-------
EPA-450/2-80-071
Program to Prevent the
Significant Deterioration of
Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Hydrocarbons,
Nitrogen Dioxide, and Lead
by
David R. Dunbar and Roy A. Paul
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
505 S. Duke Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Contract No. 68-01-4147
Task No. 104
EPA Project Officer: Darryl D. Tyler
EPA Subtask C Managers: David Foster and Nancy Mayer
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
March 1980
-------
DISCLAIMER_
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-01-4147, Work Assignment No. 104. The con-
tents of this report are reproduced herein as received from the
contractor. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Figures
Tables
Acknowledgment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction
Issues and Alternatives
2 . 1 Alternatives
2.2 Issues
An Overview of Counties Affected by PSD Program
for VOC or HC, 03, NOX, CO and Pb
3.1 Ozone
3.2 Nitrogen dioxide and nonme thane hydro-
carbons
3 . 3 Carbon monoxide
3 . 4 Lead
3.5 County profiles
3 . 6 Methodology
Sources Subject to Current Regulation
4.1 Sources subject to current regulations
4.2 Typical sizes of sources
4.3 Sources sizes dictated by air quality
constraints
Consequences of No Further Regulatory Action
5.1 Rationale for the base case scenario
5.2 Areas selected for the analysis
5.3 Analytical techniques
5.4 Results of the analysis
5.5 Observations and conclusions
5.6 Recommendations
V
vi
vii
1
3
3
5
8
9
12
12
17
17
24
27
27
28
32
42
42
46
46
51
52
54
Appendix A Alternative descriptions 56
Appendix B Recommended criteria 111
iii
-------
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
CONTENTS (continued)
Issues descriptions
Air quality summary by county for 1977
Key assumptions used in the modified
rollback analysis
Results of modified rollback analysis
by AQCR
County economic profiles
County topographical and meteorological
profiles
County emission profiles
Pb emissions and air quality data
Page
116
164
221
231
244
312
437
704
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Counties Affected by PSD Program for 03 10
2 Average Annual Solar Radiation 11
3 Percentage of all 1115 GMT Sounding with
a Surface-Based or Elevated Inversion
Below 3000 m AGL 13
4 Counties Affected by PSD Program for N02 14
5 Local Terrain by County 15
6 Local Relief by County 16
7 Counties Affected by PSD Program for CO 18
8 Counties Affected by PSD Program for Pb 19
9 Example of Economic Profile Table in Ap-
pendix G 20
10 Example of Topographical and Meteorolog-
ical Profile Table in Appendix H 23
11 Example of Emission Profile Table in Ap-
pendix I 25
-------
TABLES
Number Pag
1 Typical Size Facilities 29
2 Air Quality Increment 33
3 Sizes of Sources That Could Be Constructed
Within Class II Areas 34
4 Emission and Air Quality Levels Associated
With Maximum Size Facilities That Could
Be Constructed Within Class II Areas 38
5 Federal Standards for Light-Duty Motor Ve-
hicles 1968-1983 43
6 Projected Lead Consumption and Ambient
Lead Concentration 44
7 Projected Lead Content of Gasoline 1974-90 45
8 Areas Selected for Analysis 47
9 Nonmethane Hydrocarbon Estimates 50
10 Air Quality Control Regions Expected to
Exceed 1976 Baseline Air Quality Values
by 1999 51
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Control Programs Development Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, by PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
The project was directed by Mr. George Jutze, and managed
by Mr. David Dunbar. Principal authors were Mr. David Dunbar,
Mr. Roy Paul, and Mr. James Throgmorton.
Mr. Darryl Tyler was the Project Officer for U.S. EPA and
his guidance and cooperation was greatly appreciated. The
authors also wish to thank the subtask managers for this effort,
Mr. David Foster and Ms. Nancy Mayer, for their cooperation and
valuable assistance in completing this effort.
VII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act (the Act) affirmed,
with some modifications, EPA's regulations for the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and total suspended particulate (TSP). In essence, these
regulations limit the allowable deterioration of air quality in
any area where the current air quality is better than that speci-
fied by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS's).
These regulations require each new or modified major stationary
source to obtain a preconstruction permit. These regulations
basically require that no major stationary source may be con-
structed unless—
a permit has been issued to that source;
the owner or operator of the source demonstrates that the
emissions from the operation will not cause or contribute
to air pollution levels in excess of any maximum allowable
increases (i.e., the increments for TSF and SO2 establish-
ed under Section 163 of the Act), any NAAQS in any region,
or any other applicable emission standard or standard of
performance under the Act;
the proposed source is subject to the Best Available Con-
trol Technology (BACT) for each pollutant it emits which
is subject to regulation under the Act; and
the owner or operator agrees to conduct such monitoring
that may be necessary to determine the effect which emis-
sions of this proposed facility may have on air quality.
While the requirement for a source to conduct an air quality im-
pact only applies to TSP and S02, the BACT requirement applies to
all pollutants regulated under the Act, which of course would in-
clude carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC) or
hydrocarbon (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and lead (Pb).
Section 166 of the 1977 amendments to the Act further re-
quires the EPA to conduct a study and to promulgate regulations
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality resulting
from VOC or HC, CO, NO , and Pb. The regulations which are to
be promulgated shall provide specific numerical measures against
-------
which permit applications may be evaluated. The regulations
must also provide a framework for stimulating improved control
technology, protection of air quality values, and the fulfill-
ment of the goals and purposes of the PSD program which is set
forth in Section 160 of the Act. It states:
... to protect public health and welfare from any
actual or potential adverse effect which in the Admin-
istrator's judgment may reasonably be anticipated to
occur from air pollution or from exposures to pollutants
in other media, (which pollutants originate as emissions
to the ambient air), not withstanding attainment and
maintenance of all national ambient air quality stand-
ards;
... to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality
in national parks, national wilderness areas, national
monuments, national seashores, and other areas of
special national or regional natural, recreational,
scenic, or historic value;
. . . to insure that economic growth will occur in a
manner consistent with the preservation of existing
clean air resources;
... to assure that emissions from any source in any
State will not interfere with any portion of the appli-
cable implementation plan to prevent significant dete-
rioration of air quality for any other State; and
... to assure that any decision to permit increased
air pollution in any ares to which this section applies
is made only after careful evaluation of all the conse-
quences of such a decision and after adequate procedural
opportunities for informed public participation in the
decisionmaking process.
The regulations shall also provide specific measures that
are at least as effective as the increments established for TSP
and SO2. These measures may include air quality increments,
emission density requirements or other measures.
Finally, an area classification plan shall not necessarily
be required for CO, VOC, NOX, and Pb if the States can provide
measures which, when considered as a whole, will carry out the
basic purposes of the Act at least as effectively as an area
classification plan for TSP and S02.
-------
SECTION 2
ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES
Two of the major elements in the development of the PSD
program for VOC or HC, CO, NOX/ and Pb are the identification
and evaluation of various alternatives which may be used to
implement the PSD program. Additionally, a number of issues
have been identified and need to be resolved in order for the
PSD program to be effectively carried out.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES
Eleven alternatives have been identified to date for
possible consideration in the development of the PSD program.
Emission Controls Only. This system would rely
primarily on the requirements for BACT on major
new stationary sources and the Federal standards
for motor vehicle emissions with the possible ad-
dition of inspection and maintenance requirements.
Control requirements under this system would not
vary as a function_.of ambient concentrations or
the proximity of sources so long as the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards were not violated.
Ambient Air Quality Increments. This would call
for developing an area classification system es-
tablishing numerical limits for allowable ambient
air quality degradation. This system would be
similar to that already in effect for TSP and S02
but not now applicable to VOC, CO, NOX and Pb.
Emission Density Zoning (EDZ). An EDZ system
would set theoretical air quality increments to
serve as a guideline for establishing maximum
allowable emission limits per unit land area.
Once these limits were eatablished, emission lim-
its rather than ambient air quality would deter-
mine all preconstruction review and enforcement
actions under PSD.
-------
Inventory Management. This system would emphasize the
process of local citizen participation in decisions af-
fecting environmental quality. It would require State
and local agencies to develop and maintain detailed
emission inventories and provide for mandatory periodic
public review whenever the local emission inventory in-
creased by a preestablished quantity or percentage.
This public review would be required prior to allowing
any further incremental increase in emissions and could
include an environmental analysis, a public education
program, a public hearing, and a vote by elected offi-
cials from the potentially impacted area.
Statewide Emission Limitation (Bubble). This system
would set areawide emission limitations to insure that
there would be no net increases in emissions. This
area could be defined as a State, a portion of a State
or possibly more than one State. Every local increase
(after some fixed time) would require an offsetting de-
crease somewhere else within the defined area.
Avoidance of Co-located HC and NOX Sources. This
approach would prevent significant deterioration re-
sulting from the formation of ozone. Such a program
would focus special attention on the HC/NOX ratio
and prevent the juxtaposition of HC and NOX sources
within a certain fixed distance of each other.
Emission Fees. A fee system would strengthen the re-
quirements for BACT on new major stationary sources.
A fee levied against each source based on its quantity
of emissions would provide the source an incentive to
develop and incorporate new technology.
Marketable Permits. Marketable permits establish a
permit to emit a certain fixed quantity of emissions
and allow that permit to be bought and sold in the
market. Like an emission fee system, the cost of
these permits provides an incentive to the source to
minimize the quantity of emissions. Furthermore,
limiting the number of marketable permits within an
area can regulate the exact quantity of emissions
within that area.
Ve. mi.ntmA.t> Level. This alternative would not require
PSD review in areas that show air quality concentra-
tions and/or emissions below a certain, dn m^n-im^A,
level. This would eliminate periodic assessments in
undeveloped areas.
Transportation BACT. This alternative would require
meanstoreduce emissions associated with motor vehicle
related sources. These means could involve specifica-
tions for road systems or performance standards for
-------
public transportation systems, such as specified
levels of service for public transportation. Addi-
tional criteria for existing transportation processes
could also be considered.
Federal Indirect Source Review. PSD review would be
conducted for all Federally funded or assisted in-
direct sources and all Federally-owned or operated
indirect sources.
A detailed discussion of each alternative is in Appendix A.
To evaluate or compare these alternatives, specific objec-
tive criteria must be developed. These criteria include:
Technical feasibility
Economic feasibility
Legal feasibility
Does the alternative meet basic objective of the Act
Administrative feasibility
Compatibility with current program
Public participation
Administrative costs
Political feasibility
Air quality impact
A detailed discussion of the criteria recommended for use in
evaluating the above alternatives is in Appendix B.
2.2 ISSUES
In attempting to comply with the basic goals and objectives
of the Act regarding the PSD program and to implement a number of
the above-identified alternatives, thirteen significant issues
have been identified to date as being critical to the development
of the PSD program for VOC or HC, CO, NO , and Pb.
A
How should the baseline be defined? What should be
the baseline date? What actions would be counted in
determining increment consumption? How would the
various alternatives affect industrial, commercial
and other sources?
-------
How can these regulations best protect air quality in
pristine areas against significant deterioration in
situations where emissions from indirect sources rep-
resent the most significant threat?
What type of additional control requirements could or
should these regulations require for mobile sources?
What should be the balance between control of mobile
sources versus stationary sources?
Given the difficulty of modeling many of the Set II
pollutants, what type and level of detail of modeling
can or should EPA or a State require?
How much preconstruction monitoring should EPA or a
State require? How much post-construction monitoring?
What size and type of sources should be subject to
preconstruction review?
What size areas would be most appropriate under an
emission density zoning system? Under an increment
system?
How much consistency should be required between PSD
Set II and other programs, specifically, PSD Set I,
New Source Review/Nonattainment and Visibility? What
is the true extent of attainment vs. nonattainment
areas and how will this affect the PSD Set II program?
How will Class I areas and surrounding areas which im-
pact them best be treated?
What level of detail will be most appropriate for
Federal regulations promulgated under this program
and what degree of flexibility should be left to the
States?
How should regulations handle increment allocation
when an area covers two or more States?
What methodologies, other than first-come-first-served,
exist for determining increment allocation?
How much data are available for rural areas? Which al-
ternatives would only need existing data and which
would require substantially more data than are current-
ly available? What degree of accuracy is necessary
for rural emission inventories?
A detailed discussion of each of these issues is in Appendix c.
This discussion includes: (1) the major implications, (2) the
-------
pros and cons, and (3) a recommendation regarding the
resolution of each issue.
-------
'•••v SECTION 3
AN OVERVIEW OF COUNTIES AFFECTED BY THE PSD PROGRAM FOR
VOC OR HC, 03/ NO . CO AND Pb
Ai
The PSD program for VOC or HC, NO , 03, CO, and Pb will
affect where companies choose to locate new plants and how much
pollution control will be required in various geographic areas.
This overview summarizes the pertinent data with respect to these
areas so that some evaluation can be made regarding the geograph-
ic extent and character of the areas where the PSD program for
VOC or HC, 03, CO, NO 'and Pb will apply. The areas are charac-
terized by using various economic, environmental, meteorologic
and topographic indicators. Some of the characteristics are
presented on maps while others are in a series of tables in
Appendices G, H, I, and J.
The areas affected by the PSD program are of those which are
not currently attaining the NAAQS's. The counties which are
officially recognized by EPA as nonattainment areas either in
whole or in part are blacked in on the maps (Figures 1, 4, and
7); these will not generally be affected by the PSD program for
that pollutant as the more restrictive provisions dealing with
nonattainment would apply.
In addition, PSD would not generally apply in areas which
become nonattainment in the future. In order to assess the
possible extent of "suspected" nonattainment areas, all the
1977-78 data for each of the above pollutants that have been
reported to EPA were reviewed. In some instances, the data would
lead an observer to suspect that the NAAQS was exceeded during
1977-78. Since the significance of each observation could not be
analyzed in detail, suspected areas do not necessarily represent
areas which will be officially designated as nonattainment in the
future. In some cases, the air quality may be improving. As
shown on the maps, suspected nonattainment areas are not exten-
sive and do not further limit the PSD program to any great ex-
tent. The specific names of the counties which are designated as
nonattainment or are suspected of being nonattainment can be ob-
tained from the air quality data summary in Appendix D (areas
designated as nonattainment are noted with an asterisk).
Since air quality data were not available for all areas of
the country and there is a need to determine what the baseline
air quality might be for an area along with an assessment of the
potential for the area to have future air quality problems,
-------
information was obtained on the current emissions levels associ-
ated with these pollutants and on certain meteorological and
topographical characteristics in order to provide some indication
of the pollution potential for all areas of the country. By
reviewing the amount of emissions and the general topographic
features for an area, and assessing the potential for certain
meteorological conditions to excess which are conductive to
formation of air pollution, one can obtain an indication of which
areas may be most affected by a PSD program.
This assessment can be further refined by reviewing the
economic indicators to determine where future growth may occur.
If growth is predicted for areas with already high air pollution
levels or for areas where a high pollution potential exists,
there is a possibility that certain environmental and economic
impacts could occur in these areas as a result of implementing a
PSD program and a more detailed assessment would be needed.
The following sections by utilizing the above referenced
material, present a general summary by pollutant of the areas
which are expected to be impacted by the PSD program for VOC or
HC, 03, CO, NOV and Pb.
A
Information is also presented on the indicators which were
used along with the associated methodology to present these
indicators in a format which could be used to evaluate the envi-
ronmental and economic impact of the PSD program for VOC or HC,
03, CO, NO and Pb as part of a followup effort.
H
3.1 OZONE
The PSD program for 03 will affect a major portion of the
United States with its biggest impact in the southern and western
states. Areas that are not currently attaining the 0.12 ppm 03
standard lie principally in the northeastern states and in Cali-
fornia, with scattered areas in the southeast and middle western
states (Figure 1). Nonattainment areas for 03 tend to be center-
ed around highly developed urban regions.
One of the meteorological indicators pertinent to 03 forma-
tion is the intensity of solar radiation. As shown on Figure 2,
the average annual solar radiation ranges from less than 300 to
over 500 langley- The southern portion of the United States,
from California to North Carolina, lies in a zone of relatively
high solar radiation. Southern California, Arizona, and New
Mexico lie in the areas of highest solar radiation, but non-
attainment counties are only in or near the urbanized portions of
these states. The PSD program will limit the growth of certain
VOC or HC sources, and thereby limit the future ambient concentra-
tions of 03.
In addition to being in a zone of relatively high solar
radiation, the southern portion of the United States, as can be
9
-------
• NON-ATTAINMENT
If: SUSPECTED
NON-ATTAINMENT
n AFFECTED BY PSD
(II) PROGRAM
Figure 1. Counties Affected by PSD Program for 0,
-------
Q INSUFFICIENT DATA
£3 0-300 LANGLEY
g 300 - 400 LANGLEY
ft 400 - 500 LANGLEY
• 500+ LANGLEY
Figure 2. Average Annual Solar Radiation
-------
seen from Figure 3,1 also has a relatively high percentage of
days with surface based or elevated inversions below 3000 m.
Given these two facts, the southern portion of the United States
does have the potential, given significant amounts of VOC emis-
sions, to form ozone. Additionally, while many of the counties
in the southern United States presently have low VOC emissions
(see Appendix I), the economic indicators are such that future
growth and emissions can be expected and the current emission
levels will be increased. Therefore, the PSD program for ozone
will have an impact upon these states and additional efforts
should focus on this area in terms of the possible environmental
and economic impacts which may result from a PSD program.
3.2 NITROGEN DIOXIDE AND NONMETHANE HYDROCARBONS
Figure 4 shows the few U.S. counties which are presently
designated as nonattainment (in whole or in part) for N02 under
the present standard of 0.05 ppm (100 |jg/m3), annual arithmetic
mean. This standard was set on the basis of the direct health
effects of N02, rather than the indirect contribution of N02 in
the formation of 03. Therefore there is very little correlation
between the counties that are nonattainment for 03 and the coun-
ties that are nonattainment for N02. In the case of nonmethane
hydrocarbons (NMHC), no NAAQS has been set, so there are no
nonattainment counties.
The counties which will be affected by this PSD program
comprise essentially the entire country, with the exception of
the few counties shown. Therefore the PSD program for N02 will
have a relatively large impact in terms of geographic coverage.
Ambient concentrations of N02, and other gaseous pollutants
are determined by the emission rates and by local meteorology and
topography. Local terrain (Figure 5) is highly varied across the
country—ranging from plains and tablelands along the south
Atlantic coast and mid-western plateau to hills and mountains
across the western states. The local relief (the difference be-
tween the highest and lowest points in a county) varies in a
similar manner—ranging from 300 feet along the south Atlantic
coast to over 3000 feet in the mountainous regions of the Western
States (Figure 6). These wide ranges in topographical features
with accompanying wide ranges in meteorological conditions (see
Appendix H), mean that the effects of emissions from a specific
plant cannot be presumed; the effects should be determined from a
study within a specific locality on a case-by-case basis.
3.3 CARBON MONOXIDE
High levels of CO tend to represent highly localized condi-
tions within a few hundred meters of major transportation arter-
ies. The counties that contain localized areas of nonattainment
and the counties where air quality data suggests nonattainment
12
-------
80
90
U) ••>»
90
Figure 3. Percentage of all 1115 GMT Soundings with a Surface-based or Elevated
Inversion Below 3000 m A6L
-------
NON-ATTAINMENT
SUSPECTED
NON-ATTAINMENT
AFFECTED BY PSD
(II) PROGRAM
Figure 4. Counties Affected by PSD Program for NO,
-------
Q PLAINS
[|3 TABLELANDS
fH PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
H OPEN HILLS-HTNS
• HILLS-MTNS
Figure 5. Local Terrain by County
-------
0 - 300 FT.
300 - 500 FT.
500 - 1000 FT.
1000 - 3000 FT.
3000 FT.
Figure 6. Local Relief by County
-------
are shown in Figure 7. However because these areas are not
extensive, a large majority of the country will be affected by
the PSD program for CO.
The comments outlined above concerning other gaseous pollu-
tants also pertain to CO except that CO has the highest percent-
age of emissions from motor vehicles than any of the other pollu-
tants. Additionally, there are very few large point sources of
CO, thus the program for CO would have its greatest impact in and
around areas which are expected to have increased emissions due
to new highways, airports, etc.
3.4 LEAD
At the present time there are no U.S. counties which are
officially recognized as nonattainment areas for Pb. Plans for
the control of this pollutant are currently being developed by
the States and reviewed by EPA. Therefore, detailed emissions
data are not readily available for Pb on a county or AQCR basis.
Appendix J does provide a summary of the Pb emissions for the
United States and maps showing the location of major existing
stationary sources of Pb emissions. As the Pb State Implementa-
tion Plans (SIP) are developed and data is entered into the NEDS
and Hazardous and Trace Element Materials System (HATREMS) sys-
tem, data on Pb emissions by county should become more readily
available. Additionally, while air quality data does exist for
Pb it is fairly limited. However, the data that does exist
suggests that only certain counties will become nonattainment in
the future and that most of the country will therefore be affect-
ed by the PSD program for Pb (Figure 8). Appendix J presents a
summary of the Pb air quality data for some of the major areas of
the country.
3.5 COUNTY PROFILES
The table entitled "Economic Profiles of Counties" in Appen-
dix G may be used to review the growth and development occurring
across the United States. Counties undergoing development are
more affected by the PSD program than stable or declining coun-
ties because developing counties are attracting the types of
sources that require review to determine their impacts on air
quality. The following explanations will assist in interpreting
the table in Appendix G; an example of which is shown in Figure
9.
The first column of the table lists the names of the states,
their two-letter zip codes, and the counties within the state.
The second column (1970 population) is self-explanatory. The
third column (Pet chg 1975) is the change in population; a minus
sign (-) preceding this number means that the population declined
during the 5-year period at the rate shown. The fourth column
(Pet urb 1970) lists the percentage of population in the county
17
-------
00
^ • NON-ATTAINMENT
L, SUSPECTED
NON-ATTAINMENT
Q AFFECTED BY PSD
(II) PROGRAM
Figure 7. Counties Affected by PSD Program for CO
-------
COUNTIES AFFECTED BY
PSD (II) PROGRAM
SUSPECTED
NON-ATTAINMENT
COUNTIES
Figure 8. Counties Affected by PSD Program for Pb
-------
STATE AND COUNTY
====================
AL ALABAMA
AUTAUG A
BALDWIN
BAKBOUH
BIBB
tLGUNT
tULLOCK
EUTLEP
CALHOUN
CHAMBERS
CHEROK EE
CH1LTOS
CHOCTAU
CLARKE
(LAV
CLEBUPNE
CGfFEE
COLBERT
CC\ECUH
COOSA
COVINGTON
CRENSH AU
CULLKAN
OALE
DALLAS
DE KALB
ELKORE
ESCAf.B I A
ETCUAH
fAYETTE
FRAMfL IN
GENEVA
CBEENE
HALE
HEf.R Y
hOuS TON
JACKSON
JEFF ER SDK
LAf.AR
LAUDED DALE
LA.RENCE
LEE
LIKE STONE
LOhNDE S
f ACON
1- A D I S 0 N
f ARENGO
FAR] ON
MARSHALL
1970
POPULATION
PCT PCT
CHG URB
1975 1970
=============================
3 ,444
24
59
22
13
26
11
22
103
36
15
25
16
26
12
1C
34
49
1 5
10
34
13
52
52
55
41
33
34
94
1 1
23
21
1C
15
13
56
39
644
14
68
27
61
41
12
24
1E6
2Z
23
54
.354
,460
.382
,543
,812
,653
.824
,007
,092
,356
,606
,180
,589
,724
,636
,996
,872
,632
,645
,662
,C79
,U8
,445
,995
,296
,981
,661
.912
,144
,252
.933
.924
,65C
,868
,254
,574
,202
,591
,335
.111
,281
,268
,699
,897
,841
,54:
.£19
,7t8
,211
4.9
16.9
14 .2
10.9
4.5
17.7
- 5 .0
- 1.6
3.2
C.4
14 .0
1C. 9
3.2
2.7
4.2
6.2
- 0.1
C.9
0.8
4 .1
2 .6
5 .2
1C .3
- 15.7
3 .7
16 .1
16 .1
7.1
1 .3
3.3
9 .£
7.0
- 3 .4
- 3.1
8.C
22 .5
It .2
0.2
9.9
7.9
1 .4
12 .3
4 .3
C.1
4 .0
- 1.6
- 1 .6
14 .6
9.1
58.4
53.6
26.6
40. 4
0.0
16.5
36.3
36.5
64.5
44.1
0.0
23.3
0.0
37.1
C.O
27.3
58.0
58.0
25.1
0.0
56.9
0.0
24.0
62.2
49.5
20.1
il .3
43.1
72.0
i9.1
32.6
33.0
26.3
21'. 2
42.9
64.9
31.3
(8.4
C.O
50.0
C.O
68.2
34.4
o.c
44 .4
7f .6
43.5
26.5
48.5
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
= 2=: = £±
= == = =
1,249,195
8
21
8
4
9
3
8
36
15
5
8
4
6
4
4
12
17
5
3
13
4
19
11
17
14
12
11
34
6
8
6
2
4
4
22
14
248
5
25
9
23
15
3
7
70
7
8
20
,340
,394
,183
,654
.558
.685
.045
.727
,240
,935
,583
,695
.624
.677
,199
.70S
,515
.287
.969
.440
,659
,409
.£05
,464
,533
,CE1
,951
.774
.162
,650
,710
,677
,402
,685
,697
,379
,269
,598
,073
,494
.762
,345
,464
,466
,481
,703
,965
,C99
= = = =
6
8
7
6
5
9
7
6
5
5
8
14
6
7
4
5
6
6
6
5
6
5
8
6
5
9
9
6
5
7
6
6
it
8
10
6
9
5
10
7
13
4
9
16
7
4
5
5
7
=.x = r
28
25
26
28
43
35
23
37
31
59
40
29
49
41
44
54
23
32
39
47
35
32
32
17
22
38
24
32
35
46
41
2S
19
28
28
21
42
24
46
28
36
29
26
16
12
23
36
5C
32
= == =
7
5
5
6
5
4
5
6
8
3
5
4
4
5
5
3
8
6
7
5
5
5
7
6
7
4
5
6
6
4
5
6
9
8
5
5
5
6
3
7
5
20
7
8
23
6
6
4
4
= = = =
9
9
9
13
6
5
11
10
7
8
4
6
7
8
7
4
9
8
8
7
6
E
6
6
12
5
9
9
E
6
t
8
11
1 1
9
9
5
9
3
8
6
9
8
11
10
9
11
5
7
= S XX
17
16
15
15
13
12
16
12
23 .'
7
12
13
10
14
15
16
20
21
17
14
12
12
11
24
17
1 1
16
15
11
12
14
15
22
22
16
13
16
13
13
20
17
27
23
21
32
31
15
12
18
Figure 9. Example of Economic Profile Table in Appendix G
20
-------
that resides within an urbanized area; an urbanized area as
defined by the Bureau of the Census (BOC) contains residential,
commercial, or industrial developments, but does not necessarily
correspond to the boundaries of incorporated municipalities.
The fifth column (Civilian labor force) shows the number of
nonmilitary persons residing in the county who were known to be
employed as of the 1970 Census of population. Subsequent columns
show the percentage distribution of the labor force in selected
types of economic activity: construction (CONS), manufacturing
(MFC), education (EDU), services (SVC), and government (GOV).
Because all types of employment were not listed, these columns do
not total 100 percent.
The sectors of the economy that are listed in census data
are the most significant sources of employment data nationwide,
but they do not necessarily encompass all forms of employment in
every county. The construction (CONS) sector is of special
interest because a high proportion of employment in this industry
may indicate the influx of new or expanded industrial plants
which could be affected by the PSD program requirements. The
manufacturing (MFC) sector is of interest because it provides
some indication of the industrial development which is already
located in the area. In some instances, census data may not
reflect the actual economic activity within the county, because
persons residing in one county may be commuting to employment in
a different county which would not be reflected in the above
data.
One indicator alone may not be sufficient to characterize
the level of economic activity in a county. Where two or three
indicators in combination suggest a high level of economic activ-
ity, then it is very likely that development is taking place.
For example, the profile for Mohave County, Arizona, shows a high
growth rate (44.5%) suggestive of a high degree of development,
even though the 1970 population is only 25,857. With 9,512
persons in the work force, a reasonable proportion (36.8%) of
persons is employed; relatively high proportions are in construc-
tion (19%), services (11%), and government (16%). A glance at a
state map shows Mohave County to be a large rural county in
western Arizona with no large towns or cities. It contains some
Federal lands such as the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and
it is near the Grand Canyon National Park. The economic profile
shows Mohave County to be a growing rural county, even though its
population level did not suggest any major development at the
time of reporting. However, some major power facilities are
located in this area which could cause the area to be signifi-
cantly impacted by the PSD program if additional units to these
facilities would be proposed.
The table entitled "Topographical and Meteorological Pro-
files of Counties" in Appendix H may be used as a rough guide to
identify areas that have a potential for air pollution problems
if a high level of emissions are present in the county. The
21
-------
first column (Figure 10) lists the names of the States, their
two-letter zip codes, and counties within each State. The second
column gives the area of the county in square miles. Column 3
(Land surface forms) is a brief statement of the general topogra-
phy of the county. The term "plains" generally indicates land
with little change in elevation and land that is expected to be
well ventilated. The terms "plains-hills-mountains (mtns)" and
"hills-mountains" indicate increasingly varied topography with
increased opportunities to trap localized pollutants within
valleys or ravines. "Open hills" refers to a lack of vegetation;
this land may or may not affect ventilation. The fourth column
(Local relief) is another indicator of the variety or contrast in
local terrain; this indicator describes the difference between
the highest and lowest elevations (feet) in the county. Each
county is classified as 0-300, 300-500, 500-1000, 1000-3000,
3000-5000, or 5000 + feet. The fifth column (Frequency of insta-
bility) refers to the Pasquill stability classes, which are
commonly used to calculate the dispersion of gaseous pollutants
from sources of pollution; in these tables, instability means
Pasquill stability classes A and B, which are frequently associ-
ated with good dispersion. Each county is classified according
to the proportion of days when "unstable" conditions occur:
6-15, 16-25, or 26-35 percent. The last column (Radiat) lists
the intensity of solar radiation in langleys (1 langley is equiv-
alent to 1 gram-calorie per square centimeter of irradiated
surface.) Solar radiation is a significant factor in the forma-
tion of 03.
In addition to the information presented in the fifth column
Figures H-l and H-2 present information on the percent frequency
of neutral and stable conditions across the United States. These
maps provide an indication of where poor dispersion is expected
to occur. Figure H-3 also provides an indication of the disper-
sion characteristics for an area, as it presents the percentage
of all 1115 GMT soundings with a surface based or elevated inver-
sion below 3000 M AGL. Also included in Appendix H is a map
(Figure H-4) which presents the mean number of days with maximum
temperature of 90°F or above. This data provides some additional
information regarding those areas where ozone formation is likely
to occur. Maps showing the counties for all 50 states are in-
cluded in Appendix H so that the information presented in Figures
H-l to H-4 can be interpretated on an individual county basis if
desired.
The profiles and the maps were taken from various summaries
of data at the national level. Accuracy varies from good to
poor. The profiles can provide only a first-order review; a more
detailed study must be conducted for individual counties before
any decisions can be made regarding the impact that future regu-
latory requirements will have on a particular area.
The table in Appendix I entitled "Emission Profiles of
Counties" can be used to review the levels of VOC, NO , and CO
emissions across the country. The present emissions represent a
22
-------
STATE AND COUNTY
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
H
AL
AL
AL
AL
ALABAKA
AUTAUGA
BALDWIN
BAR80UR
BlbB
BLOUNT
EULLOCK
BUTLER
CALHOUN
CHAMBERS
CHEROK EE
CH1LTON
CHOCTAW
CLARKE
CLAY
CLEBURNE
COf FEE
COLBERT
COUECUH
COOSA
COV1NGTON
CRENSHAW
CULLKAN
I, ALE
DALLAS
DE KALB
ELKORE
ESCAI'.P I*
fc TOW AH
fAYETTE
FRANKLIN
GENEVA
GREENE
HALE
HENRY
HOUSTON
JACKSON
JEFF if SON
LAKAR
LAuDERDALE
LA.RENCE
LEE
1 IKE STONE
LOkNDE S
KACOf.
f ALISON
r.AKEHGO
KAfclON
MARSHALL
LAND AREA
1975
50,70?
599
1,578
891
625
639
615
773
611
597
556
699
911
1,232
603
57*
677
596
850
650
984
611
73P
559
976
77E
624
962
555
627
644
577
627
662
55*
575
1,079
1,115
605
662
665
612
546
715
616
803
978
743
571
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-HTNS
OPCN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
DPEN-HILLS-KTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-KTSS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TM-LELANDS
3PEN-HILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-KTKS
OPEN-HILLS-KTKS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
TADLELANDS
LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
3- 500
3- 500
0- 3CO
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
3- SCO
3- SCO
0- 300
3- SCO
5-1000
5-1 OCO
0- 3CO
3- 5TO
0- 300
5-10CO
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
3- SCO
0- 300
0- 3CC
5-1000
3- SCO
C- 300
5-1CCO
3- SCO
3- SCO
0- 300
C- 3CC
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
C- 300
1-3COO
3- 5CC
3- SCO
C- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
C- SCO
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
3- 500
5-1CCO
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
Figure 10. Example of Topographical and Meteorological Profile Table
in Appendix H
23
-------
base level which should not increase significantly if deteriora-
tion of the present air quality is to be prevented.
The first column of the table (an example is presented in
Figure 11) lists the State SAROAD codes and the names of the
counties. Subsequent columns, expressed in tons per year, list
the total point-source emissions from the county, the total
area-source emissions, and the total of both of these types of
emissions. The point-source entries represent the sum of emis-
sions in the county that has been computed for each point-source.
The area-source entries represent the estimates of smaller less
significant emission sources. The accuracy of all data is de-
pendent the accuracy and timeliness of the estimates reported to
the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB) by local units of govern-
ment. Also included in Appendix I is a table of the State alpha-
betical and numerical codes.
3.6 METHODOLOGY
The processing of data, the drawing of maps, and the compil-
ing of tables were accomplished with the UNIVAC 1110 computer and
with peripheral facilities available through the U.S. EPA at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The maps were drawn by a
plotter device using a computer program called US-SHADE. Base
data on computer tapes, discs, or card files were obtained through
the Strategies and Air Standards Division (SASD), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. EPA, and through the
computer programming aids from SASD.
COBOL programs were written to read base data files and to
write the reports called County Profiles. The programming pro-
cess was aided by the symbolic stream generators (SSG) called
COMPILE, that were developed by Mr. George Duggan of SASD.3 The
COMPILE program is a comprehensive runstream for expediting the
precompilation, compilation, debugging, mapping, and execution of
COBOL, FORTRAN, and PL-1 computer programs. It provides access
to three precompilers and five compilers, depending on the pro-
gramming language employed. The precompiler for this report was
the SCORE-IV system;4 it was adapted for use on the UNIVAC 1100
series at EPA. The compiler used was the @ACOB program, which is
on-line at the National Computer Center (NCC). The mapping of
the program was carried out using the @MAP processor, which is
also on-line at NCC.
The source of census data was a computer tape compiled by
BOC and obtained by SASD for use at EPA. It contains a county-
by-county summary of population, economic, housing, employment,
and other data collected by the Bureau from 1947 to 1975. It in-
cludes data from census of population, census of manufacturing,
and interim surveys. Each county record contains 1,354 items of
data represented by 10,380 symbolic characters on the magnetic
tape, one record for each of the 3,145 counties plus States and
special districts. The definition of this file, written by
24
-------
STATE AND COUNTY
01
01
01
01
01
C1
C1
01
01
01
01
01
*
AUTAU6A CO
BALDWIN CO
BARbOUR CO
BIBb CO
BLOUNT CO
E-ULLOCK CO
BUTLER CO
CALHOUN CO
CHAMJEPS CO
CHEROKEE CO
CHILTON CO
ChOCTAW CO
Tons/Year
TYPE Of
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE*
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARC A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
hC NOX CO
132.
3io53!
10.
10,188.
1C, 198.
305.
3,278.
3,583.
C .
1,6f3.
1,683.
0.
3,333.
3,333.
C.
1,602.
1.6C2.
m.
3, CSS.
3,243.
3f .
12,292.
ir,330.
2C.
5,215.
5,235.
C.
2.U5.
2,165.
39.
3,202.
224.
2,346.
2,570.
1,914.
1,577.
3,491.
5.
5,590.
5.595.
145.
1,711.
1,856.
3.
1.3C9.
1,309.
0 .
2,141.
2,141.
0.
744.
744.
941.
1,469.
2.41C.
233.
6,219.
6,452.
452.
2,496.
2.946.
C.
1,411.
1,411.
195.
2 , 04 6 .
2,241.
3 ,654.
1,382.
5,036.
6,840.
14,310.
21,150.
1.
45,064.
45,065.
29.
16,899.
Id, 926.
0.
8,343.
8,343.
P.
15,894.
15,894.
0.
7J813.
188.
11,532.
13,720.
7,311.
5«,244.
66,555.
sr.
22,14?.
22,190.
r.
ir.sisl
39.
15,063.
15,102.
8,967-
9,011.
17,978.
Figure 11. Example of Emission Profile Table in Appendix I
25
-------
Mr. Duggan of SASD, was used in writing five programs for acces-
sing the file.3
The source of data on county emissions was the NADB computer
files, OAQPS, EPA. The NEDS-USER file contains, among other
things, the computed emissions for each point source in the
country that emits TSP and S02 NO , HC, and CO. As data on Pb
becomes available, they are to be stored in the HATREMS file,
using the NEDS format. In general, the data were submitted by
local, regional, and State agencies to NADB for storage and
retrieval between 1972 and the present. The quality of data
varies widely from one agency to another; in addition, there is
no regular, thorough, or consistent updating of all files. Since
there were more than 200,000 entries in the file at the time of
the report, a program was written to access the file and to
summarize point sources by county.
Estimates of area sources are maintained in a separate NADB
computer file, NEDS-AREA. The pollutants currently reported are
the same as those in the NEDS-USER. The sum of emissions from
these two files represents the available estimates of total
emissions for each county.
Data on terrain were derived from the census tape (land
area) and from the interpolation of base data of the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey-5 Data on solar radiation, local terrain, and local
relief were interpreted and recorded in computer files. Meteoro-
logical data on stability were interpreted from the maps contain-
ed in Reference 6. Pasquill stability classes were used as rough
measures of air pollution potential in each county. However, the
relationship between the interpretations made for each county and
the factual observations varies. In many cases, there were no
observations made within a county, so interpretations were taken
from adjacent counties.
26
-------
SECTION 4
SOURCES SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL REGULATION
The question of which sources may be subject to review and
what is their relative air quality and emission impacts are the
major topics for this section.
4.1 SOURCES SUBJECT TO CURRENT REGULATIONS
Section 165 of the Act requires that all new or modified
major emitting facilities or stationary sources must undergo a
preconstruction review and receive a PSD preconstruction permit.
A "major emitting facility" is defined in Section 169 of the Act
as any of the following 28 categories of stationary sources which
emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of
any air pollutant regulated under the Act:
Fossil-fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
than two hundred and fifty million British ther-
mal units per hour of heat input;
coal-cleaning plants. (thermal- dryers) ;
Kraft pulp mills;
Portland cement plants;
primary zinc smelters;
iron and steel mill plants;
primary aluminum ore reduction plants;
primary copper smelters;
municipal incinerators capable of charging more
than two hundred and fifty tons of refuse per
day;
hydrofluoric acid plants;
sulfuric acid plants;
27
-------
nitric acid plants;
petroleum refineries;
lime plants;
phosphate rock processing plants;
coke oven batteries;
sulfur recovery plants;
carbon black plants (furnace processes);
primary lead smelters;
fuel conversion plants;
sintering plants;
secondary metal production facilities;
chemical process plants;
fossil-fuel boilers of more than two hundred and
fifty million British thermal units per hour of heat
input;
petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a
capacity exceeding three hundred thousand barrels;
taconite ore processing facilities;
glass-fiber processing plants; and
charcoal production facilities.
