, child care, library, playing courts and fields (Department of the Navy 1980b: 1-9). Medical services will be expanded to provide outpatient care, and hospital care will be provided by the Navy Hospital at the Air Naval Station in Jacksonville, Florida (Department of the Navy 1980b: 1-10). The A-1 development will also entail new personnel support facilities. These include a commissary, post office, chapel, and a cafeteria (Department of the Navy 1980b: 1-9).
On-base housing will be increased to include an additional 800 family housing units located near the 400 units of T-1 development. Quarters for 1,300 single personnel will be built on-base (Department of the Navy 1980b: 1-29).
Table 2. Navy estimates of impact population, 1980
A-1 Facility (1998 Level) Military Civilian Total
Total Work Forcea 5,274 2,596 7,870
Dependents 7,902 2,733 10,635
Population 13,176 5,329 18,505
a This work force is required for full Trident II Missile Production Operation. The initial Trident I Missile Handling and Storage function will require the following work force: Military Civilian Total
5,256 1,817 7,073
Source: Department of the Navy 1980b: Table 1-1
Both the 1977 and 1980 EIS mention the possibility of further
development at Kings Bay to accommodate an additional Poseidon submarine squadron (T-2) or another Trident squadron (A-2). While no estimates of population impact associated with these sequences are presented, it can be assumed that it would require expansion of base facilities, housing and public services, and additional personnel.
Methodology of the Social Impact Assessment of
Naval Base Development on Camden County
The research methodology utilized in this study is an amalgam ofthe traditional anthropological process of participant observation, interview surveys, and the community study approach. Community study methodology entails the use of (1) the natural history method and
(2) event analysis. Event analysis involves the observation of specific events and associated human behaviors and interactions in time and space. It represents the synchronic view of the community in process. The natural history method involves observation of the community in process. It represents the diachronic view of the community, its workings through time. Together, these two methods enable the observer to detail social structure and cultural behavior in its historical setting. These methods lead to an understanding of community. Only with such an understanding can social changes be identified, evaluated and possibly predicted.
Analyzing the impact of naval base development on the community required a diverse approach that includes five basic strategies:
(1) participant observation of the community; (2) a study of the local associations and institutions; (3) an interview schedule of a sample of community residents and naval personnel; (4) an in-depth study of
representative families and individuals in the community; and (5) historic research of the region and community.
Participant observation provided a means of understanding the composition of the community, the social and cultural context in which change has occurred. The data obtained by living in the community, observing and taking part in local events, facilitated the identification and examination of the nature and extent of social networks in the community through time. Participant observation was essential to the refinement of the formal interview schedule by permitting the identification of appropriate questions. In-depth interviews with key informants, persons in the community who are especially knowledgeable about different aspects of the community, also contributed to the content of the formal interview schedule as well as enhanced the analysis of the schedule results.
The study of local associations and institutions included a
survey of the number and distribution of social, economic, and political institutions in the county from 1964 to present. Generally the institutional inventory reveals the presence or absence of government agencies, educational and reliqioUS institutions, community services, transportation systems, medical services, communication media, financial or lending firms, industrial and business institutions and recreation facilities.
A photographic inventory of business and residential areas was conducted throughout the research period to document the immediate physical changes. The changes recorded in the institutional and
photographic inventories aid in distinguishing the physical impact of the naval base from general growth trends.
A formal interview schedule was administered to a systematic sample of community residents at the beginning of the research period and again, using the same informants, one year later. The schedule addressed community patterns of behavior, health standards, and attitudes toward base development. A similar schedule was administered to a sample of naval personnel in the summer of 1980.
The in-depth study of representative families and individuals consisted of participant observation and the tape recording of life histories. The life histories established a history of family patterns of behavior, health standards, and attitudes as well as varying responses to the changes accompanying naval base development. One informant in particular provided extensive information on community lifestyles and economic pursuits in the early 1900s.
Historic research entailed analysis of community and regional
history through written records and census and vital statistics. Analysis of the commercial fishery was facilitated by Department of Commerce fishery statistics which provided a complete history of the commercial fishery when supplemented by interviews of local fishermen. Historic research combined with oral life histories document traditional community lifestyle.
The chapters to follow address the three research questions that form the analytical core of the study. Chapter II examines the community during the first year of base development. Chapter III presents the
impact of base development on the commercial fishery. Chapter IV addresses the impact of base development on one facet of community lifestyle, the subsistence activities of fishing, hunting, and gardening. Chapter V presents the conclusions drawn from these chapters and also considers recommendations to both the community and the Navy for mitigating the adverse impacts of base development.
THE COMMUNITY DURING THE
FIRST YEAR OF BASE DEVELOPMENT
This chapter presents an analysis of the social consequences of the first year of naval base development for Camden County. Literature on boom towns and military impacts provides a framework with which to analyze the impact of base development. Data gathered through field research and historical research are utilized to present an overview of the Camden County community immediately prior to base development. An understanding of the pre-impact community creates a baseline from which to measure future change. Knowledge of historic trends aids in distinguishing impact-related events from the natural course of change.
The results of research intended to identify and measure the changes in the community during the first year are presented. These data include an analysis of interviews with community residents conducted at the beginning of base development and again one year later;
an analysis of changes in community institutions oyer time; a photographic documentation of physical changes in the community; and the researcher's observations of events during the first year of base development.
The community and the Navy are characterized as different social systems. Community residents are contrasted with the incoming population of naval personnel through a comparison of interview schedules administered to a sample of community residents and naval personnel.
Factors affecting the course of the impact are identified in the interpretation of the first year of base development. Political and economic conditions external to the community affected community attitudes and behavior concerning base development. Underlying conflicts among community residents and naval personnel are described and potential sources of conflict are anticipated.
Three scenarios are depicted as alternate futures for the community. One of these, a scenario positing the relative independence of the community, is suggested as the most useful for retaining vitality.
Social Impact Assessments for Communities
Development projects involve the impact of people upon people as well as the impact of people upon the physical environment. Development projects alter the physical and human environment of the community in which they occur. Development connotes progress and economic growth for the human environment and thus is viewed as good for all. As a result, the human element of the host community is often overlooked in the evaluation of the consequences of development. Environmental impact assessments, required by NEPA to evaluate the social and economic consequences of development projects, typically consider the economic consequences more fully than the social consequences.
This results in part from the fact that economic problems are immediately evident, whereas social factors may not be manifest until some time after the impact. Further, economic costs and benefits are quantifiable whereas the associated social consequences are relatively intangible and difficult to address directly (Little 1977: 404-405).
EIS's are a prime example of the tendency to ignore potential social consequences. They typically pay only superficial attention to the social impacts a proposed
development might engender. Unlike assessments of the
possible impacts upon the natural environment, social impact assessments almost never utilize data collected specifically
to answer the questions at hand. Instead, if data is used
at all, it is primarily nothing more than demographic information available from federal and state agencies . .