The term "major emitting facility" also includes any other source
with the potential to emit 250 tons per year of any air pollutant,
This term shall not include any new or modified sources which are
nonprofit health or educational institutions that may be exempted
by a State.
4.2 TYPICAL SIZES OF SOURCES
A literature review was undertaken to obtain data on the
typical or average sized facilities which may be associated with
each of the 28 source categories subject to PSD review and with
several other potential major sources of VOC, CO, NOX, and Pb.
The results of this review are summarized in Table 1.
28
-------
TABLE 1. TYPICAL SIZE FACILITIES
Source category
Coal -cleaning plants
(thermal dryers)**
Power plants, >250 x 106
Btu/h**
Kraft pulp mills**
Portland cement plants**
Primary zinc smelters**
Iron and steel mill
plants (electric arc)**
Primary aluminum ore re-
duction plants**
Primary copper smelters**
Municipal incinerator,
>250 tons/day**
Hydrofluoric acid plants
Sulfuric acid plants**
Nitric acid plants**
Petroleum refineries**
Lime plants**
Phosphate rock processing
plants*
Size
tons per year
2 200-300 tons
per hour
1 500-1000 MW
2 700 tons per
day
3 1 x 103
MT
n100 x 103
11 30 x 103
1I4850 x 103
10500 x 103
2 32V 10*
2 10 x 103 bbl
per day
7 700-750 tons
per day
7 300 tons per
day
* 21 x 106 bbl
per year
6 180 x 103 y£
13 2 x 106
Emission estimates
tons/year
VOC
46
24
69
161
CO
1,800-
3,600
255
270
560
7
731
NOX
19,400-
20,800
67
679
3
42
83
110
4,481
Pb
135
260
(continued)
29
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
Source category
Coke oven batteries (by
product)*
Sulfur recovery
Carbon black plants (fur-
nace processes)
Primary lead smelters**
Secondary metal produc-
tion facilities (grey
iron foundry)*
Chemical process plants*
Acetic acid
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
Adi pic acid
Maleic anhydride
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Polyethylene
Styrene
Synthetic fiber
Ethyl ene
Industrial boilers,
>250 x 106 Btu/h**
Petroleum storage/trans-
fer facilities >300,000
bbl**
Taconite ore processing
facilities
Glass-fiber processing
plants*
Charcoal production facil-
ities
Size
tons per year
4 720 x 103
16 100 tons per
day
4 63 x 103
12100 x 103
4 90 x 103
4 230 x 103
4 117 x 103
4 65 x 103
* 113 x 103
4 20 x 103
4 50 x 103
4 74 x 103
* 91 x 103
4 338 x 103
4 40 x 103
4 550 x 103
500-1000 MW
9 300 x 103 bbl
per year
4 41 x 103
* 2 x 103
Emission estimates
tons/year
VOC
151
3
17
3
3
24
26
2
293
27
27
7
91
CO
961
88
360
5
<1
33
6
156
4
297
1,800-
3,600
43 46
1
NOX
11
91
512
1
10,400-
20,800
32
Pb
250
i
4 29
(continued)
30
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
Source category
Sintering plants**
Fuel conversion plants**
Pipeline engines
Oil and gas extraction
Asphalt (blowing)
Size
tons per year
15 11.5 x 103
" 788 x 103
* 4 x 103
" 623 x 103
" 33 x 103
Emission estimates
tons/year
VOC
2,680
26
3
CO
NOX
30
Pb
*0n Aug. 21, 1979, NSPS priority list.
**NSPS promulgated.
NOTE: Emission estimates for Pb were available only for primary smelters;
copper (260), lead (250), zinc (135) in tons/year.
Sources: References 1-4 and 7-16.
31
-------
The emission estimates for the categories in Table 1 were
based on those emissions that would be permitted under (1) exist-
ing New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements/ (2)
future NSPS requirements (where none currently exist), or (3)
BACT requirements as a result of the current PSD program for TSP
and SO2. The data on BACT were obtained from the BACT/LAER
clearinghouse5 and from those PSD permits which have been issued
to date by EPA Regions III and IV.2 Future_NSPS limits currently
under development should represent the best control technology
currently available and should represent a reasonable approxima-
tion of (for the purposes of this study) the emissions that one
might expect from a typical sized facility meeting the BACT re-
quirements. The NSPS emission factors or estimates were obtained
from a study used to establish the priorities for setting NSPS's
under the 1977 amendments to the Act.6
4.3 SOURCE SIZES DICTATED BY AIR QUALITY CONSTRAINTS
Since increments have been established for TSP and S02 for
Classes I, II, and III (Table 2), calculations have been perform-
ed to estimate the size of facilities which may be constructed in
a Class II area (i.e., moderate growth) without violating the ap-
plicable increment for TSP or S02 (whichever is the most restric-
tive) . Some of these estimates were used to evaluate the impacts
of the Class II increments which were under consideration by the
Congress in their deliberations regarding PSD in 1976 and 1977
and in the passage of the 1977 amendments to the Act.17"20
Various air quality dispersion models were used to estimate
the air quality impacts of typical size facilities considering
certain source parameters such as stack height and velocity,
source location and configuration, along with specific meteoro-
logical conditions and topographical features. These impact
estimates were then used to determine the maximum size of facility
which could be constructed and operated within a Class II area.
The estimates are not absolute numbers since the specific impact
associated with any particular source will vary greatly from area
to area; however the estimates do provide a relative size range
of sources which may be permitted to locate in a Class II area with
flat terrain. Hilly or mountainous areas would further limit the
size of source which may be built without causing a violation of
Class II increment.
In addition to the evaluations associated with the 1977
amendments, some evaluations have been completed for several
policy alternatives for PSD in Illinois.21 The air quality im-
pacts of several source categories were evaluated in several
areas in Illinois using the Climatological Dispersion Model
32
-------
TABLE 2. AIR QUALITY INCREMENT
Annual geom. mean
Annual arith. mean
24-h maximum
3-h maximum
Class I
TSP
5
10
S02
2
5
25
Class II
TSP
19
37
S02
20
91
512
Class III
TSP
37
75
SO,
40
182
300
(CDM), the Gaussian-Plume Multiple-Source Air Quality Algorithm
(RAM), and a modification of the rural version of RAM (RAMR). A
discussion of these models is found in Appendix C of Reference 8.
As with the evaluations associated with the 1977 amendments, cer-
tain technical data were assumed for each source to estimate the
highest and second highest TSP and S02 air quality concentra-
tions .
The last set of data used in estimating the maximum size of
facility that may be located within a Class II area without vio-
lating the increment was the PSD permits which have been issued
to date. PEDCo extensively reviewed the PSD permits issued to
date for Regional Offices III-X and found a number of applications
and/or permits that specified the maximum air quality impact as-
sociated with a specific source.2 While these data were only ap-
plicable to the particular source and to the area where it is
planning to locate, the data did provide estimates of the maximum
sizes of facility which could be located within an area without
violating the increment.
In cases where the data did not specify the source size that
could be located within a Class II area, PEDCo increased the size
of the facility in proportion to its estimated impact for either
the 24- or 3-hour increment, depending on which averaging time
would be the most restrictive. This technique has its limitations
because the air quality impact of a source is not necessarily pro-
portional to its size. A larger source with more emissions could
in many cases have a proportionally higher flow rate than a smal-
ler source. As a result, the estimated maximum concentration
(using the above technique) may be overly conservative, and a
larger facility could be constructed without violating the Class
II increments. Still, this technique does provide first-order
estimates of the maximum size of facility that could be construct-
ed in a Class II area. These estimates are especially useful
in determining whether a typical size facility may have problems
locating in a Class II area.
The results of the above analysis are presented in Table 3.
The emissions estimates are based on future NSPS limits or BACT
levels contained in the PSD permits issued to date. As shown in
33
-------
TABLE 3. SIZES OF SOURCES THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN
CLASS II AREAS
Source category
Coal-cleaning plants
(thermal dryers)
Power plants,
>250 x 106 Btu/h
Kraft pulp mills
Portland cement
plants
Primary zinc smelters
Iron and steel mill
plants
Primary copper
smelter
Municipal incinerator
>250 tons/day
Hydrofluoric acid
plants
Sulfuric acid plants
Petroleum refineries
Lime plants
Phosphate rock
processing plants
Coke oven batteries
(byproduct)
Size
tons/year
21840 tons/h
22 1000-2500 MW
182000 tons/day
(1.4 x 106
bbl/day)
22135,000
219125 x 103
(strip mill)
18547 x 103
2 88, 800
2 10, 000 bbl/day
:81440 tons/day
18219 x 106 BPY
(eastern)
2121 x 103 yl
235 x 106
2144 x 106
(tons/day)
Emission estimates - tons/year
VOC
131
67
69
1643
CO
3600-9000
657
82,125
1554
7
7446
1
NOX
20,800-52,000
172
124,000
912
119
83
45,661
Pb
40,519
165
9198 58,473 <1
i
i
i
(continued)
34
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Source category
Sulfur recovery
Carbon black plant
(furnace processes)
Industrial boilers
>250 x 106 Btu/h
Glass-fiber process-
ing plants
Sintering plants
Fuel conversion
Oil shale
Coal gasification
Size
tons/year
2210,000
(tons/day)
2*6.19 x 103
22 1000-2500 MW
251350 x 103
2136.5 x 103
(tons/day)
10,200 x 103
22188,000
(bbl/day)
2 '900- 1000
MMCFD
Emission estimates - tons/year
VOC
<1
1418
CO
9
3600-9000
1512
29,711
NOX
20,800-52,000
1060
Pb
35
-------
Table 3, a number of source categories will emit only a relative-
ly small amount of VOC, CO, NOX, or Pb for these sizes of facili-
ties. As a result, the associated air quality impacts for these
pollutants are expected to be relatively small and in many cases
the TSP and S02 increments represent the air quality levels that
are expected to dictate the amount of growth that would be per-
mitted for these sources. While a number of source categories
are estimated to only emit relatively small amounts of VOC, CO,
NOX and Pb, others (e.g. power plants, zinc smelters, petroleum
refineries, coke ovens, sintering plants) are estimated to emit
significantly larger amounts. However, the air quality impact
resulting from the VOC, CO, NOX and Pb emissions may be propor-
tionally lower than the expected TSP and S02 impact, therefore
the TSP and SO2 increments may still represent the air quality
levels that are expected to dictate the amount of growth that
would be permitted for these sources.
Table 4 was developed for selected source categories which
emit TSP and S02 as well as VOC, CO, and NOX and for which pro-
jected TSP or SOa 24-hour concentrations were available. These
data were used to relate the ambient impact of TSP or SOz to an
estimated ambient impact for Oa, NOX, or CO. This was accomplish-
ed by: using the ratio of the emissions for VOC, NOX, and CO to
either the TSP or SO2 emissions; then multiplying by the maximum
24-hour TSP or S02 concentration, respectively; and converting
the 24-hour average to the averaging time for the NAAQS for that
pollutant, using the following equation:26
where
X = desired concentration estimate for a given time t ,
s
X, = concentration estimate for the shorter averaging
time tk,
p =0.17
This equation permits the 24-hour concentration for various pol-
lutants to be converted to the appropriate averaging time of the
respective standard. The equation is not valid for averaging
times longer than 24 hours, so the numbers generated for convert-
ing the 24-hour NO2 level to an annual average are highly suspect.
Additionally, the air quality concentrations estimated for 03 and
NO2 are based on the assumption that all of the VOC and NOX is
converted to 03 and N02 respectively and that no interaction takes
place. Therefore, the estimates contained in Table 4 should in no
way be construed as absolute values but more as first-order esti-
mates of the relative air quality impacts of these pollutants.
36
-------
While detailed dispersion modeling was outside the scope of this
effort, specific modeling studies can and should be done to obtain
more realistic estimates of the 03, N02, and CO air quality im-
pacts of these sources.
If the same ratio which currently exists for the 24-hour in-
crement (as compared to the 24-hour standard for TSP and S02) were
to be used in establishing the PSD increments for 03, CO, and N02,
the increments could be represented by the following values:
03 CO
1 hr 8 hr
59 ug/m3 2.5 mg/m3
NO 2
2.5 vtg/m3*
*Ratio of increment to annual TSP
standard.
If one compares these numbers to those in Table 4 (keeping in
mind the above limitations with respect to the increment values
and the estimated air quality concentrations), the TSP and S02
air quality increments would represent the binding constraints
for future growth if significant deterioration for 03, CO, and
N02 were defined as the above-assumed increments for 03, N02 ,
and CO with few exceptions (most noticeably for NOX, which has
the most severe limitation regarding the air quality estimates).
37
-------
TABLE 4. EMISSION AND AIR QUALITY LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH MAXIMUM
SIZE FACILITIES THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN CLASS II AREAS
Source
category
Coal cleaning
plants (thermal
dryers
Power plants
>250 x 106 Btu
per hour
Kraft pulp
mills
Iron and steel
(strip mill )
Municipal in-
cinerator >250
TPD
Hydrofluoric
acid plants
Petroleum re-
fineries
Lime plants
Coke ovens
Carbon black
Sintering plants
Fuel conversion
Coal gasifica-
tion
Size
t/yr
2 '840 TPH
2 1,200
MW
222,000
TPD
219,125
x 103
2 88, 800
210,000
BPD
2:600,000
BPD*
(136,000
BPD)
2 121 x
103 MT
YR
21 44 x
106
J"6.19 x
103
2136.5 x
103 TPD
27250 x
106 Btu
per day
Tons/year of emissions
(concentration in ug/m3)
TSPa
1,500
(5.5)
62
(37)
7
(37)
372
(18.5)
50
(37)
2,202
(37)
4
(37)
vocb
131
(38.3)
67
(74)
69
(1,143)
1,688
(0.06)
9,198
(291)
313
(260)
coc
4,324
(0.02)
657
(0.13)
82,125
(1.2)
1,554
(1.2)
7
(0.07)
10,350
(172)
58,473
(1.2)
8,649
(7.2)
29,711
(0.4)
8
(1)
<
25,000
(33)
172
(16-9)
912
(6.6)
119
(44.7)
83
(460)
657
(7)
(6.4)
Pb
S02a
42,000
(89)
584
(91)
7,932
(91)
10
(91)
3,446
(91)
30
(22)
1
7,932
(91)
258
Second maximum 24-hr concentration
Second maximum 1-hr 03 concentration
Second maximum 8-hr (mg/m3)
Annual average concentration
38
-------
REFERENCES
1. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - Background
Information for Proposed S02 Emission Standards, EPA-450/
2-78-007a, July 1978, pp. 5-1 to 5-5.
2. Regulatory Impact of the September 5, 1979 Proposed PSD
Regulations, U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-02-3173, Task No.
1. Completion Date February 15, 1980.
3. A Review of Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources - Portland Cement Industry, Draft, October 1978.
4. Priorities for New Source Performance Standards Under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA-450/3-78-019, April
1978, pp. A-7 to A-45.
5. Compilation of Control Technology Information, U.S. EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-2003, Task No. 42. Completion Date
May 1, 1979.
6. Priorities for New Source Performance Standards Under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA 450/3-78-019, April
1, 1978. pp. A-7 to A-45.
7- Background Information for Proposed New Source Perform-
ance Standards: Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland
Cement Plants, Nitric Acid Plants, Sulfuric Acid Plants,
August 1971.
8. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use: Chap-
ter 18, The Lime Industry, EPA-600/2-77-023r, February
1977, pp. 1-2.
9. Background Information for Proposed New Source Perform-
ance Standards: Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Re-
fineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and
Refineries, Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plants,
Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants, APTD-
1352a, June 1973.
39
-------
10. Jones, H.R. Pollution Control in Nonferrous Metals In-
dustry, 1972.
11. Background Information for New Source Performance Stand-
ards: Primary Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters, EPA-450/2-
74-002a, October 1974.
12. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, Vol. II,
Chapter 4 - Appendix B, EPA-450/2-77-012, December 1977,
pp. 4-38 to 4-130.
13. Source Assessment: Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral In-
dustry, State of the Art, EPA-600/2-78-004p, June 1978,
p. 4.
14. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use: Chap-
ter 25. Primary Aluminum Industry EPA-600/2-77-023y,
February 1977, pp. 4-6.
15. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality:
An Analysis of Policy Alternatives in Illinois: Volume
II Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, August
1979.
16. Memorandum from P. Youngblood to S. Cuffe 10-06-76, Air
Quality Analyses in Support of NSPS (S02) for Sulfur Re-
covery in Natural Gas Industry.
17. Summary of EPA Analysis of the Impact of the House Sig-
nificant Deterioration Proposal (HR 10498 Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1976) May 21, 1976.
18. Summary of EPA Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Sig-
nificant Deterioration Proposal (CS 3219 - Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1976) undated.
19. Impact of Energy Resource Development on Reactive Pollu-
tants in the Western United States, Contract No. 68-01-2801,
prepared for U.S. EPA by ERT, Inc., February 1976.
20. An Analysis of the Impact of Refinery Siting of Proposed
Approaches to Significant Deterioration Prepared for U.S.
EPA by Radian Corporation, August 5, 1976.
21. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality: An
Analysis of Policy Alternatives in Illinois: Volume II
Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, August 1979.
22. Rough Estimates of Size Limits for Class II Regions, Un-
dated.
23. Memorandum from P. Youngblood to J. Farmer 02-09-77, Dis-
persion Modeling Analysis for Phosphate Rock Industry.
40
-------
24. Source Assessment: Carbon Black Manufacture, EPA-600/
2-77-107K, October 1977, pp. 82-87.
25. Dispersion Model Analysis of the Air Quality Impact of
Particulate Emissions from Four Types of Glass Manufac-
turer Plants, August 1978, EPA Contract 68-02-2507,
H.E. Cramer Company.
26. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, D.B. Turner,
U.S. EPA. Revised 1970.
27. Control of Emissions from Lurgi Coal Gasification Plants,
EPA 450/2-78-012, March 1978, pp. C-41 to C-45.
41
-------
SECTION 5
CONSEQUENCES OF NO FURTHER REGULATORY ACTION
Two parts of the PSD program are outlined in the Act. The
first involves appling BACT and the second involves demonstrating
that a new or modified source would not cause or contribute to
any significant deterioration of air quality. For TSP and SO2 /
both parts of the program are outlined in considerable detail;
for VOC or HC, 03, NOX, CO, and Pb, the second part has yet to
be developed.
Under Section 165(a)(40 of the Act no major emitting facili-
ty may be constructed in any area unless it is subject to BACT
for each pollutant regulated under the Act. Under Title II, Sec-
tion 202 of the Act, the EPA Administrator is given the authority
to establish emission standards applicable to any air pollutant
from any class of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
which may cause or contribute to air pollution or which may en-
danger public health or welfare.
The Administrator has promulgated regulations (Table 5)
which require light-duty vehicles to meet, within a specified time,
standards for CO, HC, and NOX. The Administrator has also promul-
gated (1973) regulations to reduce the amount of Pb in gasoline
and has scheduled a phasedown program to take affect in 1975 and
to gradually reduce the Pb content in gasoline to 0.5 g/gal by
the end of 1979. (These regulations were challenged and finally
upheld by a Federal appeals court in 1976.) The impact of this
phasedown program was assessed in a 1975 study (Table 6).l The
later projections of the Pb content of gasoline were based on
sales of leaded and unleaded gasoline (Table 7).2
Nationwide, approximately 82%, 41%, 45%, and 88% for CO, VOC,
NOX, and Pb respectively are from motor-vehicle-related sources.
These sources are, for the most part, controlled by FMVCP; be-
cause of the voluminous emissions from motor vehicles, the FMVCP
will have a major impact along with the BACT requirement in pre-
venting significant deterioration.
5.1 RATIONALE FOR THE BASE CASE SCENARIO
The requirements of BACT, the FMVCP, and the phasedown pro-
gram for Pb are applicable independently of the PSD requirements
42
-------
for preconstruction review of sources. Since the major sources
are motor vehicle related and since BACT represents a case-by-
case assessment for determining the best technology currently
available for the few stationary sources that contribute to VOC,
CO, NOX, and Pb emissions, BACT and FMVCP represent the basis of
PSD program for VOC, CO, NOX, and Pb; thus they can be referred
to as the base case PSD scenario upon which further regulatory _
action could be required if needed. To determine how effective'
such a base case scenario (BACT and FMVCP) might be, PEDCo ana-
lyzed the impact on 03, CO, and N02 air quality levels in
several AQCRs if no further regulatory actions were taken.
TABLE 5. FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR LIGHT-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES,
1968-1983
(g/mi measured by constant-vol sampling,
cold/hot-start tests)
Pre-68 (uncon-
trolled car)
1968-69
1970-71
1972
1973
1975-76^
1977-79D
1980C
1981-82
1983C
Exhaust emissions
HC
8.70
5.90
3.90
3.00
3.00
1.50
1.50.
0.41d
0.41C
0.41
CO
87.0
50.8
33.3
28.0
28.0
15.0
15.0
7.0j
3.4d
3.4
N0¥
X
4.0
NRa
NR
NR
3.1
3.1
2.0
2.0
1.0e
0.4f
NR - no requirement.
Interim standards established in 1973 and later years.
cLevels established by 1977 amendments to the Clean Air
Act.
Original 1975 requirements of 1970 amendments to the Act.
eSubject to waiver for diesels and small manufacturers.
fOriginal 1976 requirements of 1970 amendments to the Act,
to be implemented only if public health requires it;
otherwise, standard is 1.0.
43
-------
TABLE 6. PROJECTED LEAD CONSUMPTION AND AMBIENT LEAD
CONCENTRATION
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Revised
phasedown
schedule,3
gm/gal
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.5
Post-74
vehicles
%
38.5
50.6
61.4
70.8
78.7
85.0
89.7
92.9
94.8
96.1
97.2
97.9
98.3
100.0
Probable
pooled
average, b
gm/gal
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.50
0.50
0.34
0.25
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.05
Projected
lead con-
sumption,0
10s short
tons
1.64
1.40
1.20
0.90
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Projected
ambient
lead,d
yg/m3
0.96
0.83
0.72
0.57
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Adjusted for the 1979 revision of the lead phasedown regula-
tion.
b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplementary Guide-
lines for Lead Implementation Plans. Appendix C, "Project-
ing Automotive Lead Emissions for Roadway Configurations."
EPA-450/2-78-038. August 1978, p. 148.
Weisman, Rob, Enforcement Division, EPA, telephone communi-
cation with William Hunt, Monitoring and Data Analysis
Division, EPA, January 9, 1980.
Faoro, Robert B. Unpublished analysis of ambient lead trends.
October 1979.
44
-------
TABLE 7. PROJECTED LEAD CONTENT OF GASOLINE,
1974-90*
(g/gai)
Year
Leaded
Non-
leaded
Based on historical sales data
and actual pooled average
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1.75
1.90
2.00
1.90
1.90
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Based on projected sales and
required pooled averages
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
2.10
1.60
1.20
1.30
1.50
1.80
2.20
2.80
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
*1974-78 based on historical sales data and on
actual pooled average Pb content; 1979-90 bas-
ed on sales projections and on requirements
for pooled average Pb content.
45
-------
5.2 AREAS SELECTED FOR THE ANALYSIS
The June 19, 1978, PSD regulations indicated that the PSD
requirements apply regardless of nonattainment designations
since there could be pockets of clean air within nonattainment
areas. When the June 19, 1978, PSD regulations were challenged,
the court ruled that the PSD provisions apply only to major
sources locating in areas designated as either attainment or un-
classifiable under Section 107. Therefore, the PSD regulations
for VOC, CO, NOX, and Pb apply only to areas where the measured
air quality is at or below the NAAQS or where there are no data
currently available to classify the area (as either attainment
or nonattainment) so the area, for the purposes of PSD, is con-
sidered to be attainment until measured air quality data indicate
otherwise.
To determine which areas should be included in the analysis
of the base case scenario, PEDCo reviewed all the air quality data
for 03, CO, and N02 in SAROAD. Appendix D summarizes the 1977
data in the SAROAD system: for Os and CO, these data represent
the second maximum air quality concentration measured for a county;
for NO2, the data represent the highest annual arithmetic average
for the county.
Since the pollutants to be analyzed have more of an area-
wide impact and since the analytical techniques (simple or modi-
fied rollback) currently used for this type of analysis were more
applicable to a broad geographic area, the air quality data were
summarized and listed by AQCR's to identify those with air quali-
ty levels at or below the NAAQS's. Then the list of AQCR's was
reviewed to select the AQCR's where at least two and preferably
all three pollutants had measured,-values less than the NAAQS' s.
The revised list was used to select the AQCR's to be analyzed
(Table 8). The AQCR's were selected to represent the major geo-
graphic regions of the country (North, South, East, West and Mid-
west) and the broadest possible distribution of areas (in terms
of population, size and location), with currently available air
quality data.
Table 8 lists the air quality values for the AQCR's selected
for analysis. If a CO value was not available, 9 ppm was assumed
to be the air quality value for the purpose of the analysis.
Analyzed were 18 areas for 03, 19 for CO, and 9 for NOX or N02.
5.3 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
The simplest form of a linear or proportional model is:3
Cj_ = b + ke (1)
where
46
-------
c. =
b =
k =
e =
ambient concentration of a pollutant at receptor
location i,
ambient background concentration in an area (de-
fined as the sum of the natural emission sources
within the study area and the anthropogenic and
natural sources outside the study area that affect
concentrations in the study area),
proportionality factor (accounts for relationship
between source and receptor; includes effects of
meteorology, distance of source from receptor, and
stack height of source, and
total emission rate of a pollutant within the study
area.
TABLE 8. AREAS SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
AQCR number and name
038 San Isabel
048 Center Florida
050 S.E. Florida
055 Chattanooga
062 E. Washington-N. Idaho
065 Burlington-Keokuk
072 Paducah-Cairo
077 Evansville-Owensboro
085 Metro. Omaha
092 S.C. Iowa
094 Metro. Kansas City
113 Cumberland-Keyser
125 S.C. Michigan
131 Minneapolis-St. Paul
143 Miles City
158 Central New York
184 Central Oklahoma
241 Casper
243 Wyoming
2nd max
1-h 03
cone, ppm
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.06
2nd max
8-h CO
cone, ppm
8.1
1.4
9.1
6.7
17.6
7.6
8.1
2.6
14.5
11.5
3.0
*9.0
*9.0
14.0
*9.0
8.4
11.5
*9.0
*9.0
Arith avg
N02 cone,
yg/m3
32
39
57
58
27
69
65
63
6
*9 ppm was assumed to be the air quality value if a CO value was
not available.
47
-------
To account for the effects of reducing the emissions of different
source categories by different amounts, the simple rollback equa-
tion was expanded to what is known as modified rollback.3 Equa-
tion 2 is a general mathematical description of the expanded
model.
n
x., =B, + (X, - B, ) Z Q.G..,F..S.,T..M..
jk k v ok k i=1 wi ijk i] ik 13 ik ^
QiSik
where
x., = projected air quality concentration for calendar
-* year j in region k,
B, = background concentration in region k,
X , = base-year air quality concentration in region k,
G. ., = growth factor for source category i in year j in
IDK region k,
F.. = emission factor ratio for source category i in
1J year j,
S., = source contribution factor for stationary source
category i in region k,
T.. = transportation control factor, (if applicable)
-1 for mobile source category i in year j ,
M^k = mobile source correction factor (if applicable)
for mobile source category i in year k,
Q- = base-year emission inventory for source category
i,
n = number of source categories,
i = source category index,
] = calendar year index, and
k = region index
This modified equation is typically used to project air quality
concentrations and to evaluate the impacts of imposing national
programs.
48
-------
In Equation 2, the base-year air quality concentration (XOk)
represents the air quality in the region of interest. The design
value or base year concentration for the region must be consistent
with that in the air quality standard for the pollutant being mod-
eled.
The base-year emission inventory (Q^) used must meet the
following criteria:
All emissions affecting the air quality in the modeled
region are accounted for.
Each source in a source category exhibits approximate-
ly the same growth rate.
Each source in a source category is subject to approxi-
mately the same emission controls.
The relative effect of each source within a source
category on the observed air quality level is approxi-
mately proportional to the emissions from that source.
The mobile source categories (i's) are light-duty automobiles,
light-duty trucks, heavy-duty gasoline and heavy duty diesel. The
stationary source categories for nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) or
VOC are petroleum refineries; storage, transportation and marketing
of petroleum products; industrial processes; organic solvent evapo-
ration; combustion; and others. The stationary source categories
for CO are point and area, and for NOX they are industrial process,
area, and fuel combustion. The NMHC emission estimates were adjust-
ed to reflect the percentages of VOC in the total NMHC inventory
for NEDS by using the values in Table 9.
Stationary source contribution factors (Si) account for the
relative effect of the emission source height (or distance from
the source to the receptor on ground-level air quality). An ele-
vated source would be expected to contribute less to ground-level
air quality than a ground-level source would under most meteoro-
logical conditions. A ground-level source generally has a factor
of 1.0, and an elevated source generally has less than 1.0.
These factors were determined separately and with only one weight-
ing factor for each source category.
Emission reductions from the FMVCP and from the inspection
and maintenance (I/M) programs were accounted for in emission
factors (T..) for mobile sources.
Basic controls for mobile and stationary sources were
accounted for via the emission factors used in rollback equation.
An emission factor ratio (EFR) is the ratio of the emission factor
of an average source within a source category in some future year
49
-------
TABLE 9. NONMETHANE HYDROCARBON ESTIMATES
VOC source category
% VOC
Stationary sources
Petroleum refineries
Storage, transportation, and
marketing of petroleum pro-
ducts
Industrial processes
Industrial surface coating
Nonindustrial surface coat-
ing
Other solvent uses
Other miscellaneous sources
Fuel combustion
Solid waste disposal
Forest, agricultural, and
other open burning
Mobile sources
Highway vehicles
Light-duty automobiles
Light-duty trucks
Heavy-duty gasoline trucks
Heavy-duty diesel trucks
Motorcycles
Off-highway vehicles
Rail
Aircraft
Vessels
95
92
74
95
95
100
34
58
58
85
85
85
97
100
90
97
90
97
Note: A computer program was developed to
estimate VOC emissions as percentages of the
total hydrocarbons (THC) calculated in the
NEDS user file; the percentages were derived
from: RAPS Study: Point and Area Source Or-
ganic Emission Inventory.
Source: U.S. EPA. Modified Rollback Computer
Program User's Manual. Draft. Air Management
Technology Branch, MDAD, OAQPS, June 1979.
50
-------
to the emission factor of an average source in the same category
in the base year — indicates the amount of control on a source
category .
_ , percent control.
- 1 - - -
_,„„
EFR
In addition to the modified rollback technique, PEDCo used
the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA) to relate VOC or HC
emissions to 03 air quality. This approach was used for comparison
only since the use of EKMA in other than urban areas has been
questioned. Additionally, the HC-to-NOx ratio (9.5:1) used in the
analysis is generally assumed to be more appropriate for urban
areas and therefore, it would not be applicable to all of the areas
analyzed.
5.4 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
The detailed results of the PEDCo analysis using the modi-
fied rollback computer program (currently on the UNIVAC computer)
are in Appendix F. The results are summarized in Table 10. As
shown in Table 10, the current regulatory program, which requires
TABLE 10. AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS EXPECTED TO
EXCEED THE 1976 BASELINE AIR QUALITY VALUES
BY 1999
Control strategy
Total included in
analysis
FMVCP only
FMVCP and BACT
Number of ACQRs1*
03
18
12(17)
0( 2)
CO
19
0
0
N02
9
0
0
*Numbers within parens indicate higher
growth rates; see Appendix E for this
and other assumptions.
new stationary sources of VOC, NOX/ and CO to apply BACT and which
requires new automobiles to meet the FMVCP standards appears (based
on PEDCo's limited analysis) to prevent air quality levels in 1999
from increasing over the 1976 baseline levels in all AQCR's for CO
and in all but two AQCR's for Oa and N02. In fact in most cases,
the projected air quality levels in 1999 will actually improve over
51
-------
the 1976 levels by an average of 13% for 03 and 52% for CO. How-
ever, the projected NO2 levels will average a slight increase of
6% with the previous projections (1987 and 1990) showing a de-
crease of approximately 5%.
The 03 projections using EKMA were generally consistent with
those of the modified rollback; the exception was the average de-
crease in air quality levels—only 3% in 1999 rather than the 13%
by using the modified rollback.
5.5 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Each of the many identified alternatives has advantages and
disadvantages, and each has a unique way of implementing the PSD
program for 03, CO, N02, and Pb within the constraints imposed by
the current Act and availability of techniques to implement such
a program. No program can be developed that will be totally ac-
ceptable to all concerned and no alternative can be free from
disadvantages.
There has been considerable concern over the complexity of
the current PSD program for TSP and S02. Many believe that the
current PSD program has too many exceptions, special provisions
and detailed requirements which increase the complexity beyond
what is needed. The use of dispersion modeling has been criti-
cized in lieu of using actual air quality data to track the in-
crement as it represents a hypothetical rather than a real world
situation. Additionally, others believe that there is utter con-
fusion in issuing permits for new sources and that the current
PSD regulations (while meeting the legal requirements) are too
complex for plant managers and upper corporate management to com-
pletely understand.
While the criticisms of the current TSP and S02 PSD program
may be harsh and at times unfounded the message is clear: any
further PSD requirements must be logical and must bear a strong
relationship to the public values it protects. The program
must meet the objectives of the Act, must be simple to implement,
and must be easily understood by the industries being regulated
and the public being protected so each can help ensure that the
public interest is being best served and that there is economic
growth consistent with the goals of preventing air quality from
seriously deteriorating to a point of being permanently or irre-
visably damaged.
Basic issues critical to the development of the PSD program
for 03, CO, N02 , and Pb (but by no means all of the issues) have
been identified. Successful open resolution of these issues dur-
ing the regulatory development process will be essential in de-
termining which alternative will be implemented and how effective-
ly the program will be carried out. Furthermore, the alternatives
52
-------
must be compared and evaluated to determine which alternatives
must receive further consideration for implementation. The ex-
tent of the impact of implementing a PSD program for VOC or HC,
03/ CO, NOX and Pb will vary from pollutant to pollutant as
pointed out in Section 3.
For Oa, the PSD program would be essentially limited to only
certain portions of the United States since violations of the
NAAQS for Oa have been noted for a number of areas. However,
ambient Oa air quality data currently available for characterizing
counties are fairly limited (Appendix D). While there are areas
with second maximum Oa concentrations less than the 0.12 ppm
standard, many of other areas have violations of the standard and
the PSD program would therefore not apply. For CO and NOX, the
program would be more widespread because there are fewer areas
with violations. Again, the air quality data in many counties are
fairly limited. There are many counties where no data have been
collected or at least reported. These areas without data are re-
ferred to as unclassifiable with regard to attainment status.
While for the purposes of PSD these areas identified as unclassifi-
able are considered to be attainment (i.e. PSD would apply), it is
difficult to accurately assess the impact that the PSD program
would have for these areas because the lack of baseline data makes
it difficult to assess whether the air quality would in fact
deteriorate as a result of controlled and planned growth in the
area.
Based on the limited data currently available, it would ap-
pear that the program for 03 will have a limited impact on certain
geographic areas. The program for CO will affect a larger geo-
graphic area since the violations of the NAAQS for CO are more
localized and since more areas have measured concentrations be-
low the NAAQS. The program for N02 will affect an even larger
area than for CO since there are even fewer areas with violations
of the NAAQS for N02 and many areas have actual monitored data
(though monitoring has not been extensive) showing that air quality
is well below the NAAQS. Data on Pb are very limited at this time,
but the data which are available indicate that the nonattainment
areas for Pb are limited to larger urban areas and to areas around
significant point sources of Pb emissions.
The potential impacts of imposing no further regulatory
requirements beyond the current requirements imposed on new
automobiles by FMVCP and on new major stationary sources by
BACT (Section 165 of the Act) indicate that current regulatory
requirements, for the most part, will prevent significant de-
terioration at least until 1999. However, several points are
herein emphasized to avoid misinterpreting this statement. First,
only a few areas were analyzed because only a limited amount of
data existed for these pollutants and because only limited time
and monies existed for the analysis. Second, the emissions data
53
-------
from NEDS for these areas were used without any additional data
modification or validation. Third, the modified rollback technique
is not an absolute indicator of the projected air quality which
will result from imposing certain requirements. This technique how-
ever, has received acceptance in that it provides a relative indica-
tor of the projected air quality for an area, and it can be used in
national assessments to at least indicate the number of areas which
may be affected as a result of imposing certain requirements.
Fourth, it was assumed in this analysis that FMVCP will be imple-
mented within the prescribed time frame and that there will be no
tampering with the installed control devices. Therefore, the analy-
tical results may be slightly altered if tampering is significant.
One way of minimizing the adverse effects of tampering is by requir-
ing an I/M program for areas other than those currently required by
the 1977 Act amendments to have such a program. While the impact
of imposing I/M was not tested for this analysis, it could be test-
ed using the same analytical techniques to indicate how it might
affect the projected air quality levels of the areas if tampering
were considered.
The sources to be affected by the PSD program are discussed
in Section 4. Use of existing air quality dispersion modeling
data indicates that for the most part, the current TSP and S02 in-
crements would represent the binding constraint with respect to the
size of facility that may be constructed in any area, given that a
similar type increment program is developed for 03, CO, and N02.
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the above assessment, two recommendations are
made regarding any follow-up effort to support the regulatory de-
velopment of the PSD program for VOC or HC, 03, CO, NOX and Pb.
The first is that the criteria in Appendix B be used to
evaluate the alternatives in order to identify those which should
receive a detailed evaluation in terms of overall effectiveness
and cost. In most cases, the evaluation to select the alternatives
will be by its very nature qualitative rather than quantitative.
The second is that a detailed analysis be conducted regard-
ing the air quality impact of new or modified sources to obtain
a more accurate assessment of the associated air quality impact
of these sources. Individual air quality modeling efforts should
be conducted for a number of source categories under a variety of
meteorological conditions.
54
-------
REFERENCES
1. Duncan, L. et al. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Re-
vision of Lead Phasedown Regulation, MITRE, September 20,
1979.
2. Workshop Manual on Lead Implementation Plans, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia, PEDCo Environmental, Inc. for EPA July
11-12, 1979.
3. N. de Nevers and J.R. Morris, "Rollback Modeling: Basic
and Modified," Journal of Air Pollution Control Association,
25, September 1975, p. 943.
4. Draft Modified Rollback Computer Program User's Manual, Air
Management Technology Branch, MDAD, OAQPS, U.S. EPA, June
1979.
55
-------
APPENDIX A
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
56
-------
ALTERNATIVES
Page
Emission Controls Only 58
Ambient Air Quality Increments 67
Emission Density Zoning 72
Inventory Management 76
Statewide Emission Limitation 79
Avoiding Co-Location of VOC and NO
Sources x 82
Emission Fees 86
Marketable Permits 93
Pe M-cttxtmu4 Levels 98
Transportation BACT 101
Indirect Source Review of Federally As-
sisted Projects 105
57
-------
EMISSION CONTROLS ONLY
Description of Alternative
This system would rely primarily on the Federal Motor Vehi-
cle Control Program (FMVCP) (with the possible addition of in-
spection and maintenance requirements) and the requirement for
Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Control requirements
under this system would not vary as a function of the spatial
concentration of sources.
Options
This alternative could be modified to consider the air qual-
ity as well as the emissions impact of a individual source
through the use of the preconstruction and postconstruction
monitoring requirements currently part of the PSD requirements.
The preconstruction requirements would provide an assessment of
the situation before the source locates and the postconstruction
would provide a check to ensure that the air quality levels have
not violated the standard and that the levels are at or below the
levels prior to the source's construction. A deviation of, say
5-10% taking into account any effects due to meteorology, would
be permitted. If the air quality would be outside the above
deviation a hearing would be held to determine if a variance
should be granted which is similar to reclassifying the area from
a Class II to a Class III or if no variance should be granted and
thus some additional emission reductions would be necessary to
offset the air quality increase over the preconstruction levels.
If the deviation is lower than expected the source would be
permitted to construct but some further investigation would be
made to determine what emission reduction may have taken place
during this time which would account for this decrease. This
would be noted and the information available to new sources for
use in possibly offsetting additional emissions in the future.
58
-------
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 165(a)(4) states:
"No major emitting facility on which construction is com-
menced after the date of the enactment of this part, may be
constructed in any area to which this part applies unless—
(4) the proposed facility is subject to the best
available control technology for each pollutant subject to
regulation under this Act emitted from, or which results
from such facility;..."
Section 202(a)(1) states:
"(1) The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
(and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provi-
sions of this section, standards applicable to the emission
of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment
cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Such
standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines
for their useful life (as determined under subsection (d),
relating to useful life of vehicles for purposes of certi-
fication), whether such vehicles and engines are designed as
complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or con-
trol such pollution."
Background
The Clean Air Act under Section 165(a)(4) provides that no
major emitting facility may be constructed in any area unless the
proposed facility is subject to the Best Available Control Tech-
nology (BACT) for each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act. Additionally, under Title II, Section 202 of the Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is given the
authority to establish motor vehicle emission standards applica-
ble to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or clas-
ses of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in
his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The Administrator has taken such authority and promulgated regu-
lations which require light duty vehicles to meet certain stan-
dards for CO, HC and NO within a given time period. A summary
X
59
-------
of the Federal motor vehicle emission standards as revised pur-
suant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 is presented in
Table I.
Additionally the Administrator has promulgated regulations
dealing with lead content of gasoline. The regulations to reduce
the amount of lead in gasoline were first promulgated in 1973 and
scheduled to take affect beginning in 1975. This program called
for phased reductions to take place from 1975 to 1979 with the
final lead content in gasoline to be .5 grams per gallon in 1979.
These regulations were challenged and finally upheld by a Federal
appeals court in 1976. The impact of this lead phase down pro-
gram was assessed in a study completed in 1975 and the results
are presented in Table II. The projected lead content of gaso-
line has been revised recently and the results of this revision
are presented in Table III.
The requirements of BACT, the FMVCP, and the phasedown pro-
gram for Pb are applicable independent of any program to require
preconstruction review of sources of these emissions under PSD.
Since the major sources of these emissions are motor vehicle re-
lated and BACT represents a case by case assessment as to the
best technology currently available for those few stationary
sources which contribute to the HC, CO, NO , and Pb emissions,
X
this alternative may well represent the most effective program
for keeping the current clean air areas clean without any addi-
tional regulations.
This program or alternative of relying only on the BACT
requirement and the FMVCP has two basic methods of implemen-
tation. The first would not involve any preconstruction review
of the emission levels for a given area. It would rely on the
basic premise that the FMVCP will more than compensate for all
new growth in an area with levels below the NAAQS as all new
stationary sources, for the most part, will be required to apply
BACT.
The second would include a preconstrucion review for sta-
tionary sources. This review would ensure that the emission
60
-------
TABLE I. FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSIONS STANDARDS (grams/mileV
HC CO NO
Uncontrolled car
1968-69
1970-71
1972
1973
1975-76b
1977-79b
1980C
1981-82C
1983C
8.7
5.9
3.9
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
0.41d
0.41
0.41
87.0
50.8
33.3
28.0
28.0
15.0
15.0
7.0
3.4d
3.4
4.0
NR
NR
NR
3.1
3.1
2.0
2.0
1.0f
0.4e
NR = No requirement
As measured by 1
hot-start test.
a As measured by the Federal constant-volume sampling, cold- and
Interim standards established in 1973 and subsequent years.
c Levels established by 1977 Amendments to the Clear Air Act.
Original 1975 requirements of the 1970 Amendments to the Clear Air Act.
e Original 1976 requirements of the 1970 Amendments to the Clear Air Act.
Subject to waiver for diesels and small manufacturers.
9 To be established only if public health requires it; otherwise, standard
is 1.0.
61
-------
TABLE II. PROJECTED AMBIENT LEAD LEVELS BASED ON PROBABLE
Phase-down
schedule
Year (gm/gal)
1974
1975 1.7
1976 1.4
1977 1.0
1978 . 0.8
1979 0.5
1980 0.5
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
POOLED
••»
% Post-74
vehicles1
0.0
11.2
25.5
38.5
50.6
61.4
70.8
78.7
85.0
89.7
92.9
94.8
96.1
97.2
97.9
98.3
100.0
LEAD CONTENT
Probable
pooled
average1
(gm/gal)
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.34
0.25
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.05
OF GASOLINE
Projected
lead consumption2
(10s short tons)
1.99
1.69
1.39
1.00
0.80
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.34
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.05
Projected
ambient lead2
(yg/m3)
0.94
0.80
0.66
0.47
0.38
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.02
62
-------
TABLE III. LEAD CONTENT OF GASOLINE
Leaded Gasoline* Nonleaded Gasoline
(g/gal)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
* 1974 - 1978: Lead content based upon historical sales data for leaded
and nonleaded gasoline and data indicating the actual pooled average
lead content.
1979 - 1990: Lead content based upon sales projections for leaded and
nonleaded gasoline and requirements for pooled average lead content.
Year
1974
1975
1976
i
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
(q/qal)
1.75
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
63
-------
levels from the new source would be offset by the emission reduc-
tions accomplished by the FMVCP for the area, i.e., the county,
in which the source plans to locate. The source would be re-
quired to apply BACT and there would be some incentive on the
part of the reviewing agency to keep the new emissions from the
source as low as possible so as to use the minimum amount of
emission reductions provided by the FMVCP. Otherwise growth
would be halted until further reductions from the FMVCP were
available or an existing source reduced its emissions suffi-
ciently to offset the new emissions.
Data Requirements
The major data requirements are:
o Vehicle mile traveled/year per area of concern (e.g.,
county),
o Stationary source emission estimates,
o Vehicle age distribution per county,
o Vehicle replacement rate, and
o Composite vehicle emission rates.
Advantages
o No new regulatory requirements would be necessary to
implement the program.
o No direct additional costs would be incurred by the
sources since they are already required to comply with
BACT.
Disadvantages
o Cannot guarantee that the clean air areas will remain
clean, if the FMVCP cannot offset the planned growth
for a given area.
o No real check of the air quality levels that would be
associated with the proposed source.
o Assumes that emissions are proportional to air quality
and that locational effects are not of major concern
with CO, HC, NO . and Pb.
X
64
-------
Imp1ementabi1ity
.This alternative will be relatively easy to implement since
no new requirements will be imposed. However, because of the
deterioration of air pollution control devices on the automobile
an Inspection/Maintenance program (I/M) would be needed in some
cases to ensure that the emission reductions called for by the
FMVCP are in fact accomplished and that the new sources emissions
can be accommodated.
While the preproduction certification program demonstrates
the manufacturers' capability of designing vehicles which can
meet the automotive emission standards, it does not address the
question of in-use vehicles. Over the past 10 years, testing
has consistently indicated that a significant number of vehicles
on the road fail to meet the automotive standards. This occurs
for a variety of reasons: production variability, tampering with
or neglect of a car's emission control system or use of leaded
gasoline in a car that requires unleaded. Therefore, it many
cases it is essential that a strategy be devised to improve the
performance of in-use vehicle. One such strategy is I/M. I/M
programs involve periodic testing of each car within a given
locality and a refusal to register any vehicle that fails the
test and is not subsequently repaired.
Suggestions
The second method of implementation outlined in the back-
ground section permits the assumption that the FMVCP can accom-
modate the new growth to be checked and growth prohibited if the
emissions from the new source would be greater than the reduc-
tions provided for by the FMVCP.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
In comparison to other alternatives this represents the
absolute minimum program. It does not require that any detailed
program be developed beyond that currently required. However, it
does not ensure that the air quality levels for an area are not
significantly degraded as no specific case-by-case air quality
assessment would be required. The overall economic impact due to
the PSD program would be quite small as the major part of the
65
-------
control program is the FMVCP which is required independent of the
PSD requirements.
66
-------
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY INCREMENTS
Description
This approach calls for the development of an increment and
classification system similar to that prescribed in Section 163
for Set I pollutants.
Options
Not applicable.
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 166(c) and (d) of the Act states:
11 (c) Such regulations shall provide specific numerical
measures against which permit applications may be evaluated,
a framework for stimulating improved control technology,
protection of air quality values, and fulfill the goals and
purposes set forth in section 101 and section 160.
(d) The regulations of the Administrator under subsection
(a) shall provide specific measures at least as effective as
the increments established in section 163 to fulfill such
goals and purposes, and may contain air quality increments,
emission density requirements, or other measures."
Background Information
The PSD program for TSP and SO2 established air quality in-
crements over which the baseline air quality can increase with-
out this increase being considered significant. This approach
assigns certain air quality increment values to an area based
upon its classification either as Class I, pristine areas, Class
II, moderate growth areas, or Class III, relatively uninhibited
growth areas. This increment approach is consistent with the air
quality management approach set forth in Section 109 and 110 of
the Clean Air Act. This approach requires the modeling of multi-
ple point and area sources and the tracking of emissions/air
quality increases and decreases that affect the increment.
The June 19, 1978, PSD regulations indicated that EPA's
assessment of the air quality impacts of new major sources and
modifications will be based on the "Guideline on Air Quality
67
-------
Models," OAQPS 1.2-080, April 1978. This guideline was incor-
porated by reference into the regulations. Sources may be given
approval to use air quality dispersion models other than those
noted in the guidelines if the model recommended in the guideline
and the model proposed by the source are comparable.
The guideline recommends those air quality models that
should be used for conducting PSD review. It also identifies
factors that determine the suitability of models for an indi-
vidual situation, presents classes and subclasses of models, and
addresses special modeling problems. The guideline presents
information for modeling TSP, S02, CO, and NOX. It does not,
however, present information regarding modeling of photochemical
oxidants. These models are undergoing a critical review and
information regarding them will be provided at a later date.
With regard to CO and NOX, the point source screening tech-
niques described in Volume 10 of the Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis, "Procedures for Evaluating
Air Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources," can be used. How-
ever, no specific refined modeling techniques are recommended.
Those situations which require more refined techniques will be
considered on a case-by-case basis with the use of expert consul-
tation. For NOX, the use of any models other than photochemical
ones require an assumption that all NOV is emitted in the form of
X
N02 or is converted to N02 by the time it reaches the ground and
that NO2 is a nonreactive pollutant. For sources locating in
areas where atmospheric photochemical reactions are significant,
a rollback model may be used as a preliminary assessment to
evaluate the impact of the source or sources.
There are five (5) types of ozone prediction methods that
are currently available. These models vary from simple algebraic
relationships to sophisticated numerical models. In general, the
simple methods tend to ignore or to treat superficially many
atmospheric processes that affect the formation of ozone. The
sophisticated numerical models on the other hand, treat these
processes in detail but are very costly to use and require large
amounts of input data. The five (5) ozone models are: linear
68
-------
rollback, modified rollback, empirical kinetic modeling approach
(EKMA), trajectory models, and grid models. Most of these models
have been developed for a region-wide application rather than for
a specific individual point source. They are also more oriented
for use in urban rather than rural areas.
One of most sophisticated grid models is the Airshed Model,
which has the ability to simulate the behavior of up to 20 pol-
lutants. When photochemical simulations are carried out by this
model, 11 species must be included:
paraffins nitric oxide
olefins nitrogen dioxide
aromatics ozone
aldehydes nitric acid
peroxyacetyl nitrate hydrogen peroxide
carbon monoxide
Additionally a number of other parameters regarding emis-
sions and surface uptake, meteorology, air quality, chemical
mechanisms, etc., must be input. As can be seen these input re-
quirements are considerable.
More information on modeling can be found in the discussion
on the modeling issue.
Data Requirements
The major data requirements are:
o Emission estimates for all major stationary sources
both new and existing,
o Emission estimates for all area sources both new and
existing,
o HC/NOV ratios for the area where the source plans to
X
locate,
o Increment values,
o Background air quality concentration,
o Preconstruction or design air quality values,
o Stack parameters,
o Meteorological data, and
o Method of relating emissions to an air quality value.
69
-------
Advantages
o Reflects current concept of PSD,
o Consistent with Set I approach,
o Much of guidance regarding implementation of an incre-
ment system is already available once the type of model
is selected,
o Permits assessment of the air quality impact from new
sources,
o Use of rollback or EKMA would permit the increment con-
cept to be implemented through the use of an interim
measure until more sophisticated models can be devel-
oped and tested, and
o Once the more sophisticated modeling approaches become
available these could be used to check the validity of
the interim models. If violations of the increment are
noted then a SIP revision would be required to correct
the violation. If no violations are noted, the amount
of increment available would be adjusted to reflect the
results of using the more sophisticated models.
Disadvantages
o Difficult to accurately model VOC and NO., emissions
X
from point sources because of the interaction of these
pollutants and meteorology in forming ozone and N02,
o Even an interim approach of using EKMA and rollback is
of some concern because these models were not designed
to be used for specific individual points source situa-
tions and this specific applicability has not been
tested to date,
o The simplified modeling techniques fail to consider the
locational and meteorological aspects of the ozone and
NO2 problem although EKMA does address the chemical re-
lationship between VOC and NOX emissions,
o Many simplified models produce results that are so
overly conservative that in many cases permits would be
denied when increment may actually still be available,
and
70
-------
o Simplified models may produce such unrealistic results
that once the more sophisticated models are used so
many adjustments would be necessary that it is ques-
tionable whether an interim approach should have been
used at all.
Implementability
While air quality increments could be established, there is
concern over the availability of the necessary analytical tech-
niques to relate VOC and NOX emissions to air quality concentra-
tions and the data to implement these techniques. The criticism
of the complex models which require considerable amounts of data
can be overcome by using the EKMA or rollback approach which do
not require considerable amounts of detailed data. However, the
question of the accuracy associated with using these techniques
still looms as a major obstacle to implementing the increment
alternative.
Because of the difficulty in predicting the ambient levels
of ozone and N02 and the amount of data needed to perform such
calculations using such techniques as the Urban Airshed Model,
the approach of using either the EKMA or rollback technique
offers a method of easily assessing the air quality impact of a
source. This is especially true in rural attainment areas where
the amount of data is limited and amount of N02 and manmade VOC
emissions is small. Considerable guidance and evaluation of the
rollback and EKMA procedures for use with individual point
sources would be needed before this approach could be imple-
mented.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
Compared to other alternatives this approach comes closest
to the concept of preventing significant deterioration of air
quality. In this alternative the air quality concentration from
a source is the key factor in the decision to either grant or
deny a permit. However, it requires more data than other alter-
natives and it requires the use of air quality dispersion models
which makes this a more complex alternative to implement even
though the complexity is reduced slightly by using EKMA or
rollback.
71
-------
EMISSION DENSITY ZONING
Description of Alternative
An emission density zoning (EDZ) system would rely on
theoretical air quality increments solely as a guideline for
establishing maximum allowable emission limits per unit of land
area. Once these are established, all preconstruction review and
enforcement actions would be based on emission limits rather than
ambient air quality levels.
Options
o Emission Allocation Planning - an assignment of emis-
sion quotas (usually in terms of tons/day or year) to
general purpose governmental jurisdictions such as
cities, towns, counties, etc.
o Floating Zone Strategy - establishes an emission
density limit for a specified unit of area surrounding
a new development.
o District Emission Quotas - similar to emission alloca-
tion planning except quotas are assigned to planning
districts (e.g., census tracts).
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 166(d) states:
"(d) The regulations of the Administrator under subsection
(a) shall provide specific measures at least as effective as
the increments established in section 163 to fulfill such
goals and purposes, and may contain air quality increments,
emission density requirements, or other measures."
Background
Emission density zoning, assigns allowable densities to
zoning classes. M-3 zones (heavy industry) for example, would
be limited to a certain density, whereas R-l (single family
residential) would be limited to a lighter density.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) require-
ment basically applies to all clean air areas most of which are
72
-------
rural or semirural. Such areas are, almost by definition, devoid
of detailed disaggregation into smaller governmental units. They
are characterized primarily by the following types of govern-
mental units:
o National forests, parks, monuments, etc.,
o Regional (multi-county A-95 review agency) planning
areas,
o Counties,
o Small cities and towns, and
o Planning districts and zones within cities, towns, and
some counties.
Data Requirements
The major data requirements are:
o Disaggregation of large governmental units, such as
states, into smaller, more manageable units; this does
not apply to floating zone emissions quotas,
o Vehicle miles traveled/year and land uses allocated to
those smaller geographical units,
o Motor vehicle emission factors for HC, CO, and NOX,
o A method of converting land use data to emissions,
o A method of determining maximum allowable emissions, or
in other words, a method of relating emissions to
acceptable changes in air quality, and
o A definition of what change in emissions/air quality is
acceptable.
Advantages
o Eliminates any need to model each major new source,
o Only requires comparing changes in emission density
with allowable changes,
o Could be easily combined with marketable permit concept
for ozone to enable the market to perform some of the
functions that would otherwise be performed by Govern-
ment,
o More applicable to 03, and
o Easy to implement.
73
-------
Disadvantages
o Would not apply directly to CO because of its localized
impact,
o Much of the data on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
land use may not be available for the rural areas out-
lined in the background section,
o Must convert VOC emission density to O3 air quality,
o Would require use of CO models to convert CO emission
density to allowable air quality, and
o Since State and local agency may be unfamilar with
approach, considerable guidance would be needed.
Implementability
Since emission quota strategies represent new approaches to
air quality management which have not really been applied any-
where in the U.S. on a wide scale and there is some entrenched
opposition to these concepts, these strategies may prove to be
very difficult to implement. However, in some cases this lack of
familarity could represent a fresh approach to many.
Since the system does not directly rely upon an estimate of
air quality impact it will be easier to implement than some
alternatives. However, it may be very difficult to relate the
ozone precursor emissions to some allowable ozone level to deter-
mine at what level of emission density represents a significant
deterioration of air quality.
Even though the system itself may be relatively easy to
implement, state and local agencies are unfamiliar with this
approach; thus, considerable additional guidance and procedures
may be needed.
Suggestions
Since many of the emission allocation schemes presented as
options rely upon a more structured data base (county, planning
district, etc.) they may be difficult if not impossible to imple-
ment for CO because of localized impact. However, since the
floating zone strategy does not rely on existing governmental
74
-------
boundaries, it would appear to be applicable to handle the loca-
lized problems associated with CO.
One way of overcoming the current problems associated with
converting VOC and N02 emission density to some type of air
quality increments is to use the Empirical Kinetic Modeling
approach (EKMA). EKMA could be used along with the emission
densities calculated for a relatively large geographical area to
calculate the corresponding ozone concentration.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
While this alternative overcomes some of the problems
associated with other alternatives such as complexity and requir-
ing detail dispersion modeling on a source-by-source basis, it
has some disadvantages when compared to other alternatives. It
does not unless modified somewhat, permit air quality to be a
consideration per se in the permitting process. It may also re-
quire more data to implement it than is currently available for
many of the rural clean air areas where the impact of the PSD
would be the greatest. Because it is a relatively new concept as
compared to some of the other alternatives it would require that
more guidance and information be developed before it could be
instituted in many areas.
75
-------
INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
Description of Alternative
This alternative assures that the inventory for a local area
would not exceed a specified level without public comment and a
demonstration that emissions permitted in excess of this level
would not constitute significant deterioration. This alternative
would require the State or local agency to develop and maintain
an emission inventory for all major and minor sources within a
given area. It would also require the State or local agency to
conduct a mandatory review of any further major new source growth
when the emissions for the area would reach a predetermined
level. This review would require the source, whose emissions
would cause this level to be exceeded, to demonstrate that addi-
tional emissions over and above the predetermined level would not
cause significant deterioration. The public would have an oppor-
tunity to review and comment on this demonstration and to voice
their opinion as to whether a new level of total emissions should
be established for which a future review and demonstration would-
be required. If no new level is established the source whose
emissions would cause the current level to be exceeded would
either have to offset its new emissions or choose to locate in
another area.
Options
Not applicable.
Applicable Clean Air Section
Section 166(c) provides:
"Such regulations shall provide specific numerical
measures against which permit applications may be
evaluated ..."
Background Information
Not applicable.
76
-------
Data Requirements
The data requirements to implement this alternative are:
o Current local existing emission inventory,
o Emission estimates for all new major and minor sources,
and
o Mechanism to periodically update emission inventory.
Advantages
o Simple to implement
o Avoids detailed dispersion modeling
o Involves public at the local level
Disadvantages
o If inventory area is too large, clustering of major
sources may take place which could create localized air
quality problems even though the emission levels
averaged over the entire area would not indicate that
air quality problems exist.
o Does not relate the emissions to some air quality level
on a source by source basis and therefore several
sources may be granted a permit to construct only to
find out that there was really an air quality problem
with the first source.
o The predetermined emission level for an area could be
challenged as being arbitrary since it would not relate
to some air quality level per se.
o Would be difficult to determine if an air quality
related value may be violated for a Class I area since
no estimate of a source's air quality impact is re-
quired either in the area where the source will locate
or some distance downward.
Implementability
This alternative would be easy to implement in that the
local area would only have to keep a record of its current and
future emissions. No detailed modeling would be required.
However, because this alternative does not directly relate emis-
sions to air quality potential violations of the standard could
arise.
77
-------
Suggestions
If the predetermined emission level could somehow be related
to an overall air quality impact through the use of some type of
simplified model, then one could compare this level to the
national ambient air quality standards or relate it to an air
quality related value that has been established (e.g., visibil-
ity) for an individual Class I area.
Comparison to other Alternatives
While this alternative will overcome some of the basic
problems noted for other alternatives (i.e., modeling, need for
detailed meteorological and emissions data, complexity, etc.), it
does not provide some estimate of how much deterioration might
take place in terms of air quality. However if the total emis-
sion increment can be related to some air quality level then
there would be a more positive check against the national ambient
air quality standards and the current or baseline air quality
levels in the area.
78
-------
STATEWIDE EMISSION LIMITATION (BUBBLE)
Description of the Alternative
This alternative assures that the. aggregate statewide emis-
sions will not increase. A bubble would be drawn over the entire
state and no net increase in emissions would be permitted. Any
emissions which may result from the location of a new source
within the state would have to be accommodated by previous reduc-
tions which have already taken place or by future reductions
which will take place prior to the startup of the new source.
Options
Options or modifications to this alternative may include:
o County or AQCR bubble, and
o Inflated bubble. (States with little development to
date would be allowed some additional growth, or emis-
sions, before the bubble is drawn so that they are not
at an unfair disadvantage compared to states which have
a number of emissions already.)
Applicable Clean Air Section
Section 166(c) provides:
"(c) Such regulations shall provide specific numerical
measures against which permit applications may be
evaluated, a framework for stimulating improved control
technology-.."
Background Information
The 1975 nationwide emissions for CO, NO , and VOC are shown
X
in Table I. Approximately 40% of the VOC and NO emissions and
X
83% of the CO emissions are from transportation related sources
(e.g., light and heavy duty vehicles). Statewide emission totals
vary considerably from State to State. Table I also provides
some estimates of the CO, NO , and VOC emissions for California
X
and North Dakota to illustrate this wide variation.
79
-------
TABLE I
Emissions 10 tons/yr
VOC NOV CO
™~ X
Nationwide 27.2 22.3 93.4
California 2.5 1.4 10.3
North Dakota .1 .1 .3
Data Requirements
The data requirements to implement this alternative are:
o Current statewide emission inventory,
o Emission estimates for all new major and minor sources,
and
o Mechanism to periodically update emission inventory.
Advantages
o Simple to implement,
o Avoids detailed dispersion modeling, and
o Forces technology.
Disadvantages
o Unfair to states with currently low emission levels and
no existing sources from which to obtain emission
reductions to accommodate new source growth,
o Does not consider air quality impact of the source,
o Will not avoid clustering of sources,
o Does not provide for any moderate growth without off-
sets,
o Places large burden for emission reduction on existing
facilities, and
o Does not consider transport of pollutants from another
State.
Implementability
This alternative would be easy to implement in that the
state would only have to keep a record of its current and future
emission estimates. No detailed modeling would be required.
80
-------
However, because this alternative does not avoid clustering of
sources, potential violations of the standard could unknowingly
arise thereby voiding the overall purpose of PSD. Also states
with low emission levels would feel discriminated against.
Future growth may be precluded because one state may have been
slower in developing or required tighter controls than another
state (i.e., lower emissions).
Suggestions
Some of the disadvantages of the statewide bubble could be
overcome by using a county or AQCR bubble which would provide
some limits on possible clustering. Additionally a county or
AQCR bubble, while not removing the inequity for areas which have
low emission levels, would spread those areas out more uniformly
across the U.S. as every state will have a number of counties or
possible AQCR's where the emission levels are relatively low.
The option of allowing an inflated bubble for states which
are currently undeveloped or which have low emission levels would
permit some moderate growth before an absolute limit on emissions
is imposed and offsets are required. If this inflated bubble
could be applied to a county or AQCR it may resolve or at least
limit some of the potential problems with clustering. That is,
the smaller the area over which the limits on emission are
imposed the less chance there is for sources to cluster together
and cause air quality problems before the limits on emissions are
reached.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
While this alternative will overcome some of the basic
problems noted for other alternatives (i.e., modeling, detailed
meteorological and emissions data, complexity, etc.), it will
have some severe impacts as it may limit the future growth
potential for many developing states. The requirement of impos-
ing no net increase in emissions in many cases will not permit
development in those states where existing emissions are quite
low. In other cases any growth that would be permitted will be
at the expense of the existing sources or as a result of reduc-
tions made possible by the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.
81
-------
Avoiding Co-Location of
VOC and NO Sources
A,
Description of Alternative
This approach is designed to prevent significant deteriora-
tion resulting from the formation of ozone. Such a program would
focus special attention on the nonmethane HC to nitrogen oxide
(NMHC/NO ) ratio and prevent the co-location of volatile organic
A
compound (VOC) and NO sources within a certain fixed distance of
A
each other.
Options
If in addition to the NMHC/NO ratio the total amount of
X
NO emissions could be tracked and estimates made regarding the
A
air quality impact in terms of N02 concentration then this system
could also be used to prevent significant deterioration of nitro-
gen dioxide.
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Not applicable.
Background
Ozone (03) is formed through a series of reactions involving
oxides of nitrogen (NO ), organic pollutants and sunlight. There
.A
are presently 300 reaction mechanisms involved in the formation
of photochemical oxidants. There are, however, a few basic steps
which generally describe the formation process.
1. NO 4- 03 -* N02 + O2
hv
2. NO2 -» NO + 0
3 . 0 + 02 -» O3
NITRIC
OXIDES
EMISSIONS
ORGANIC
PHOTOCHEMICAL -^_ X & COMPOUNDS
BY-PRODUCTS
-">^ .-**'
FREE
•RADICALS
82
-------
Most NO is emitted as nitric oxide (NO). NO is oxidized by
rfV
ambient ozone or organic compounds to form NO2. N02 is then
photolyzed by sunlight to form NO and oxygen (0). The atomic
oxygen will react with atmospheric oxygen and form ozone.
The role of NOX is to provide the basic means whereby ozone
is formed. However, in the absence of appreciable amounts of
volatile organic compounds (VOC), ozone levels will remain low as
a result of a chemical equilibrium which is set up among ozone,
NO and N02. Appreciable amounts of VOC's on the other hand
influences the equilibrium such that higher concentrations of
ozone are measured. The concentration of ozone is also dominated
by meteorological conditions. Sunlight intensity and temperature
influence the reaction rates and therefore the chemical equilib-
rium.
The roles of VOC and NO in ozone formation have been
H
studied in smog chambers. The results of numerous smog chamber
experiments have indicated that the effectiveness of VOC or NOX
controls depends upon the relative amounts of VOC or NO availa-
X
ble to form ozone. Maximum ozone levels are more sensitive to
organic control if the nonmethane hydrocarbon to NO ratio is low
X
than if the ratio is high. At low NMHC/NO ratios the rate by
X
which NO is converted to N02 is influenced by the availability of
organic compounds. At moderately high NMHC/NO ratios, the
JW
amounts of ozone formed begins to become limited by the availa-
bility of NO and becomes less sensitive to additional VOC emis-
X
sions. At very high NMHC/NO ratios (e.g., 30:1) it is possible
X
that excess VOC emissions can react such that the addition of
still further VOC emissions has little effect or may even result
in slightly lower levels of ozone. Thus the smog chamber results
indicate that the sensitivity of the ozone forming potential to
changes in VOC emissions decrease as the NMHC/NO ratio in-
m\
creases.
Because of interaction between VOC and NO one method of
X
preventing significant deterioration is to avoid the co-location
of VOC and NO sources. If the VOC or NMHC to NO ratio stays
x x
greater than say 30:1 then very little if any ozone would be
83
-------
formed and thus there would be no deterioration of the air
quality.
Data Requirements
The data required to implement this alternative are:
o HC or VOC and NO emissions for the existing sources,
X
o HC and NO emission estimates for the new sources,
X
o HC/NO ratios for the area, and
J\.
o Definition of the area of impact for formation of ozone
and N02.
Advantages
o Does not require the use of dispersion modeling,
o Simple yet scientifically sound approach to insure that
the air quality will not be significantly degraded, and
o Allows VOC and NO sources to be built as long as the
X
NMHC/NO ratio is above the level conducive to ozone
X
formation and vice versa.
Disadvantages
o Does not provide a direct measure of air quality,
o While it is based upon smog chamber studies, some may
still question its validity in the "real world" and
argue that it does not represent what will happen in
actual practice,
o Difficult to define the area represented by a given
NMHC/NOv ratio, and
J\,
o How would the problem of transport be considered. N02
or ozone may be transported into the area from some
distance upwind and by just analyzing the sources
within a given area one may not accurately represent
what takes place in terms of measured air quality.
Implementability
While this approach seems simple and straightforward to
implement, there are a number of technical issues and policy
concerns that would need to be resolved before this approach
could be implemented. For example:
84
-------
(1) Over what area would the NMHC/NO be measured?
X
(2) How will transport both into and out of the area be
considered?
(3) What kind of classification system should be set up?
(4) At what level will the NMHC/NO ratio be considered to
J\
be acceptable to insure that significant deterioration
does not take place?
If the above issues and several others can be adequately resolved
t his approach would be relatively straightforward to implement
nnd relatively easy to understand.
Suggestions
Transport could be accounted for in the preconstruction
monitoring program by requiring that a background and a downwind
monitor be set up in addition to the monitoring to be conducted
onsite. In that way the amount of ozone and N02 transported into
nnd out out the area prior to the sources operation could be
accounted for and factored into the decision making process.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
In comparison to the alternatives which require dispersion
modeling and increments, this technique is relatively easy to
implement. However, since it is based upon the use of ambient
,-ur quality data and HC/NQ ratios it does consider the air
,A
^uality impact as a vital part of the decision making process for
rSD. It is not just strictly an emissions approach as presented
i-v some of the other less complex alternatives.
85
-------
EMISSION FEES
Description of Alternative
A fee system would be designed to strengthen the require-
ment for BACT on new stationary sources. A fee would be levied
against each source based on its quantity of emissions, thus
providing the source with an incentive to develop and incorporate
new technology.
Options
N/A
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 166(c) states:
"Such regulations shall provide specific numeri-
cal measures against which permit applications
may be evaluated, a framework for stimulating im-
proved control technology, protection of air
quality values, and fulfill the goals and purposes
set forth in Section 101 and Section 160."
Background
In this alternative system, it is assumed that there will
exist a level of pollution control for Set-II pollutants that will
represent the best available control technology (BACT), and that
this level of control will be required for all new major indus-
trial plants regardless of location. At the same time, there is
no guarantee that this level of control will be sufficient to
prevent the deterioration of air quality in clean air areas with
respect to VOC, NO2, 0 , CO, or Pb. Thus the PSD program needs
to incorporate a system for achieving even higher levels of pol-
lution control for clean air areas where it is necessary to pre-
vent significant deterioration.
One method that has been suggested is the emission fee or
emission tax. This means that a charge is to be levied for each
pound of pollutant that is emitted. One of the objectives of
86
-------
this system la to set the fee at a sufficiently high level so as
to provide * positive incentive for the continued reduction of
emissions. This scheme is frequently represented by a graph of
the emission fee rate and the marginal cost of pollution control.
in Figure 1 the origin is set at BACT, the legal minimum of pollu-
tion control. M represents the maximum level of emissions reduc-
tions possible (emissions at BACT minus zero emissions). The emis-
sion fee is shown as a constant rate, while the marginal cost of
pollution control is an increasing function, that is, higher levels
of pollution control are increasingly more expensive in terms of
dollars per additional pound of emission reduction. Any point (X)
along the X axis from 0 to M represents a level of emission reduc-
tion. The emission fee to be paid at X is the emission fee rate (E)
times the pounds of emissions left uncontrolled (M-X). The cost of
control at X is the integral of the marginal cost curve from 0 to X.
If a company were able to choose any degree of emission
reduction, it would choose the point Xx where the emission fee
rate intersects the marginal cost of control curve, as shown in
Figure 1. At this point the emission fee to be paid is repre-
sented by the rectangle MECXlr and the cost of added pollution
rUrglnat co»t
of control
Cmlitlon fee, rate
M • Maximum emission r*«
dwellon possible
(zero emission!)
X|* The emission reduction
which maximizes the
cost savings to the cone
pany
Lbs of Emission Reduction
Above BACT
Figure. 1. Emission Fee Rate and Marginal
Cost of Pollution Control
87
-------
control is represented by the area OCX^. The sum of these two
areas represents the total added cost to the company, which
reaches a minimum when X = X,.
Another objective of the emission fees system is to achieve
.an effective balance between the costs of pollution control and
the benefits to be achieved for society. That is, the benefits
should always outweigh the costs. This means that the emission
fees that are imposed should reflect the costs that the given
rate of emission will impose on the community and society as a
whole.
Given this objective, the setting of emission fees involves
a detailed analysis of the costs to society of a wide range of
emission rates for each of the pollutants to be covered under the
PSD program. The analysis must take into account all the long
term and short term hazards to health, the effects on the ecology,
the effects on climate, the effects on buildings, animals, and
vegetation and any other effects that can be identified. While
some of these effects may be considered aesthetic or subjective
in nature, it will be necessary, nevertheless, to ascribe a dol-
lar value to all of them. In this way the effects of a given rate
of emission can be totaled, and the emission fee set equal to this
amount.
Each company is motivated by its own self-interest to find
efficient ways to reduce pollution and thereby reduce its costs.
The emission fee system is used to simulate the function of a free
market to benefit society as a whole.
Data Requirements
The data requirements for this alternative are:
o Estimated emissions from new major sources
o Meteorology at the location of the new source
o Estimated air quality levels as a result of the new
source
o Detailed estimates of damages to society from the
emissions remaining
o Marginal costs of control
38
-------
Advantages
o Compensates society for damages
o Provides incentive to reduce emissions beyond
the BACT level of control
Disadvantages
o Marginal costs of control are frequently unknown
o Marginal costs of control may be discontinuous
function or step-function
o Damages to society difficult to quantify
o Difficult to set marginal benefit equal to
marginal cost
o Emission fee might be considered as license to
pollute in lieu of reducing emissions beyond
BACT
o Industry may consider the fee an added burden
Implementability
The key to implementing this alternative is how to apply the
emission fee concept to the PSD program. The purpose of the PSD
program is to "prevent the significant deterioration of air quali-
ty" while it is the objective of the emission fees system to pro-
vide an incentive for emission reductions. There is no guarantee
that the existence of the incentive will actually reduce emissions
or prevent deterioration. In other words, once the societal bene-
fits have been calculated and the fee schedule set forth, a company
would still have the option of paying the fee and continuing to
emit at the BACT level of control.
It will be noted that cost vs. benefit is a more poignant is-
sue for the concept of PSD in clean areas than it is for non-
attainment in dirty areas. First, the cost of pollution control
is not linear in relation to percent reduction of emissions, but
becomes increasingly expensive at higher levels of control, such
as may be applied in PSD areas. Second, the benefits to society
for additional levels of control are not as clearly evident as
89
-------
for the first levels of control. Once the NAAQS are achieved, the
air quality is considered healthful/ and further improvements must
be based on secondary criteria, such as aesthetics, or damage to
vegetation. Thus, at higher levels of pollution control the costs
are mounting at an accelerated rate, while the more direct benefits
to be achieved may be diminishing.
Unfortunately, the benefits to be achieved by emission reduc-
tions beyond BACT will depend upon the geographic location of the
emission source. Geographic location implies the existence or ab-
sence of meteorological factors and topography which tends to dis-
perse or concentrate pollutants. Location also implies the exist-
ence or absence of other pollutant sources which may exacerbate
the pollution problem in the area and exaggerate the significance
of the amount of emissions remaining after BACT has been applied
to a single plant. Different localities vary considerably in
their sensitivity to the effects of air pollution. Sensitivity
depends upon the type of vegetation, the presence of sensitive
species of plants and animals, or man-made structures which may
deteriorate. Different localities also have different air pollu-
tion impacts upon the resident human population. Therefore, the
benefits of given levels of emissions cannot be accurately assess-
ed except for a specified time and space.
The costs of high levels of pollution control may also
depend upon location to a certain degree. For example, the
economic feasibility of trapping gases and particles in a liquid
medium may depend upon the ability of a local wastewater treat-
ment system to accommodate certain types of liquid wastes. Dis-
posal of waste in a solid form may depend upon the existence of
a special waste treatment plant or special landfill.
The geographic specificity of costs and benefits has two im-
plications for an emission fees program. First, it is probably
infeasible to construct an emission fee schedule that can be ap-
plied nationwide. Rather, it will be necessary to conduct a de-
tailed study in the locality of each proposed plant using an area
wide meteorological model. Then the air quality impacts must be
translated into societal impacts and societal impacts translated
90
-------
into an emission fee schedule specific to the one plant in the
one area for the specific time period. Second, these detailed
studies will represent a substantial administrative burden and a
significant additional cost to the PSD program.
Another concern regarding the implementation of emission fees
is that the program may be perceived by industry differently than
it is conceived by control agencies. The agency may conceive of
the system as a positive, nonregulatory approach that will help
industry to make balanced economic choices. Industry, by con-
trast, may not be able to see past the imposition of additional
taxes or fees.
If a company is planning a new plant it must invest a great
deal of time, effort, and money to meet the air pollution require-
ments of BACT. However, if it spends $10 million for pollution
control equipment, it may face another $5-10 million in emission
fees on top of its already sizeable capital requirements. (If
fees are not set at high levels they cannot be effective.) Thus,
while the source is already spending a great deal for a high de-
gree of pollution control, it may feel that an unreasonable addi-
tional burden is being placed on it, whether it chooses to pay
the fees or to add more controls.
Suggestions
Since Section 165 requires that BACT must be applied to every
major stationary source, the emission fee system can really not be
used in lieu of the BACT requirement for obtaining emission reduc-
tions. However., it can be used for obtaining controls beyond BACT
to minimize the consumption of the increment. The fee could be
set to reflect the cost of restoring the amount of increment
that would be consumed by the emissions permitted after the appli-
cation of BACT. If the cost of restoring the amount of increment
consumed (fee) is greater than the cost of control beyond BACT,
then additional control would be imposed. If not, the fee would
be paid to the state and local agency which could use the fee to
purchase reductions in the future to restore the increment to
such a level as to permit additional growth. Since the fee would
be used to purchase future offsets or reductions it must account
91
-------
for inflation etc. to ensure that the fee would be adequate to
cover the entire cost of purchasing these emission reductions at
a given point in time.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
This alternative could be used by itself or to supplement
other alternatives in that it would ensure a more efficient use
of the potential growth increment whether it be emission density,
air quality or total emissions.