In fact, the use of available data tends to direct attention
away from questions that need to be answered and redirects it towards questions that can be answered. The end result
of this practice is that social impact sections of EIS's
give the appearance of being afterthoughts, included merely
to satisfy the formal requirements of NEPA. [Little 1977:
425, emphasis in original]
Environmental impact assessments conducted by the Navy in advance of base development in Camden County (Department of the Navy 1977a, 1980a) exemplify this tendency. The impact assessments analyze the impacts of base development on a seven-county region rather than address the host community directly, notwithstanding the Navy's expectation that the majority of naval personnel will reside in Camden County. This regional assessment effectively dilutes the actual impact anticipated for Camden County. For example, in considering the demographic impact ofthe Trident complex, the environmental impact assessment notes that the regional population will increase by only 3 percent. Thus the assessment anticipates "no significant demographic impact" for the region, deemphasizing the fact that the population of Camden County itself will more than double (Department of the Navy 1980a: 6-85).
A neglect of the social consequences of naval base development
is clearly illustrated by the manner in which the Navy responded to citizensl questions concerning social impacts. At a public hearing conducted to provide a forum for citizens' reactions to the 1977 impact
assessment, one Camden County resident expressed concern that community attitudes seemed to be excluded from the assessment.
In reference [to] the Kings Bay, GA., TRIDENT base I would
suggest that part of your evaluation of the site include a survey of the local residents concerning this project.
Other than the merchants and politicians, most of the people
with whom I have had contact oppose the selection of the
Kings Bay site. [Department of the Navy 1977b: 3-12]
Thp Navy's response was, "A community attitudinal survey was considered, but was later abandoned because of the difficulties frequently encountered in obtaining impartial results from surveys" (Department of the Navy 1977b: 3-13).
The environmental impact assessment (Department of the Navy
1977a) cited the difficulty of defining the community as justification for neglecting it. The assessment update for Trident (Department of the Navy 1980a) reported that social impacts of base development on Camden County were being addressed by the study reported in this dissertation.
It is difficult to document and accurately assess the impacts of this 1979 growth on community character and
cohesion in Camden County because sufficient time has not passed for all impacts to become evident. The University of Florida is in the process of analyzing the impacts of
recent growth on community character and the quality of life
in Camden County. [Department of the Navy 1980a: 5-133]
Questions concerning social impacts in 1980 were answered with reference to this study and other unspecified studies. The Office of Policy in Human Development Services, Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., responded to the 1980 environmental impact assessment in a letter recommending the following:
We believe that the mere presence of such a missile system may cause the people of that area to develop anxiety, fear, strain and stress which may cause failing health conditions
requiring clinical and medical treatment and bring about
considerable expenditures. We, therefore, rec-ommend th at a
study of the psychological effects on the people be taken into consideration in addition to the safety and security
of this system so that the unique physiological, psychological, social and cultural factors of the ways of life of
all people, living in this area, will be protected.
[Department of the Navy 1980b: 2-15 2-16] The Navy's response was,
Studies have been undertaken to identify potential effects of the TRIDENT submarine base upon the people in the Kings
Bay region. The Draft Supplement to the Environmental
Impact Statement presents the findings of these studies and
identified strategies for mitigating potentially adverse effects. Furthermore, the University of Florida independently is in the process of analyzing the impacts of recent Navy-related growth upon community character and quality of
life in Camden County. [Department of the Navy 1980b:
This failure to adequately address the community and social impacts is basically a result of the Navy's failure to deal directly with the people involved. That community residents appreciate consultation was evident in interviews conducted by the author during the summers of 1979 and 1980. Residents were pleased and encouraged that their opinions were sought and that the community would be represented in the study. Consultation was viewed as a sign of cooperation between the host community and the elements of change.
Analysis of social impacts on communities is facilitated by
viewing the community as a single social system that produces quality of life conditions for its members (Finsterbusch 1980). ". . The communities are the loci for the delivery of most quality-of-life components to individuals and families. They can be considered effective or ineffective to the extent that they are good places to live-that is they provide for a high quality of life (Finterbusch 1980: 25).
A social impact assessment of a community relies on four basic premises:
(1) There is a defined community with more-or-less
stable patterns of social behavior, social relationships, and way of life; (2) some identifiable intervention . .
takes place; (3) this intervention has consequences which
produce changes in the pattern of activities, the social
relationships, and the way of life; and (4) these changes
are different from, or in addition to, those which would
have occurred as a consequence of processes already operating in the community. [Bowles 1981: 71
In essence an intervening project or policy disrupts the natural history of a stable community and stimulates new behavioral responses.
Assessing social impacts on a community first entails defining the community and delineating its boundaries. According to Arensberg and Kimball, community is defined as ". . systems comprising interactional regularities and cultural behavior in an environmental context" (Arensberg and Kimball 1972: 4). Community refers to a geographic space or settlement pattern; a locality as well as the social interactions and institutions that bind people together.
Delineating community boundaries, particularly in rural areas, can be accomplished by asking residents to identify their community, the community of which they feel a part (Finsterbusch 1980: 79). Community is both a closed and open system, closed by the researcher who
defines the boundary of his system and yet open in fact by community members, ties to other communities, institutions, and persons.
Communities must also be considered within a regional context. Assessing the social impacts of one community recognizes that the changes it experiences will eventually affect other connected communities (Bowles 1981: 8-9).
Conducting a community social impact assessment entails an initial literature review of similar impact situations in order to formulate hypotheses about the consequences of the impact. Second, research designed to predict the impact is conducted and the results presented. Finally, the results are used in planning and implementing the impact project (Bowles 1981: 9).
The process of estimating social impacts in a community entails five steps. (1) Baseline data are collected to produce a profile of the physical and social conditions of the pre-impact community.
(2) The physical changes in the community resulting from the development are distinguished from those that would occur regardless of development.
(3) Social impacts, the changes in the community resulting from the development, are estimated. (4) The significance of the impacts are evaluated in terms of the community's interests and objectives.
(5) Proposals for mitigation of adverse impacts of the development on the community are formulated (Christensen 1976).
Collecting baseline data is the most critical and time-consuming step of the social impact assessment. Adequate and reliable baseline data are essential for estimating the social impacts of proposed developments. Methods of collecting community baseline data may include the use of surveys administered to a sample of residents, to gather information; direct observations of physical conditions of the community and behavior of community residents in specific settings at specific times; diaries or time activity logs for obtaining detailed information on specific activities; and simulations or graphic displays such as
video tapes, photographs, games and models used as projective tests for identifying residents' preferences (Christensen 1976: 31-42). In the Camden County study, methods of collecting baseline data have included surveys participant observation, life histories, archival research, a photo inventory and an institutional inventory.
One common means of estimating social impacts is by qualitative inference.