92
-------
MARKETABLE PERMITS
Description of Alternative
The marketable permit alternative establishes a system
whereby a permit to emit a certain fixed quantity of emissions
is issued and that permit is transferable. Like an emission fee
system, the cost of these permits provides an incentive to the
source to minimize the quantity of emissions. Furthermore, the
exact quantity of emissions within any one area can be regulated
by limiting the number of marketable permits within that area.
Options
Not applicable.
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 166(d) states:
"The regulations of the Administrator under subsection (a)
shall provide specific measures at least as effective as
the increments established in section 163 to fulfill such
goals and purposes, and may contain air quality increments,
emission density requirements, or other measures."
Background Information
Transfer of development rights (TDR) or marketable permits
is a novel approach to emission control which involves the right
to emit air pollutants from a given source and transferring that
right to another source. In principle it changes the focus of
emission control from the individual source to a geographic area.
In this sense TDR is quite similar to the emission quota or
density strategies.
Much of the following description of the marketable permit
approach is necessarily hypothetical. To date, marketable per-
mits have not yet been used to control air pollutant emissions.
Rather the concept comes from recent applications to landmark
preservation, open space preservation, ecological resource pro-
tection, residential planning, community growth and land use re-
gulation. The similarities between these recent applications and
93
-------
the potential application to air pollution control is strik-
ing.
The State or local air pollution control agency (or other
agency assigned the responsibility) would identify a ceiling for
pollutants emitted within either a large scale governmental unit
(e.g., county, a metropolitan area, smaller scale wards or plan-
ning districts). This ceiling can be considered analogous to an
allowable emission rate for the area and would be calculated
through diffusion modeling of incremental changes in current
allocation of emissions or through emission density zoning pro-
cedures. This allowable ceiling would be compared to a similarly
generated actual emission rate. The difference between allowable
and actual emissions would represent the immediate set of de-
velopment rights that could be marketed for the region. If the
regional totals are further subdivided into planning unit totals,
then the local agency would have the option of assigning the
above average amounts of allowable emissions to selected dis-
tricts. The TDK market would then be subdivided into a number
equal to the number of planning districts.
The local agency would issue (or continue in effect) per-
mits specifying the allowable and actual emission rates for in-
dividual sources. It is possible that the owner of an emission
source would be issued a certificate of development rights which
would specify the amount of "undeveloped" emissions which he pos-
sesses .
An owner of any undeveloped piece of property or an exist-
ing emission source who desires to construct a new emitting
facility would have to buy additional development rights on the
open market (assuming he did not already possess a sufficient
amount in on-hand certificates). This purchase could be either
from those persons already possessing certificates of development
rights or from the local agency, which would hold title to the
difference between a region's allowable and actual emissions.
Owners of existing facilities who were not interested in
further development of their facility would be able to sell their
rights. In return they would have to give up the right to
94
-------
increase their emissions in the future. In this way the total
allowable emissions for the region (or its districts) would not
be exceeded. Development rights could be subjected to ad valorem
taxation.
The local agency could serve one of the two following roles.
It could act as a broker which identifies and links prospective
developers, or it could act as the exclusive market for develop-
ment rights. Hence, the local agency would require that all
transactions take place through it. Market forces would dictate
the price at which such development rights would be sold.
Data Requirements
The major data requirements for applying this concept to
CO, VOC (03), and N02 and Pb are
o A method of determining maximum allowable emissions for
a region or subsets of the region; or, in other words,
an accurate and reliable method of relating changes in
emissions to acceptable changes in air quality,
o A definition of what change in air quality is accept-
able,
o Disaggregation of large governmental units, such as
states, into smaller, more manageable units, and
o An accurate, up-to-date inventory of the existing dis-
tribution of permitted emissions, both allowable and
actual.
Advantages
o The need to model each individual new source would be
eliminated,
o Financial strain on government could possibly be
lessened, and
o Private market forces could render the process self-
regulating.
95
-------
Disadvantages
o The marketable permit concept only applies to station-
ary permittable sources. This excludes most CO
sources, since motor vehicles contribute to over 80%
of CO emissions. Similarly nearly one-half of VOC and
NO emissions, both ozone precursors, are typically
J\.
emitted by motor vehicles.
o A second major problem, which relates to the conversion
of VOC and NO emissions to 03 concentrations, has to
X
do with the mechanism by which this conversion is made.
Discussed more thoroughly in the section on emission
quota strategies, an acceptable solution to this prob-
lem has yet to emerge.
o The novel and untested nature of the marketable permit
might make the adoption of such a technique difficult.
However, the financial benefits that could possibly
accrue may nullify the strength of this argument.
Implementability
It is very likely that a marketable permit system could
prove quite difficult to implement. First, the task of relating
03 precursor emissions to allowable 03 air quality increments may
prove to be technically infeasible. Second, most 03 precursor
emissions and CO emissions are generated by sources that would
not be covered by the system. Third, the marketable permit
system would probably be managed by governmental officials who
have little experience in market processes. Fourth, as a new and
relatively untested method of air pollution control, the market-
able permit system would face powerful and entrenched opposi-
tion in some areas.
Suggestions
Not applicable.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
While this technique will provide for a more economically
efficient method of implementing the PSD program, it will require
96
-------
that detailed modeling be done in order to relate emissions to
air quality and that because of this, many may be reluctant to
implement it. Detailed guidance and information would be needed
considerably in advance of the development of State programs.
97
-------
"De Minimus" Level
Description of Alternative
This alternative would not require that a PSD program be
developed for an area if the emissions or air quality levels were
below a certain de minimus level.
Options
Not applicable.
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Not applicable.
Background Information
Many counties or areas of the United States have relatively
low emission or air quality levels for CO, ozone, NO,, and Pb.
Some of these areas are also not projected to have a significant
amount of growth for the next 10-20 years. Thus a significant
growth in emissions is not expected for the area and the air
quality or emission levels are expected to stay relatively stable
for the next several years.
Data Requirements
The data requirements to implement this alternative are:
o Comprehensive and current inventory for a given local
area
o Emission estimates for all new major and minor sources
o Mechanism to periodically update emission inventory
o Growth projections for the given local area.
Advantages
o Avoids the complex procedures and mechanisms associated
with a program to review sources on a case-by-case
basis with respect to control technology and air
quality impact until such time as the growth would
become significant.
98
-------
o Avoids case-by-case review of the one or two smaller
major sources which might locate in an area as long as
the emissions or air quality concentrations for the
area are below some specified level (i.e. de minimus
levels).
o Avoids detailed periodic assessments - a mere accumula-
tion or tracking of emissions to date should be all
that is needed.
Disadvantages
o Would permit some deterioration to take place up to the
de minimus level.
o Might encourage rapid growth within certain areas
because they would not be required to have a PSD pro-
gram involving control technology and air quality
impact reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
o Would give some areas an economic advantage over others
that would not otherwise have been without the de
minimus concept (i.e., one area might be selected over
another because of the lack of a detailed program).
Implementability
This alternative would be very easy to implement. The only
major difficulty is the determination of the de minimus levels
below which no program would be needed. There will be consider-
able agrument over how many emissions or what air quality level
is considered to be so low as to not be of concern under PSD.
Suggestions
Not applicable.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
Since this program addresses more where the program should
apply than how it should apply, it can not be compared to the
other alternatives which suggest specific ways in which the
program could be implemented. It does however limit the extent
of the program to only those areas where the emission and/or air
quality levels are such that some deterioration of these levels
99
-------
would be of concern and a detailed program to prevent significant
deterioration is needed. This approach would be less restrictive
that the ,; other alternatives as they would require implementation
for all areas independent of the current air quality or emission
levels for the area. This alternative could be used in connec-
tion with some of the other alternatives and as such is not
i
mutually exclusive.
100
-------
TRANSPORTATION BACT
Description of Alternative
Performance standards for transportation related sources
would be developed. These performance standards would be aimed
at minimizing congestion. Transportation-related sources would
be required to meet these performance standards in the name of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
Options
Not applicable.
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 110(a)(5)(A)-(D) states that
"Any state may include in a State implementation plan, but
the Administrator may not require as a condition of approval
of such plan under this section, any indirect source review
program. The Administrator may approve and enforce, as part
of an applicable implementation plan, an indirect source
review program which the State chooses to adopt and submit
as part of its plan.
(ii) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no plan pro-
mulgated by the Administrator shall include any indirect
source review program for any air quality control region, or
portion thereof.
(iii) Any State may revise an applicable implementation
plan approved under section 110(a) to suspend or revoke any
such program included in such plan, provided that such plan
meets the requirements of this section.
(B) The Administrator shall have the authority to promul-
gate, implement and enforce regulations under section 110(c)
respecting indirect source review programs which apply only
to federally assisted highways, airports, and other major
federally assisted indirect sources and federally owned or
operated indirect sources.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "indirect
source" means a facility, building, structure, installation,
real property, road, or highway which attracts, or may
attract, mobile sources of pollution. Such term includes
parking lots, parking garages, and other facilities subject
to any measure for management of parking supply (within the
101
-------
meaning of section 110(c)(2)(D)(ii), including regulation of
existing off-street parking but such term does not include
new or existing on-street parking. Direct emissions sources
or facilities at, within, or associated with, any indirect
source shall not be deemed indirect sources for the purpose
of this paragraph.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph the term "indirect
source review program" means the facility-by-facility review
of indirect sources of air pollution, including such mea-
sures as are necessary to assure, or assist in assuring,
that a new or modified indirect source will not attract
mobile sources of air pollution, the emissions from which
would cause or contribute to air pollution concentrations—
(i) exceeding any national primary ambient air quality
standard for a mobile source-related air pollutant
after the primary standard attainment date, or
(ii) preventing maintenance of any such standard after
such date."
Background Information
Approximately 82%, 41%, 45% and 88% of the nationwide emis-
sions for CO, VOC, NO , and Pb respectively are from motor vehi-
X
cle related sources. Therefore any further control beyond that
currently required by the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
would have a significant impact on the PSD program for these
pollutants.
This alternative presents a mechanism whereby some addition-
al control may be imposed on transportation sources. It does not
constitute a preconstruction review by any means where the
source's impact upon air quality is evaluated and a decision to
grant or deny a permit is made. It merely requires that all
sources of HC, CO, NO and Pb emissions greater than 250 tons/
A.
year must apply BACT as required under the Act. This would
apply to both stationary and mobile sources. The BACT review for
a mobile source would not constitute a case-by-case assessment
but would require that the facility be constructed in such a man-
ner that the emissions would be minimized to the extent that
these specifications would represent BACT for transportation
sources.
Section 110 of the Act seems to preclude facility-by-
facility review of sources to assure that they would not attract
102
-------
mobile sources, the emissions of which would contribute to air
quality levels exceeding any NAAQS or preventing the maintenance
of any NAAQS. These facility-by-facility reviews would require
an air quality assessment and a certification that emissions from
mobile sources attracted to this facility would not violate cer-
tain air quality levels. The transportation BACT requirement
would not be in this same vein. It would establish certain pro-
cedures or performance standards for these facilities to minimize
the emissions to the maximum extent possible and no further
review or certification would be required. That is, there would
not be a review against any predetermined air quality levels and
an ultimate approval or denial. This air quality assessment
would have to be accomplished after the facility became opera-
tional through monitored air quality values. If violations are
noted then the State plan would have to be revised to correct the
noted violations which could require some retrofit of controls or
the imposition of certain transportation control measures such
as staggered work hours, car pooling, etc.
Data Requirements
The data requirements to implement this alternative are:
o Performance guides or standards for motor vehicle or
transportation related sources
o Motor vehicle emission estimates
Advantages &
o Provides means of controlling motor vehicle related
emissions
o Would minimize congestion as well as reducing emissions
o More equitable in that motor vehicle related sources
would be sharing more of the control costs with sta-
tionary sources.
Disadvantages
o May still be construed as some type of indirect source
review in that the sources would be reviewed to ensure
that they were meeting the performance standard.
10.3
-------
o May be difficult to provide guidance on what consti-
tutes BACT for motor vehicle or transportation related
sources.
Implementability
This alternative theoretically would be easier to implement
than many of the other alternatives in that the State or local
agency would only have to ensure that the source had met the
particular performance standard. However, because of the opposi-
tion to transportation control measures in a number of nonattain-
ment areas, this alternative can expect to run into some stiff
opposition wherever it might be imposed. Additionally there may
be some difficulty in developing the performance standards to
represent BACT as there was considerable work and concern over
the development of RACT for certain transportation sources for
the nonattainment plans.
Suggestions
This alternative permits one to obtain some "handle" on
motor vehicles emissions. No modification or suggestion is
needed regarding this alternative if the general public would
accept the imposition of these measures. Because of the poten-
tial for some opposition it may be beneficial to develop some
type of educational program which would inform the public of
transportation as well as air quality benefits obtained by impos-
ing these measures. This would greatly facilitate the implemen-
tation of this alternative.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
Since this is such a specialized alternative it can not
really be compared to the other alternatives that have been
proposed. It does attempt to resolve some of the potential in-
equities of a PSD program that cannot require the preconstruction
review of indirect sources and which would therefore have to
place a great deal of the burden for preventing significant dete-
rioration on stationary sources which for some pollutants are
only minor contributors to the over air quality levels.
104
-------
INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW OF FEDERALLY
ASSISTED PROJECTS
Description of Alternative
PSD review would be conducted for all Federally funded or
assisted indirect sources and Federally-owned or operated in-
direct sources.
Options
Not applicable.
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 110(a)(5)(A)-(D) states that
"Any State may include in a State implementation plan, but
the Administrator may not require as a condition of approval
of such plan under this section, any indirect source review
program. The Administrator may approve and enforce, as part
of an applicable implementation plan, an indirect source
review program which the State chooses to adopt and submit
as part of its plan.
(ii) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no plan pro-
mulgated by the Administrator shall include any indirect
source review program for any air quality control region, or
portion thereof.
(iii) Any State may revise an applicable implementation
plan approved under section 110(a) to suspend or revoke any
such program included in such plan, provided that such plan
meets the requirements of this section.
(B) The Administrator shall have the authority to promul-
gate, implement and enforce regulations under section 110(c)
respecting indirect source review programs which apply only
to federally assisted highways, airports, and other major
federally assisted indirect sources and federally owned or
operated indirect sources.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "indirect
source" means a facility.- building, structure, installation,
real property, road, or highway which attracts, or may
attract, mobile sources of pollution. Such term includes
parking lots, parking garages, and other facilities subject
to any measure for management of parking supply (within the
meaning of section 110(c)(2)(D)(ii), including regulation of
existing off-street parking but such term does not include
105
-------
new or existing on-street parking. Direct emissions sources
or facilities at, within, or associated with, any indirect
source shall not be deemed indirect sources for the purpose
of this paragraph.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph the term "indirect
source review program" means the facility-by-facility review
of indirect sources of air pollution, including such mea-
sures as are necessary to assure, or assist in assuring,
that a new or modified indirect source will not attract
mobile sources of air pollution, the emissions from which
would cause or contribute to air pollution concentrations--
(i) exceeding any national primary ambient air quality
standard for a mobile source-related air pollutant
after the primary standard attainment date, or
(ii) preventing maintenance of any such standard after
such date.
Background Information
Since 82%, 41%, 45%, and 80% of the nationwide emissions for
CO, VOC, NO , and Pb, respectively, are from motor vehicle re-
X
lated sources. The review of new motor vehicle related emission
would seem to be a vital part of any program to protect against
significant deterioration for these pollutants. However, the
Administrator is precluded by Section 110(a)(5)(A-D) from re-
quiring a State to conduct some type of review of these mobile
source related emissions as part of an indirect source review
program. While the Administrator is precluded from requiring the
State to conduct such a program, he can promulgate regulations
where EPA can conduct a review of Federally assisted indirect
sources.
The types of projects, for example, which are Federally-
funded or which may receive some Federal assistance are:
o airports,
o highways,
o sewage treatment facilities, and
o projects constructed under grants for urban redevelop-
ment (e.g., apartment complexes, low income housing, etc.).
o sport complexes which may be a part of a community re-
development effort.
106
-------
Even though the Clean Air Act prohibits indirect source re-
view of other than Federally owned or funded, it requires that
the transportation planning be required in those areas which are
unable to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Therefore, it would seem
that transportation planning or control could be used to prevent
significant deterioration as well. While the Clean Air Act calls
for transportation planning, the Federal transportation statutes
requires "policies and programs conducive to provision of fast,
safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost
consistent therewith." Independently of each other, the Clean
Air Act and transportation statutes each require a planning pro-
cess and provide funding to assure that the seemingly opposite
objectives of the respective statutes are attained. Recently
Federal requirements for transportation elements of air quality
planning have been merged into the requirements of the single
metropolitan transportation planning process. Therefore one
planning process can now produce the planning under the Federal
Highway and mass transportation statutes.
The most significant milestone in metropolitan transporta-
tion planning process was the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962.
This Act prohibited Federal aid for highway projects in any urban
area over 50,000 population unless the projects are based on the
continuing and comprehensive transportation plan. Funding for
such planning is still available and amounts to one and one-half
percent of Federal Aid Highway funds authorized for highway
planning and research. These funds may be used by States for
statewide, metropolitan, or corridor planning. The 1973 Highway
Act earmarked one-half percent of Federal aid funds for metropol-
itan planning organizations (MPO's) designated by the State.
This funding amounts to over $100 million annually.
The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 provides $40 mil-
lion annually to finance planning programs for unified urban
transportation systems.
The Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970 provides for
airport planning. Approximately $4 million annually is available
to encourage States and metropolitan agencies to consider total
airport needs in relation to land use and environmental quality.
107
-------
Additionally, these highway, mass transit and airport acts re-
quire that Federal-aid construction funds go only to those pro-
jects that are consistant with adopted area-wide development
plans.
Currently transportation planning in metropolitan areas is
coordinated by single locally developed DOT-approved "unified
planning work program" which incorporates all transportation
planning regardless of funding. Federal coordination is further
enhanced by the established of the intermodal planning groups
(IPG's) at the Federal regional level. These IPG's often include
besides the DOT elements, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Environmental Protection Agency. Finally a
single DOT certification applies to highway and mass transporta-
tion modal programs with limitation on capital expenditures if a
metropolitan area plan is not acceptable. There are presently
300 urban areas across the country with a population of over
50,000 where this unified work program approach is being carried
out.
In November 1978, Congress passed the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978 which called for an interdepartmental
coordinated investigation and study on the need for rationalizing
and integrating Federal programs. This study is to be done by
DOT, DOE, HUD, DOC, EPA, and OMB. The study will investigate the
factors affecting:
o Intergration of clean air, energy, mass transportation
and highways acts,
o Parallel among rules, regulations, etc., developed
pursuant to these acts,
o The availability and coordination of funding sources to
achieve improved air quality, energy conservation and trans-
portation efficiency, and
o Degree to which growth, development and funding is pre-
dicated upon compliance with the Clean Air Act.
This study is currently underway.
108
-------
Data Requirements
The data needed to implement this alternative includes:
o Emission estimates for these indirect sources.
o Emission estimates for those secondary emissions which
may result from the operation of these sources.
o Information on what sources may be Federally owned or
funded.
o Ifist of control measures or alternatives which could be
used to minimize the emissions to the maximum extent possible
given the definition of BACT.
Advantages
o Would provide a means of controlling transportation re-
lated sources.
o Provides for a more equitable treatment of both point
and area sources
o Would provide a means of reviewing indirect sources
prior to construction to ensure that they would not cause the
increments or standards to be violated upon operation.
o Provide for a more complete PSD program in terms of
sources which may contribute to increment consumption.
Disadvantages
o Not sure at this time what percent of indirect sources
are Federally owned or funded.
o The impact in terms of air quality and emissions as a
result of conducting these reviews is uncertain until more emis-
sion data become available.
o May be an unnecessary duplication of effort if a major-
ity of these projects are already being reviewed for consistency
with the unified work plan and the environmental goals for the
area.
o Creates another level of review for projects which are
already heavily overburdened with review and evaluation.
o One set of indirect sources (i.e., Federally funded are
treated differently than another (non-Federally funded).
109
-------
o Keeps a portion of the PSD program in the hands of the
Federal Government.
o Delays total implementation of the PSD program by the
State.
o Will require additional manpower and funding at the
Federal level to implement.
Comparison to Other Alternatives
This alternative only handles a subset of the sources which
are contributing to the potential significant deterioration of
air quality for 03, CO, N02, and Pb. As such it is not an alter-
native which can be implemented by itself in the name of a total
PSD program. It does, however, permit both mobile and stationary
sources to undergo preconstruction review and removes some of the
burden from stationary sources regarding control requirements for
PSD. It appears that to the extent possible, any additional
regulatory requirements for indirect or transportation-related
sources should be avoided if the current review process can
accomplish the same overall objective without involving another
level of review which could be extremely duplicative.
110
-------
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDED CRITERIA
A number of alternatives were suggested in Section 2 for
implementing the PSD program for VOC or HC, 03, CO, NOX/ and
Pb, and each alternative has certain advantages and disadvant-
ages. To systemically select the alternatives which should be
evaluated in more detail, criteria were developed. The criteria,
wherever possible, provide for a quantitative assessment. How-
ever, in most cases, the data do not exist for a quantitative
assessment and only a qualitative assessment can be performed.
With respect to a qualitative assessment, each alternative must
be compared in terms of its relative impact rather than its ab-
solute impact since each alternative has disadvantages that
limit its capability for completely fulfilling the criteria.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
The first criterion recommended for consideration is techni-
cal feasibility. This criterion is critical to the implementa-
tion of a program. Compromising on this criterion would create
serious problems. If an alternative is technically infeasible,
the program is doomed to failure. If the tools to implement the
program are either lacking or technically unsound, the results
will be highly questionable and subject to challenge. A State
or local agency with limited resources cannot be expected to de-
velop a program which lacks the technical tools for implementing
it.
What factors affect the technical feasibility of an alterna-
tive? It must be adequately demonstrated that an alternative has
been implemented or that there is adequate documentation (or ref-
erences) to indicate that this approach has been tested on a
pilot or demonstration scale, and that there are no known techni-
cal reasons for not implementing the approach on a full scale.
Technical feasibility also implies a minimum level of reliability-
that is, the alternative will produce reproducible results upon
which decisions of issuance or denial can be made.
Ill
-------
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
The second criterion is economic feasibility. What will be
the costs of implementing this alternative? The overall cost of
the program will have some impact on what type of program is de-
veloped. That is, as long as the alternative will ensure that
the basic objectives of the Clean Air Act are met for PSD, the
alternative which imposes the least cost should receive the high-
est consideration.
Economic impact deals with new costs that must be borne and
with how these costs will be distributed. Two elements of the
costs are:
the impact on the national economy and
the impact on the industrial sector.
A detailed assessment of cost should be conducted when the list
of alternatives is narrowed. However, for the purposes of com-
paring all the alternatives, each alternative is ordered with the
most cost intensive alternative receiving the lowest ranking, and
the least cost intensive the highest.
LEGAL FEASIBILITY
The third criterion is the legality of the alternative.
Legally, can an alternative be implemented, or is it indirectly
or directly precluded by current legislation? Would an alterna-
tive directly violate a key provision of the Act?
BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT
The fourth criterion is the capability of the alternative
to meet the objectives of the Act and its associated legislative
history. The Act sets forth the following objectives for the
PSD program:
Protect public health and welfare from any adverse
affect,
Preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in cer-
tain Federal lands,
Ensure that economic growth will occur consistent with
the preservation of existing clean air resources,
112
-------
Assure that emissions will not interfere with any
portion of applicable PSD State Implementation Plan
in another State, and
Assure that any increase in emissions is permitted
only after careful evaluation and public participa-
tion.
Section 166 of the Act also outlines elements that should
be considered in developing a PSD program for pollutants other
than TSP and S02.
Provide specific numerical measures against which appli-
cations for preconstruction permits may be evaluated,
Ensure that these measures are at least as effective as
those under Section 163 (increments).
The above objectives (or requirements) will be key elements in
determining whether an alternative will meet the basic objec-
tives of the PSD program.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEASIBILITY
The fifth criterion is administrative feasibility. The
capability of an organization to carryout an alternative will
be extremely important if the PSD program for VOC or HC, 03,
CO, NOX, and Pb is to be implemented in the manner in which it
was conceived. The most technically complete plan will not be
implemented if the State and local agencies do not have the
administrative capability to carry it out. Three considera-
tions are essential for assessing administrative feasibility.
Does the alternative require the State or local
agency to develop a new administrative structure
to implement it?
Does the alternative represent an approach which
is similar to an existing program, so that the
agency is relatively familiar with the basic pro-
cedures that must be used?
Does the alternative represent the fulfillment of
objectives which can be clearly understood by the
current State or local agency personnel?
If numerical objectives or indicators are used, the alternative
contains some built-in indicators for evaluating its success;
however, the indicators should be realistic, and the objective
should be attainable for a program to be administratively feasi-
ble.
113
-------
COMPATIBILITY WITH CURRENT PROGRAM
The sixth criterion is compatibility with the current PSD
program. Administrative feasibility is greatly enhanced by the
compatibility of the alternative with the current PSD program.
Because the sources subject to review will be familiar with many
of the basic requirements of the PSD program, compatibility will
reduce the amount of time needed to submit requests for precon-
struction permits. Also the potential for administrative delay
or legal challenges may be avoided because of previous precedents
or interpretations of the basic requirements.
SIMPLICITY
The seventh criterion is simplicity- If the alternative is
too complex to be implemented by the majority of State or local
agencies or if it requires unique expertise or knowledge not
currently contained within the State or local agency, the alter-
native will not be effectively implemented. An easily, under-
stood alternative will:
simplify the State or local agency's administering
of the program
help sources to prepare permit applications without
extensive use of manpower or dollars, and
help the public to participate in the decisionmaking
process.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The eighth criterion is encouragement of public participa-
tion. Public involvement is one of the basic objectives of the
Act, and it is an important criterion for assessing the overall
effectiveness of an alternative. Precluding public involvement
will severely limit the effectiveness of the alternative in pre-
venting significant deterioration.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
The ninth criterion is administrative costs. These costs
are generally considered to be the cost of administrative person-
nel and the cost of equipment, supplies, and office space. For
PSD, these costs would not include the cost imposed on the source
for completing the application or for complying with the require-
ments but would include:
the cost of additional monitoring by government
agencies,
114
-------
the cost of any applied research required by the
implementation of an alternative, and
the cost incurred by State and local agencies other
than the air pollution agency to assist in the imple-
mentation of an alternative.
POLITICAL FEASIBILITY
The tenth criterion is political feasibility. Though
several alternatives are technically and economically feasible,
they may require drastic changes in the way the current PSD pro-
gram is carried out and may present some unfavorable situations
from a sociopolitical prospective. For example, alternatives
which do not provide definitive absolute criteria upon which a
denial can be based will be open to a political negotiation. Ad-
ditionally, some alternatives may require changes in the life
style of the local community, which (if past actions are any
guide) will cause considerable concern and severe political prob-
lems for the State or local agency. The factors to be consider-
ed in determining the political feasibility of an alternative are:
uniqueness of the alternative,
provision of absolute criteria for approval/disap-
proval of permits, and
the potential for changing the life style of the
local community or the current method of air quality
management.
IMPACT MEASURES
The eleventh and final criterion is how well the alternative
will protect air quality—the ultimate measure of significant de-
terioration. Some alternatives will provide a direct measure of
potential air quality impact, others will provide an indirect
measure, and still others will provide no measure. The factors
to be considered are:
Does the alternative prevent clustering?
Can the air quality standards be protected?
Can the margin for growth be tracked?
Is there a direct or an indirect measure of the air
quality impact of a source or group of sources?
115
-------
APPENDIX C
ISSUE DESCRIPTIONS
116
-------
ISSUES
Page
Indirect Source Review 118
Baseline 124
Increment Allocation 128
Interstate Allocation 132
Degree of State Flexibility 135
Monitoring 137
Modeling 141
Data Availability 145
Source Applicability 148
Treatment of Class I Areas 150
Mobile Source Control 154
Geographic Applicability 157
Consistency with Current PSD Program 160
117
-------
INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW
Description of Issue
How can the air quality of pristine areas of the country
best be protected against significant deterioration in situations
where emissions from indirect sources represent the most signifi-
cant threat?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 110(a)(5)(A)-(D) states that
"Any State may include in a State implementation plan, but
the Administrator may not require as a condition of approval
of such plan under this section, any indirect source review
program. The Administrator may approve and enforce, as part
of an applicable implementation plan, an indirect source
review program which the State chooses to adopt and submit
as part of its plan.
(ii) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no plan pro-
mulgated by the Administrator shall include any indirect
source review program for any air quality control region, or
portion thereof.
(iii) Any State may revise an applicable implementation
plan approved under section 110(a) to suspend or revoke any
such program included in such plan, provided that such plan
meets the requirements of this section.
(B) The Administrator shall have the authority to promul-
gate, implement and enforce regulations under section 110(c)
respecting indirect source review programs which apply only
to federally assisted highways, airports, and other major
federally assisted indirect sources and federally owned or
operated indirect sources.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "indirect
source" means a facility, building, structure, installation,
real property, road, or highway which attracts, or may
attract, mobile sources of pollution. Such term includes
parking lots, parking garages, and other facilities subject
to any measure for management of parking supply (within the
meaning of section 110(c)(2)(D)(ii), including regulation of
existing off-street parking but such term does not include
new or existing on-street parking. Direct emissions sources
or facilities at, within, or associated with, any indirect
source shall not be deemed indirect sources for the purpose
of this paragraph.
118
-------
(D) For purposes of this paragraph the term "indirect
source review program" means the facility-by-facility review
of indirect sources of air pollution, including such mea-
sures as are necessary to assure, or assist in assuring,
that a new or modified indirect source will not attract
mobile sources of air pollution, the emissions from which
would cause or contribute to air pollution concentrations--
(i) exceeding any national primary ambient air quality
standard for a mobile source-related air pollutant
after the primary standard attainment date, or
(ii) preventing maintenance of any such standard after
such date.
Major Implications
Because motor vehicle related emissions are major portions
of the nationwide emissions for CO, VOC, NO , and Pb (82%, 41%,
a
45%, and 88% respectively) the review of new motor vehicle emis-
sions would seem critical to any program to protect against
significant deterioration for those pollutants.
Pros
o Without the preconstruction review of these sources a
considerable amount of the available growth increment
will be consumed;
o Indirect source review would prevent violations of the
growth increment from taking place; and
o Indirect source review would provide a more equitable
review as far as new stationary and mobile sources are
concerned.
Cons
o Without indirect source review a much greater burden
for control and protection of the increment will fall
on new stationary sources and on existing stationary
sources if violations of the increment are discovered
as a result of unreviewed minor source growth. Viola-
tions will be remedied in most cases by requiring
tighter controls on existing sources to lower the
emissions to a level equal to or less than the pre-
scribed growth increment.
119
-------
o Requiring indirect source review as part of the PSD
program for Set II pollutants would seem to violate the
Act in section 110(a)(5) and the legal opinions of the
Office of the General Counsel.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the indirect source preconstruction
review option be omitted based on the attached memo from P.
Wyckoff to R. Rhoads dated August 7, 1979 concerning indirect
source review under section 166. However, some indirect source
review may be possible through another route. Section 316 of the
Act dealing with sewage treatment grants states:
"No grant which the Administrator is authorized to make to
any applicant for construction of sewage treatment works in
any area in any State may be withheld, conditioned, or
restricted by the Administrator on the basis of any require-
ment of this Act except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The Administrator may withhold, condition, or restrict
the making of any grant for construction referred to in
subsection (a) only if he determines that--
(1) such treatment works will not comply with appli-
cable standards under section 111 or 112,
(2) the State does not have in effect, or is not
carrying out, a State implementation plan approved by
the Administrator which expressly quantifies and pro-
vides for the increase in emissions of each air pollu-
tant (from stationary and mobile sources in any area to
which part C or part D of title I applies for such
pollutant) which increase may reasonably be anticipated
to result directly or indirectly from the new sewage
treatment capacity which would be created by such
construction.
(3) the construction of such treatment works would
create new sewage treatment capacity which--
(A) may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to, directly or indirectly, an increase
in emissions of any air pollutant in excess of the
increase provided for under the provisions refer-
red to in paragraph (2) for any such area, or
(B) would otherwise not be in conformity with the
applicable implementation plan, or
120
-------
(4) such increase in emissions would be in conformity
with, or be inconsistent with, the applicable implemen-
tation plan for any other State.
In the case of construction of a treatment works which would
result, directly or indirectly, in an increase in emissions
of any air pollutant from stationary and mobile sources in
an area to which part D of title I applies the quantifica-
tion of emissions referred to in paragraph (2) shall include
the emissions of any such pollutant resulting directly or
indirectly from areawide and nonmajor stationary source
growth (mobile and stationary) for each such area."
Therefore, even though the PSD regulations cannot require
indirect source review, EPA can use its authority under section
316 to deny funding to those projects which would cause signifi-
cant deterioration. Privately funded projects could be con-
structed without any prior review but could not operate in those
cases where an operating permit might be required, if its opera-
tion would cause or contribute to a violation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard or any growth increment established
under a PSD program. However many states do not have an operat-
ing permit program and even those which do, do not currently
require sewage treatment plants or indirect sources to obtain an
operating permit. This, however, could be changed such that
these sources could at least be prohibited from operating if they
would violate an increment or the NAAQS. Without this change,
indirect sources could begin operation and violations would not
be noted until a new PSD application was received which contained
an assessment of the minor source growth (i.e., those sources not
required to obtain a permit) that had taken place since the last
permit had been issued for the area.
121
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
August 7, 1979
MEMORANDUM
ornce or
GENERAL COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Indirect Source Review Under Section 166
FROM: Peter H. Wyckoff, Attorney ; H IJ
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133)
THRU: Michael A. James, Associate General Counsel ////')
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133) —'
TO: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (I-1D-15)
* *
This is in response to your memorandum of June 27,
.1979, relating to indirect source review under Section 166
of the Clean Air Act.
.BACKGROUND
In accordance with Section 166, the agency has begun
the development of PSD regulations for hydrocarbons (HC) ,
carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O^) and nitrogen oxides (NO ).
In many clean air areas, motor vehicles are and will con-
tinue to be the principal sources of those pollutants.
Hence, a PSD program for HC, CO, O.. and NO would be sub-
stantially more effective with indirect source review, than
without it. I/ Section 110 (a) (5), however, appears to
prohibit EPA as a general rule from requiring a state to
include a program of indirect source review in its implemen-
tation plan (SIP) and from itself inserting such a program
into a SIP.
T/An indirect source is one that "attracts, or may
attract, mobile sources of pollution." Section 110
(a)(5)(C), 42 U.S.C. §7410 (a) (5) (C) . Examples of
indirect sources are shopping centers, airports, high-
ways, apartment complexes, parking lots, office build-
ings and sports arenas. K.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 220 (1977) (1977 House Report).
122
-------
QUESTION
May EPA require under Section 166 that a. SIP contain an
indirect source review program for PSD purposes?
ANSWER
Ho, it may not, except with respect to federally
assisted, owned or operated indirect sources.
DISCUSSION
Taken at face value, Section 110 (a) (5) gives the above
answer unambiguously. It provides that "the Administrator
may not require as a condition of approval of [a SIP] . . .
any indirect source review program." 42 U.S.C. §7410(a)(5)
(A) (i) (emphasis added) . It adds that "no plan promulgated
by the Administrator [nay] include any [such] program,"
unless it would apply "only to federally assisted highways,
airports, and other major federally assisted indirect sources
and federally owned or operated indirect sources." Id.
§7410 (a) (5) (A) (ii) , (B) (emphasis added) .
We can find no basis in the statute or its legislative
history for not taking Section 110 (a) (5) at face value. You
suggest that Congress may have intended the prohibition to
apply only with respect to nonattainment problems, since
preventing IIC, CO, O3 and HO from significantly polluting
clean air would be extremely difficult in sowe areas without
indirect source review. The legislative history, however,
undercuts that suggestion. Section 110 (a) (5) evolved from
the 1977 House bill. See H.R. Rep. Ho. 95-564, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess. 126 (1977) (Conference Report). That bill would
have allowed EPA to impose indirect source review for the
purpose of attaining a national ambient air quality standard
by a statutory deadline, but only as a last resort. See
1977 House Report, at 222-23, 227. So long as any other
means existed to attain the standard by the deadline, the
Administrator would in general have had no power to impose
such review. • The conferees, however, rejected even that
approach. See Conference Report, at 126. They decided
apparently that it was too inequitable even in the worst of
nonattainnent circumstances to transfer "from the motor
vehicle manufacturers to the public and to indirect source
ov;ners' and operators the burden of protecting public health
from dangerous vehicle emissions." 1977 House Report, at
221. In view of that decision, we must conclude that the
conferees intended EPA to have the power to impose indirect
source review (in even the worst of PSD circumstances.
cc: David G. Foster
(Mj\
123
-------
BASELINE
Description of Issue
How should the baseline be defined? What is the baseline
date? What actions would be counted in determining increment
consumption? How would industrial, commercial, and other sources
be affected by the various alternatives?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 169(4) states:
"The term "baseline concentration" means, with respect to a
pollutant, the ambient concentration levels which exist at
the time of the first application for a permit in an area
subject to this part, based on air quality data available in
the Environmental Protection Agency or a State air pollution
control agency and on such monitoring data as the permit
applicant is required to submit. Such ambient concentration
levels shall take into account all projected emissions in,
or which may affect, such area from any major emitting
facility on which construction commenced prior to January 6,
1975, but which has not begun operation by the date of the
baseline air quality concentration determination. Emissions
of sulfur oxides and particulate matter from any major emit-
ting facility on which construction commenced after January
6, 1975, shall not be included in the baseline and shall be
counted against the maximum allowable increases in pollutant
concentrations established under this part."
Major Implications
EPA's current regulations set a uniform baseline of August
7, 1977 for TSP and S02 . The court in Alabama Power found that
this uniform baseline date deviated impermissibly from Section
169(4) of the Act. As a consequence of the Court's decision, EPA
proposes to remove the uniform date and set the baseline concen-
tration at the time after August 7, 1977, of the final applica-
tion for a permit in an area subject to this regulation. In
order to implement this definition EPA generally intends to de-
fine area subject to this part on the basis of AQCR's. When a
major stationary source for any pollutant regulated under the Act
applies for a PSD permit in any part of an AQCR designated as
124
-------
unclassifiable or attainment under Section 107, this action
establishes the baseline date for both particulate matter and S02
in all parts of the AQCR that are designated attainment or un-
classified for these pollutants. If, however, the State in its
revised SIP for PSD wishes to define area as narrowly as a de-
signated portion of an AQCR this might have the effect of
establishing a later baseline date for some areas and increasing
the amounts of increment available for growth. The baseline area
could also be defined as the area where the source would have its
impact. This would necessitate the establishment of detailed and
sometimes cumbersome recordkeeping procedures. As more sources
apply for PSD permits, areas of source impact would begin to
overlap and the system would grow considerable more complex.
Since the baseline definition only triggers the date for
consumption of the TSP and S02 increment, there is some question
over which date triggers the consumption of the growth increment
for ozone, CO, N02, and Pb. Since the baseline date for TSP and
S02 is established at the time of the first permit for a major
stationary source of any pollutant regulated under the act within
the area, it would seem that this should also be the date for
establishing the baseline for ozone, CO, N02, and Pb. That is,
new growth is taking place in an area and its impact should be
considered in any significant deterioration program regardless of
pollutant. In the above definition if a major VOC stationary
source is the first permit in the area it would establish the
date after which all TSP or S02 growth would consume increment
whether it is a major stationary source of TSP or SO2 or not,
i.e., minor source growth. Therefore it would seem reasonable
that this same idea would hold true concerning the Set II pol-
lutants. This would mean, however, that major as well as minor
source growth would be consuming the margin for growth whether it
be emission, air quality, etc., without a review until the PSD
Set II regulations concerning increment review would become ef-
fective.