Impacts are estimated by inferring how the changes to the physical environment will affect citizen uses and perceptions. Inference involves judgmental estimates of how
satisfaction levels and activities will change when specific
neighborhood [and community] places are altered. [Christensen
The validity of inferences depends upon the quality of the baseline data. The reliability of inference can be checked by monitoring community change after the development is completed in order to test the accuracy of the original predictions. Surveys can be repeated and direct observations conducted. Longitudinal studies that monitor the community changes over time at set intervals can also be undertaken. In the Camden County study, a monitoring process has been initiated. The interview schedule. employed in 1979 was administered one year later to the identical sample of local households. Follow-up studies in Camden County are planned to monitor the impact of base development over time.
Social impact assessments are designed to facilitate decision making. While decisions concerning the implementation of the project are usually made by institutions external to the community, this need
not always be the case. Unfortunately, community participation in the environmental impact assessment process is typically confined to the inclusion of citizen comments at public hearings. As will be demonstrated later, the community can be successfully involved in project decision making.
Community Responses to Impacts
Three factors influence a community's response to the impact of development projects: (1) the social vitality of the community;
(2) the viability of the local economy; and (3) the internal political efficacy of the community. For example, a vital community social life and a viable local economy are an adaptive characteristic of communities in the Canadian hinterlands that ideally are maintained and planned for in the implementation of major development projects (Bowles 1981: 2). This is most likely to occur if the community has the political efficacy, competence, or internal strength, tobargain with the outside developers.
A vital community is characterized by the following patterns. There are many collective social occasions and events, with a relatively high level of resident participation. Events are usually organized by the residents themselves. Networks relate community members to each other and many services are provided on a contractual basis or through informal network contacts. Individuals or families are supported in times of need, sorrow, or joy by other residents in the community. Members are able to organize collectively in response to imposed events. Most residents perceive impacting events as affecting
the community as a whole as well as themselves personally (Bowles 1981: 49-52).
While formal services and institutions are recognized as
important to a community and to individuals' sense of well-being, the informal aspects of the services, i.e., the way in which they are provided, override their formal aspects. For example, ". . community residents are not likely to be dismayed by a hospital with a good operating room, but they may be alienated by bureaucratic processing of family members in a community where more personalistic relationships predominate" (Bowles 1981: 53). Little (1977: 422) notes that community division between oldtimers and newcomers in Page, Arizona, a small community undergoing rapid development, was exacerbated when interpersonal processes were replaced by institutional mechanisms.
Viability of the local economy refers to those economic
activities that occur within the community and meet local needs. A local economy is defined as ". . an institutional system which provides utilities at the local level" (Bowles 1981: 63). The local economy includes commercial and noncommercial activities that contribute to the economic and social well-being of community residents. Examples of viable local economic activities in Camden County include local industry, commercial fishing, and noncommercial fishing, hunting, and gardening practices. Local industrial activities are examined within this chapter. The traditional economic activity of commercial fishing is presented in Chapter III, and the subsistence activities of fishing, hunting, and gardening are presented in Chapter IV.
Political efficacy refers to the ability of the community to organize and mobilize resources in order to act effectively on internal or external problems and to deal with the associated powers or groups that affect the community and its members. A politically effective community is able to define and manage direct and impending impacts of development projects (Bowles 1981: 60).
In contrast, the lack of political efficacy can result in a
declining community. Simon and Gagnon (1967) studied three neighboring rural towns in rural southern Indiana that exhibited economic decline following the boom and bust of coal development and an inability to fully redevelop their communities. Their results indicate that the most politically cohesive community, Spiresburg, displayed a greater economic recovery and a more positive attitude about its offerings and future than the other two, politically fictionalized, towns. The authors conclude that ". . the quality of community leadership-particularly political leadership-is a crucial determinant of the course of development" (Simon and Gagnon 1967: 49).
A community with political efficacy displays "competence," the ability and commitment to act on direct or impending impacts to the good of the community. A competent community is
. one in which the various component parts of the community: (1) are able to collaborate effectively in
identifying the problems and needs of the community;
(2) can achieve a working consensus on goals and priorities; (3) can agree on ways and means to implement the
agreed-upon goals; and (4) can collaborate effectively in
the required actions. It is proposed here that a community
that can provide the conditions and generate the capabilities required to meet the above performance tests will be
competent to cope with the problems of its collective life.
[Cottrell 1977: 548]
Community competence in the face of development projects requires communication skills to deal with outside interests and adaptability to the new circumstances and the wider context in which the community finds itself. This often translates into the ability of the community to learn new skills in order to cope with new problems and to use experts or specialists, such as planners or researchers, without being controlled by them (Bowles 1981: 61; Cottrell 1977: 555).
The value of experts or specialists to a community undergoing development is illustrated by two development projects initiated on a Navajo reservation. During the first project, the Navajo had no access to experts and thus exerted no influence on the development. In the case of further development, however, the Navajo had access to the information and advice of a research facility and were able to make
informed decisions and influence the course of development (Robbtns 1979).
Experts or specialists are most effective as advisors or consultants that not only provide information but also present recommendations to the community to facilitate decision making. To the mayor of Gillette, Wyoming, a town undergoing energy development in boom proportions, the need for recommendations outweighed the need for information.
They [experts] ask us what our problems are, and a little
later they issue a brochure telling us what our problems
are. . We've got a whole library full (if them in our planning department. They're nice to have, and they certainly tell an awful lot about our problems. We have an unusual amount of understanding our problems. What we'd
like to have is an unusual amount of understanding our
solutions. [Corrigan 1976: 1152]
The community's reliance on experts or specialists can be a source of conflict if the experts are not aware of their delicate
position. Although the temptation sometimes exists to direct the course of development, particularly in fictionalized communities that demonstrate little political efficacy or competence, experts function best as advisors or advocates rather than decision makers (Bowles 1981; Lynch 1970; Stafford and Ladner 1977). Lynch (1970) provides an example of a community facing the impact of military base closure that hired a full-time manager to handle the base conversion. The manager became "a scapegoat for community inaction" (Lynch 1970: 234). As will be discussed later, Camden County residents have expressed resentment over the role of planners in managing the impact of naval base development.
Community involvement in the planning, decision making, and
implementation of development projects allows the community to successfully adapt to new circumstances. "When government and business only intervene, or attempt to manipulate analysis and debate, they deny the local community the chance to grow collectively through the process of their own assimilation and their own reformation of change in ways that make sense to them" (Bates 1978: 77). Community participation is thus a means of "bottom-up" planning (Bowles 1981: 59) or "development from below" (Pitt 1976) in which the community and its residents are active in determining the course of changes that will affect their lives.
Bowles (1981) contrasts the response of two French Canadian communities to developMent. Parish, a rural Quebec community, experienced the impact of several externally controlled textile plants as a passive recipient. The lack of community involvement in the impact resulted in
reduced social vitality, local control and autonomy (Bowles 1981: 3738). St. Pascal, on the other hand, actively sought new industries and encouraged expansion of old industries and industrialized through local control.
Individuals within St. Pascal, mostly entrepreneurs or sons
of entrepreneurs, worked together in previously existing
community organizations to mobilize local support for
projects which would provide economic benefit to the c.ommunity. Using contacts which they had with outside agencies, including especially the development-oriented branches of the provincial government, they organized funding for both civic facilities and capitalist enterprises. [Bowles 1981:
In this case, the social vitality and economic viability of St. Pascal was not only maintained but increased with locally controlled industrialization (Bowles 1981: 39).