By using the above definition of baseline the growth prior
to the promulgation of the final regulations for PSD Set II would
125
-------
go unreviewed until the first permit after the effective date of
the PSD Set II program. The entire burden for all minor and
major source growth for that pollutant would then be placed on
the review of this first permit. In some cases the entire growth
increment may have been more than used up by this previous growth
and the source applying for a permit would have to offset the
entire amount over the allowable margin for growth before it
could receive approval.
If the baseline date for Set II is not set at the time of
any permit after August 7 and is set at the first permit after
proposal then the growth taking place between August 7 to the
time of proposal would be factored into the baseline. In some
cases where growth is rapidly taking place the baseline levels
will be so high that there will be very little if any margin for
growth available because there may be very little difference if
any, between the baseline air quality level and the ceiling or
the NAAQS.
The baseline date could also be the date on which the PSD
Set II regulations were to have been established, August 7, 1979.
That is, any source which had received a permit and which com-
menced construction prior to that date would be considered as
part of the baseline and any of those not commencing construction
would consume increments. However, it would necessitate a retro-
active type regulation to implement this program.
Pros
Baseline defined as first permit after August 7 will
ensure protection of air quality to the maximum.
Would be consistent with Set I.
Cons
Sources will be consuming increment without review. If
first permit after August 7, 1977 is used.
Will place real burden on first source after program is
effective.
Raises retroactivity issue.
126
-------
Time of proposal baseline date would permit consider-
able growth to be factored into the baseline. This
could limit the PSD program because the baseline level
could be permitted to increase to such a point that the
baseline air quality would equal the national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) or to such a point where
less than the full increment would be available for use
as the baseline plus increment would equal a level
greater than the NAAQS.
Recommendations
There are no specific recommendations at this time until
further analysis of the issue is completed.
127
-------
INCREMENT ALLOCATION
Description of Issue
What methodologies, other than first-come-first-served, exist
for determining increment allocation?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Not applicable.
Major Implications
The issue of how permits will be approved or how the partic-
ular growth increment will be allocated is not unique to the
PSD Set II program; this issue was first addressed in the
June 19, 1978 PSD regulations for particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. In the preamble to these regulations, EPA stated that
states, in developing their PSD plans for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide, must specify the measures to be used in allocat-
ing the available increment. The states were encouraged to
examine alternative approaches to the allocation of available
increment in order to provide a system which would accomplish
their individual growth and planning objectives. EPA initiated a
study to evaluate various economic incentives to supplement or
replace the current first-come-first-served system for allocating
the increment. This study is currently ongoing and no prelimi-
nary results are available. Some possible alternatives to sup-
plement or replace the current first-come-first-served method of
allocating the increment are marketable permits, emission fees,
emission density zoning, auctioning of growth increment, allocat-
ing only a specific amount of increment to be consumed during a
given period of time and allocating or giving some preference to
those sources which employ a large number of persons or which
generate additional revenue because of the higher taxes paid by
one industry over another.
A marketable permit program would allow a permitted source
to sell a portion or all of its permit to another source. The
128
-------
source could use that portion of its permit proportional to the
degree to which it reduces emissions below the level specified in
the original permit. Another source could purchase these reduc-
tions if they were cheaper than the source's own cost of reduc-
tion.
An emission fee program would charge a fee to a source
according to the quantity of pollutant it emits. This would
serve as an incentive to minimize the emissions since reducing
the emissions would lower the cost.
Emission density zoning would classify each area according
to the quantity of pollutants that could be emitted. Sources
would then purchase the "air rights" for enough land to accom-
modate their emissions. In general these air rights would be
more expensive in areas where there is a high demand than in
areas where there are fewer sources. More expensive air rights
would lead to a higher level of control. A source would hold
these air rights and either use them or sell them to another
source.
A more detailed discussion of the above concepts can be
found in the alternative descriptions for marketable permits,
emission fees and emission density zoning.
An auction system would define the available increment for
any area and the state or* local agency would auction off the
increment to the highest bidder. Once a source had purchased the
rights to the increment it could either use its rights or sell
them to another source.
Another scheme would be to allocate a certain amount of
increment to be consumed for a given time. That is, permitting
only 25% of the available increment to be used over the next 3
years, then 50% over the next 4 years, etc. A variation of this
scheme would be to permit any one given source to only use up to
one-half of the remaining increment at the time of its approval.
In this way some increment, no matter how small, would always be
available for use.
The last scheme would assign priorities to certain indus-
tries in terms of the number of people employed or the amount of
129
-------
tax dollars available. These industries would be given first
preference in terms of using the available increment or would be
given a larger portion of the growth increment than other less
desirable sources.
Pros
Current first-come-first-served method of allocating
the increment does not appear in itself to achieve the
purposes of the Act on a long term basis.
Other methods of allocating the increment seem to be
more efficient in terms of using a limited resource to
the maximum benefit. However, no studies have been
done to verify this apparent efficiency.
Certain methods of allocating the increment would
assure that at least some increment, no matter how
small, would always be available.
Cons
There has been some reluctance on the part of some
state and local agencies to utilize any mechanism other
than first-come-first-served.
Other allocation schemes will be very difficult to
implement as there is very little guidance available on
these systems.
Economic incentive mechanisms would permit very large
corporations to hold the emission rights to a number of
areas for a long enough period to force out some smal-
ler companies, thereby eliminating the competition.
Some schemes would eliminate public participation now
provided by the first-come-first-served system, which
is one of the basic objectives of the PSD program.
Recommendations
Since the issue of first-come-first-served is not unique to
the PSD Set II development, it would be unwise to make a recom-
mendation regarding the resolution of this issue without resolv-
ing the issue for the PSD program for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Hopefully the ongoing work within EPA will
130
-------
provide some additional data for the PSD Set II program which
will resolve the issue or at least provide a series of alterna-
tives" backed by some quantitative assessments that will enable
states and local agencies to select one or two allocation schemes
which could realistically be implemented.
131
-------
INTERSTATE ALLOCATION
Description of Issue
How should the increment be allocated among states in an
area that includes two or more states?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 160 of the Clean Air Act states that:
"The purposes of this part are as follows:
...(4) to assure that emissions from any source in any State
will not interfere with any portion of the applicable imple-
mentation plan to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality for any other State; and..."
Additionally, section 126(a) states:
"(a) Each applicable implementation plan shall-
(1) require each major proposed new (or modified) source-
(A) subject to part C (relating to significant deterio-
ration of air quality) or
(B) which may significantly contribute to levels of air
pollution in excess of the national ambient air quality
standards in any air quality control region outside the
State in which such source intends to locate (or make
such modification),
to provide written notice to all nearby States the air
pollution levels of which may be affected by such source at
least sixty days prior to the date on which commencement of
construction is to be permitted by the State providing
notice, and..."
Major Implications
This issue is not unique to PSD Set II. It is an issue
which is common to PSD Set I, new source review in nonattainment
areas, and general SIP development to attain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. The issue of interstate pollution has
been in existance for a number of years. It poses several ques-
tions regarding interactions between states and to date no long-
term solution has been developed. EPA has proposed a number of
132
-------
short-term alternatives for handling this question and is cur-
rently assessing the requirements regarding section 126 to deter-
mine if some additional guidance or information is needed.
Guidance on interstate allocation of the growth increment can be
found in two places, the preamble to the June 19, 1978 PSD regu-
lations and a memorandum from Mr. David Hawkins to Dr. Kathleen
Camin dated July 26, 1978 dealing with Union Electric Variance -
Interstate Equity.
The June 19, 1978 PSD regulations state at 43 Federal
Register 26402 that the Administrator is pursuing various mecha-
nisms to allocate the increment where the source would impact an
interstate area. If an interstate dispute arises before more
definitive guidance can be prepared, the Administrator intends to
restrict increment consumption to equal amounts at the state
line.
The July 26, 1978 memorandum states that: "In general,
consumption of the growth potential relative to the SO, NAAQS
should be divided equally among the two states at the border.
That is, each state will have use of one-half of the air quality
difference between the NAAQS and the ambient concentration now
allowed at the border."
A recent supreme court case, City of Philadelphia vs. New
Jersey, seems to add some additional insight concerning this
issue. The court, in rendering its decision, discussed its
previous anti-protectionist decisions whereby one state attempted
to isolate itself from the national economy. The court indicated
that " a state may not accord its own inhabitants a preferred
right of access over consumers in other states to natural re-
sources located within its borders", (11 ERC 1774).
This decision would seem to say that the state can manage
its own resources but that both in and out-of-state sources must
be treated equally.
Section 126 of the Act is activated on a case-by-case basis.
It indicates that a source may not interfere with measures
adopted by a neighboring state for the prevention of significant
deterioration. If the sources meet all the requirements of the
133
-------
neighboring state it would appear that they could construct and
consume as much of the increment as would be permitted under the
neighboring state plan for allocating the increment.
Pros
Some type of allocation scheme for interstate disputes
does provide for a more equitable use of the increment
by both states.
Allocation scheme may avoid lengthy and costly court
suits over interstate problems.
Cons
Supreme Court seems to indicate that such allocation
schemes where sources are not treated fairly would be
unconstitutional.
No need to develop a special alternative for handling
interstate allocation problems outside the SIP's, if
states develop their own PSD plans which have some
method for allocating the increment within their State,
since section 126 prohibits on a case-by-case basis
sources in one state from violating the PSD program in
another state.
Allocation schemes developed outside the state plans
tend to be arbitrary and pose some real enforcement
problems.
Recommendations
Since this issue transcends a number of programs it would
seem unwise to resolve it independently as part of PSD Set II
regulatory development. Resolution of this issue should be
closely coordinated with the other programs to ensure that a
technically feasible solution is developed which has a more
universal application. Until such time as a long term solution
is reached, the current guidance in the June 19, 1978 PSD regula-
tions should be used in the development of the PSD Set II pro-
gram.
134
-------
DEGREE OF STATE FLEXIBILITY
Description of the Issue
What level of detail is most appropriate for Federal regu-
lations promulgated under this program and what degree of flexi-
bility should be left to the States?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Not applicable.
Major Implications
If not enough detail is provided regarding the program the
states will be unsure of the minimum requirements for an accept-
able plan; thereby creating a great deal of uncertainty. This
could cause the development of inconsistent and technically
unsound PSD programs which will either have to be corrected by
the state dt EPA through a promulgation of a substitute program.
However, if the requirements are too rigid the state may be
unwilling to develop its own program and EPA promulgation would
still be necessary.
Pros
o Very detailed guidance or regulations will ensure that
an adequate and implementable program will be devel-
oped;
o Detailed guidance will ensure absolute consistency from
area to area;
o Detailed guidance will leave little doubt regarding
what is required; and
o Some flexibility is needed on how the growth increment
is to be allocated to permit local involvement in
permit issuance.
Cons
o Too much detail regarding all aspects of the program
will stifle state input;
135
-------
o Very general requirements which only outline the basic
objectives of the program will permit confusion and
inconsistency especially in interstate situations where
transport is concerned.
o Too much flexibility would make the consolidated permit
concept of "one stop shopping" very difficult if not
impossible to implement on a national scale.
Recommendations
The recommended approach would be to provide the basics of
the program; that is, who is subject, what is considered to be
significant deterioration, numerical measures against which
permit applications may be evaluated etc. and permit the state
the flexibility to determine how the available growth margin is
to be allocated, what is BACT and what type of tracking system
will be used. Equivalency regarding the numerical measures could
be permitted but this could lead to widely varying approaches.
In some cases equivalent systems may not be compatible (e.g.,
increments vs. statewide bubble or inventory management with
public involvement)and severe problems could develop where growth
might be permitted under one system and not under another over
time.
136
-------
MONITORING
Description of Issue
How much preconstruction monitoring will be required? How
much postconstruction monitoring?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 165(e)(l) states:
"The review provided for in subsection (a) shall be preceded
by an analysis in accordance with regulations of the Admini-
strator, promulgated under this subsection, which may be
conducted by the State (or any general purpose unit of local
government) or by the major emitting facility applying for
such permit, of the ambient air quality at the proposed site
and in areas which may be affected by emissions from such
facility for each pollutant subject to regulation under this
Act which will be emitted from such facility."
Section 165(e)(2) states:
"Effective one year after date of enactment of this part,
the analysis required by this subsection shall include con-
tinuous air quality monitoring data gathered for purposes of
determining whether emissions from such facility will exceed
the maximum allowable increases or the maximum allowable
concentration permitted under this part. Such data shall be
gathered over a period of one calendar year preceding the
date of application for a permit under this part unless the
State, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Administrator, determines that a complete and adequate
analysis for such purposes may be accomplished in a shorter
period. The results of such analysis shall be available at
the time of the public hearing on the application for such
permit."
Major Implications
As a result of Alabama Power vs. Costle 13 ERC 1225, EPA has
proposed to revise its current PSD regulations for TSP and S02
with regard to certain aspects of the monitoring requirements
which have a direct relationship to the PSD program for Set II.
The court held that section 165(e)(l) of the Act requires an
ambient air quality analysis for each pollutant subject to regu-
lation under the Act prior to applying for a PSD permit. There-
fore, preconstruction monitoring data will be required for a
137
-------
source unless the estimated impact from the proposed source is
lower than some de minimis air quality level and the source is
not a major stationary source for the pollutant. The de minimis
levels proposed on September 5, 1979 are shown in Table I.
However the de minimis exemption not to require monitoring may be
waived when the proposed source would impact a class I area.
While a source is permitted to use existing representative data
in lieu of new monitoring, it is unlikely that there is adequate
existing data available for ozone, CO, N02, and Pb to avoid
conducting preconstruction monitoring.
With regard to post construction monitoring the current PSD
regulations give EPA the authority to require post construction
monitoring. EPA intends in its proposed regulations of September
5, 1979 developed pursuant to the Alabama Power decision to
require post construction monitoring for large sources of partic-
ulate and sulfur dioxide. It would seem that a similar type
requirement should hold true for a PSD Set II program especially
since many non- air quality approaches are being considered for
PSD Set II.
Pros
o Post construction monitoring would almost be essential
if other than an increment approach is used to ensure
that the standard is not being violated as a result of
the operation of a source which has been given approval
to construction under PSD.
o Recent Alabama Power court decision requires that it be
done under the current PSD program.
Cons
o Preconstruction and post construction monitoring will
be very costly.
o Postconstruction monitoring per se is not adequate to
track the consumption of the increment given the defi-
nition of baseline and what does or does not consume
increment.
138
-------
TABLE I. DE MINIMIS LEVELS
Pollutant and Air Quality Impact
Carbon monoxide - 500 ug/m , 8-hour avg.
Nitrogen dioxide - 1 ug/m , annual.
o
Total suspended particulates - 5 ug/m , 24-hour.
Sulfur dioxide - 5 ug/m , 24-hour.
Ozone
_ _*
Lead - .03 ug/m , 3-month.
3
Mercury - 0.1 ug/m , 24-hour.
Beryllium - .005 ug/m , 24-hour.
3
Asbestos - 1 ug/m , 1-hour.
3
Fluorides - .01 ug/m , 24-hour.
Sulfuric acid mist - 1 ug/m , 24-hour.
3
Vinyl chloride - 1 ug/m , maximum value.
Total reduced sulfur:
Hydrogen sulfide - 1 ug/m , 1-hour.
Methyl mercaptan - .5 ug/m , 1-hour.
Dimethyl sulfide - .5 ug/m , 1-hour.
Dimethyl disulfide - 2 ug/m , 1 hour.
t
Reduced sulfur compounds:
Hydrogen sulfide (see above).
Carbon disulfide - 200 ug/m , 1-hour.
Carbonyl sulfide - 200 ug/m , 1-hour.
*No de minimi's air quality level is proposed. However, any net increase of
lOOTons per year of VOC subject to PSD is required to conduct ambient air
quality monitoring.
139
-------
Recommended Solution
Since preconstruction monitoring is currently required
except where the de minimis exemption as proposed on September 5,
1979 applies, preconstruction monitoring does not really repre-
sent an issue for resolution under the PSD Set II regulatory
development.
While post construction monitoring for TSP and S02 sources
is more or less discretionary, it is recommended that it be less
discretionary for ozone, CO, N02, and Pb. This is due to the
lack of adequate monitoring data for these pollutants and the
fact that many of the approaches to implement PSD Set II would
not directly consider the air quality impact of a source during
the preconstruction review.
140
-------
MODELING
Description of Issue
Given the difficulty of modeling many of the Set II pollu-
tants, what type and level of detail of modeling can or should be
required?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 165(e)(3)(D) states that the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations which
"shall specify with reasonable particularity each air
quality model or models to be used under specified sets of
conditions for purposes of this part. Any model or models
designated under such regulations may be adjusted upon a
determination, after notice and opportunity for public
hearing, by the Administrator that such adjustment is neces-
sary to take into account unique terrain or meteorological
characteristics of an area potentially affected by emissions
from a source applying for a permit required under this
part."
Major Implications
The June 19, 1978 PSD regulations indicated that EPA's
assessment of the air quality impacts of new major sources and
modifications will be based on the "Guideline on Air Quality
Models", OAQPS 1.2-080, April 1978. This guideline was incor-
porated by reference into the regulations. Sources may be given
approval to use air quality dispersion models other than those
noted in the guidelines if the model recommended in the guideline
and the model proposed by the source are comparable.
*
The guideline recommends those air quality models that
should be used for conducting PSD review. It also identifies
factors that determine the suitability of models for an indi-
vidual situation, presents classes and subclasses of models, and
addresses special modeling problems. The guideline presents
information for modeling TSP, S02, CO, and NOX. It does not,
however, present information regarding modeling of photochemical
oxidants. These models are undergoing a critical review and
information regarding them will be provided at a later date.
141
-------
With regard to CO and NOX, the point source screening tech-
niques described in Volume 10 of the Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis, "Procedures for Evaluating Air
Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources", can be used. However,
no specific refined modeling techniques are recommended. Those
situations which require more refined techniques will be con-
sidered on a case-by-case basis with the use of expert consulta-
tion. For NOX, the use of any models other than photochemical
ones require an assumption that all NOV is emitted in the form of
X
N02 or is converted to N02 by the time it reaches the ground and
that N02 is a nonreactive pollutant. For sources locating in
areas where atmospheric photochemical reactions are significant,
a Rollback model may be used as a preliminary assessment to
evaluate the impact of the source or sources.
There are five (5) types of ozone prediction methods that
are currently available. These models vary from simple algebraic
relationships to sophisticated numerical models. In general, the
simple methods tend to ignore or to treat superficially many
atmospheric processes that affect the formation of ozone. The
sophisticated numerical models on the other hand, treat these
processes in detail but are very costly to use and require large
amounts of input data. The five (5) ozone models are: linear
rollback, modified rollback, empirical kinetic modeling approach
(EKMA), trajectory models, and grid models. Most of these models
have been developed for a region-wide application rather than for
a specific individual point source. They are also more orien-
tated for use in urban rather than rural areas.
One of most sophisticated grid models is the Airshed Model,
which has the ability to simulate the behavior of up to 20 pol-
lutants. When photochemical simulations are carried out by this
model, 11 species must be included:
paraffins nitric oxide
olefins nitrogen dioxide
aromatics ozone
aldehydes nitric acid
peroxyacetyl nitrate hydrogen peroxide
carbon monoxide
142
-------
Additionally a number of other parameters regarding emis-
sions and surface uptake, meteorology, air quality, chemical
mechanisms, etc., must be input. As can be seen these input
requirements are considerable and costs to perform the necessary
computer calculations are therefore significant.
The use of air quality modeling in the PSD Set II program is
one of the most perplexing problems. Either the models are so
simple that their predictions could not be used to assess a
sources impact against so»e incremental value (i.e., the model is
highly suspect in its ability to predict small incremental
changes in air quality) or the model is so sophisticated that it
requires more detailed data than would ever be reasonably ex-
pected to exist for an attainment area.
While the above is true for CO, ozone, and N02 it is not
true for Pb. Models do exist which would permit an assessment
of the air quality impact of a new lead source to be con-
ducted. The models outlined in the Guideline on Air Quality
Models can be used. These models, however, do not account for
deposition of large partcles. Guidance is provided in Appendices
D and E of the Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation
Plans, OAQPS 12-104, August 1978, on how one might account for
deposition.
Pros
Without the use of air quality models the PSD Set II
program cannot adequately assess the impact of an in-
dividual source's contribution to air quality.
The less sophisticated models may provide the level of
detail necessary, based on the data that exists or can
reasonably be expected to exist, to conduct periodic
checks of emission based alternatives to ensure that
the air quality levels have not deteriorated.
Cons
The use of any aodel especially for ozone no matter how
it will be used, will come under severe criticism and
challenge.
The State-of-the-Art for modeling NO and ozone from
isolated new sources has not advancea to a point that
would permit one to use a routine off-the-shelf, model
to estimate the impact of such sources.
143
-------
Recommendations
Based upon the information currently available and the lack
of detailed data on emissions, air quality, etc., it is recom-
mended that the use of modeling be restricted to those simple
modeling techniques. These techniques would be used to periodi-
cally check the overall air quality impact of the PSD Set II
program for a broad geographic area to ensure that the air
quality has in fact, not deteriorated. Additionally this model-
ing evaluation would be checked by the use of both pre and post-
construction monitoring data. However, for Pb, since models do
exist, it recommended that they be used to obtain a more direct
indication of air quality impact on a source-by-source basis.
144
-------
DATA AVAILABILITY
Description of Issue
How much data are available for rural areas? Which alterna-
tives would only need existing data and which would require sub-
stantially more data than are currently available?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Not applicable.
Major Implications
Since most of the clean air areas are located in rural
areas, the PSD program should be geared to the type of informa-
tion that currently exists or could reasonably be expected to
exist in a rural area. The most sophisticated alternative for
implementing the PSD program will only be as good as the data
available to implement it. In many cases very little emissions
or air quality data for ozone, CO, N02, or Pb exists in rural
areas. Since the problems with these pollutants have generally
been associated with urbanized areas, the rural areas have re-
ceived little or no attention regarding updating the emission
inventories or expanding, the air quality monitoring program. In
most rural areas an emission inventory consisting of point and
area source emission totals for five major source categories
(Fuel Combustion, Industrial Process, Solid Waste Disposal,
Transportation and Miscellaneous) will exist on a countywide
basis for each of the pollutants with the exception of lead
because it is a relatively new criteria pollutant. Generally the
existing point sources which emit over 100 tons per year for any
one pollutant would be listed but this is not always the case.
In those cases where point sources have been inventoried this
information should have been submitted to the National Emission
Data System (NEDS). The type of information which may be pro-
vided for point sources would include annual operating rates,
amount of fuel burned, amount of material processed and estimated
145
-------
emissions. In many cases the emission estimates are calculated
by NEDS using generalized emission factors. However, this inven-
tory of point sources may be several years old as most states did
not revise their entire emission inventory in response to the
1979 SIP revisions but rather only updated the inventory for
those areas and pollutants which were designated as nonattain-
ment.
The area source data in NEDS contains information on all
emission sources not identified as point sources. Unlike data
for point sources, data for each of these small individual
sources are not noted in NEDS. Rather, estimates of total emis-
sion levels for specific categories are stored. Area source data
are developed primarily from reports published by other Federal
agencies or data from State or local agencies. States are not
required to periodically update their area source inventories and
therefore EPA uses the best information available on a national
basis to annually update the area source inventory.
The air quality data in the rural areas with regard to those
pollutants are also very limited. Much of the air quality data
that does exist is the result of short term monitoring programs
conducted by potential new sources or state agency personnel to
perform a screening study for the area. Therefore much of the
data would have very limited value in that it may only have been
conducted for a month or so. The current air quality data can,
however, be strengthened and expanded by the requirements in the
current PSD regulations to conduct both pre and post construction
monitoring. However this data would not be for specific VOC
species, etc., but would be for ozone.
The emission inventories that would exist or could be gener-
ated for the rural areas would be for total VOC's and not for
specific compounds. Additionally, the specific data available on
vehicle miles traveled, etc. necessary to conduct detailed emis-
sion inventories for VOC, CO, NO , and Pb are also not available.
X
Because of the lack of detailed and adequate emission inven-
tories, many of the alternatives under consideration will be only
146
-------
marginally effective if at all because the data does not exist to
permit the alternative to produce meaningful results.
Pros
Certain alternatives such as emission controls, emis-
sion density zoning, inventory management, statewide
emission limitations, de minimus levels could be imple-
mented with the limited air quality and emissions data
that exists in rural areas.
Because there is limited data those techniques which
are technically less sophisticated are more favorable.
Cons
Much of the data needed to perform dispersion modeling
for sources locating in rural areas does not exist.
Many of the more sophisticated models, such as the
Airshed Model, were developed for use in data rich
urbanized areas and are not really adaptable to rural
situations.
Alternatives which require detailed information on
emissions or control costs would find limited use in
rural areas. These include increments, avoiding colo-
cation, emission fees, marketable permits, and trans-
portation BACT.
Recommendati ons
Not applicable.
147
-------
SOURCE APPLICABILITY
Description of the Issue
What size and type of sources should be subject to precon-
struction review for PSD Set II?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 169(i) defines major emitting facility (source) for
the purposes of PSD as:
"of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which
emit, or have the potential to emit, one hundred tons per
year or more of any air pollutant from the following types
of stationary sources: fossil-fuel fired steam electric
plants of more than two hundred and fifty million British
thermal units per hour heat input, coal cleaning plants
(thermal dryers), kraft pulp mills, Portland Cement plants,
primary zinc smelters, iron and steel mill plants, primary
aluminum ore reduction plants, primary copper smelters,
municipal incinerators capable of charging more than two
hundred and fifty tons of refuse per day, hydrofluoric,
sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, petroleum refineries, lime
plants, phosphate rock processing plants, coke oven bat-
teries, sulfur recovery plants, carbon black plants (furnace
process), primary lead smelters, fuel conversion plants,
sintering plants, secondary metal production facilities,
chemical process plants, fossil-fuel boilers of more than
two hundred and fifty million British thermal units per hour
heat input, petroleum storage and transfer facilities, with
a capacity exceeding three hundred thousand barrels,
taconite ore processing facilities, glass fiber processing
plants, charcoal production facilities. Such term also
includes any other source with the potential to emit two
hundred and fifty tons per year or more of any air pollu-
tant. This term shall not include new or modified facili-
ties which are nonprofit health or education institutions
which have been exempted by the State."
Section 165(a) states:
"No major emitting facility on which construction is com-
menced after the date of the enactment of this part, may be
constructed in any area to which this part applies
unless..."
Major Implications
The Clean Air Act seems to provide very little flexibility
as to which sources are subject to PSD review. Section 169(i)
148
-------
defines those sources subject to review in terms of both size
and type. However, there may be some question as to whether this
definition should be modified for lead since the present point
source definition for lead in 40 CFR 51 differs considerably from
the point source definition for other pollutants; 5 tons/year as
compared to either 100 tons/year for urbanized areas or 25 tons/
year for less urbanized areas. There is good reason for this
difference as the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for lead is set at a level which is considerably lower
than the NAAQS for other pollutants.
Pros
Current definition may be too lenient for lead espe-
cially since the ambient standard for lead is so
low.
Act specifies size and type of source; therefore, with
the exception of lead, this is not an issue.
Cons
Would possibly necessitate a change to the act.
Would add to the complexity of applicability if a
different definition would apply to lead.
Recommendati ons
It is recommended that the current definition in the act be
used to determine source applicability under the regulations and
that the proposal for PSD Set II should not differeniate between
lead and other pollutants but seek comments regarding such a
differentiation during the public comment period.
149
-------
TREATMENT OF CLASS I AREAS
Description of Issue
How will Class I areas and surrounding areas which impact
them best be treated?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 162 states that:
"(a) Upon the enactment of this part, all--
(1) international parks,
(2) national wilderness areas which exceed 5,000
acres in size,
(3) national memorial parks which exceed 5,000
acres in size, and
(4) national parks which exceed six thousand
acres in size, and which are in existence on the
date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 shall be class I areas and may not be
redesignated. All areas which were redesignated
as class I under regulations promulgated before
such date of enactment shall be class I areas
which may be redesignated as provided in this
part.
(b) All areas in such State identified pursuant to
section 107(d)(l)(D) or (E) which are not established
as class I under subsection (a) shall be class II areas
unless redesignated under section 164."
"Section 166(d) and (e) states that: the regulations
of the Administrator under subsection (a) shall provide
specific measures at least as effective as the incre-
ments established in section 163 to fulfill such goals
and purposes, and may contain air quality increments,
emission density requirements, or other measures.
(e) With respect to any air pollutant for which a
national ambient air quality standard is established
other than sulfur oxides or particulate matter, an area
classification plan shall not be required under this
section if the implementation plan adopted by the State
and submitted for the Administrator's approval or
promulgated by the Administrator under section 110(c)
150
-------
contains other provisions which when considered as a
whole, the Administrator finds will carry out the
purposes in section 160 at least as effectively as an
area classification plan for such pollutant. Such
other provisions referred to in the preceding sentence
need not require the establishment of maximum allowable
increases with respect to such pollutant for any area
to which this section applies."
Major Implications
Section 160 of the Act sets forth several purposes of the
PSD program, one of which is to "preserve, protect and enhance
the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas,
national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of
special national or regional, natural, recreational, scenic, or
historic value." Section 162 of the Act establishes the initial
classifications for all areas identified pursuant to section
107(d)(l)(D) or (E) as either mandatory class I or class II
unless redesignated under section 164. A review of section
107(d)(l)(D) and (E) finds that these are areas which cannot be
classified as to their attainment status for S02 or particulate
matter; which have ambient levels better than any national pri-
mary or secondary air quality standard other than for sulfur
dioxide or particulate matter; which do not have sufficient data
to classify the area as not attaining the standards for any air
pollutant other than S02 or particulate matter; and which are not
attaining a national secondary ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, it appears that the initial classification of certain
areas as class I and others as class II applies not only to
particulate matter and S02 which have increment values associated
with these classifications but also to VOC, NO and CO for which
J^
designations were made under section 107.
Thus the concept of a classification system seems to exist
for VOC, NO , and CO even though the specific numerical values
^v
that would be associated with such a classification scheme were
not established by the Act. The Act gives that authority to the
Administrator of EPA under section 166. However, because areas
were not classified as attainment or nonattainment for Pb, the
same analogy does not necessarily hold true. Although it would
151
-------
still seem reasonable that some type of classification system
would also apply to Pb especially with regard to pristine or class
I areas.
While section 162 seems to indicate that the concept of a
classification may exist for VOC, NO , and CO, section 166 indi-
X
cates that States do have the option of developing a PSD system
which on the whole is at least as effective as the area classifi-
cation scheme. This seems to further indicate that some type of
classification system would be the norm or the standard against
which an alternative State scheme would be judged in terms of its
overall equivalency. Additionally such a scheme would not neces-
sarily have to include maximum allowable increases for these
pollutants.
Even if the current classification system did not apply to
VOC, NO and CO, it would seem that certain major Federal lands
X
would have to receive some special consideration above and beyond
that for other areas to fulfill the intent of section 160 regard-
ing the purpose of the total PSD program set forth in part C of
the Act (sections 160-169).
Pros
o A classification system will enhance the PSD Set II
program's ability to meet the goals and objectives of
the Act especially with respect to certain Federal
lands.
o A classification system provides more form and sub-
stance to the Set II program as there is a clear dis-
tinction between pristine areas which should have
minimal deterioration and areas where moderate growth
should be allowed.
o The Clean Air Act seems to have already established the
classification system with the specific numerical
values to be provided after further study and evalua-
tion.
Cons
o The classification system would seem to limit some of
the options or alternatives which could be implemented
152
-------
for PSD Set II as many alternatives do not provide for
any distinction between areas (e.g., statewide bubble,
inventory management, FMVCP & BACT, marketable permit,
etc.)-
o Avoiding a classification system would seem to be in
violation of the Act either directly, if the above
interpretation of section 162 is correct, or indirectly
by failing to provide some consideration for protecting
certain Federal lands as specifically spelled out in
section 160.
Recommended Solutions
It appears from the language in the Act that the class I and
class II system already exists for the Set II pollutants and that
there is very little discretion as how these class I areas would
be treated, that is, basically they must be protected. The only
flexibility which seems to be given to EPA is the assigning of
specific numerical values to the classification scheme. However,
the States in developing their PSD plans could develop a program
which does not include an area classification system as long as
the State's plan was, on the whole, equivalent to the area class-
ification scheme.
153
-------
MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL
Description of Issue
What type of additional control requirements can or should
be placed on mobile sources? What should be the balance between
control of mobile sources versus stationary sources?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 209(a) of the Act states:
"No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt
or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control
of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines subject to this part. No State shall require certi-
fication, inspection, or any other approval relating to the
control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail
sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment."
However, Section 177 states with respect to nonattainment
areas:
"Notwithstanding section 209(a), any State which has plan
provisions approved under this part may adopt and enforce
for any model year standards relating to control of emis-
sions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
and take such other actions as are referred to in section
209(a) respecting such vehicles if..."
Major Implications
Since mobile source emissions account for a significant
portion of the current emission inventories for CO, VOC, N02, and
Pb, (82%, 41%, 45%, and 88% respectively) their impact upon the
PSD program will be significant. However, it appears from a
reading of the Act that States are precluded from requiring any
additional controls regarding motor vehicles. Also as indicated
in the issue descriptions regarding indirect source review, the
Administrator of EPA is precluded from requiring indirect source
review. Thus there is a major concern that mobile or indirect
sources will consume a large portion of the increment and that
with the exception of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
these sources will be uncontrolled.
154
-------
While the preproduction certification program demonstrates
the manufacturers' capability of designing vehicles which can
meet the Federal Motor Vehicle emission standards, it does not
address the question of in-use vehicles. Over the past 10 years,
testing has consistently indicated that a significant number of
vehicles on the road fail to meet the automotive standards. This
occurs for a variety of reasons: Production variability, tamper-
ing with or neglect of a car's emission control system or use of
leaded gasoline in a car that requires unleaded. Therefore, in
many cases it is essential that a strategy be devised to improve
the performance of in-use vehicle. One such strategy is I/M.
I/M programs involve periodic testing of each car within a given
locality and a refusal to register any vehicle that fails the
test and is not subsequently repaired.
Pros
Requiring some type of additional control of motor
vehicles or indirect sources would allow the cost of
the PSD Set II program to be more equitably shared
between mobile and stationary sources.
Additional control on mobile sources will minimize
consumption of the increment.
Cons
Would necessitate change in the Act.
Additional controls will further burden a control
program which is already coming under fire from either
being too restrictive in some cases to not being strict
enough in other cases because of the deterioration of
the certain control devices.
Additional controls will run into public opposition
similar to the problems with transportation control
measures and I/M.
Recommendations
While additional controls on motor vehicles and the require-
ment to conduct indirect source review seems to be precluded,
some controls on certain transportation related sources in the
155
-------
name of BACT may be required. While these controls* would not
require motor vehicles to meet any standards other than those
imposed by the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, they would
require that certain transportation related projects minimize
their emissions in the name of BACT. The transportation BACT
requirement would establish certain procedures or performance
standards for these transportation related projects to minimize
the emissions to the maximum extent possible and would not in-
volve any further review or certification. That is, there would
not be a review against any predetermined air quality levels and
an ultimate approval or denial. This air quality assessment
would have to be accomplished after the facility became opera-
tional through monitored air quality values. If violations are
noted then the State plan would have to be revised to correct the
noted violations which could require some retrofit of controls or
the imposition of certain transportation control measures such as
staggered work hours, car pooling, etc.
These controls would for the most part eliminate or reduce
congestion, increase traffic flow, etc., in addition to minimiz-
ing emissions. A more complete explanation of how this system
might be implemented can be found in the description of the
transportation BACT alternative.
156
-------
GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY
Description of Issue
What size area would be most appropriate under an emission
density zoning system? Under an increment system?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Not applicable.
Major Implications
The size of the area over which an emission density zoning
program will be implemented will have a significant impact upon
the amount of growth that would be permitted for a given area.
It will also have an impact upon how much clustering may take
place for a given area and whether this clustering will cause air
quality to significantly deteriorate or reach a level where
possible violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) could exist. If the area is too large over which a
source may disperse its emissions, the source in a sense would be
using a type of dispersion technique. That is, the amount of
emissions per square mile could be decreased by the source pur-
chasing more land over which to average its emissions. While
section 123 prohibits dispersion techniques in terms of air
quality impact, it is unclear whether the above technique of
purchasing more land to reduce the emission density would be
considered a dispersion technique. Additionally, if the amount
of emission density permitted per square mile is too high in
proportion to the size of the area, the air quality for the area
could significantly deteriorate while the emission density per
square mile would be within the limits permitted under an emis-
sion density program to prevent significant deterioration. Thus
the size of the area and the amount of emissions permitted per
square mile will depend upon the technical resolution of relating
emissions density to air quality levels.
In addition to the technical aspects of determining the size
of the area, there are political or policy concerns which also
157
-------
must be considered. The size of the area for implementing an EDZ
program will depend upon the availability of data for a given
area. That is, what is the smallest governmental unit for which
an EDZ program may be developed, i.e., planning districts, zones,
towns, counties, AQCR's, 208 Planning Areas, etc. Additionally
many rural areas have very limited data. More information con-
cerning the availability of data in rural areas can be found in
the issue description on data availability.
The size of the area over which an increment approach may be
implemented is almost entirely a technical decision. The size of
the area will be dependent upon the area over which the partic-
ular model may be used. Each new source's air quality would be
estimated and the modeling results extrapolated to the furthest
point for which the model can reasonably predict a concentration
or where the concentration predicted by the model is below some
specified level. This issue has been addressed for TSP and S02
in the June 19, 1978 PSD regulations. In the preamble to the
regulations EPA stated that it would generally limit the applica-
tion of the modeling results to no more than 50 kilometers. Also
since the air quality impact of many sources falls off rapidly to
insignificant levels, EPA does not intend to analyze the impact
of a source beyond the point where the concentrations from a
source fall below certain levels. Those levels which have been
interpreted by EPA as representing the minimum amount of ambient
impact that are considered to be significant are shown below.
Concentration
Pollutant Annual 8-hour 1-hour
N02 1
CO 0.5 mg/m3 2 mg/m3
Source: June 19, 1978 PSD Regulations
However, since there is a special concern over class I areas, any
expected impacts associated with a class I area must be evaluated
irrespective of whether the source is located beyond 50 km or if
it would have an impact less than the above significance levels.
158
-------
Pros
Areas for EDZ based on existing political structures
would have the greatest potential for success.
County or planning districts would in most cases be
small enough, with the exception of some western
states, to adequately avoid clustering and potential
air quality problems.
Cons
Since the size of the area for implementing an EDZ
program seems to be more of a technical problem than a
policy one, this may not be an issue after more tech-
nical evaluations are performed.
Size of the area is really not an issue per se for
increments because the size of the area is determined
by the ability of the model to accurately predict a
concentration at a given distance from the source.
Recommendations
There are no recommendations regarding this issue until
further technical evaluations and investigations of the availa-
bility of data at the smallest governmental units can be com-
pleted.
159
-------
CONSISTENCY WITH CURRENT PSD PROGRAM
Description of Issue
How much consistency should be required between PSD Set II
and other programs, specifically PSD Set I and new source review
in nonattainment areas? What is the true extent of attainment
vs. nonattainment areas and how will this affect the PSD Set II
program?
Applicable Clean Air Act Section
Section 161 of the Act states:
"In accordance with the policy of section 101(b)(l), each
applicable implementation plan shall contain emission limi-
tations and such other measures as may be necessary, as
determined under regulations promulgated under this part, to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each
region (or portion thereof) identified pursuant to section
107(d)(l)(D) or (E)."
Major Implications
According to the 1977 National Air Quality, Monitoring and
Emissions Trends Report, (EPA-450/2-78-052) 86% of the ozone
sites reporting data to EPA exceeded the previous .08 ppm stan-
dard, 46% of the CO sites violated the 8 Hour CO standard and
only 2% of the N02 sites violated the annual N02 standard.