Lynch (1970) notes that communities experiencing military base closures can successfully adapt if they remain independent of the base and actively seek new industry or avenues of development and organize a base closure committee that encourages resident participation and representation in deciding on and carrying out community redevelopment programs (Lynch 1970: 231-236). For example, of the 12 communities cited by Lynch, Presque Isle, Maine, most successfully recovered from base closure. This was accomplished by the community's ready acceptance of the closure decision, its active development of other resources for industry, and its political confidence to work collectively within the community and to garner support from state and federal leaders (Lynch 1970: 48-65).
Communities experiencing base closures are recognized as being solely responsible for development. This is evidenced by the fact that
the federal agency representing communities, the Office of Economic Adjustment, serves only to advise communities that request its assistance (Lynch 1970: 22).
Gilmore (1976) suggests that one means of managing boom growth by local government is through the formation of groups designed specifically to deal with the impact.
In Kitsap County, Washington, local government, assisted
by the Department of Defense, set up the Trident Coordination Office to deal with impacts of the developing Trident weapons system. It is financed by the Economic Development
Administration, the State Office of Community Development,
and some county money. [Gilmore 1976: 540]
Kitsap County like Camden County is being developed as a Trident nuclear submarine base. Camden County has also developed an impact committee, the Kings Bay Steering Committee, and established a Trident Coordination Office to deal with the impact of base development. The role of these agencies in the course of development will be discussed in subsequent sections.
Boom towns are one manifestation of the impacts of development projects on a rural community. By definition, since boom towns entail economic development and rapid population growth, they do not occur in metropolitan areas where their impacts are more readily assimilated (Little 1977: 402-403).
The term "boom town" is applied to a rural community which
experiences a substantial increase in economic activity causing a rapid and disruptive population growth. The major types of new economic activity are (1) mining and
resource development; (2) rural industrialization;
(3) military installations; (4) power plants, dams, and
other large construction projects; and (5) tourism,
recreation, or large retirement housing. [Finsterbusch
While patterns of population growth may differ according to the type of economic activity, the boom town model is the same. Commonly referred to as a "boom-bust" cycle, the boom town model consists of three stages: construction, operation, and shut-down (Finsterbusch 1980: 138).
The rate of population growth associated with a development project is a major determinant of the extent of the impact for the community. Gilmore and Duff (1975: 2) estimate that a 5 percent annual increase is about as much growth as a small community can absorb. Little (1977) suggests that a small community cannot absorb an annual growth rate in excess of 15 percent and accordingly sets boom town growth rates at 10 to 15 percent annually. Finsterbusch (1980: 138) defines a major boom town as a community that experiences a growth rate of 15 percent for three or more years. Camden County, expected to undergo a 34 percent population increase in the first year of base development, qualifies as a boom town that will experience the problems associated with boom growth.
Recent research in boom towns in the western United States dispels the romantic notion of boom towns in the American West as relatively problem-free places for carrying out entrepreneurial enterprises (Little 1977: 401). In fact, Gilmore (1976) concludes:
The energy boom town in the western United States is apt to be a bad place to live. It's apt to be a bad place to
do business . . The results of such unmanaged growth
are probably the leading source of upsets and conflict
that can be seen or anticipated in the process of western
energy development. [Gilmore 1976: 535]
The economic problems associated with boom towns are coupled
with social problems. While the economic factors are usually considered to be more important than the social factors, the social and economic consequences of boom towns are interrelated (Finsterbusch 1980; Gilmore and Duff 1975; Little 1977). Little (1977: 402) concludes that a community population increase of even 10 percent will result in severe institutional malfunctioning.' The new population increases the demands for housing and community services and signals conflicts between pre-impact community residents (oldtimers) and the newcomers (Finsterbusch 1980: 137).
An example of the social and economic breakdown of a community
undergoing boom town growth is Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Sweetwater County, and particularly the towns of Rock Springs and Green River, have experienced a boom-bust-boom cycle. The community was originally dependent on railroading and coal mining during the late 1880s, two economic activities that steadily declined after World War II. Mining operations for trona, a source of industrial soda ash, developed in the county in the 1960s (Gilmore and Duff 1975: 1).
The recent boom in Sweetwater County is related to the development of energy resources, specifically oil, gas, and coal. Increasing demands for soda ash have stimulated expansion of trona mining in Sweetwater County. Accelerated growth in the county began in 1971. The 1970 county population of 18,391 persons increased to 36,900 persons by 1974. The community has experienced a 19 percent annual growth rate with rapid growth rates expected through the 1980s, making Sweetwater County
a boom town with associated boom town problems (Gilmore and Duff 1975: 2-6).
Gilmore and Duff (1975) cite three major problems for Sweetwater County that have resulted from boom expansion. (1) The quality of life has deteriorated. Population growth has exceeded the ability of the community to provide needed services. The health, housing, schooling, retailing, and urban needs of newcomers have not been met. As the population doubled, newcomers were not satisfied with living conditions and were not integrated into the county. (2) Mining productivity declined 25 to 40 percent as a result of labor turnovers and shortages. Construction productivity declined also. Declining productivity was related to the deteriorating quality of life as newcomers, attracted by jobs but dissatisfied by the lack of community services, were discouraged enough by living conditions to consider leaving the county. (3) The local services sector failed to meet the needs of the community for goods and services. Local services and the revenue to develop them did not expand rapidly enough to accommodate the boom situation (Gilmore and Duff 1975: 2).
The problems associated with unmanaged growth in boom towns
perpetuate a self-sustaining cycle. Based on the experiences of Sweetwater County, Gilmore and Duff (1975: 23) and Gilmore (1976: 536) refer to the problems of boom towns as "the problem triangle." The impetus to the cycle is rapid population growth which stresses the local services. First, inadequate local services, goods, and other intangibles degrade the quality of life for oldtimers and newcomers. Second,
residents' discontent with the stressed living conditions results in an unstable work force, as they either move out of the community orexhibit high absentee rates. An inadequate labor force results in declining industrial productivity. Finally, the declining industry fails to provide adequate revenues to the community with which to develop the needed local services. And so the problem triangle continues to operate on a downward cycle.
The problem triangle emphasizes the effect or social consequence of boom towns on the success of the development projects. Dixon (1978: 119) asserts that impacts are not merely related to the population increase, but the social structure of the immigrants (newcomers) and the community (oldtimers). For oldtimers and newcomers, the quality of life in the communities most important. Corrigan (1976) records this for Rock Spring5 in Sweetwater County.