However, some analysis in light of the recent change to the ozone
standard indicates that of the 325 counties with ozone data
approximately 65% of these counties have at least one monitoring
site which exceeds the .12 ppm standard. Of those counties which
are attaining the .12 ppm standard, a great percentage (80-90%)
are just marginally attaining (i.e., between .08 and .12 ppm).
Thus it would seem that even where the standard is being attained
for ozone only minimal growth would be permitted before a pro-
posed new source's impact would be causing or contributing to a
violation of the national standards at which time the more re-
strictive nonattainment provisions would apply. The current PSD
regulations indicated that these regulations applied regardless
160
-------
of the particular nonattainment designation as there could be
pockets of clean air within designated nonattainment areas. How-
ever, the Alabama Power decision held that the PSD provisions
apply only to major sources either locating in areas specifically
designated as attainment or unclassifiable under Section 107 or
locating in any area from which the source would impact a clean
air area in another state. EPA has filed a petition for recon-
sideration arguing that Congress intended PSD review to apply to
all major construction, whether located inside or outside a
designated nonattainment area, that would significantly impact
any clean area. If the court holds to its original option then
the scope of the PSD program would be limited to preclude review
in any nonattainment area. Thus the PSD program would strictly
be designed for those areas classified as attainment or unclas-
sified.
While this decision will have some impact for NO and CO it
J\
will have a significant impact upon the volatile organic compound
(VOC)/ozone PSD program. Because ozone nonattainment is so
widespread it is likely that as additional preconstruction moni-
toring is conducted more nonattainment areas will be discovered.
This is especially true for areas east of the Mississippi River,
while only partially true for areas west of the Mississippi River
because there are more measured attainment areas in the west than
east. This will have a major impact for energy development
sources which will tend to locate in areas west of the
Mississippi. Obviously if nonattainment is more prevalent than
attainment the PSD program will be severely limited in its appli-
cation.
This is some question as to the consistency which should
exist between PSD for VOC, CO, NO and Pb and the PSD program for
X
TSP and S02 and the new source review requirements in nonattain-
ment areas. Since these programs are all dealing with the pre-
construction review of major new sources it would seem desirable
to have these programs consistent at least in principle if not in
practice.
161
-------
In many ways this has already been accomplished by the
various provisions of the Act which deal with the PSD and non-
attainment programs. Consistency exists in determining which
sources are subject to review, where the review is required, and
what level of control is required. Therefore the regulations
dealing with these aspects of PSD present little, if any, oppor-
tunity for variation from program to program.
However, there are two areas where some variation is pos-
sible and possibly desirable: what type of ambient or emission
assessment will be required and what type of classification
system and associated values needs to be established. Because
the same source may be a major source for all the criteria pollu-
tants the issue of consistency is one which should receive care-
ful attention.
Pros
o PSD program for NO will be very important as there are
X
a number of attainment areas.
o Without some type of PSD review within areas which are
only marginally less than the standard, a number of
areas could go from attainment to nonattainment with
only one or two new source applications.
o PSD would provide some interim "handle" on new source
growth prior to potential nonattainment.
o Consistency between programs will minimize any confu-
sion over the details of how the program is to be
implemented.
o Consistency will provide for some savings in the areas
of preparing permits and conducting reviews.
Cons
o If the air quality levels for those areas which are
attaining the standards for the Set II pollutants are
only marginally below the standard then possibly only a
few sources would actually be subject to PSD review.
o Air quality levels for some pollutants would be so
dangerously close to, if not exceeding, the standards
that the entire concept of PSD would become meaning-
less.
162
-------
o In some cases consistency may encourage the perpetua-
tion of inefficient and inequitable program require-
ments .
o Consistency could impose some unrealistic requirements
on sources of some pollutants which should otherwise
have been omitted.
Recommendations
Because there may only be limited application of the PSD
program for some pollutants it may be advisable to provide maxi-
mum flexibility to the states so that they can impose the best
program for their area to increase the long term viability of the
PSD program especially for such pollutants as VOC. However, the
major elements of the various programs should be consistent to
the maximum extent possible.
163
-------
APPENDIX D
AIR QUALITY SUMMARY BY COUNTY FOR
1977
164
-------
State
Alabama
County
AUTAU6A CO
BALDWIN CO
6ARBOUR CO
6IBB CO
BLOUNT CO
BULLOCK CO
BUTLER CO
CALHOUN CO
CHAMBERS CO
CHEROKEE CO
CMILTON CO
CHOCTAU CO
CLARKE CO
CLAV CO
CLEBURNE CO
COFFEE CO
COLBERT CO
CONECUH CO
COOSA CO
COVINGTON CO
CRENSHAW CO
CULLRAN CO
DALE CO
DALLAS CO
DE KALB CO
EL*OR£ CO
ESCAMBIA CO
ETON AH CO
FATETTE CO
FRANKLIN CO
GENEVA CO
GREENE CO
HALE CO
HENRY co
HOUSTON CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
IANAR CO
LAUOERDALE CO
LAWRENCE CO
LEE CO
LIMESTONE CO
LOWNDES CO
•A CON CO
PADISON CO
AARENCO CO
MARION CO
2nd max 3-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
9.1
8.2
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (ug/m3)
306
*
333 *
Arithmetic mean NOX
cone.3 (yg/m3)
98
29
54
:>;AAQS CO 8-h 10 ng/m3 not to be exceeded more than once per year.
:NAAQS 03 235 ..g/m! expected value.
;NAAQS N0x - 100 ug/m3 arithmetic mean.
*0esignateu ii nonatiairi.-«nt as of January 19CO.
165
-------
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
County
MARSHALL CO
MOBILE CO
NDNROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
PERRY CO
PICKENS CO
PIKE CO
RANDOLPH CO
RUSSELL CO
ST CLAIR CO
SHELBY CO
SUMTER CO
1ALLADEGA CO
TALLAPOOSA CO
TUSCALOOSA CO
WALKER CO
WASHINGTON CO
WILCOI CO
WINSTON CO
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS EO
ANCHORAGE ED
AN600N ED
BARROW ED
BETHEL ED
BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH ED
BRISTOL BAY ED
COROOVA-MC CARTHY ED
FAIRBANKS EC
HAINES ED
JUNEAU ED
KENAI-COOK TNLET ED
KETCHIKAN Et>
KOBUK ED
KODIAK ED
KUSKOKWIM
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA ED
NOME EO
OUTER KETCHTKAN ED
PRINCE Of WALES ED
SEWARO ED
S1TKA ED
SKA6WAV-YAKUTAT ED
SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS ED
UPPER YUKON ED
VALOE2-CH1TINA-WHITTIE
WADE HAMPTON ED
WRAN6ELL-PETERSBUR6 ED
VNKON-KOVUKUK ED
APACHE CO
COCH1SE CO
COCONINO CO
GILA CO
GRAHAM CO
GREENLEE CO
MARICOPA CO
MOHAVE CO
2nd max 8- hr CO
cone.1 (mg/nr)
18.1
28
R ED
4.5
29.2
48.1*
2nd max 1-hr Oa
cone.2 (yg/m3)
284 *
216 *
*
1003
300 *
Arithmetic mean NOX
cone.3 (yg/m3)
48
148
23
21
24
7
166
-------
State
Arizona
Arkansas
County
NAVAJO CO
MMA co
PIMAL co
SANTA CRUZ CO
VAVAPAI CO
TUNA CO
ARKANSAS CO
ASHLEY CO
• AIT ED CO
BENTON CO
BOONE CO
BRADLEY CO
CALNOUN CO
CARROLL CO
CNICOT CO
CLARK CO
CLAY CO
CLEBURNE CO
CLEVELAND CO
COLUMBIA CO
CONUAY CO
CRAICNEAD CO
CRAWFORD CO
CRITTENDEN CO
CROSS CO
DALLAS CO
DESMA CO
DREW CO
FAULKNER CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
GARLAND CO
GRANT CO
CREENE CO
MEHPSTEAD CO
HOT SPRING CO
HOWARD CO
INDEPENDENCE CO
IZARD CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
JOHNSON CO
LAFAYETTE CO
LAWRENCE CO
LEE CO
LINCOLN CO
LITTLE RIVER CO
LOCAN CO
LONOKE CO
MADISON CO
MARION CO
MILLER CO
MISSISSIPPI CO
M0NROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
NEVADA CO
NEWTON CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m9)
129*
3.4
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (vg/m3)
196
103
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3) x
61
13
25
37
19
10
34
32
167
-------
State
Arkansas
Cal.
County
OUACHITA CO
PtRRY CO
PHILLIPS CO
PIKE CO
POINSETT CO
POLK CO
POPE CO
PRAIRIE CO
PULASKI CO
RANDOLPH CO
SI FRANCIS CO
SALINE CO
SCOTT CO
SfcASCT CO
SEBASTIAN CO
SEVIER CO
SHARP CO
STONE CO
UKION CO
VAN BUREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WHITE CO
WOODRUFf CO
TELL CO
ALAMEOA CO
ALPINE CO
AMADOR CO
BUTTE CO
CALAVERAS CO
COLUSA CO
CONTRA COST* CO
DEL NORTE CO
EL DORADO CO
FRESNO CO
CLENN CO
HUHBOLDT CO
IMPERIAL CO
INTO CO
KERN CO
KINGS CO
LAKE CO
LASSEN CO
LOS AM6ELES CO
MADERA co
MAR1N CO
H4R1POSA CO
MENDOCINO CO
MERCED CO
BO DOC CO
MONO CO
MONTERET CO
NAPA CO
NEVADA CO
ORANGE CO
PLACE* CO
PLUM AS CO
RIVERSIDE CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone. ' (mq/m3)
7.6 *
9.6*
8.1 *
3.7*
10.4*
12.4*
24.3*
9 *
7.2
4.3
8.3*
16.1 *
10.2*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (ug/m3)
294*
Zbb *
196*
tc
255*
176*
314*
*
157*
274*
*
549*
*
176 *
*
274*
176 «
235*
529*
627*
Arithmetic mean NO.,
cone.3 (yg/m3)
43
36
39
bb
47
49
20
80
110
187*
52
48
25
43
174 *
112*
168
-------
State
Cal.
Colorado
County
SACRAMENTO CO
SAN BEN1TO CO
SAN BERNARDINO CO
SAN DIE 60 CO
SAN FRANCISCO CO
SAN JOAQUIN CO
SAN LUIS OB1SPO CO
SAN MATEO CO
SANTA BARBARA CO
SANTA CLARA CO
SANTA CRUZ CO
SHASTA CO
SIERRA CO
SISKIYOU CO
SOLANO CO
SONOMA CO
STANISLAUS CO
SUTTER CO
TENAMA CO
TRINITY CO
TULARE CO
TUOLUNNE CO
VENTURA CO
VOLO CO
TUBA CO
A4AMS CO
ALANOSA CO
ARAPAHOE CO
ARCHULETA CO
BACA CO
BENT CO
BOULDER CO
CMAFFEE CO
CNETENNE CO
CLEAR CREEK CO
CONE JOS CO
COSTILLA CO
CROWLET CO
CVSTER CO
•ELTA CO
DENVER CO
DOLORES CO
DOUCLAS CO
EACLE CO
ELBERT CO
£1 PASO CO
FREMONT CO
CARF1ELB CO
CILPIN CO
CRAMD CO
CUNNISON CO
NINSDALE CO
N4IERFANO CO
JACKSON CO
JEfffEISON CO
mow A co
KIT CARSON CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/ms)
14.7*
11.4*
13.5*
9.1
10.9*
5
9.1*
5.2*
16.5*
13.2*
7.8*
7.8*
8.5
8.8*
*
17.4*
*
9.3*
22.8*
*
9.0*
13.1*
2nd max 1-hr (b
cone.2 (yg/ma)
333*
*
686*
412*
98*
314*
196*
235*
274*
274*
*
*
216*
137*
235*
*
216*
196*
431*
*
*
233*
*
*
306*
*
<~~ is/
241*
Arithmetic mean NOX
cone.3 (pg/m3)
71
147*
115*
65
76
43
47
63
87
26
46
40
84
54
74
39
104*
32
169
-------
State
Colorado
Conn.
Delaware
Florida
T
County
LAKE CO
LA PLATA CO
LARIMER CO
LAS ANIMAS CO
LINCOLN CO
LOCAN CO
MESA CO
MINERAL CO
MOfFAT CO
MNTEZUMA CO
PON THOSE CO
MORGAN CO
OTERO CO
OURAT CO
PARK CO
PHILLIPS CO
PITKIN CO
PACKERS CO
PUEBLO CO
RIO BLANCO CO
RIO GRANDE CO
ROUTT CO
SAGUACHE CO
SAN JUAN CO
SAN MIGUEL CO
SED6WICK CO
SUMMIT CO
TELLER CO
WASHINGTON CO
HELD CO
TUMA CO
FAIHF1ELD CO
HARTFORD CO
LITCHFIELD CO
MIDDLESEX CO
NEW HAVEN CO
NEW LONDON CO
TOLL AND CO
UINDHAM CO
KENT CO
NEW CASTLE CO
SUSSEX CO
WASHINGTON
ALACHUA CO
B4KER CO
BAT CO
BRADFORD CO
BREVARD CO
ebOwAfib (6
CALHOUN CO
CHARLOTTE CO
CITRUS CO
CLAV co
COLLIER CO
COLUMBIA CO
•A»E CO
DE SOTO CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
*
8.6
12.3*
36.5*
17.7*
*
*
14.1*
9.1
11.6
10.1
7.0
1
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
59
537*
445*
382*
392*
651*
508*
*
*
*
441
157*
*
f
Arithmetic mean NOX
cone.3 (yg/m3)
85
85
55
79
52
80
21
13
50
56
170
-------
State
Florida
i
Georgia
•
County
Dime co
•UVAt CO
ESCANBIA CO
FLACLER CO
IBANKL1N CO
CABS BEN CO
CILCMRIST CO
CLABES CO
«ULf CO
HAMILTON CO
NARDEE CO
NiNDIIT CO
HERN AN 00 CO
MICNLANDS CO
H1LLSBOROU6H CO
HOLIES CO
INDIAN RIVER CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
LAFAYETTE CO
LAKE CO
LEE CO
LEON CO
LEVT CO
LIBERTY CO
MADISON CO
MANATEE CO
MARION CO
MARTIN CO
MONROE CO
NASSAU CO
OK AL 00$ A CO
OKEECNOBEE CO
ORANCE CO
OSCCOLA CO
PALM BEACH CO
PASCO CO
PINELLAS CO
POLK CO
PUTNAM CO
ST JOHNS CO
ST LUC IE CO
SANTA ROSA CO
SARASOTA CO
SEMINOLE CO
SUMTER CO
SUWANNEE CO
TAILOR CO
UNION CO
WOLUS1A CO
NAKULLA CO
UALTON CO
^AJKINCTOM ro
APPLINC CO
ATKINSON CO
BACON CO
BAKER CO
=======
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mq/ma)
5.7
7.3
5.3
1.6
4.2
6.5
sasBSssasasasasaa
2nd max 1-hr Os
cone.2 (ng/m9)
294*
357
265*
196*
198*
294*
Arithmetic mean NO,
cone.' (yg/m3)
41
68
23
39
35
39
4
19
12
171
-------
State
County
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m3)
Arithmetic mean NOY
cone.3 (yg/m3)
Georgia
BALDWIN CO
BANKS CO
BARROW CO
BARTOy CO
ten HILL co
BERRIEN CO
BIBB CO
BLECKLET CO
MANTLET CO
•BOOKS CO
BBVAN CO
BULLOCH CO
BURKE CO
BUTTS CO
CALHOUN CO
CANbEN CO
CANDLE* CO
CARROLL CO
CATOOSA CO
CMARLTON CO
46
CHATHAM CO
CMATTAHOOCHEE CO
UIATT006A CO
CHEROKEE CO
CLARKE CO
CLAT CO
CLAYTON CO
CLINCH CO
COBB CO
COFFEE CO
37
COLQUITT CO
COLUMBIA CO
COOK CO
COMET* CO
CRAUFORO CO
TRISP co
BADE CO
DAMSON CO
DECATUR CO
DE KAIB CO
216*
OOD6E CO
DOOLT CO
•OU6HERTV CO
DOU6LAS CO
E«LT CO
ECHOLS CO
EFFINCHAM CO
ELBERT CO
EJIANUEL CO
E»ANS CO
FANN IN CO
FAtETTE CO
FLOTD CO
FORSTTH CO
FBANKL1M CO
fllLTOM
ULNEM
CO
CO
40
"68
172
-------
State
Georgia
County
GLASCOCK CO
GLYNN CO
COR»ON CO
6RABV CO
GREENE CO
GMINNETT CO
NABERSMAM CO
MALL CO
N«NCOCR co
MARALSON CO
H4IIIIIS CO
MART CO
HEARD CO
HENRY CO
HOUSTON CO
1RVIN CO
JACKSON CO
JASPER CO
it.tr OAVIS co
JEFFERSON CO
JENKINS CO
JOHNSON CO
JONES CO
LANAR CO
LAN1ER CO
LAURENS CO
LEE CO
LIBERTY CO
LINCOLN CO
LONG CO
LOUN0ES CO
LUMPK1N CO
HC OUFF1E CO
NC INTOSH CO
NACON CO
NA61SON to
MARION CO
HERIVETHEft CO
KILLER CO
MITCHELL CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
MURRAY CO
MUSCOGEE CO
NEWTON CO
OCONEE CO
OGLETHORPE CO
PAUL II NC CO
PEACH CO
PICK ENS CO
PIERCE CO
PJKE CO
PM.K CO
PULASKI CO
PuTNM co
tUITHAN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/ms)
n
*
*
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3)
26
28
173
-------
State
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
County
RABUN co
RANDOLPH CO
RICHMOND CO
ROCK DALE CO
SCHLEV CO
HREVEN CO
SEMI DOLE CO
SPALDIN6 CO
STEPHENS CO
STEWART CO
SUMTER CO
TALBOT CO
TALIAFERRO CO
TATTNALL CO
TAYLOR co
TELFAIR co
TERRELL CO
THOMAS CO
TIFT CO
TOOMBS CO
TOWNS CO
TREUTLEN CO
TROUP CO
TURNER CO
TWI6GS CO
UNION CO
UPSON CO
WALKER CO
WALTON CO
MARE CO
WARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WATNE CO
WEBSTER CO
WHEELER CO
WHITE CO
WHIT HELD CO
WILCOI CO
WILKES CO
WILKINSON CO
WORTH CO
HAWAII CO
HONOLULU CO
KAUAI CO
MAU1 CO
A»A CO
ARAMS CO
BANNOCK CO
BEAR LAKE CO
BENEWAH CO
BIN6HAM CO
BLAINE CO
BOISE CO
80NNER CO
BONNEVILLE CO
BOUNbARV CO
BWTTt CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
20.7*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m3)
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3) x
29
37
36
174
-------
State
Idaho
Illinois
County
CANAS CO
CANTON CO
CARIBOU CO
CASSIA CO
CLARK CO
CllAHWATtll (6
CUSTER CO
ELMORE CO
FRANKLIN CO
FREMONT CO
CEM tO
COOOIN6 CO
IBAHO CO
JEFFERSON CO
JEROME CO
KOOTENAJ CO
LOTAH CO
IENMI CO
LEXIS CO
LINCOLN CO
NAB1SON CO
MINIDOKA CO
NEZ PERCE CO
ONEIDA CO
OMTHEE CO
PATETTE CO
POWER CO
SNOSMONE CO
TETOM CO
TWIN FALLS CO
VALLEY CO
MASH1NCTON CO
ARAMS CO
ALE«AN»ER CO
BONO CO
BOONE CO
BROWN CO
BUREAU £6
CALHOUN CO
CARROLL CO
CASS CO
CMAHPAICN CO
{NRISttAN CO
CLARK CO
C4A1 CO
CLINTON CO
COLES CO
COOK CO
CRAM FOR ft CO
CUMBERLAND CO
RE KALB CO
RE MITT CO
BOUCLAt CO
RH PACE CO
CRCAR CO
ERKARRS CO
EFFlNtMAH CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 {mg/m!)
14. B*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.* (yg/m3)
*
*
*
67**
323*
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
28
29
131
63
25
175
-------
State
Illinois
County
FAYETTE CO
FORO CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
CALLATIN CO
CBEENE CO
CRUNDY CO
HAMILTON CO
HANCOCK CO
HARDIN CO
HENDERSON CO
HENRY CO
lioeuois co
JACKSON CO
JASPER CO
JEFFERSON CO
JERSEY CO
JO DAVIESS CO
JOHNSON CO
KANE CO
KINKAKEE CO
KENDALL CO
KNOI CO
LAKE CO
LA SALLE CO
LAWRENCE CO
LEE CO
LIVINGSTON CO
LOCAN CO
MC DONOU6H CO
MC HENRY CO
MC LEAN CO
MACON CO
MACOUPIN CO
MADISON CO
MARION tfl
MARSHALL CO
MASON CO
MASSAC CO
MENARD CO
MERCER CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MOR6AN CO
MOULTRIE CO
OSLE CO
PEORIA CO
PERRY CO
PIATT CO
PIKE CO
POPE CO
PULASKI CO
PUTNAM CO
RANDOLPH CO
RICHLAND CO
ROCK ISLAND CO
ST CLAIR CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.' (mg/m"3)
13.4
8.4 *
9.4
5.9
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
233 *
155 *
*
247 *
286 *
282 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (gg/m3)
34
21
35
49
31
40
38
59
38
27
49
53
65
176
-------
State
Illinois
Indiana
County
SALINE CO
SANCANON CO
SCNUYLER CO
SCOTT CO
SHELBY CO
STARK CO
STEFHENSON CO
TAIEUELL CO
MHION CO
VERMILION CO
UIIASN CO
MAR* EN CO
WASHINGTON CO
MATNE CO
WHITE CO
MMITESIDE CO
HILL CO
WILLIAMSON CO
W1NNEBAGO CO
Moooroto co
ADAMS CO
ALLEN CO
BARTHOLOMEW CO
BENTON CO
BLACKfOftD CO
BOONE CO
BROWN CO
CARROLL CO
CASS CO
CLARK CO
CLAV co
CLINTON CO
CRAWFORD CO
DAVIESS CO
DEARBORN CO
DECATUft C6
DE KALB CO
DELAWARE CO
DUBOIS CO
ELKHART CO
FATETTE co
FLOTB CO
FOUNTAIN CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
ClfeiON C6
CRANT CO
CREENE CO
HAMILTON CO
HANCOCK CO
HARRISON CO
HENDR1CKS CO
MENRV CO
HOWARD CO
HUNT INC TON CO
JACKSON CO
JASPER CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/iri')
5.8
5.1
2nd max 1-hr Q3
cone.2 (pg/m3)
274*
*
304*
*
*
*
*
294*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
44
30
62
28
39
39
28
36
50
24
58
40
IB
20
177
-------
State
Indiana
Iowa
County
JAY CO
JEFFERSON CO
JENNINGS CO
J4HNSON CO
KNOI CO
•OSCIUSKO CO
LAGRANGE CO
LAKE CO
L4 PORTE CO
LAWRENCE CO
MADISON CO
MARION CO
MARSHALL CO
MARTIN CO
MIAMI co
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
NEWTON CO
NOBLE CO
OHIO CO
ORANGE CO
OMEN CO
PARKE CO
PERRY CO
PJKfc CO
PORTER CO
POSEY CO
PULASKI CO
PUTNAM CO
RANDOLPH CO
RIPLEY CO
RUSH CO
ST JOSEPH CO
SCOTT CO
SHELBY CO
SPENCER CO
STARKE CO
STEUBEN CO
SULLIVAN CO
SWITZERLAND co
1IPPECANOE CO
TIPTON CO
UNION CO
WANDERBURGH CO
VERM^LilON CO
¥160 CO
MABASH CO
WARREN CO
WARRICK CO
WASHINGTON CO
WAYNE CO
WELLS CO
WHITE CO
WMITLEY CO
AMIR CO
MAMS CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
45.9 *
144 *
2.9
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m3)
513 *
529 *
*
*
227 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
31
24
67
32
34
71
45
22
55
34
60
48
178
-------
State
Iowa
County
ALLAMAKEE CO
A»PANOOSE CO
AMDUBON CO
BENTON CO
•LACK HAWK CO
•DONE CO
••EMEU CO
BUCHANAN CO
•UENA VISTA CO
BUTLER CO
CALHOUN CO
CARROLL CO
CASS CO
CEDAR CO
CERRO COROO CO
CHEROKEE CO
CMICKASAW CO
CLARKE CO
CLAT CO
CLAYTON CO
CLINTON CO
CRAWFORD CO
DALLAS CO
DAVIS CO
OECATUR CO
DELAWARE CO
OES HOINES CO
DICKINSON CO
DUBU0UE CO
EMMET CO
FATETTE CO
FLOTD CO
FRANKLIN CO
FREMONT CO
CREENE CO
6RUNDT CO
CUTHR1E CO
HAMILTON CO
HANCOCK CO
HARDIN CO
HARRISON CO
HENRT CO
HOWARD CO
MiMBOLDT CO
IDA CO
UwA £6
JACKSON CO
JASPER CO
JEFFERSON CO
JOHNSON CO
JONES CO
KEOKUK CO
KOSSUTH CO
LEE CO
LINN CO
LOUIS* CO
LUCAS CO
2nd max 8-hr CG
cone.1 (mg/m3)
8.7
6.6
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m')
263*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (vg/m3)
29
42
179
-------
State
Iowa
Kansas
County
LTON CO
MADISON CO
MAHASKA CO
MARIO* CO
MARSHALL CO
MILLS CO
MITCHELL CO
ACNONA CO
MflNROE CO
MONTGOHERY CO
MUSCAT1NE CO
O'BRIEN CO
OSCEOLA CO
PAGE CO
PALO ALTO CO
PLYMOUTH CO
POCAHONTAS CO
POLK CO
POTTAWATTAHIE CO
POWESHIEK CO
HlNGG&LD C6
SAC CO
SCOTT CO
SHELBY CO
SIOUX CO
STORY CO
TAMA CO
TAYLOR CO
UNION CO
VAN BUS EN CO
wAPELLft to
MARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WAYNE CO
WEBSTER CO
WINNEBA60 CO
WINNESHIEK CO
WOOOBURY CO
WORTH CO
WRIGHT CO
ALLEN CO
ANDERSON CO
ATCHISON CO
BARBER CO
BARTON CO
BOURBON CO
BROWN CO
BUTLER CO
CHASE CO
CMAUTAUOUA CO
CHEROKEE CO
CHEYENNE CO
CLARK CO
CLAY CO
CLOUD CO
COFFEV CO
COftANCHE CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
12.8*
11.0
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
229*
*
186*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3) x
53
13
22
13
180
-------
State
Kansas
County
CONLEV CO
CRAWFORD CO
•ECATUR CO
•1CK1NSON CO
•ON1PNAN CO
•OUCLAS CO
EIWAROS CO
ELK CO
ELLIS CO
ELLSWORTH CO
nbNlY (6
FOOD CO
FRANKLIN CO
6EARY CO
COVE CO
GRAHAM CO
SRANT CO
CRAY CO
CREELET CO
6REENWOOD CO
HAMILTON CO
HARPER CO
HARVEY CO
HASKELL CO
HODS EM AN CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
JEMELL CO
JOHNSON CO
KEARNEY CO
KINSMAN CO
K10WA CO
LA8ETTE CO
LANE CO
LEAVENWORTH CO
LlN<6LN CO
LINN CO
LOCAN CO
LYON CO
MC PNERSON CO
MA»16N C6
MARSHALL CO
MEAOE CO
MIAMI CO
MITCHELL CO
MONTCOMERY CO
MORRIS CO
MORTON CO
NEMANA CO
NEOSNO CO
NESS CO
NORTON CO
OSA6E CO
OSBORNE CO
OTTAWA CO
PAWNEE CO
PHILLIPS CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m'J
11.1
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (vg/rn3)
260*
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m9)
19
27
9
9
9
23
26
13
17
15
18
181
-------
State
Kansas
Kentucky
County
PCTTAWATOM1E CO
PRATT CO
• AWL INS CO
MNO CO
REPUBLIC CO
MCE CO
R1LEY CO
•OOKS CO
RUSH CO
RUSSELL CO
SALINE CO
SCOTT CO
SED6WICK CO
SEWARD CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHERIDAN CO
SHERMAN CO
SMITH CO
STAFFORD CO
STANTON CO
STEVENS CO
BURNER CO
THOMAS CO
TREGO CO
WABAUNSEE CO
WALLACE CO
WASHINGTON CO
WICHITA CO
WILSON CO
WOODSON CO
WVANDOTTE CO
AMIR CO
ALLEN CO
ANDERSON CO
BALLARD CO
BARREN CO
BATH CO
BELL CO
BOONE CO
BOURBON CO
BOYD CO
BOYLE CO
BRACKEN CO
BREATHITT CO
BRECKlNBIDGf CO
0ULLITT CO
BUTLER CO
CAL DWELL CO
CALLOWAT CO
CAMPBELL CO
CARLISLE CO
CARROLL CO
CARTER CO
CASEY CO
CHRISTIAN CO
CLARK CO
CLAT CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mq/m3)
17.8 *
11.5
12.8
10.9 *
6.9
5.6
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
240 *
150
180
260 *
244 *
263 *
225 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (vg/m3)
9
19
15
36
31
12
54
24
24
32
43
34
51
44
39
26
26
75
22
25
24
38
182
-------
State
Kentucky
County
CllNTON CO
CR1TTENDEN CO
CUMBERLAND CO
•AV1ESS CO
EIMONSON CO
ELLIOTT CO
ESTILL CO
MTETTE CO
FLEMINC CO
FLOTB CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
CALL ATI N CO
6ARRARD CO
GRANT CO
CRAVES CO
CRATSON CO
SHEEN CO
6REENUP CO
HANCOCK CO
HARD1N CO
HARLAN CO
HARRISON CO
HART CO
HENDERSON CO
HENRT CO
HICKMAN CO
HOPKINS CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
JESSAMINE CO
JOHNSON CO
KENTON CO
KNOTT CO
KMOX CO
LARUE CO
LAUREL CO
LAWRENCE CO
LEE CO
LESLIE CO
LETCHER CO
UHIS CO
LINCOLN CO
LIVIN6STON CO
LOCAN CO
LTON CO
MC CRACKEN CO
MC CREART CO
NC LEAN CO
MAPI SON CO
MACOFFIN CO
MARION CO
MARSHALL CO
MARTIN CO
MASON CO
ME ABE CO
MENIFEE CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m9)
6.3
8.6
4.1
22.4*
9.0
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m3)
206
265*
292*
343*
*
200
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/rn')
57
36
27
39
25
18
19
33
28
30
19
33
46
24
76
49
37
32
• m
18
20
48
23
26
28
183
-------
State
Kentucky
Louisiana
County
MERCER CO
METCALFE CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
MIMLENBER6 CO
NELSON CO
NICHOLAS CO
ONIO CO
01 OH AH CO
OMEN CO
OWSLEV CO
PENDLETON CO
PERRY CO
PIKE CO
POWELL CO
PULASKI CO
ROBERTSON CO
ROCKCASTLE CO
ROWAN CO
RUSSELL CO
SCOTT CO
SHELBY CO
SJNPSON CO
SPENCER CO
TAYLOR CO
TOOO CO
TRIGC CO
TRIMBLE CO
UNION CO
WARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WAYNE CO
WEBSTER CO
WNITLEY CO
WOLFE CO
WOODFORD CO
ACADIA PAR
ALLEN PAR
ASCENSION PAR
ASSUMPTION PAR
AVOVELLES PAR
6CAURC6ARO PAR
BIENVILLE PAR
BOSSIER PAR
CA»»0 PAR
CALCASIEU PAR
CALtWELL PA»
CAMERON PAR
CATAHOULA PAR
CLAIBORNE PAR
CONCORDIA PAR
»E SOTO PAR
EAST BATON ROU6E PAR
EAST CARROLL PAR
EAST fELICIANA PAR
EVANCE11NE PAR
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (gg/m3")
*
*
*
269*
259 *
361*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (vig/m3)
31
24
28
19
20
36
33
28
18
31
17
15
30
42
25
96
52
184
-------
State
Louisiana
Maine
County
FRANKLIN PAR
CRANT PAR
IBERIA PAR
1BERVILLE PAR
JACKSON PA*
JEftERSON PAR
MMERSON DAVIS PAR
LAFAYETTE PAR
LAFOURCHE PAR
LA SALLE PAP
LINCOLN PAR
LIVINGSTON PAR
MADISON PAR
MORENOUSE PAR
NATCNITOCHES PAR
ORLEANS PAR
OUACN1TA PAR
PIAQUEMINES PAR
POINTE COUPFE PAR
•AP1DES PAR
RE6 MVER PAR
RICHLAND PAR
ST BERNARD PAR
ST CHARLES PAR
ST HELENA P«R
SI JAMES PAP
ST JOHN THE BAPTIST PAI
ST LANDRT PAR
ST MARTIN PAR
ST MART PAR
ST TAMMANT PAR
SA81NE PAR
TAN6IPAHOA PAR
TENSAS PAR
TERREBONNE PAR
UNION PAR
VERMILION PAR
VERNON PAR
WASHINGTON PAR
WEBSTER PAR
NEST BATON ROUSE PAR
NEST CARROLL PAR
WEST FELICIANA PAR
UfM PAB
AMDROSCOG6IN CO
AlOOSTOOK CO
CUMBERLAND CO
FRANKLIN CO
HANCOCK CO
KENNEBEC CO
KNOI CO
LINCOLN CO
OIFORD CO
P£NOBSCOT CO
F1SCATAAU1S CO
SACADAMOC CO
S0WERSET CO
nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
18.1 *
15.6*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (wg/m')
255*
312*
*
*
253*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
450»
*
Arithmetic mean N0¥
cone.3 (pg/m3) x
32
39
33
47
6
36
44
185
-------
£tate
Maine
Maryland
Mass.
Michigan
-r"HSfci—-Mg
County
WALDO CO
WASHINGTON CO
W)»K CO
AILECANY CO
ANNE ARUNDEL CO
BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE CO
CALVERT CO
CAROLINE CO
CARROLL CO
CtCIL CO
CHARLES CO
DORCHESTER CO
FREDERICK CO
6ARRETT CO
HARFORD CO
HOWARD co
KENT CO
MONTGOMERY CO
PRINCE 6EOR6ES CO
QUEEN ANNES CO
SI HARTS CO
SOMERSET CO
TALBOT CO
WASHINGTON CO
UICOHICO CO
WORCESTER CO
GARNSTABLE
BERKSHIRE
BRISTOL
DUKES
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
HAHPDEN
HAMPSHIRE
MIDDLESEX
NANTUCKET
NORFOLK
PLYMOUTH
SUFFOLK
WORCHESTER
BERKSHIRE APCD
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
MERRIHACK VALLEY APCD
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
PIONEER VALLEY APCD
SOUTHEASTERN MASS.
At CON A CO
AL6ER CO
ALLE6AN CO
JM-PEH^ 00
»9*f[RLM CO
ABEW^srco
6ARACA CO
BARRY CO
• AY CO
BCNZIE CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
9.4*
7.3
*
13.0
11.3*
7.9*
*
*
*
*
*
2nd max 1-hr Os
cone.2 (yg/m3)
*
*
*
*
294*
*
412*
*
*
*
*
333*
353*
Ik
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
Tt
*
*
*
250*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
44
61
66
21
28
38
25
31
61
26
41
36
90
77
22
36
186
-------
State
it Michigan
County
OERRIEN CO
BRANCH CO
CALHOUN CO
CASS CO
CNARLEVOJI CO
CHEBOYCAN CO
CMIPPEVA CO
Ct«*E CO
CLINTOM CO
ClAyroRD co
KELT A CO
•1CKINSON CO
EATON CO
EMMET CO
CENESEE CO
CLADWIN CO
COCEBIC CO
CRAND TRAVERSE CO
CRATIOT CO
N1LLSDALE CO
NOUGHT ON CO
HURON CO
INCH AM CO
IONIA CO
IOSCO CO
IRON CO
ISABELLA CO
JACKSON CO
KALAMAZOO CO
KALKASKA CO
RENT CO
KEMEENAU CO
LAKE CO
LAPEER CO
LEELANAU CO
IENANEE CO
L1VINCSTON CO
LUCE CO
MACK IN AC CO
MACOMB CO
MANISTEE CO
MARflUETTE CO
MASON CO
MECOSTA CO
•CNOM1MFF ttt
MIDLAND CO
NISSAUKEE CO
MONROE CO
MONT CALM CO
ffOMTMORENCV f°
MUSK ECO N CO
•EWATCO CO
OAKLAND CO
MEANA CO
OUTONACON CO
OCCEOLA CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/ma)
6.5
12.2*
8.8*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m1)
*
*
*
*
*
*
213*
*
*
186*
*
*
*
231*
*
*
*
431*
69*
*
*
*
*
280*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3) *
57
58
70
63
24
7J
34
124
187
-------
State
Michigan
Minnesota
County
OS CO DA CO
OTSEGO CO
OTTAWA CO
MESAUE ISLE CO
•OSCONRON CO
ST CLAIR CO
ST JOSEPH CO
SAG1NAW CO
SANILAC CO
SCHOOL CRAFT CO
SHIAWASSEE CO
TUSCOLA co
««N BO REN CO
WASHTENAW CO
WAYNE CO
WEirORD CO
A1TK1N CO
AMOKA CO
BECKER CO
BELTRAMI CO
BENTON CO
BIG STONE CO
BLUE EARTH CO
BROWN co
CARLTON CO
CARVER CO
CASS CO
O4IPPEUA CO
CHISA60 CO
CLAT CO
CLEARWATER co
COOK CO
COTTONWOOD CO
CROW WING CO
DAKOTA CO
DODGE CO
DOUGLAS CO
FARI6AULT CO
FILLNORE CO
FREEBORN CO
GOODHUE CO
GRANT CO
NENHEMN CO
HOUSTON CO
NUBBARD CO
1SANTI CO
1TASCA CO
JACKSON CO
KANABEC CO
KANDITOMI CO
KITTSON CO
KCoCMlCHiNt CO
LAC OUI PAftlE CO
LAKE CO
LAKE Of THE WOODS CO
IE SUEUR CO
LINCOLN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
7.9
20.7*
18.3*
*
*
*
*
5.5*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m3)
*
451*
*
*
*
*
*
284*
210*
*
*
*
188*
196*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3)
95
74
76
5
40
69
6
188
-------
State
Minnesota
Hiss.
County
IVON CO
MC LEOD CO
NAHNOHEN CO
MARSHALL CO
MARTIN CO
MEEKER CO
M1LLE LACS CO
MORRISON CO
MOWER CO
MURRAY CO
NlCOLLtt £6
NOBLES CO
NORMAN CO
OLMSTED CO
OTTER TAIL CO
PENNINGTON CO
PINE CO
FIRESTONE CO
POLK CO
POPE CO
RAMSEY CO
RED LAKE CO
REDWOOD CO
RENV1LLE CO
RICE CO
ROCK CO
ROSEAU CO
ST LOUIS CO
SCOTT CO
SHERBURNE CO
SIBLET CO
STEARNS CO
STEELE CO
STEVENS CO
SWIFT CO
TODD CO
TRAVERSE CO
WABASNA CO
WADENA CO
WASECA CO
WASHINGTON fO
WATONWAN CO
W ILK IN CO
W1NONA CO
MJIItHT CO
YELLOW MEDICINE CO
MANS CO
ALCORN CO
AMITE CO
ATTALA CO
BENTON CO
BOLIVAR CO
CALHOUN CO
CARROLL CO
CMICKASAW CO
CMOCTAW CO
CLA1BORNE CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m8)
11.7*
13.2*
17.3*
*
20.7*
*
*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/ms)
Wl
1156*
*
*
*
*
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3) x
18
58
28
15
27
40
189
-------
State
Miss.
County
CLARKE CO
CLAY CO
CO AH OK A CO
COPIAH CO
COVINCTON CO
»E SOTO CO
FORREST CO
fAANKLIN CO
S*OR6E CO
SiEENE CO
GRENADA CO
HANCOCK CO
HARRISON CO
HINDS CO
HOLMES CO
HUMPHREYS CO
1SSAQUENA CO
1TAUAMBA CO
JACKSON CO
JASPER CO
JSFFERSON CO
JEFFERSON DAVIS CO
JONES CO
KEBPER CO
LAFAYETTE CO
LAHAR CO
LAUDERDALE CO
LAWRENCE CO
LEAKE CO
LEE CO
^lEFLORE CO
LINCOLN CO
LOWNDES CO
MADISON CO
HAR10N CO
~MS5H»LL CO
MONROE CO
HONT60MERY CO
KESM06A CO
TEUTON CO
MGXUBEE CO
OKTIBBEHA CO
PANOLA CO
PEARL RIVER CO
P£»BV CO
">1KE CO
POMTOTOC CO
P8ENTISS CO
«S«JTHAN CO
SANKIN CO
* S
-------
State
i8 Miss.
Missouri
County
TATE CO
TIPPAH CO
11SHMINCO CO
TUNICA CO
UNION CO
WARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
HATNE CO
HCBSTER CO
WILKINSON {6
WINSTON CO
YALOBUSHA CO
YAZOO CO
AIAIR CO
ANDREW CO
ATCNISON CO
AUDHAIN CO
BARRY CO
•ARTON CO
BATES CO
BCNTON CO
BOLLIN6ER CO
BOONE CO
BUCHANAN CO
BUTLER CO
CALDWELL CO
CALLAWAT CO
CAADEN CO
CAPE 6IRARDEAU CO
CARROLL CO
CARTER CO
CASS CO
CEDAR CO
CMARITON CO
CHRISTIAN to
CLARK CO
CLAY CO
CLINTON CO
COLE CO
COOPER CO
CRAWFORD CO
•ADE CO
• ALL AS CO
BAVIESS CO
IE KA1B CO
BENT CO
DOU6LAS CO
BUNKL1N CO
FRANKLIN CO
GASCONADE CO
SENTRY CO
CREENE CO
CftUNDV CO
HARRISON CO
HENRY CO
NICK OB V CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m"J)
3.3
15.1
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/ms)
216*
*
151
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
17
5
27
62
-—
191
-------
State
Missouri
County
MOLT CO
HOWARD CO
NOVELL CO
IBON CO
JACKSON CO
jasPtH to
JEFFERSON CO
JOHNSON CO
KNOX CO
LACLEDE CO
LAFAYETTE co
LAURENCE CO
LEWIS CO
LINCOLN CO
LINN CO
LIVINGSTON CO
MC DONALD CO
BACON CO
MADISON CO
BABIES CO
MARION CO
MERCER CO
MILLER CO
MISSISSIPPI CO
MONITEAU CO
MONROE co
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
NEW MADRID CO
NEWTON CO
NODAWAT CO
OREGON CO
OSA6E CO
OZARK CO
PEH1SCOT CO
PERRY CO
PETTIS CO
PHELPS CO
PIKE CO
PLATTE CO
POLK CO
PULASKI CO
PUTNAM CO
RALLS CO
RANDOLPH CO
• 4V CO
•ETNOLDS CO
RIPLET CO
ST CHARLES CO
ST CLAIR CO
FRAN COIS to
ST LOUIS
ST LOUIS CO
STE GENEV1EVE CO
SALINE CO
SCHUTLER CO
SCOTLAND CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m*)
5.9
15.9 *
*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
*
*
*
86*
382 *
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3)
24
142
52
192
-------
State
County
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m9)
Arithmettc, mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
Missouri
SCOTT CO
SHANNON CO
tNELBY CO
ST4DDARD CO
STONE CO
SULLIVAN CO
TANET CO
TIIAS co
VERNON CO
WARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WATNE CO
WEBSTER CO
WORTH CO
WRIGHT CO
Montana
BEAVERMEAD CO
Bit NORN CO
BLAINE CO
MOADWATER CO
CARBON CO
CARTER CO
j CASCADE CO
I CMOUTEAU CO
CUSTER CO
DANIELS CO
OAWSON CO
OEER LODGE CO
FALLON CO
FERGUS CO
FLAT HEAD CO
7.5
GALLAT IN CO
GARFIELD CO
GLACIER CO
GOLDEN VALL FT CO
GRANITE CO
HILL T9
JEFFERSON CO
JUDITH BASIN CO
LAKE CO
LEWIS AND CLARK CO
LIBERTY CO
LINCOLN CO
MC CONE CO
MADISON CO
MEA6HER CO
MINERAL CO
NISSOULA CO
FUISSELSNELL CO
PARK CO
PETROLEUM CO
PHILLIPS CO
PONDERA CO
POWDER RIVER CO
POWELL CO
PRAIRIE CO
RAVAUI CO
RJCMLAND CO
25.2 *
193
-------
State
Montana
Nebraska
County
ROOSEVELT CO
ROSEBUD CO
SANDERS CO
SHERIDAN CO
SILVER BOW CO
STILLWATER CO
SMEET GRASS CO
TETON CO
TOOLE CO
TREASURE CO
VALLEY CO
UMEATLAND CO
UIBAUX CO
YELLOWSTONE CO
ADAMS CO
ANTELOPE CO
ARTHUR CO
BANNER CO
BLA1NE CO
BOONE CO
BOX BUTTE CO
BOTO CO
BROWN CO
BUFFALO CO
BURT CO
BUTLER CO
CASS CO
CEDAR CO
CHASE CO
CHERRT CO
CHETENNE CO
CLAT CO
COLFAX CO
CURING CO
CUSTER CO
DAKOTA CO
OAWES CO
DAWSON CO
DEUEL CO
OIXON CO
DOD6E CO
DOUGLAS CO
DUNDV CO
FILLMORE CO
FRANKLIN CO
FRONTIER CO
FURNAS CO
MCE CO
GARDEN CO
GARFIELD CO
60SPER CO
GRANT CO
GREELET CO
HALL CO
HAMILTON CO
HA ULAN CO
HATES CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m')
4.8
12.2*
16.1*
2nd max 1-hr (h
cone.2 (yg/m3)
235
302
133*
186*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
65
15
57
58
194
-------
State
Nebraska
Nevada
County
HITCHCOCK CO
HOLT CO
HOOKER CO
HOWARD CO
JEM Eft SON CO
JOHNSON tO
KCARNEf CO
KEITH CO
KEYA PAN* CO
KIMBALl CO
KNOI CO
LANCASTER CO
LINCOLN CO
LOGAN CO
LfiUP CO
KC PHERSON CO
MADISON CO
MERRICK CO
MORRILL CO
NANCE CO
NfcRAHA CD
NUCKOLLS CO
OTOE CO
PAWNEE CO
PERKINS CO
PNELPS CO
PIERCE CO
PLATTE CO
POLK CO
RED WILLOW CO
RICHARDSON CO
ROCK CO
SALINE CO
SARPT CO
SAUNDERS CO
SCOTTS BLUFF CO
SEWARD CO
SHERIDAN CO
SHERMAN CO
SIOUI CO
STANTON CO
TMATER CO
THOMAS CO
TNURSTON CO
VALLEV CO
WASHINGTON CO
WATNE CO
WEBSTER CO
WHEELER CO
fORK CO
CARSON CITT
CHURCHILL CO
CLARK CO
•OU6LAS CO
ELKO CO
ESMEHAtM CO
EUREKA CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m*)
17.3*
*
12.8 *
12.9 *
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (wg/m3)
*
*
664 *
122*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
35
54
16
30
195
-------
State
New Mexic
New York
County
MC K1NLEY CO
NORA CO
OTERO CO
•HAT CO
•10 ARR1BA CO
ROOSEYELT CO
SANDOVAL CO
SAN JUAN CO
SAN MIGUEL CO
SANTA FE CO
SIERRA CO
SfiCORRO CO
TAGS CO
TORRANCE CO
U«ION CO
VALENCIA CO
ALBANY CO
ALLE6ANT CO
BRONX CO
BROOKE CO
CATTARAU6US CO
CAVUGA CO
CHAUTAUOUA CO
CHEMUNG CO
CHENANGO CO
CLINTON CO
COLUMBIA CO
CORTLANO CO
DELAWARE CO
DUTCHESS CO
ERIE CO
ESSEX CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
6ENESEE CO
GREENE CO
HAMILTON CO
MERK1MER CO
JEFFERSON CO
KINGS CO
LEWIS CO
L1V1N6STON CO
MADISON CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
NASSAU CO
NEW YORK CO
NIAGARA CO
Ofc El DA CO
ONONDA6A CO
ONTARIO CO
ORANGE CO
ORLEANS CO
OSUE60 CO
OTSEGO CO
PUTNAM CO
•UEENS CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (ma/m3)
7.8 *
10.2 *
7.5 *
3.7
2.8
10.7 *
6.9 *
4.6 *
12.2 *
23.9 *
10.0
4.6
9.3 *
* 5.5*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
245 *
104
*
*
+
261 *
245
*
*
*
314 *
253 *
*
384 *
425 *
284 *
239
267 *
*
*
*
*
* 255*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3) x
39
21
79
97
52
78
63
71
196
-------
State
~ Nevada
New Hamp.
New Jerse>
" New Hex ice
County
HUMBOLDT CO
LANDER CO
LINCOLN CO
LVON CO
MINERAL CO
NVt (6
PERSH1NG CO
STOREY CO
MASHOE CO
HMITE PINE CO
BCLKNAP CO
CARROLL CO
CHESHIRE CO
COOS CO
GRAF TON CO
NILLSBOROUGH CO
HERRIHACK CO
ROCK1N6HAH CO
STRAFFORO CO
SULLIVAN CO
ATLANTIC CO
BERGEN CO
BURLINGTON CO
CAMDEN CO
CAPE HAT CO
CUMBERLAND CO
ESSEX CO
GLOUCESTER CO
HUDSON CO
HUNTER DON CO
MERCER CO
MIDDLESEX CO
MONMOUTH CO
MORRIS CO
OCEAN CO
PASSAIC CO
SALEM CO
SOMERSET CO
SUSSEX CO
UNION CO
WARREN CO
BERNAL1LLO CO
CATRON CO
CMAVES CO
COL FAX CO
CURRT CO
DE BACA CO
DONA ANA CO
E*DT CO
CRANT CO
CUADALUPE CO
HARDING CO
HIDALGO CO
HA CO
LINCOLN CO
t«S ALAMOS CO
LUNA CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mci/ms)
21.8 *
6.9
9.6 *
11.0 *
13.4 *
15.2 *
15.8 *
13.2
11.5
23.0 *
9.4 "
12.7
13.2
24.5
17.4
12.7
9.5
12.2
22.2 *
8.4
25.2 *
8.1
11.6 *
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/ms)
980 *
*
*
288 *
157
18 *
333 '
*
451 *
*
*
*
*
306 *
*
*
it
306 *
*
229 '
*
261 *
*
*
*
*400 *
*
*
294 *
Arithmetic mean NOV
cone.8 (pg/m3) x
63
28
27
46-
29
35
27
55
67
33
63
38
54
81
47
40
21
25
29
27
20
17
26
31
197
-------
State
New York
N. Carol in
County
RENSSELAER CO
RICHMOND CO
DOCKLAND CO
ST. LAWRENCE CO
SMAT06A CO
SCHENECTADT CO
SCHOHARIE CO
SCHUYLER CO
SENECA CO
STEUBEN CO
SUFFOLK CO
SULLIVAN CO
7106* CO
TOMPK1NS CO
ULSTER CO
VARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
UATNE CO
UESTCHESTER CO
WYOMING CO
TATES CO
AlAMANCE CO
ALEXANDER CO
ALLE6HANT CO
ANSON CO
ASHE CO
AVERT CO
BEAUFORT CO
BERTIE CO
BLADEN CO
BRUNSyiCK CO
BUNCOMBE CO
BURKE CO
CABARRUS CO
CALDWELL CO
CAMDEN CO
CARtERET CO
CASUELL CO
CATAUBA CO
CHATHAM CO
CHEROKEE CO
CHOW AN CO
CLAT CO
CLEVELAND CO
COLUMBUS CO
CRAVEN CO
CUMBERLAND co
CURRITUCK co
•ARE CO
DAVIDSON CO
DAVIE CO
DUPLIN CO
DURHAM CO
EDSECOMBE CO
FORSTTH CO
FRANKLIN CO
(AS TOM CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone. ' (mq/m37
4.0 *
*
it
8.5 *
4.2
9.2 *
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
245 *
294 *
*
*
*
•V
*
410 '
100 *
239
*
361 *
*
*
180
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
55
255
26
39
62
37
22
12
10
13
25
38
31
54
67
198
-------
State
N. Carol in
County
BATES CO
CRAHAN CO
(•AN VI LIE CO
GREENE CO
EtllLfORD CO
NALIFAI CO
NARNETT CO
MYWOOO CO
HENDERSON CO
HERTFORD CO
HOKE CO
HfDE CO
1REDELL CO
JACKSON CO
JOHNSTON CO
JONES CO
LEE CO
LENOIR CO
LINCOLN CO
NC DOW ELL CO
PACON CO
MADISON CO
MARTIN CO
MECKLENBURG CO
MITCHELL CO
MNTCANERV co
MOORE CO
NASH CO
NEU HANOVER CO
NORTHAMPTON CO
ONSLOw CO
ORANGE CO
PAMLICO CO
PASOUOTANK CO
PENDER CO
PERBUIMANS CO
PERSON CO
PITT CO
POLK CO
RANDOLPH CO
RICHMOND CO
ROBESON CO
ROCKINGHAH CO
ROMAN CO
RUTHERFORD CO
IMP SOW CO
SCOTLAND CO
STANLT CO
STOKES CO
SIIRRV CO
SWAIN CO
TRANSTLVANIA CO
T1RRELL CO
UNION CO
VANCE CO
HAKE CO
NARREN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 fng/m9 )
16.4*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (vg/m3)
274*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
25
2U
47
34
15
25
18
37
36
53
27
24
29
14
17
30
27
34
33
34
26
36
27
37
199
-------
State
N. Caroling
•N. Dakota
County
WASHINGTON CO
UATAUGA CO
WAYNE CO
H1LKES CO
WILSON CO
VADKIN CO
YANCEY CO
ADAMS CO
BARNES CO
BENSON CO
BILL1N6S CO
GOTTINEAU CO
BOWMAN CO
BURKE CO
BUftlEIGH CO
CASS CO
CAVALIER CO
DICKEY CO
DIVIDE CO
»UNN CO
EDDY CO
EMNONS CO
fOSTER CO
GOLDEN VALLEY CO
GRAND FORKS CO
GRANT CO
GRI6GS CO
MfcTTlNGER CO
K16DER CO
L* MOURE CO
LOGAN CO
MC HENRY CO
MC 1NTOSH CO
MC KEN? IE CO
MC LEAN CO
MERCER CO
MORTON CO
MOUNTRAIL co
NELSON CO
OLIVER CO
P£MBINA CO
PIERCE CO
BAMSEV CO
•ANSOM CO
•EMV1LLE CO
•1CHIAND CO
•OLETTE CO
SARGENT CO
SHERIDAN CO
SIOUI CO
SLOPE CO
STARK CO
STEELE 46
STUTSMAN CO
TOWNER CO
T8AILL CO
WALSH CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mq/m3)
2nd max 1-hr Os
cone.2 (yg/m3)
196
137
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3) x
17
22
24
30
4
3
4
19
3
13
19
6
8
200
-------
State
N. Dakota
Ohio
County
HARD CO
HELLS CO
WILLIAMS CO
•••MS CO
ALLEN CO
ASNLANO CO
ASHTABUL* CO
ATHENS CO
AUCLA1ZE CO
BELMONT CO
BROUN CO
BUTLER CO
CARROLL CO
CHAMPAIGN CO
CLARK CO
CLERMONT CO
CLINTON CO
COLUMBIAN A CO
SHOCTON ID
CRAWFORD CO
CUTAH06A CO
DARKE CO
DEFIANCE CO
DELAWARE CO
ERIE CO
FAIRFIELD CO
FATETTE CO
fRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
GALLIA CO
6EAUGA CO
CREENE CO
CIICBUSFV rn
HAMILTON CO
HANCOCK CO
HARD1N CO
HARRISON CO
HENRT CO
HIGHLAND CO
HOCK INC CO
HOLMES CO
HURON CO
J • CK SON CO
JErrCiibN Co
KNOI CO
LME CO
LAURENCE CO
L1CKINC CO
UC«N Cd
LORAIN CO
LUCAS CO
MADISON CO
MAHONINC CO
MARION CO
MEDINA CO
MEICS CO
MERCER CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
3.3
11.9*
12.7 *
18.3 *
43.6 A
8.0 *
9.5 *
*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
265*
304 *
*
*
310 *
*
*
363 *
382*
*
*
196*
*
*
*
216*
*
*
386 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
314*
337*
*
*
269*
284*
271*
269*
Arithmetic mean N0y
cone.3 (vg/m3) *
43
51
25
34
61
19
33
50
30
58
?R
40
115
34
24
ey
38
17
32
58
52
26
40
57
83
39
21
201
-------
State
Ohio
Oklahoma
County
MIAMI CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
MORROW co
MWSKIN6UM CO
NOBLE CO
OTTAWA CO
PAUL DING CO
P£RR» CO
PICKAUAY CO
PIKE CO
PORTAGE CO
PREBLE CO
PUTNAM CO
RICHLAND CO
ROSS CO
SAN DUSKY CO
SCIOTO CO
SENECA CO
SHELBY to
STARK CO
SUMMIT CO
TRUMBULL CO
TUSCARAWAS co
UNION CO
VAN WEST CO
VINTON CO
UARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WAYNE CO
WILLIAMS CO
WOOD CO
W1ANDOT CO
A6A1R CO
ALFALM CO
ATOKA CO
BEAVER CO
8ECKHAM CO
8LAINE CO
BRYAN CO
CADDO CO
CANADIAN CO
CARTER CO
CHEROKEE CO
CMOCTAU CO
CIMARRON CO
CLEVELAND CO
COAL CO
COMANCHE CO
COTTON CO
CRAI6 CO
CREEK CO
CUSTER CO
ftELAUARE CO
•EMET CO
ELLIS CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/mj)
16.7 *
7.3
9.5*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
127 *
363 *
*
*
*
353*
*
*
*
*
*
323*
284*
*
*
294 *
4
-*•
1011*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3)
24
41
62
26
39
45
33
84
59
62
18
37
27
30
6
7
202
-------
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
County
CARF1ELO CO
CARV1N CO
M»6T CO
CIANT CO
CREER CO
HARMON CO
HARPER CO
MASK ELL CO
NUCHES CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
JOHNSTON CO
MT CO
KINGFISHER CO
•IOWA CO
LATIHER CO
LE FLORE CO
LINCOLN CO
L06AN CO
LOVE CO
HC CLAIN CO
MC CURTAIN CO
NC 1NTOSH CO
MAJOR CO
MARSHALL CO
MATES CO
MHRRAT CO
MUSK06EE CO
NOBLE CO
NOWATA CO
OKtUSKtE C6
OKLAHOMA CO
OKNULCEE CO
OSA6E CO
OTTAWA CO
PAWNEE CO
PAYNE CO
P1TTS8UR6 CO
PONTOTOC CO
POTTAWATOMIF CO
PUSHMATAHA CO
ROCER MILLS CO
R06ERS CO
SEMINOLE CO
SEOUOTAH CO
STEPHENS CO
TEIAS CO
T1LLMAN CO
TAILS A CO
HACONER CO
WASHlNCtAN CO
HASHITA CO
WOODS CO
WOODWARD CO
BAKER CO
•ENTON CO
C4.ACKAMAS CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
12.8
12.7*
*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/mj)
213*
325*
302*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
41
27
53
19
11
119
12
W
203
-------
State
Oregon
11 Penn.
County
CLATSOP CO
COLUMBIA CO
COOS CO
CROOK CO
CURRT CO
DESCMUTES CO
DOUGLAS CO
CILLIAM CO
(•ANT CO
HARNEY CO
MOD RIVER CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
JOSEPHINE CO
KLAMATH CO
LAKE CO
LANE CO
LINCOLN CO
LINN CO
MALHEUR CO
MARION CO
MORROU CO
MULTNOMAN CO
POLK CO
SHERMAN CO
TILLAMOOK CO
UMATILLA CO
UNION CO
MALLOUA CO
WASCO CO
WASHINGTON CO
WHEELER CO
tAMHILL CO
MAMS CO
ALLECHENV CO
ARMSTRONG CO
BEAVER CO
BEDFORD CO
BERKS CO
BLAIR CO
BRADFORD CO
BUCKS CO
BUTLER CO
CAMBRIA CO
CAMERON CO
CARBON CO
CENTRE CO
CHESTER CO
CLARION CO
CLEARFIELD CO
CLINTON CO
COLUMBIA CO
CRAWFORD CO
CUMBERLAND CO
DAUPHIN CO
B£LAUARE CO
EC.* CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mq/m3 )
*
11.5 *
11.6 *
17.4 *
16.7*
2nd max 1-hr Oa
cone.2 (yg/m3)
*
226 *
318 *
165 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*-
*
*
*
*
*
ir
*
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3) x
71
204
-------
State
Penn.
Rhode Isl.
S. Carollrv
County
ERIE CO
FATETTE CO
F«REST CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
SREENE CO
HUNTINGDON CO
INDIANA CO
JEFFERSON CO
JUNJATA CO
LACKAHANNA CO
LANCASTER CO
LAWRENCE CO
LEBANON CO
LEH1CH CO
LUZERNE tO
L1COM1NG CO
NC KEAN CO
MERCER CO
H1FFLIN CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MONTOUR CO
NORTHAMPTON CO
NORTHUMBERLAND CO
PERRY CO
PHILADELPHIA CO
PIKE CO
POTTER CO
SCHUTLKILL CO
SNTDER CO
SOMERSET CO
SULLIVAN CO
SUSOUEHANNA CO
TIOGA CO
UNION CO
VENANGO CO
UARREN CO
HASHINCTON CO
HATNE CO
WESTMORELAND CO
NtOMING CO
TURK CO
BRISTOL CO
KENT CO
NEWPORT CO
PROVIDENCE CO
WASHINGTON CO
ABBEVILLE CO
AIKEN CO
ALLENDALE CO
ANDERSON CO
BAMBERC CO
BARNHELL CO
BEAUFORT CO
•ERKELET CO
CALNOUN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mq/in')
14.4 *
14.3 *
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (wg/m3)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
372*
*
*
*
w
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
£
*
*
372*
*
382*
*
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (wg/m3)
99
80
15
40
38
17
26
205
-------
State
S. Carol in
S. Dakota
County
^CHARLESTON CO
CHEROKEE CO
CHESTER CO
CHESTERflELD CO
CLARENDON CO
COLLETON CO
DARLINGTON CO
•1LLON CO
DORCHESTER CO
EtGEFIELD CO
FAIRFIELO CO
FLORENCE CO
GEORGETOWN CO
GREENVILLE CO
GREENWOOD CO
NAHPTON CO
HOBBY CO
JASPER CO
KERSHAU CO
LANCASTER CO
LAURENS CO
LEE CO
LEXINGTON CO
MC CORMICK CO
MARION CO
MARLBORO CO
NEWBERRT CO
OCONEE CO
OBAN6EBUR6 CO
P1CKENS CO
RJCHLANO CO
SALUDA CO
SFARTANBURG CO
SUMTER CO
UNION CO
WILLlAMSBURe CO
TORK CO
AURORA CO
BEAOLE CO
BENNETT CO
BON HO* RE CO
BROOKINGS CO
BROUN CO
BRULE CO
BUFFALO CO
BUTTE CO
CAMPBELL CO
CMARLES MIX CO
CLARK CO
CLAT CO
COBIN6TOH CO
CORSON CO
CUSTER CO
» AVI SON CO
• AT CO
•fUCL CO
•(MET CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mn/m3 )
7.6
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (wg/m3)
*
i
10.8*
13.8 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
38
38
31
44
27
28
i 27
32
36
*
305 "
300 *
40
44
30
33
45
63
39
37
53
3 -
206
-------
State
S. Dakota
Tennessee
County
BOUCLAS CO
E (NUMBS CO
fALL RIVER CO
MULK CO
GRANT CO
CRECORY CO
NAAKON CO
• ML IN CO
HAND CO
HANSON CO
NARDINC CO
HUGHES CO
NUTCHJNSON CO
HYDE CO
JACKSON CO
JERAULD CO
JONES CO
K1N6SBURV CO
LAKE CO
LAWRENCE CO
LINCOLN CO
LYHAN CO
*C COOK CO
MC PHERSON CO
MARSHALL CO
PtEAOE CO
MELLETTE CO
MINER CO
M1NNEHAH* CO
MOODY CO
PENNIN6TON CO
PERKINS CO
POTTER CO
ROBERTS CO
SANBORN CO
'SHANNON CO
SPINK CO
STANLEY CO
SULLY CO
TOPO CO
TRIPP CO
TURNER CO
UNION CO
HALWORTH CO
HASHABAUCH CO
YANK TON CO
XIEBACH CO
ANDERSON CO
BEDfORD CO
8ENTON CO
PLEDSOE CO
BLOUNT CO
"BRADLEY CO
CAMPBELL CO
CANNON CO
CARROLL CO
CARTER CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (iroi/m*)
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (ug/ms)
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3)
a
17
27
39
31
21
207
-------
State
Tennessee
County
CUEATHAN CO
CHESTER -CO
CLA1BORNE CO
CLAY CO
COCKE CO
COFFEE CO
CftOCKETT CO
CUMBERLAND CO
DAVIDSON CO
DECATUR CO
BE KALB CO
DICK SON CO
DYER CO
F.AYETTE CO
FENTRESS CO
rBANKLlN CO
GIBSON CO
GILES CO
GaAINCER CO
GREENE CO
6BUNDY CO
HAMBLEN CO
HAMILTON CO
HANCOCK CO
HARDEMAN CO
HARDIN CO
N AUXINS CO
HAVWOOO CO
HENDERSON CO
HENRY CO
HICKHAN CO
HOUSTON CO
HUMPHREYS CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFERSON CO
JOHNSON CO
KNOX CO
LAKE CO
LAUDERDALE CO
LAURENCE CO
LEMJS co
LINCOLN CO
LOUDON CO
MC MINN CO
MC NA1RV CO
MA CON CD
MADISON CO
MARION CO
MARSHALL CO
MAURY CO
MEI6S CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY co
MOORE CO
MORGAN CO
OBION CO
OVERTON CO
2nd max 8-hr CO '
conc.Mrog/m3)
17.0*
7.5
13.8 *
2nd max 1-hr (h
cone.2 (pg/m3)
333*
212 *
167
369 *
208 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/rn3)
77
28
55
17
73
21
39
208
-------
State
Tennessee
Texas
County
PERRY CO
P1CKETT CO
POIK CO
PUTNAM CO
•ME A CO
ROANE CO
ROBERTSON CO
•UTHERrORD CO
SCOTT CO
SEOUATCHIE CO
5EVIEH CO
SMELBT CO
SMITH CO
STEWART CO
SULLIVAN CO
SUMNER CO
TIPTON CO
TROUSDALE CO
UN1COI CO
IMION CO
WAN BUR EN CO
HARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
UAVNE CO
WEAKLEV CO
WHITE CO
WILLIAMSON CO
WILSON CO
ANDERSON CO
ANDREWS CO
AUCELINA CO
ARANSAS CO
ARCHER CO
ARMSTRONG CO
ATASCOSA CO
AUSTIN CO
BAILEY CO
BANDERA CO
BASTROP CO
BATLOR CO
ME CO
BELL CO
6EXAR CO
"BLANCO CO
BORDEN CO
BOSflUE CO
BOWIE CO
BRA20RIA CO
BRAZOS CO
BREWSTER CO
BRISCOE CO
BROOKS CO
BROWN CO
BUWLESON CO
8URNET CO
CALDMELL CO
CALHOWN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mfl/ms)
14.0 *
10.1
3.2
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (ug/m3)
*
265*
372*
318*
*
*
276*
345*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.' (ug/m3)
36
98
43
33
37
46
8
36
25
s
31
24
209
-------
State
Texas
County
CALLAHAN CO
CAMERON CO
CAMP CO
CARSON CO
CASS CO
CASTRO CO
CHAMBERS CO
CHEROKEE CO
CMIL»RESS CO
CLAT CO
COCHRAN CO
COKE CO
COLEMAN CO
COLL IN CO
COLLIN6SUORTH CO
COLORADO CO
COMAL CO
COMANCHE CO
CONCHO CO
COOKE CO
CORTELL CO
COTTLE CO
CRANE CO
CROCKETT CO
CROSBY CO
CULBERSON CO
0 ALLAH CO
DALLAS CO
DAWSON CO
DEAF SMITH CO
DELTA CO
DENTON CO
DE rtITT CO
DICKENS CO
DIMMIT CO
DONLET CO
DUVAL CO
EASTLAN6 CO
ECTOR CO
EDWARDS CO
ELLIS CO
EL PASO CO
ERATH CO
FALLS CO
F ANN IN CO
FAtETTE CO
FISHER CO
FIOTD CO
FOARD CO
FORT BEND CO
FDANKLIN CO
FREESTONE CO
FRIO CO
6AINES CO
6ALVESTON CO
CAUZA CO
C1LLESME CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3)
•?•'
7.4
3.2
10.0*
2.7
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
378*
276 *
274 *
433 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
26
71
33
17
59
48
210
-------
State
Texas
County
CLASSCOCK CO
S0ll«0 CO
CON MIES CO
MAT CO
CRAVSON CO
CREtC CO
MINES CO
CUADALUPE CO
MALE CO
HALL CO
HAMILTON CO
NANSFORD CO
HAROENAN CO
MARDIN CO
MAURIS CO
HARRISON CO
MARTLET CO
MASK ELL CO
NATS CO
HEMPH1LL CO
HENDERSON CO
HIDAL60 CO
HILL CO
HOCKLET CO
HOOO CO
HOPKINS CO
HOUSTON CO
HOWARD CO
HUDSPETH CO
HUNT CO
NUTCMIN50N CO
IRION CO
JACK CO
JACKSON CO
JASPER CO
-•• JEFF nvis co
JEFFERSON CO
JIM HOCC CO
JIM HELLS CO
JOHNSON CO
JANES CO
KARNES CO
KAUFMAN CO
KENDALL CO
KENEDT CO
KENT CO
KERR CO
KIMBLE CO
KINt CO
K1NNET CO
KLC6H6 CA
K«OI CO
LAMAR CO
LAMB CO
LAMP AS AS CO
T.fc IALLE CO
LAVACA CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
conc.I(m9/m$)
8.4
1.6
•
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (ug/m9)
31611
512*
378*
Arithmetic mean NOV
cone.' (yg/m3) x
35
32
87
37
12
w
24
66
211
-------
State
Texas
County
LEE CO
LEON CO
LIBERTY CO
LIMESTONE CO
LIPSCOMB CO
LIVE OAK CO
LLANO CO
LOVING CO
LUBBOCK CO
LYNN CO
MC CULLOCH CO
MC LENNAN CO
MC MULLEN CO
MADISON CO
MARION CO
MARTIN CO
MASON CO
M4TAGORDA CO
MAVERICK CO
h MEDINA CO
MENARD CO
MIDLAND CO
MILAM CO
MILLS CO
MITCHELL CO
MONTAGUE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MOORE CO
MORRIS CO
MOTLEY CO
NACOGDOCNES CO
NAVARRO CO
NEWTON CO
NOLAN CO
NUECES CO
OCHILTREE CO
OLDHAH CO
ORANGE CO
PALO PINTO CO
PANOLA CO
PARKER CO
FARMER CO
PECOS CO
POLK CO
POTTER CO
~ PRESIDIO CO
•AINS CO
RANDALL CO
REAGAN CO
L REAL CO
RED RIVER CO
•EEVES CO
REFU610 CO
ROBERTS CO
ROBERTSON CO
•OCKWALL CO
RUNNELS CO
2nd max 8-hr-CO
cone.1 (mg/jn3)
4.1
3.2
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
282 *
314 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3) x
24
28
12
9
22
32
26
20
212
-------
State
Texas
Utah
County
RUSK CO
SAB1NE CO
SM AUGUSTINE CO
SAN JAC1NTO CO
SAN PATRICIO CO
IM i*sr to
SCHLE1CHER CO
SCURRY CO
SNACKELFORD CO
SHELBY CO
SHERMAN TO
SMITH CO
SOHERVELL CO
STARR CO
STEPHENS CO
STERLING CO
STONEWALL CO
SUTTON CO
SH1SHER CO
TARRANT CO
TAYLOR CO
TERRELL CO
TERRT CO
THROCKAORTON CO
TITUS CO
T«fl 6REEN CO
TRAVIS CO
TRINITY CO
TILER CO
IIPSHUR CO
UPTON CO
UVALDE CO
VAL VERDE CO
VAN ZANOT CO
VICTORIA CO
WALKER CO
WALLER CO
WARD CO
WASHINGTON CO
WEBB CO
WN All TON CO
WHEELER CO
WICHITA CO
WJLBAR6ER CO
HILL AC f CO
HILL I AH SON CO
WILSON CO
WINKLE* CO
WISE CO
WOOD CO
TOAKUH CO
VOUNC CO
IAPATA CO
ZAVALA CO
BEAVER CO
Ml CLBER CO
CACHE CO
i i ii >— •*— »fcn»^_a^^^^aa
2nd max 8-hr CO
conc.Mmg/m9)
6.8
2nd max 1-hr Os
cone.2 (yg/m5)
329 *
:
225 *
296 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (pg/m3)
17
16
37
69
28
26
14
57
10
33
37
213
-------
State
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
County
CARBON CO
6A66ETT CO
•AVIS CO
eUCHESNE CO
EMERY CO
iARFIELD CO
6IAND CO
ICON CO
JMAB CO
RfiNE CO
HILL AMD CO
ROR6AN CO
PIUTE CO
RICH CO
SALT LAKE CO
SAN JUAN CO
SANPETE CO
SEVIER CO
SUBMIT CO
TOOELE CO
U1WTAH CO
UTAH CO
HASATCH CO
WASHINGTON CO
HAVNE CO
MEBER CO
ASDISON CO
BENN1N6TON CO
CALEDONIA CO
CHITTENDEN CO
ESSEX CO
FBANKLIN CO
6J1AND ISLE CO
LANOILLE CO
ORANGE CO
081EANS CO
RUTLAND CO
WASHINGTON CO
HINDHAM CO
UINDSOR CO
ACCOHACK CO
ALBEHARLE CO
ALE1ANORI A
ALLECHANY CO
AMELIA CO
SSSHERS7 CO
A^POHATTOX CO
ASL1N&TON CO
AU6USTA CO
BATH CO
eEOFORD CO
BEDFORD
BLAN6 CO
BOTETOURT CO
BRISTOL
BRUNSWICK CO
BUCHANAN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
conc.Mmg/ni3)
11.5*
17.1*
15.8*
17.7*
7.3*
5.0
12.0*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
263 *
225*
153*
216*
*
fr
222*
*
*
A
*
*
*
251*
245*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
13
44
9
6
77
47
6
54
214
-------
State
Virginia
County
BUCKINGHAM CO
8UENA VISTA
CAMPBELL CO
CAROLINE CO
CARROLL CO
CMARLEi CITY CO
CHARLOTTE CO
CMARLOTTESVILLE
CHESAPEAKE
CHESTERFIELD CO
CLARKE CO
CLIFTON FORCE
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COWINCTON
CRAIG CO
CULPEPER CO
CUMBERLAND CO
DANVILLE
DICKENSON CO
DINMIDDIE CO
EMPOR1 A
ESSEX CO
FAIRFAX
FAIRFAX CO
.FAUflUIER CO
FALLS CHUR(H
FLOTD CO
FLUVANNA CO
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN CO
FREDERICK CO
FREOERICKSBURt
CALAX
CUES CO
GLOUCESTER CO
C06CHLAND CO
GRAVSON CO
GREENE CO
GREENSVILLE CO
HALIFAX CO
HAMPTON
HANOVER CO
HARRISONBURC
NENRICO CO
NENRT CO
NlCHLAND CO
NOPEMELL
ISLE OF MIGHT CO
JAMES CITV CO
KING AND OUEEN CO
KING GEORGE CO
KING MILLIAM CO
LANCASTER CO
LEE CO
LEXINGTON
L««»OUN tt
LOUISA CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m*)
10.9 *
2nd max 1-hr Os
cone.2 (vg/m')
*
265*
*
382 *
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.' (ug/m3)
57
215
-------
State
Virginia
County
LUNENBERG CO
LVNCHBURG
MADISON CO
HART1NSVILLE
MATMEWS CO
MECKLENBURG CO
MIDDLESEX CO
MONTGOMERY CO
NANSEMOND CO
NELSON CO
NEW KENT CO
NEWPORT NEWS
NORFOLK
NORTHAMPTON CO
NORTHUMBERLAND CO
NORTON
NOTTOWAT CO
ORANGE CO
PAGE CO
PATRICK CO
PETERSBURG
PITTStLVANIA CO
PORTSMOUTH
POWHATAN CO
PRINCE EOMA»D CO
PRINCE GEORGE CO
PRINCE WILLIAM CO
PULASKI CO
RADf ORD
RAPPAHANNOCK CO
RICHMOND
RICHMOND CO
ROANOKE
ROANOKE CO
ROCKBRIDGE CO
HOCRHN5HAM CO
RUSSELL CO
SALEM
SCOTT CO
SHENANOOAH CO
SHTTH CO
SOUTH BOSTON
SOUTHAMPTON CO
S£»OTSVLVANIA CO
$1A?fORD CO
STAUNTON
surroLK
SMRRT CO
SUSS El CO
TAZEWELL CO
VIRGINIA BE*CH
WARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WATNESBORO
WESTMORELAND CO
•ILLIAMSBUlt
WINCHESTER
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/ms)
7.7
10.3
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
*
*
*
441
274
*
Z3b *
*
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m3)
n
48
216
-------
State
Virginia
Mashing tor
West VI r.