The impact on the community is what has bothered people not the impact on the environment . . [Community impacts include] rising crime rates, increases in suicide
and alcoholism and divorce cases and other troubles associated with a sense of rootlessness . . Newcomers
complained about the lack of services. Oldtimers complained
about traffic jams. [Corrigan 1976: 1151]
In Rock Springs, inadequate housing, streets, schools, water, sewers, utilities, police and fire protection, medical services, and recreational facilities have been a source of discontent. A trailer court boom has resulted as a means of meeting the housing needs of newcomers. The abnormal behavior patterns that result from stressed living conditions in boom towns has been termed "the Gillette Syndrome," after the boom town Gillette, Wyoming (Corrigan 1976: 1151-1152; Little 1977: 408).
Little (1977) provides an example of the Gillette Syndrome.
A housewife, fighting mud, wind, inadequate water and
disposal systems, a crowded mobile home, and muddy children all day, snaps at her husband who returns from a 16hour shift. He responds by heading back downtown and
spending the night at a bar drinking and trading stories with men from similar circumstances. [Little 1977: 408]
The social consequences of boom towns include the following: mental health problems, value conflicts, altered personal interaction patterns, altered institutional interaction patterns, and transiency and increased crime (Little 1977). One, mental health problems increase. In Gillette, Wyoming, divorce, depression, alcoholism, and attempted suicide rates were high among adults. Students exhibited low academic achievement levels and high truancy and delinquency rates. Similar studies in other boom towns demonstrate that ". . the social milieu of boom towns is not conducive to goo d mental health" (Little 1977: 409).
Two, value conflicts arise. Values, abstract standards of behavior shared by groups, are the general principles by which individual and group behaviors are judged. The value conflicts common in boom towns generally result from the differing attitudes and behavior among oldtimers and newcomers (Little 1977: 409-410).
Oldtimers in rural communities are relatively conservative,
while newcomers are more liberal in their values (Bates 1978: 76; Little 1977: 410). "[Newcomers] tend to be from urban areas, are younger and better educated, have fewer children, and are better paid than their rural counterparts" (Little 1977: 410). Nellis (1974) compared oldtimers and newcomers in the energy boom town of Hanna, Wyoming, and found differences in age, education, mobility, political affiliation
and awareness, as well as attitudes about development and needs for local services.
Three, personal interaction patterns are altered. Boom town growth may affect friendships and interaction among oldtimers and between oldtimers and newcomers. These changes may be reflected in either a breakdown in personal relationships among community members as
disagreements over the development project surface, or in increased solidarity or cohesion of community members as a result of the development project (Little 1977: 410-411).
Personal interaction patterns between oldtimers and newcomers are potentially fraught with conflict. The basis for conflicts is due to the different values and cultural orientations of oldtimers and newcomers. Stereotyping is one means of expressing the conflict and effectively limiting interaction between oldtimers and newcomers. Scapegoating is another expression of conflict between oldtimers and newcomers (Little 1977: 411).
Newcomers are often blamed by oldtimers for the adverse effects of development.
The original rural resident traditionally places a high
value on independence and self-reliance, sometimes to
the point of expecting or demanding fewer public services
than may be needed. The newcomer often has an urban
pattern of expectations and demands for services. [Bates
Oltimers view themselves as bearing the increased costs of services that benefit the newcomers, who are perceived as temporary residents.
Families of the [newcomers] pay only a small proportion of the costs of such improvements; they are in the community a relatively short time, and they typically live in
mobile homes which carry low tax assessments and thus
contribute only a small amount toward the upkeep of the community while making use of all its benefits.
[B'ates 1978: 75]
Four, institutional interaction patterns are altered. Changing personal interaction patterns affect institutional interaction patterns. Disrupted friendship patterns among oldtime'rs may result in reduced activities in community organizations, while solidified friendships may increase the activity of oldtimers in community organizations. The composition of existing institutions may change if newcomers become integrated into community organizations, or new institutions may arise to accommodate newcomers. Politics in the community may shift, particularly if newcomers become politically active in community affairs (Little 1977: 412-413). Nellis (1974) notes that one result of the boom in Hanna, Wyoming, was that the Democratic majority of oldtimers was overwhelmed by the number of newcomers voting Independent.
Five, transiency and crime increase. Uncertainty pervades boom towns, i.e., concern with the transiency or possible bust of the development project affects many communities. Development project policies are out of the community's hands, a fact which adds to the uncertainty. In areas of energy development in Wyoming, for instance, uncertainty is expressed as follows: "So many energy projects have been proposed, withdrawn, revived and revised that any community would be hard put to prepare for whatever might result" (Corrigan 1976: 1152).
This is particularly true of military installations which are frequently closed in reaction to changing defense needs and political interests (Lynch 1970). The uncertainty factor related to military
installations in general and the consequences for Camden County are examined below.
Communities undergoing boom growth are also concerned about the transiency of the incoming population (Little 1977: 414). Havighurst and Morgan (1963) in their analysis of a military-related boom town, Seneca, Illinois, conclude: "A stable community by its very nature resists a boom-like expansion. It is a place built for and by people who are sedentary in disposition and habit. A boom brings in people who are migratory and restless" (Havighurst and Morgan 1963: xiv). Little (1977: 414) notes that the majority of newcomers to boom towns are transients and that the construction workers, associated with the building phase of the development project, are "notoriously mobile." As will be illustrated later, military personnel are also a transient population.
The transient populations of boom towns are associated with increased crime rates (Little 1977: 414). Boom town studies cite increased crime rates as one of the adverse effects of unmanaged growth (Corrigan 1976; Gilmore and Duff 1975; Little 1977). Gilmore and Duff (1975) report a 60 percent increase in complaints received by police in Rock Springs, Wyoming, during 1972 and 1973. Little (1977) notes that newcomers to Page, Arizona, were highly transient and that the boom town experienced an increase in crime rates. In the first year of construction activities on the Navajo Generating Station from 1970 to 1971, the number of crimes increased 118.7 percent while the population increased 150.4 percent. From 1971 to 1972, however, the
percentage increase in crimes, 63.7 percent, was greater than the population increase, 55.9 percent (Little 1977: 422-423).
In boom towns, the informal social control mechanisms that work so effectively to control crime in the pre-boom community no longer function. Formal controls are installed to handle the increase in crime in the boom town. This may include an increased number of law enforcement officers, and a more elaborate criminal justice system for trying and punishing offenders (Little 1977: 415). Military Impacts
When military installations are developed in rural communities, the frequent result is boom town growth (Finsterbusch 1980: 138). The magnitude of the impact is a function of the size of the installation relative to the community, the self-sufficiency of the base or installation, and the economic stability and diversity of the community. As illustrated in the preceding section, the impact of Kings Bay naval base on Camden County is of boom town proportions.
There is little published information on the impact of military installations on rural communities. The available case studies indicate that military installations follow the boom-bust cycle of other large economic development projects. The construction and closure of military bases or other defense-related installations are subject to shifts in national defense priorities and political interests.
Two studies that reveal the boom-bust cycle of military
installation impacts on rural communities are Breese et al..(1965),The Impact of Large Installations on Nearby Areas and Havighurst and
Morgan's (1963) The Social History of a War-Boom Community. Some of the most valuable information on the social impact of military installations is found in studies examining what happens to host communities when the installation closes. Lynch (1970) reviews the responses of 12 communities to military base closures in the Local Economic Development after Military Base Closures.
Breese et al. (1965) present five case studies that analyze
the impact of military base and defense-related installations on rural communities. The five case studies exhibit a number of similarities:
(1) the five installations were defense related; (2) the military installations were established without consideration of'community preferences; (3) an initial construction boom was followed by a smaller operational force; (4) the influx of the boom population, including construction and military personnel, precipitated a housing crisiscommunity services and facilities were stressed; the communities were also stressed; (5) the establishment and operation of the installations changed the way of life in the nearby communities and with the closure of some installations residents and community-based military support facilities were dislocated (Breese et al. 1965: 3-4).
Two of the case studies involve the impact of military bases on nearby communities. The establishment of Dover Air Force Base Complex in Dover, Delaware, and the Naval and Air Force establishments in Geneva, New York, illustrate the problems for the community that result from military boom-bust cycles.
Doveroriginally a quiet, historic town, experienced a military base impact during World War II when an Army airfield and pilot training
center was established. The facility was closed after the war, but reactivated and developed as an Air Force base in 1952 following a Defense Department determination that the site was strategically important (Whelan 1965: 295-296).
Dover Air Force Base was not originally planned to be selfsufficient; the community was expected to provide the necessary housing and local services and facilities. Between 1952 and 1962, Dover experienced a population influx of 20,000 military personnel and dependents. The population increase produced a housing and service demand for which Dover was ill prepared. Trailer parks blossomed to provide inexpensive housing for military personnel. Recognizing that the community would not be able to provide adequate housing and facilities, the base slowly took steps to become self-sufficient. Funds for the construction of family housing on the base were not provided until
1956, four years after base development was initiated, and an on-base school for military dependents did not open until 1960 (Whelan 1965: 295-358).
The base moved slowly toward self-sufficiency, remaining
heavily dependent on the community. The community was eventually able to provide most of the necessary housing and services at the cost of maintaining a diverse economy. Dover become economically dependent on the continued existence of the base (Whelan 1965: 359-358).
Sampson training center in Seneca County also underwent two
cycles of development. The Navy built the training center in 1940 and closed it in 1942. Between 1946 and 1950, the facility was converted to community use, first as a junior college and later a mental hospital.
In 1950, the Air Force redeveloped the training center for the Korean conflict. The Air Force attempted to make nearby Geneva into a "base community." The population impact on Geneva was mitigated somewhat when the Air Force provided some on-base housing. Geneva responded to base needs by expanding schools, roads, housing, and commerce. In 1956 the Air Force closed the training center and Geneva's economy suffered (Church 1965: 380-429).
Havighurst and Morgan (1963) detail the boom-bust cycle of a naval shipyard on the rural town of Seneca, Illinois. The shipyard, established in 1942 by the U.S. Navy to build the Landing Ship Tank (LST) during World War II, closed down in 1945. During the three years of operation, however, Seneca's population swelled from 1,255 to 9,000 within the first eight months, an increase of 858 percent. The boom population peaked at 10,600 in the summer of 1944 (Havighurst and Morgan 1963: 47).
Providing housing for the incoming population proved to be the most difficult problem for Seneca. Private housing was immediately filled. Trailers were brought in, intended only for temporary use but occupied throughout the boom. The federal government provided public housing for the remainder of the shipyard workers and their families. Public housing projects consisted of dormitory buildings, apartments, row houses, and multiple-family dwellings (Havighurst and Morgan 1963: 62-73).
Despite the influx of newcomers into Seneca, the social structure and institutional make-up of the community changed very little. Relations between oldtimers and newcomers were minimal and strained. The high
degree of transiency among newcomers kept them from becoming involved in the community. Rather than become integrated into existing institutions, the newcomers created new institutions, particularly churches.
After the shipyard closed in 1945, life in Seneca resumed its pre-boom character. The government removed most of the public housing and trailers, leaving only 67 apartments standing. The population returned to pre-boom levels. At the beginning of the school year following the closure, the elementary enrollment was only 30 students higher than pre-impact levels (Havighurst and Morgan 1963: 325).
In a return visit five years after the closure, the authors
found that 40 new families had joined the five or six shipyard families that had remained when the facility closed. Thirty new houses had been built and old houses were painted and improved, giving Seneca a new, neat appearance (Havighurst and Morgan 1963: 330).
Havighurst and Morgan (1963) recount a story illustrating the
difference between what Seneca hoped for and what it actually got out of the shipyard boom.
The statement had often been heard in Seneca during the boom, a statement usually attributed to Father Preston,
that "Seneca needs three things-a community building, the
dredging of Rat Run, and a toilet at the Rock Island Depot."
Rat Run never was dredged; the community building was
authorized butnever built. The Rock Island Depot, however,
was renovated and a toilet was installed in the spring
just before the boom ended. [Havighurst and Morgan 1963:
Lynch (1970) analyzes 12 communities' responses to base closures. The case communities involve base withdrawals of over 1,000 persons. Lynch defines community responses to the base bust phase as successful
or less than successful recoveries and, on the basis of these results, offers recommendations for mitigating the impact of base closures. The Lynch study contains some timely lessons for communities undergoing the initial stages of base development. In subsequent sections, some of these lessons are applied to the Camden County situation in a series of scenarios for possible outcomes of naval base development.
The response of Preque Isle, Maine, to the withdrawal of the
Presque Isle Air Force Base is listed as the most successful recovery to base closure. The community's heavy dependency on the base was quickly reduced as the community secured other economic development by tapping its available resources. New industry was brought in to exploit lumber and potatoes, and a plan was developed for sugar beet production (Lynch 1970: 56-59).
Through prompt political action and support from state and
federal leaders, the community was able to purchase the base facility and secure redevelopment funds. The base facilities were converted for industrial and recreational use (Lynch 1970: 60-65).
The response of Mobile, Alabama, to the closure of Mobile Air Material Area (MOAMA) at Brookley Air Force Base represents a less successful recovery to withdrawal. In this case, the community was unable to purchase the base facility. The base constituted the largest employer in Mobile, employing 12,500 civilians and 1,070 military personnel or 12 percent of those in civilian nonagricultural employment in Mobile (Lynch 1970: 137).
The immediate reaction of Mobile to the closure announcement was to attempt to reverse the withdrawal decision. A "Battle for Brookley"
committee was established by the mayor to politically organize the community against the closure. The move to "Save Brookley" was futile, however, and only served to slow down community redevelopment. The community waited until five months after the closure announcement to contact the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) for assistance in recovery. Not until a year after the announcement did the community organize a planning committee to deal with redevelopment (Lynch 1970: 140).
Mobile was slow to attract other industry. The general trend of a declining total employment and manufacturing employment did little to aid community recovery efforts. The growth that did result after
the closure was due to an expansion of existing firms (Lynch 1970: 140).
The Camden County Community
The foregoing literature review illustrates the degree to which the host community bears the brunt of the social and economic impacts of large-scale development projects. The nature of the impact and the extent of adverse effects depend to a great extent upon the community's response to the development. Thus in order to predict the outcome of the project and to minimize undue disruptions in community life, analysis must focus on the host community.
The working definition of community adopted for this study is that of the county as the form of community in the South (Arensberg and Kimba111972), The county formed the focus and physical boundary of the study.
The distinctive community form of the South was and is the county. Dispersed a day's ride in and out around
the county seat, that community assembled planter and
field- or house-hand from the fat plantations, free poor
white or Negro from the lean hills and swamps, for the
pageantry and the drama of Saturdays around the courthouse,
when the courthouse, the jail, the registry of deeds, and
the courthouse square of shops and lawyers' row made a
physical center of the far-flung community. This is the
American counterpart of the Spanish and Portuguese
municipio, the French and German community and Gemeinde,
the rural counterpart of the baroque capital which Mumford
called the city of the palace and the parade. It is a
product of the same age, the age of the rise of the national
state, whose community form it represents. [Arensberg and
Kimball 1972: 106]
Implicit in this definition is a recognition of different levels of community. Community can be defined as a geographic place or territory, a set of shared institutions, shared cultural values, shared experiences, or a shared sense of identity. Field research underscored the utility of focusing on the country as the research area while at the same time revealing the finer spatial and social distinctions recognized by the residents themselves.
To someone from outside of Camden County, local residents identify themselves as being from Camden County, Georgia. To someone from within Camden County, residents will identify themselves as being from St. Marys, Kingsland, or Woodbine (Figure 2). Rural residents will further specify one of the many settlements surrounding the principal towns, for example, Mush Bluff, Woodsville, Kinlaw, Greensville, Colesburg, Scarlet, Tarboro, Spring Bluff, or Hazards Neck.
The institutional inventory of the three major towns and rural
areas reveals their relative size, growth patterns and basic composition from 1964 to present. In 1979, St. Marys, the largest of the three
towns, had the most institutions, 203 total (Figure 6). Woodbine, the smallest town, had the least number of institutions. Very few institutions were found in the rural areas. With the exception of post offices in White Oak and Waverly and the military complex at Kings Bay, institutions in rural areas were commercial rather than governmental.
The basic composition of each town is also revealed in the institutional inventory. The 1979 data identify St. Marys as the industrial and service center of the county. The pulp and paper mill, the only high school, and the only hospital are located in St. Marys. St. Marys has the highest number of industries, health care facilities, and professional and community services in the county. Figure 7 presents a view of downtown St. Marys along the major road, Osborne Street. Kingsland appears to be the transportation and commercial center of the county. Kingsland is located at the intersection of Interstate 95, U.S. Highway 17, and State Road 40, and exhibits the greatest degree of commercial differentiation. Figure 8 depicts a downtown street scene of Kingsland at the intersection of Highway 17 and State Road 40. Woodbine, the county seat, is the administrative and ceremonial center of the county, with the highest concentration of governmental agencies and offices in the county. Figure 9 depicts the Camden County courthouse located in Woodbine.
Each town has experienced a slow growth rate in population and institutions. Table 3 details the change in population since 1900. Figure 6 illustrates the change in the number of institutions from 1964 to 1980. That the physical appearance of the towns has changed
15 l0-IE .- ""Woodbinve
I I I I ,
1964 1969 1974 \96 ,-)I
Figure 6. Number of institutions in the principal towns and
rural areas, 1964-1980
Figure 7. View of downtown St. Marys along the major road, Osborne Street
Figure 8. Downtown street scene of Kingsland at the intersection of U.S. Highway 17 and State Road 40
Table 3. Camden County population, 1900-1980 Year Population Percentage Change
1900 7,669 --1910 7,690 .3
1920 6,969 -9.4
1930 6,338 -9.1
1940 5,910 -6.8
1950 7,322 23.9
1960 9,975 36.2
1970 11,334 13.6
1980 13,371 18.0
Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
only slightly is obvious from a comparison of Figures 3 and 10, 11 and 12, 8 and 13.
Commuting is a normal part of life in Camden County. Due to
the rural nature of the area, many residents drive distances of at least 10 to 40 miles one way for work, shopping, and medical care. Analysis of commuting patterns for shopping, health care, and work recorded in the 1979 survey revealed the pervasive nature of commuting and the orientation of local residents to various areas within and outside the county.
A distinction frequently expressed between the "north end" and the "south end" of the county is reflected in commuting and shopping patterns for specialized goods and professional services. Families in the southern towns of St. Marys and Kingsland routinely travel to Fernandina or Jacksonville for medical and dental care and to shop for clothing and household items. Families in the north end of the county around Woodbine, White Oak, and Waverly are much more likely to travel to Brunswick for specialized goods and professional services. Field research indicates that the north-south boundary extends through Colesburg, south of Woodbine (Overbey 1979). The Community in a Regional Context
Commuting patterns in and outside of Camden County are diagnostic of residents' outside links to the region. Placing the Camden County community in context requires a definition of its surrounding region. The Environmental Impact Statement (Department of the Navy 1977a) defines the area surrounding Camden County as the "Kings Bay
Figure 9. Camden County Courthouse in the county seat, Woodbine
Figure 10. Aerial view of downtown St. Marys from the waterfront in 1940
Courtesy Georgia Department of Archives and History
Figure 11. Housing on Osborne Street in St. Marys, 1979
Figure 12. Housing on Osborne Street in St. Marys, 1915
Courtesy Georgia Department of Archives and History
Figure 13. Street scene of Kingsland, early 1920s
Courtesy Georgia Department of Archives and History
Region," so designated to reflect the area of the Kings Bay naval base
impact. The Kings Bay Region includes seven counties surrounding the
Kings Bay base site. This definition is.derived from a Florida
Department of Commerce report that noted that these seven counties, as
well as 17 others, are served by the City of Jacksonville.
* The largest urban center of southeast Georgia and
northeast Florida is the City of Jacksonville, Florida.
With an estimated 1975 population of 578,347, Jacksonville exerts considerable social and economic influence north of the Florida state line. The Jacksonville Economic Area, as
defined by the Department of Commerce . includes 17
Florida counties and seven Georgia counties (Brantley,
Camden, Charlton, Glynn, McIntosh, Pierce, and Ware Counties).
Most of the Georgia counties depend on the Jacksonville
newspapers on a daily basis, although there are several
smaller newspapers throughout the region . . Jacksonville's retail trade area . is regularly patronized by
residents of southeast Georgia.
Camden County, the geographic center of the Kings Bay
Region, is included in both Jacksonville's retail trade
area and its area of dominant influence. . [Department
of the Navy 1977a: 3-159 3-160]
The underlying assumption is that Jacksonville is the central
place for the seven counties. This assumption disregards the northsouth dichotomy in Camden County; residents in the north end of the
county are more likely to orient themselves to Brunswick than to Jacksonville.
A more suitable regional definition for the purposes of this
study is one based on a common economic base and shared geographical,
historical, and social characteristics. This region, termed the Barrier
Island Region, includes the coastal area from Fernandina, Floridato
Charleston, South Carolina. The most striking characteristic of the
region is the chain of barrier islands that separate the mainland from the Atlantic Ocean and allow the development of an extensive salt marsh estuary.
The existence of the barrier islands precludes the development of beaches on the mainland, limiting the resort potential of these areas. The barrier islands themselves have historically been controlled by a few large landholders since the late 1700s. Throughout the 18001900s, entire islands were owned by wealthy families. Cumberland Island, the barrier island situated off the Camden County mainland, was owned by Nathaniel Greene in the 1800s and then bought by the industrialist Andrew Carnegie in 1881.
In the 20th century, the barrier islands that had been controlled by single-family estates were gradually transferred to state or federal control. There were exceptions to this pattern, for example, St. Simons
Island, where the large estates were dismantled during Reconstruction. The island was divided into smaller holdings which were more easily acquired by post-World War II developers.
State and federal governments were determined that the
undeveloped islands should remain undeveloped. In the 1960s and 1970s, as large estate owners came under pressure to open up the islands for development, the state and federal governments moved quickly to acquire them. Work at the Georgia State Marine Institute on Sapelo Island beginning in the early 1960s revealed the importance of the salt marsh to the environment and prompted further acquisition and control of the barrier islands by state and federal agencies.
Thus a special relationship between mainland residents and the owners of the barrier islands has always existed. The patronal system of wealthy planters in the 1700-1800s was followed by that of the industrial magnates of the 1900s. This has most recently been replaced by a similar patronal system of state and federal agencies. The mainland areas have, for the most part, remained poor and rural. Fernandina, Brunswick, Savannah, and Charleston are the only significant cities and these are associated with the developed resort islands of Amelia, St. Simons, Jekyll, and Hilton Head.
Diagnostic, too, of the Barrier Island Region is a common economic base. Paper mills and the pulpwood industry dominate the regional economy. In the mainland towns of Fernandina, St. Marys, Brunswick, Savannah, and Charleston, there are one or more paper mills situated on adjacent rivers. The pulpwood and paper mill operations provide the most industrial employment in the barrier island region.
For instance, in Camden County Gilman Paper Company employs 70 percent of the county work force (CAPDC 1978: 6).
Pulp and paper companies also own most of the land in the region. As mentioned previously, the low-lying coastal region is marked by an extensive salt marsh system and is cross-cut by rivers, inlets, and estuaries that severely limit development. The sandy flatwoods, however., are well suited for pulp and production. In Camden County, one-half of the total acreage in the county is forestland, and 90% of this forestland is controlled by five major paper companies: Brunswick Pulp and Paper; I.T.T. Rayonnier; Union Camp Corporation; Gilman Paper Company; and St. Regis Paper Company (Kings Bay Steering Committee 1979).
The second largest source of employment in the region is the
fishing industry. The primary fisheries are shrimp, crab, and finish. Fishing firms tend to be family-owned businesses, particularly in the smaller towns. Fishing is pursued by both blacks and whites, and it is the preferred employment by those who like the independence of selfemployment. Fishing entails considerable risk, however, as one's livelihood depends upon the yield of catch as well as the current market value of the catch. Both of these factors cannot be predicted and can fluctuate greatly.
For commercial fishermen in the Barrier Island Region, fishing is synonymous with shrimping. The increasing value of shrimp on the market since the 1920s has induced most commercial fishermen to pursue shrimp exclusively. This has resulted in a lack of diversity for coastal fishermen. Present costs of shrimping, fuel, insurance, equipment, as well as dwindling yields threaten the nondiversified fishermen. Attempts to convince fishermen of the necessity to diversify have been made (Carley and Frisbie 1968) but have not substantially altered the commercial fishery.
The fishing industry was established in the Barrier Island Region long before the pulp and paper industry. The first recorded commercialcatch for Camden County is 1923 (Department of Commerce 1923). The pulp and paper industry threatens the continued importance of commercial fishing, however, by attracting much of the available labor and disrupting the estuarine resource base. The pulp and paper industry has expanded at the expense of the fishing industry, which has
suffered greatly from pollution caused by the paper mills" (Johnson et al. 1974: 10).
The conflict has eased somewhat since the early 1970s, when the coastal paper mills were forced to comply with Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning water pollution and when the Georgia Department of Natural Resources closed the estuarine sounds to commercial fishing. The relationship of pulp mill operations to the commercial fishery in Camden County and its influence on naval base development is examined in Chapter III.
The final basis for distinguishing the Barrier Island Region is historical. This was the "debatable land" contested by Spain and Britain throughout the late 1600s and early 1700s (Bolton and Ross 1968). The strategic significance of the region was evident from the beginning
of Spanish and British colonization and continues to the present. The area figured prominently in military campaigns in the American Revolution and the Civil War.
Today the region is the site of U.S. Navy installations at Charleston, St. Marys, and Jacksonville, and a U.S. Army base near Savannah. During the past several decades, other military installations were established in the region including a World War II pilot training base at Harris Neck in McIntosh County, Georgia; a naval air station at Brunswick in the 1960s; and an Army dock facility at Kings Bay during the 1950s.
Social Characteristics of the Community
As indicated in earlier sections, the social characteristics of a community influence its response to development (Bates 1978; Havighurst and Morgan 1963; Little 1977; Nellis 1974). Thus identifying social characteristics of a community is a prerequisite for predicting social impacts.
One means of identifying social characteristics of a community is interviewing residents themselves (Finsterbusch 1980: 79). A survey administered to a representative sample of residents provides adequate and reliable baseline data from which to measure social impacts (Christensen 1976).
Social characteristics of Camden County residents are summarized here through an analysis of the sample survey of households conducted in 1979 during the initial stages of base development. The influence of these social characteristics on the community's response to base development is analyzed in a later section.
A 3 percent systematic sample of Camden County households was drawn from the property owners listed in the tax rolls. The resulting sample is highly representative of the total county population. Table 4 compares some of the social characteristics of the sample with those recorded for the county in the 1970 census. The 1970 census is used for comparison rather than the 1980 census because the latter included a significant proportion of the incoming naval population.
The survey sample encompassed 98 households of which 72 were married couples. The remaining 26 heads of households were unmarried. The sample population involved a total of 170 adult homeowners.
Table 4. Comparison of survey sample to total population
St. Marys division 38% 39%
Kingsland division 24% 28%
Woodbine division 38% 34%
State of Birth
Georgia 76% 72%
Other southern state 15% 20%
States outside South 6% 3%
Abroad, at sea 1% .4%
Not reported --- 4%
White 69% 68%
Black 31% 32%
Persons per Household 3.0 3.6
21-29 years 7% 23%
30-49 years 37% 42%
50+ years 56% 35%
Male 35% 48%
Female 65% 52%
Source: Camden County population data from Department of Commerce