County
U1SE CO
MTTHE CO
KIRK CO
MANS CO
ASOTIN CO
OCNTON CO
CMELAN CO
CLALLAM CO
CLAIK (6
COLUMBIA CO
COWL IT I CO
•OUCLAS CO
fERRT CO
FIANKLlN CO
CARFIELO CO
CHANT CO
CftAVS NARBO* CO
ISLANP CO
JEFFEftSON CO
KING CO
KITSAP CO
R1TTITAS CO
KL1CKITAT CO
ITVIS CO
LINCOLN CO
MASON CO
OKAN06AN CO
PACIFIC CO
peNo OREILLF co
PIERCE CO
SAN JUAN CO
SKAfilT CO
SKAHANIA CO
SNBMOMISH co
SPOKANE CO
STEVENS CO
THURSTON CO
WAHKIAKUH CO
T*IL» HALL* CO
MM AT COM CO
WHITMAN CO
TAKIMA CO
BAMBOUR CO
BERKELEY CO
BOONE CO
UAXTON CO
BROOKE CO
CABELL CO
CALHOUN CO
CLAf CO
•OMRIPCE CO
FATETTE CO
CILMER CO
CRANT CO
CBEENBRIER CO
MAMPSMIBE CO
HANCOCK CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m8)
8.5
17.4 *
10.8 *
19.6 *
*
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (ug/mj)
216*
314*
196*
137
-i .;
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.' (yg/m8)
75
49
44
•-
217
-------
State
County
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 (mg/m3 )
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (pg/m3)
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (ug/m') x
W. Virgini HARDV CO
OR* JSON CO
JACKSON CO
JiFFERSON CO
(ANAWHA CO
LCMIS CO
LINCOLN CO
LOGAN CO
HC DOWELL CO
MftlON CO
ARSHALL CC
MASON CO
MERCER CO
MINERAL CO
MINGO CO
MONONGAL1A CO
MONROE CO
ORGAN CO
NICHOLAS CO
OHIO CO
PENDLETON CO
LEASANTS CO
POCAHONTAS CO
PSESTON CO
PUTNAM CO
'RALEIGH CO
RANDOLPH CO
RITCHIE CO
ROANE CO
SUMMERS CO
TATLOR CO
TUCKER CO
TILES CO
UPSHUR CO
yATNE CO
Wisconsin"
UEBSTER eo
UETZEL CO
UIRT CO
HOOD CO
HOMING CO
ASHLAND CO
BARRON CO
BATFIELO CO
BROWN CO
BUFFALO to
BURNETT CO
CALUMET CO
CMIPPEUA CO
CLARK CO
COLUMBIA CO
CRAWFORD CO
BANE CO
BODGE CO
DOORJCO
OUGLA* CO
DUNN co
5.9
237 *
6.4
257 *
169 *
IT
45
14
218
-------
State
Wisconsin
Kyowing
County
£AU CLAIRE CO
FLORENCE CO
fOND »U LAC CO
FOREST CO
(•ANT CO
ilEEN CO
CREEN LAKE CO
IOWA CO
IRON CO
JACKSON CO
JEFFER SOW CD
JUNEAU CO
KENOSHA CO
KEMAUNEE CO
LA CROSSE CO
LAFAYETTE CO
LAN6LADE CO
LINCOLN CO
HANI TO HOC CO
MARATHON CO
MAIIINETTE CO
MARAUETTE CO
MENOMON1E CO
MILWAUKEE CO
MONROE CO
0 CON TO CO
ONEIBA CO
OUTAGAM1E CO
OZAUKEE CO
PEPIN CO
PIERCE CO
POLK CO
PORTAGE CO
PRICE CO
RACINE CO
HICHLAND CO
ROCK CO
RUSK CO
ST CHOI I CO
SAUK CO
SAWYER CO
SNAWANO CO
SNEBOTCAN CO
TAYLOR CO
TREMPEALEAU CO
VERNON CO
VILAS CO
WAL WORTH CO
WASHWRN CO
MASHINCTON CO
W AUK ESN A CO
WAUPACA CO
MAUSNARA CO
M1NNEBACO CO
HOOD CO
ALBANY CO
BIC NORN CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
conc-M^/"1 )
16.1*
7.'6
10. 4
2nd max 1-hr Ot
cone.2 (pg/m*)
*
447 *
*
353
382 *
*
337*
463
*
Z84 *
Arithmetic mean NOV
conc.s (wg/m') x
44
10
15
';t;^- 79
' ^ -'. fl Ai ^ '-
,;i* • r
20
24
219
-------
State
Wyoirri ng
County
CAMPBELL CO
CARBON CO
CONVERSE CO
CROOK CO
fREHONT CO
COSH EN CO
MOT SPRIN6S CO
JOHNSON CO
LARAHIE CO
LINCOLN CO
I NATRON M to
NIOBRARA CO
PARK CO
PtATTE CO
SHERIDAN CO
SUBLETTE Co
SUEETWATER CO
TETON CO
U1NTA CO
V ASM AX IE CO
UESTOM CO
2nd max 8-hr CO
cone.1 mg/m3
2nd max 1-hr 03
cone.2 (yg/m3)
157
118
Arithmetic mean NO
cone.3 (yg/m3) x
4
6
b
26
3
17
3
3
26
5
'NAAQS CO 8-h 10 mg/m3 not to be exceeded more than once per year.
2NAAQS 03 235 pg/m3 expected value.
3NAAQS NOX 100 yg/m3 arithmetic mean.
*i«sic;nated as nonattainncnt as of January 1080.
220
-------
APPENDIX E
KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE MODIFIED ROLLBACK
ANALYSIS
EMISSION AND AIR QUALITY VALUES
The base-year emission values for the Air Quality Control
Regions (AQCR's) selected for analysis were obtained from the
1975 National Emissions Report (EPA-450/2-78-020, May 1978).
The design air quality values from the SAROAD system represent
the data in Air Quality Data - 1977 Annual Statistics (EPA-450/
2-78-040, September 1978).
SOURCE CATEGORIES
The nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) or VOC, CO, and NOX
emissions from mobile sources are divided into four categories:
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty gasoline
and heavy-duty diesel. For NMHC the stationary source cate-
gories are petroleum refineries; storage, transportation, and
marketing of petroleum products; industrial processes; organic
solvent evaporation; combustion; and others. For CO, the sta-
tionary source categories are point and area. For NOX, they
are industrial processes, area, and fuel combustion.
SOURCE CONTRIBUTION FACTORS
The stationary source contribution factors (S^) account for
the relative effect of the emission height or the distance from
the source to the receptor on ground-level air quality. An ele-
vated source would be expected to contribute less to ground-level
air quality than a ground-level source under most meteorological
conditions. Therefore, ground-level sources generally have a
contribution factor of 1.0, and elevated sources generally have
less than 1.0. The stationary source contribution factors were
assumed to be 1.0 for all source categories emitting NMHC and
NOX; for CO, they were assumed to be 0.0 for point sources and
0.2 for area sources.
221
-------
EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AND AVERAGE CONTROL LEVELS
The mobile source emission factor ratio (EFR) was obtained
for each mobile source category from the Mobile 1 program. The
ratio is the emission factor in the base year (1976) divided by
the emission factor in each of the projection years, in this
case, 1982, 1987, 1990, and 1999.
The stationary source EFR is the ratio of the emission fac-
tor of an average source within a source category in some future
year to the emission factor of an average source in the same
category in the base year. The EFR indicates the amount of con-
trol that is assumed for a given source category.
wo - i percent control.
EFR - 1 j^g
The stationary source EFR's vary from source category to source
category, depending on the pollutant and the strategy being
evaluated.
CONTROL STRATEGIES
The first strategy (called FTP) evaluated for each pollutant
assumed that there would be no further control of either new or
existing stationary sources; that the only reduction in emissions
from these pollutants would be from the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program (FMVCP); and that the EFR for all stationary
source categories would be 1.0; thus,
EFR = 1 -
100
The second strategy (FTP BACT) for each pollutant assumed in
addition to the FMVCP that each new source would be required to
apply BACT. However, no further control was assumed for existing
sources since all evaluated areas were attainment for each pollu-
tant and since no control of existing sources would be required
if no problems arose regarding attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS's). Therefore,
the stationary source EFR for all existing source categories was
again assumed to be 1.0.
The stationary source EFR's for new sources were designed to
reflect the average level of control represented by BACT. Be-
cause the EFR must represent the average level of control for a
given source category, the EFR was used to relate the relative
contribution of each of the major emission sources within a
source category. The following are the average levels of control
and the EFR's used for the source categories.
222
-------
Pollutant
NMHC
or
VOC
CO
NOX
Source category
Petroleum refining
Petroleum storage
Industrial process
Solvent evaporation
Combustion
Other
Point
Area
Industrial process
Area
Fuel combustion
Average level
of control, %
85
80
50
80
0
0
50
0
50
0
80
EFR
0.15
0.20
0.50
0.20
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.20
The percentages of control for NMHC or VOC source categories were
obtained from an assessment of the impact of the revised 03 stand-
ard using the modified rollback technique. (Costs and Economic
Impact Assessment for Alternative Levels of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone.EPA-450/5-79-002, February 1979).
The percentages of control used for CO and NOX were obtained from
data used to establish the priorities for setting the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS's) under the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977. (Priorities for New Source Performance Standards Under
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. EPA-450/3-78-019, April
1978.)
GROWTH RATES
The growth rate used in the analysis was the percentage of
growth per year for each source category. Two sets of growth
rates were used for VOC or 0 3, and one set was used for CO and
NOX. For mobile sources the assumed growth rates were 1% for CO,
2% for NOX, and 2 and 3% for VOC for each category.
For stationary sources, the growth rates (especially for
NMHC or VOC) varied from source category to source category as
well as from pollutant to pollutant, as shown:
Pollutant
NMHC
or
VOC
CO
NOX
Source category
Petroleum refining
Petroleum storage
Industrial process
Solvent evaporation
Combustion
Other
Point
Area
Industrial process
Area
Fuel combustion
Growth rate
2.0, 3.0
2.0, 3.0
3.5, 5.0
2.0, 3.0
0.0, 1.0
0.0, 3.0
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
223
-------
RETIREMENT RATES
Retirement rates are percentages per year of existing sta-
tionary sources that are eliminated from a stationary source
category by retirement. Only existing sources have retirement
rates. Since very little data were available on retirement
rates (with the exception of data on NMHC or VOC sources), no
retirement rates were used for CO and NOX sources. Without re-
tirement rates, the older, less well-controlled stationary
sources would continue to operate throughout the study period;
therefore, the impact of existing stationary sources would be
maximized, and the emissions from these sources would represent
worst-case situations.
Since retirement data for VOC were available from the above
referenced work, on the assessment of the 03 NAAQS, these data
were used for the PSD analysis. The retirement rates used are:
NMHC or VOC
source category
Petroleum refining
Petroleum storage
Industrial process
Solvent evaporation
Combustion
Other
Percentage
per year
4.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
0
PROJECTION YEARS
The four projection years used in this analysis were 1982,
1987, 1990, and 1999. The first two years (1982 and 1987) were
used to permit the results to be compared with the key dates for
the attainment of the NAAQS for all three pollutants (CO, 03,
and NOX) and for two pollutants (CO and 03) if an extension of
the attainment date is approved. The last two years (1990 and
1999) were used to obtain some indication of what the projected
air quality might be if no new requirements are imposed for PSD
for these pollutants by the end of the current decade and just
prior to the turn of the century-
COMPUTER INPUTS
Tables D-l, D-2, and D-3 present the data used for each of
the strategies tested. Tables D-4, D-5, and D-6 present the
regional information used in the analysis.
224
-------
TABLE D-l. STRATEGY INPUT FOR NONMETHANE HYDROCARBONS
4: 1 9 7 8 1829203024
5:FTP 049067G73103
6:FTP 027040G43077
7:FTP 023031037069
8:FTP 021023033066
9:FTPBACT 049067073103
1C:FTPBACT C27G40C43077
11:FTPBACT 023031037069
12:FTPBACT 021C23033066
26 NMHC S=C2 P = 04 P=18 6=02
1C 01 C01001001001001001001001001 CO1CO
1001001001001001001001C01001001OC100
1001001 C01001 00100100100100100100100
1001001C01001001001001C0100100100100
C151000201000501000201C0100100100100
0151C00201000501000201H01G0100100100
0151C002Q1000501000201001001001 G0100
0151COC201OC05C1000201C01001001OC100
82
87
90
99
S2
87
90
99
Is)
to
16:
17:
U:
19:
20;
21;
22:
23:
24:
1978
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTPBACT
FTPBACT
FTPBACT
FTPBACT
TABLE
2421
59 85 95 88
32 60 60 86
026046048086
023023041086
59 85 95 88
32 60 60 86
026046048086
023033041086
D-2. STRATEGY INPUT FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
COS PPM S=02 P = 04 R=19 G=C1
1001C0100100
100100100100
10C1CC1CC100
1001C01C0100
050100100100
0501 C01C0100
0501C0100100
C50100100100
S2
87
90
99
S2
87
90
99
TABLE D-3. STRATEGY INPUT FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE
28: 1 9 7 8 202119
29:FTPBACT 063072092097
30:FTPBACT 048052076065
31:FTPBACT 046045066041
32:FTPBACT 045042061029
33:FTP 063C72092097
34-.FTP C48052C76065
35:FTP 046045G66041
26:FTP 045C42C62029
NOX S=G2 P=C4
050100100100020100
C50100100100020100
0501 C0100100020100
05C1 C0100100C20100
1DC1 G01001C0100100
10C100100100100100
1SC1 CC10010010C1CO
1001 C01GC1C0100100
R=09 G=
82
87
90
99
82
87
90
99
-------
TABLE D-4. REGIONAL INPUT FOR NONMETHANE HYDROCARBONS/OZONE
U038SAN ISABEL 0.12 00.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
2:038 13.8 2.6 4.1 0.4 0.0 2.9 1.9 9.7 0.3 0.7 2
3:038102.02.02.02.0 2. C2. C3 .52 .00.00.0 4 . 04 .20. 53 .0 2. 00 .0 3
4:038HI3.C3.03.03.0 3. C3.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 4
5:048CEN FLORIDA 0.10 00.0 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
6:048 35.7 6.8 7.8 0.8 C.O 2.2 0.8 28.1 0.5 5.5 2
7:048L02.02.02.02.0 2.C2.03 .52.00.00.0 4.04.20.53.02.CO.0 3
8:048H13.03.03.02.0 3.C2.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 4
9:055CHATT 0.11 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
10:055 24.3 4.7 1.7 0.8 0.0 4.8 5.7 33.1 0.4 0.9 2
11:055L02.02.02.02.0 2.02.03.52.00.00.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 3
12:055H13.03.03.03.0 3.C3.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 4
13:062E.UASH 0.08 00.0 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
14:062 20.5 3.9 2.9 0.5 0.0 2.9 11.1 12.1 0.4 3.1 2
15:062L02.02.02.02.0 2.02.03 .52.00.00.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.C 3
16:062H13.03.03.02.0 3. C2.05 .02 .01.03 .0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 4
17:065BURLINGTON 0.12 00.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.C 761
18:065 20.8 3.9 1.5 0.6 C.O 3.4 1B.4 20.1 0.6 0.8 2
19:065L02.02.02.02.0 2.02.03.52.00.00.0 4. C4 .20. 53.02. 00.6 3
20:065H13.03.02.03.0 2.02.05.03.01.03.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 4
21:072PADUCAH C.10 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
22:072 12.2 2.3 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.3 8.3 10.3 0.9 1.2 2
23:072L02.02.02.02.0 2.02.03.52.00.00.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 3
24:072H13.03.03.03.0 3.C3.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.20.53.02.00.0 4
25:077EVANSVILLE 0.12 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.C1.C1.01.01.0 761
26:077 15.4 2.9 2.4 0.5 0.2 2.6 14.4 18.7 0.5 1.4 2
27:077L02.02.02.02.0 2.02.03.52.00.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
26:077HI3.03.D3.03.0 3.03.05 .03 .01.03.C 4.04 .02.53.02.CO.0 4
29:0850MAHA 0.10 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
20:085 15.5 3.4 5.3 0.8 C.O 2.6 10.5 17.8 O.C 1.0 2
31:085102.02.02.02.0 2. C2 .03 .02 .OC.OO. C 4 .04 .02. 53.02. 00 .C 3
32:085HI3.03.03.03.0 3. C3.05 .03 .01 .03 .0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 4
33:0925 C IQyA 0.11 0.0 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
34:092 22.6 4.5 4.6 1.1 0.0 4.1 27.3 20.5 0.2 5.3 2
35:092L02.02.02.02.0 2.02.03 .52 .00.00.C 4.04 ,C2. 53.02.00 .0 3
36:092HI3.03.03.03.0 3.C2.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 4
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-4 (continued)
37:094KC ' 0.12 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0761
36:094 37.3 7.1 10.2 1.6 6.1 7.6 16.A 52.3 1.0 4.3 2
39:094102.02.02.02.0 2.02.03 .52.00.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
40:094H13.03.03.03.0 3.03.C5 .03.01.03.0 4
A1:113CUM6ERLAND 0.12 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0761
42:113 7.5 1.5 0.9 0.1 D.O 1.1 0.0 6.4 0.1 1.3 2
43:113102.02.02.02.0 2.C2.03 .52.00.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
44:113H13.03.03.03.0 ' 3.03.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 4
45:125SC MICHIGAN 0.09 0.0 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0761
46:125 45.3 8.6 7.0 0.8 2.6 7.8 26.6 62.6 0.2 1.5 2
47:125102.02.02.02.0 2 .C2 .03 .52.00.00.C 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
48:125HI3.03.03.03.0 3.C3 .C5 .03.01.03.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 4
49:131M1N-ST PAUL 0.12 O.C 03 . PPM 1.01.C1.01.01.01.0 761
50:131 53.5 10.2 9.6 1.8 2.3 8.9 70.2 78.0 0.3 2.6 2
51:131L02.C2.02.02.0 2.02.03 .52.00.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
52:131HI3.03.03.03.0 3.C3.05 .03.01.03.0 4.04.02.53.02.CO.0 4
53:143MILES CITY 0.12 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
54:143 3.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 C.O 1.3 0.0 0.8 2
55:143L02.02.02.02.0 2.C2.03.52.00.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
56:143H13.03.03.03.0 3.C3.C5 .03.01.03.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 4
57:158CENTRAL NY 0.12 0.0 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
58:158 31.5 6.C 3.8 0.3 0.0 5.0 4.3 45.7 0.5 1.7 2
59:158L02.C2.02.02.0 2.C2.03 .52.00.00.0 4.C4.C2.53.02.00.0 3
60:158H13.Q3.03.03.0 3.03.05 .03.01.03.C 4.C4.02.53.02.00.0 4
61:184CEN OKLA 0.12 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
62:184 34.3 6.5 21.9 1.1 0.0 4.9 5.1 24.5 0.0 0.9 2
63:184L02.02.02.02.0 2.C2.03 .52.00.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.CO.0 3
64:184HI3.03.03.03.C 3.C3.05 .03.01.03.0 4.C4.C2.53.02.00.C 4
65:241CASPER 0.08 O.C 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0761
66:241 3.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 2.2 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.2 1.2 2
67:241L02.02.02.02.0 2.C2.C3 .52.CC.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
68:241H13.03.03.03.0 3.C3.05 .03.01.03.C 4.04.02.53.02.CO.0 4
69:243WYOMING 0.06 0.0 03 PPM 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 761
70:243 9.4 1.8 0.4 C.5 1.4 1.7 4.4 2.3 0.3 1.2 2
71:243L02.02.02.02.0 2.C2.03 .52.CO.00.0 4.04.02.53.02.00.0 3
72:243HI3.03.03.03.0 3.03.C5 .03 .01.03 .C 4.04.02. 53.02.OD.C 4
-------
TABLE D-5. REGIONAL INPUT FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
1:038SAN ISABEL 8.1 1.C C08 PPM 0.00.2 761
2:C38 113.121.5 37.9 2.6 35.4 40.0 2
3:038101.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
4:048CENTRAL FLORIDA 1.4 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
5:048 293.855.8 72.7 5.2 5.1 32.5 2
6.-048L01 .01.01 .01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
7:055CHATTANOOGA 6.8 1.0 COS PPM C.00.2 761
b:055 179.134.0 15.4 4.8 29.6 7.5 2
9:055L01.01.01.01.0 3.Z3.2 O.CO.O 3
10:0505.E. FLOEIDA 9.1 1.0 C08 PPM O.C0.2 761
11:050 717.1136.2169.411.3 10.4 43.5 2
12:050L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
13:062E. WASH. 17.6 1.0 CC8 PPM 0.00.2 761
14:062 153.629.2 25.5 2.9 52.9 34.0 2
15:062L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
1c:C65BURLINGTON 7.6 1.0 COB PPM 0.00.2 761
17:065 164.931.3 13.5 4.2 6.7 15.4 2
18:OC5L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 .0 .0 3
M 19:072PADUCAH 8.1 1.C COS PPM O.C0.2 761
00 20:072 84.9 16.1 13.9 1.6 19.3 6.3 2
21:072L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 O.CO.O 3
22:077EVANSVILLE 2.6 1.0 C08 PPM 0.00.2 761
23:077 115.822.0 21.0 3.4 33.6 7.3 2
24:077L01.01.01.01.0 3.22.2 0.00.0 3
25:0850MAHA 14.5 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
26:085 126.724.1 49.2 5.6 11.3 5.2 2
27:085101.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
28:092S.C. IOWA 11.5 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
29:092 167.835.7 42.3 7.3 5.6 26.1 2
30:092L01 .01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
31:094KANSAS CITY 3.0 1.0 COB PPM 0.00.2 761
22:094 317.560.3 97.7 11.6 60.3 20.8 2
33:094L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
34:113CUM6ERLAND 9.0 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
35:113 54.2 10.3 -7.7 0.6 1.9 6.8 2
36:113L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
37:1255.C. MICHIGAN 9.0 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
38:125 344.765.5 62.8 4.8 8.9 6.8 2
39:125101.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-5 (continued)
40:131M1NW-ST PAUL 14.0 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
41:131 455.686.5 92.1 13.C 125.512.0 2
42:131L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
43:U3MILES CITY 10.0 1.0 COB PPM O.C0.2 761
44:143 26.2 4.9 2.5 0.8 0.2 3.9 2
45:143L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 C.00.0 3
46:158CENTRAL NY 8.4 1.0 C08 PPM ' 0.00.2 761
47:158 245.5 46,6 35.0 0.3 5.0 8.4 2
48:1581.01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 0.00.0 3
49:184CEN OKLA 11.5 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
50:184 290.0 55.1208.5 7.5 C.7 6.4 2
51:184101.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 C.CO.O 3
52:241CASPER 10.0 1.0 COS PPM 0.00.2 761
53:241 25.9 4.9 1.3 1.7 42.8 2.8 2
54:241L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 O.CG.C 3
55:243UYOMIN6 10.0 1.0 COS PPM O.C0.2 761
56:243 70.8 13.5 3.6 2.8 62.4 10.1 2
57:243L01.01.01.01.0 3.23.2 O.CO.O 3
-------
TABLE D-6. REGIONAL INPUT FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE
1:0850MAHA 58.C O.C N02 1.01.01.0 76
2:085 11.3 2.1 3.1 5.6 0.0 4.8 19.9
3:085 2.02.02.02.0 3.C3.03.0
4:131MINN-ST PAUL 69.0 O.C NO 2 1.01.01.0 76
5:131 36.9 7.0 5.4 11.6 6.3 16.0 64.4
6:131 A2.02.02.02.0 3.C3.C3.0
7:15flCENTRAL NY 63.C O.C NO 2 1.01.01.0 76
8:158 25.0 4.8 2.5 2.4 2.1 7.4 64.6
9:158 A2.02.02.02.0 3.03.03.0
10:241CASPER 6.C O.C NO 2 1.01.01.0 76
11:241 2.6 0.5 0.1 1.9 1.4 2.7 29.8
12:241 A2.02.02.02.0 3.Q3.C3.0
13:143MILES CITY 65.C O.C N02 1.01.01.0 76
14:143 3.7 0.7 0.2 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.3
15:143 A2.02.02.02.0 3.C3.C3.0
16:094KC 27.0 0.0 N02 1.01.01.0 76
17:094 25.9 4.9 5.8 10.3 2.6 9.2 56.5
18:094 A2.02.02.02.0 3.03.03.0
19:038SAN ISABEL 32.C O.C N02 1.01.01.0 76
20:038 10.1 1.9 2.4 2.6 0.2 2.2 27.8
21:038 A2.02.02.02.0 3.C3.03.0
22:04£CENTRAL FL 39.C O.C N02 1.01.01.C 76
23:048 26.4 5.0 4.7 5.2 0.0 1.3 65.4
24:C4E A2.02.02.02.0 3.C3.C3.0
25:055CHATT 57.0 O.G N02 1.01.01.0 76
26:055 20.9 4.0 1.1 6.6 0.9 3.9 59.6
27:055 A2.02.02.02.0 ' 3.C3.C3.0
-------
APPENDIX F
RESULTS OF MODIFIED ROLLBACK ANALYSIS BY
AQCR
231
-------
ROLLBACK AIR UUAL
ITY PROJECTIONS
D
-
LINEAR
STRATE
03 AIR
GY: 1
QUALIT
(
FTP
R 0 L
L B A C K
GROWTH RATE SC
Y CONCENTRATION
STANDARD IS .1?
( PPM) AND
PPM)
P R 0 J E C
R £. G I 0 N
038SAN ISABEL
C<.8C£N FLORIDA
U55CHATT
062E .WASH
065RURLINGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSVI LLE
N> G350MAHA
£ 092S C IOWA
094KC
11 3CUMBERL AND
125SC MICHIGAN
131MIN-ST PAUL
"U3MILES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
1HCEN OKL A
24 1CASPER
2C3WYOM1NG
AVERAGE PERCENT CH
NO. OF CITIES ABOV
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLA
B
Y£AR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
ANGE
E STD
TIONS
A S E 1982
£2N£
.12
.10
.11
.08
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.12
.09
.12
.12
.12
.12
.08
.06
BKGD
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
T E
198
£CjNC Nywp. CONC
.T5 o ~7o9
.OB
.10
.07
.11
.09
.12
.09
.11
.11
.10
.09
.12
.39
.11
.10
.07
.07
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-8.
0
C
.07
.10
.07
.12
.09
.12
.09
.11
.11
.09
.09
.12
.08
.11
.09
.07
.07
ENAR10: 1 LO
VIOLATIONS
D
7
NUMB !
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-11.
0
0
-
1990
1999
C_QN£ NUMB CQNC NU.MB
.09 " 0 ".11 ~ "
.07
.10
.07
.12
.10
.12
.09
.1 1
.1 2
.09
.09
.13
.08
.11
.09
.07
.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-7.
1
1
.08
.12
.09
.15
.12
.15
.11
.14
.14
.11
.11
.17
.09
.13
.10
.08
.10
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
11.
6
19
-------
J
J
9
3
KJ
ROLLBACK AIR QUALITY PROJECTIONS
•*
LINEAR
STRATEGY: 1
03 AIR QUAL1T
R £ G I 0 N
038SAN ISAUEL
C't&CEN FLORIDA
C55CHATT
C52E .WASH
C65PURL1NGTON
072PADUCAH
.._077EVANS.VJ.LUE_
O^iOMAHA
i.... 09 a.S C__I.O_W.A_
11 3CUMbERL AND
125SC MICHIGAN
131M1N-ST PAUL
H3MILES CITY
158C.ENTRAJ. .N.Y
134CEN OKLA
241CASPER
243WYOMING
AVERAGE PERCEN
NO. OF CITIES
TOTAL NO. OF V
fc
Y|AR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
T CHANGE
ABOVE STD
10LAT10NS
FTP
R 0 L
L it A C K
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
Y CONCENTRATION
STANDARD IS .12
PRO,
A S E
"l?
.10
.1 1
.08
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.12
.09
.12
.12
.12
.12
.08
.06
BKGD
7555
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000..
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
198
( PPM) AND
PPM)
2
VIOLATIONS
I £ £
1987
1 990
C,3N£ N.U.MB CQNC NUMB CO.N.C JjUMB .
.11 o .m n .1 1 n
.09
.11
.OB
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.11
.09
.13
.10
.12
.11
.07
C
0
0
0
C
0
0
p
C
0
0
1
C
0
C
0
C
-1 .
1
1
.08
.1 1
.08
.11
_,JJ
.10
.12
.13
.11
.10
.14
.09
.12
.10
.08
.09
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2.
4
5
.09
.12
.08
.11
.1 5
.11
.14
.14
.1 1
.10
_*16_
.10
.13
.10
toe
.10
0
n
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
10.
6
15
1 999
CQNC NUMB
.14 •>
.11
.16
.12
.16
_^2Q_
.15
.19
.18
.14
.14
.2?
.12
.17
.13
.10
.13
0
4
0
•n
4
4
11
9
2
17
0
6
1
0
1
47.
14
89
-------
BOLLEiACK AIR QUALITY PROJECTIONS
D
•"
STRATE
03 AIR
L 1
GY : 2
QUALIT
(
NEAR
FTPDACT
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SC
Y CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND
STANDARD IS .12 PPM)
P R Q
REGION
038SAN ISABEL
J4&CEN FLORIDA
05 5CHATT
C52E .WASH
jiSflURLlNGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSVI LLE
OB 50MAHA
092S C IOWA
J 09 4* C
• 11 3CUMBERLAND
125SC MICHIGAN
131MIN-ST PAUL
H3MILES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
1B4CEN OKL A
24 HASPER
243WYOMING
AVERAGE PERCENT CH
NO. OF CITIES ABOV
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLA
&
XEA.R
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
ANGE
E STD
TIONS
A S (
IQNC
.12
.10
.1 1
.08
.1 2
.10
.12
.10
.1 1
.12
.12
• 09
.12
.1 2
.12
.12
.08
.06
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.i_£ c
1982
.09
.07
.09
.06
.10
.06
.10
.OB
.09
.10
.09
.07
.10
.09
.09
.09
.06
.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
-20.
D
0
T E
198
.07
.06
.07
.06
.09
.07
.09
.07
.08
.03
.07
.06
.09
.07
.08
.07
.05
.06
ENAR10: 1
LO
VIOLATIONS
D
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
-31.
0
0
1990
C.Q.UJL
.07
.06
.07
.05
.09
.07
.09
.07
.08
.08
.07
.06
.09
.06
.07
.07
.05
.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-34.
0
0
1999
C.QN.C.
.07
.05
.07
.06
.10
.08
.09
.07
.09
.08
.07
.06
.10
.06
.07
.07
.05
.06
UUK12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
-32.
0
0
-------
N)
U)
Ul
ROLLBACK AIR C.UALITY PR
OJECTIONS
••
L I
STRATEGY: 2
03
i
REGION
038SAN ISABEL
G43CEN FLORIDA
055CHATT
062E.WASH
06 5PURL1NGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSVILLE
0350MAHA
092S C IOWA
> 11 3CUMBERL AND
125SC MICHIGAN
131MIN-ST PAUL
H3MILES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
134CEN OKLA
2U 1CASPER
243WYOM1NG
AVERAGE PERCEN
ND . OF C1T IES
TOTAL NO. OF V
AIR QUALIT
(
6
YE.AR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
T CHANGE
ABOVE STD
10LATIONS
N E A
FTPBAC
Y CONC
STANDA
A S E
".12 .
.10 .
.11 .
.08 .
.12 .
.10 .
.12 .
.10 .
.11 .
.12 .
.12 .
.09 .
.12 .
.12 .
.12 .
.12 .
.08 .
.06 .
R
T
R 0 L
L B A
GROWTH RAT
ENTRATION
RD IS .12
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
£_£_£_
198
C.QNC
.10
.OB
.C9
.07
.10
.09
.10
.09
.10
.11
.39
.08
.11
.09
.10
.10
.07
.06
( PPM)
PPM)
i
2
NUMH C
0
C K
E SC
AND
L-t,
198
ONC
.08
0 .07
0 .08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
-15.
C
0
.06
.10
.08
.10
.08
.09
.10
.08
.07
_iJO_
.08
.08
.08
.06
.06
ENARIQ: 2 HI
VIOLATIONS
P_
7
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
-24.
0
0
1990
1999
CONC NUMB
~7oa ~ o
.06
.08
.06
.10
.08
.10
.08
.10
.11
.08
.07
.10
.07
.08
.07
.06
.07
0
o
0
0
0
Q
0
o
0
n
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
D
CONC
.08
.07
.08
.07
.12
.09
.11
.09
.12
.12
•-DJL
.08
.12
.08
.09
.OS
.06
.08
NUMB
n
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-13.
0
-------
f ROLLBACK AIR QUALITY f- R
OJECT10NS
D
it
•*
7
HC
02
OZ
STRATEGY: 1
*
-,S.^ J 8J1 .
G38SAN ISABEL
OH8CEN FLORIDA
* &55CHATT
052E.UASH
055BURLINGTON
^ 072PADUCAH
077E VANSVI LLE
CS50MAHA
* ft 092S C IOWA
394KC
11 3CUMBERL AND
.* 125SC MICHIGAN
131M1N-ST PAUL
U3MILES CITY
+ , 158CENTRAL NY
1S4CEN OKLA
24UASPER
«* , 243WYOMING
b
Y£AR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
E K
M A
TO NOX RATIO IS
ONE BACKGROUND I
ONE STANDARD IS
FTP
A S E
Mk-A. m.^fc__J
.12
.10
.1 1
.08
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.1 2
.09
.12
.12
.12
.12
.08
.06
9.5 : 1
S .00 PPM
.1
2 PPM
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
E
H£.£JJ_
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
L&.B-.L E c
198
.11
.09
.10
.08
.12
.ID
.10
.11
.12
.11
.09
.12
.11
.11
.11
.OB
.07
2
NUJIB
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
c
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
TED
1987 1990
C_ONC_NUJin C£NC_NU_MB
.09
.10
.07
.12
.10
.12
.09
.11
.12
.11
.09
.12
.10
.11
.11
.07
.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1 1
.09
.11
.08
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.1 1
.09
.13
.10
.1 1
.11
.07
.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1999
CQNC NUMB
.11
.09
.12
.09
.16
.12
.17
.11
.16
.14
.11
.11
.20
.11
.13
.11
.08
.17
n
0
0
0
5
0
6
0
4
2
0
0
13
0
1
0
0
6
'
* . AVERAGE PE RCENT CH
NO. OF CITIES ABOV
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLA
ANGE
E STD
T10NS
-4.
0
0
-4.
0
0
-1.
1
1
23.
7
37
-------
M
U>
-a,
ROLLBACK AIR UUAL1TY PROJECTIONS
'
HC TO Nl
OZONE U/
OZONE S
STRATEGY: 1
REGION
038SAN ISADEL
048CEN FLORIDA
055CHATT
062E .WASH
365RURLINGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSVILLE
G350MAHA
09 2 S C IOWA
094KC
11 3CUMBERL AND
125SC MICHIGAN
131M1N-ST PAUL
_ H.3.MJ1ES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
1«4CEN OKLA
24 1CASPER
243WYOMING
AVERAGE PERCEN
NO. OF CITIES
TOTAL NO. OF V
I,
FTP
A S E
E K
DX RAT
SLCJLG.B-C
TANDAR
M A
10 IS 9.5 : 1
lUND IS .00 PPM
D IS
.12 PPM
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
E
1 R S J
I S. C
1982
Y^A§ CONC BKfiD CONC NUMH
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
T CHANGE
AUOVE STD
IOLATIONS
.12
.10
.1 1
.08
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.12
.09
.12
,12
.12
.12
.08
,06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.DO
.00
.00
.00
.CO
.11
.P9
.11
.PB
.12
.10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.11
.09
.13
.11
.12
.11
.08
.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0.
1
1
TED
I
1987 1990
tfitiC_N.UMn CONC NUMB
.11
..OS
.11
.08
.13
.10
.13
.10
.12
.13
.11
.10
.14
.11
.12
.11
.08
.12
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
n
3
0
0
0
0
n
7.
6
.11
.09
.12
•M_
.15
.1 1
.15
.1 1
.15
.1 4
.11
.1 1
.17
.1 1
.13
.1 1
.03
.17
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
3
2
0
0
7
n
1
0
0
6
19.
7
26
199
tflfcit-
.14
.1 1
.20
.15
.38
.39
.23
.41
.27
.14
.52
.12
.20
_«J_2_
.12
.6D
9
WUHB
2
n
13
64
24
69
72
30
2
20
103
n
12
1
0
121
157.
557
-------
•* 1°
ROLLBACK AIR UUAL1
TY PR
OJECTIONS
C
—
E K M A
HC TO NOX
OZONE BAC
RATIO IS
KGROUND IS
9.5
•
OZONE STANDARD IS
STRATEG
P £ G I 0 N
038SAN ISAUEL
OA8CEN FLORIDA
055CHATT
G52E .WASH
UiSnURLINGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSVI LLE
Q950MAHA
> 092$ C IOWA
! 094KC
11 3CUMBERLAND
12 5SC MICH 1GAN
131MIN-ST PAUL
U3KILES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
1SACEN OKLA
2UCASPER
243WYOM1NG
Y: 2
[>
FTPBACT
A S E
GROWT
P F 0 J
1982
H R
E
YfcAR £BNt B.KG£ £O.NC N]JM£
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
"1976
1976
1976
1976
T976
1976
.12 .
.10
.11 .
.08 .
.12 .
.10 .
.12 .
.10 .
.11
.12 .
.12 .
.09
.12 .
.12 .
.12 .
.12 .
.08
.06 .
00
00
CO
00
00
CO
00
CO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.11
.09
.13
.07
.11
.09
.11
.09
.10
.11
.11
.06
.11
.11
.11
.11
.07
.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
0
u
C
: 1
00 PPM
12 PPM
ATE SC
C T E
198
CQUt
.10
.08
.09
.07
.11
.09
.11
.09
.10
.10
.10
.08
.11
.09
.10
.10
.07
.06
ENARIO
D
: 1 LO
7 1990
MI3B LQN£ MU.MB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.10
.08
.09
.07
.11
.09
.1 1
.09
.10
.10
.10
.08
.11
.09
.10
.09
0 .07
0 .06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
1999
CONC NUMB
.10
.08
.09
.07
.11
.09
.11
.09
.10
.10
.09
.08
.11
.09
.10
.09
.06
.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
AVERAGE PERCENT CHA
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLAT
NGE
STD
IONS
-9.
0
u
-14.
0
0
-1
5.
0
u
-15.
0
0
-------
ISJ
u>
vo
ROLLDACK AIR QUALITY PR
OJECTI
ONS
""
E K M A
HC
OZ
TO NOX RATIO IS
ONE UACKGROUND IS
OZONE STANDARD IS
ST
R F G I 0 N
038SAN ISAUEL
048CEN FLORIDA
U55CHATT
062E .WASH
OiSDURLINGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSV1LLE
G35QMAHA
09 25 C IOWA
094KC
11 3CUMBERL AND
125SC MICHIGAN
131M1N-ST PAUL
H3MILES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
1BACEN OKLA
2C 1CASPER
2C3WYOMING
AVERAGE PERCEN
NO. OF CITIES
TOTAL NO. OF V
RATEGY: 2
L
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
. 1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
T CHANGE
ABOVE STD
IOLATIONS
FTPBAC
.A_S_E_
40NC &
.12
.10
.1 1
.08
.12
,10
.12
.10
.11
.12
.12
.09
.12
.12
.12
.12
.08
.06
T
P
^£B (
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.CO
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.CO
9.5 :
.00
.12
GROWTH RAT
R 0 J
1982
LG^t_B
.11
.09
.10
.07
.11
.09
.11
.09
.10
.11
.11
.OB
.11
.11
.11
.11
.07
.06
_!.£_
UUB-t
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
-7.
0
C
1
PPM
PPM
E SC
T E
198
Q6H-
.10
.10
.07
.11
.09
.11
.10
.10
.08
.11
.10
.10
.10
.07
,06
ENARIO
D
7
.UUttlL-t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
o
0
0
-10.
0
0
: 2 HI
1990
flfiH-JJUl
.10
.08
.10
.07
.11
.09
.11
.10
.1 1
.10
.nn
.11
.m
.10
.10
.07
.07
-1
BB-J
0
n
0
0
0
o.
0
n
0
n
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0.
o
0
1999
.10
.09
.10
.08
.12
.10
.12
.09
.11
.1 2
.10
.ns
.12
.m
.11
.10
.07
.10
UM.fi
3
n
0
n
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
-3.
0
0
-------
ROLLBACK AIR OUAL1TY PROJECTIONS
LINEAR
ROLLDACK
STRATEGY: 1 FTP
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
COS AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS 9. PPM)
P R 0 J E C T E D
T- A S E
1982
1987
1990
1999
p £ G I Q N
G38SAN ISABEL
048CENTRAL FLORIDA
05 5CHATTANOOGA
050S.E. FLOEIDA
Q62E . WASH .
Q65DURLINGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSV1 LLE
03 50MAHA
t 092S.C. IOWA
> 094KANSAS CITY
11 3CUMBERLAND
125S. C. MICHIGAN
131MINN-ST PAUL
143M1LES CITY
158CENTRAL NY
134CEN OKLA
24UASPER
243UYOMING
Y£A.R
1976
1V76
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
£QN£ C
8.
1 .
7.
9.
18.
8.
8.
3.
14 .
11 .
3.
9.
9.
14.
10.
£.
11 .
10.
10.
lH&fi
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
£QN£
6.
1.
5.
7.
13.
6.
6.
2.
11.
9.
2.
7.
7.
10.
7.
6.
9.
7.
7.
Ny.t4E £
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
4
0
C
0
0
2
0
C
p
0
0
'QN.£ N.
5.
1 .
4.
5.
9.
4.
4.
2.
8.
6.
2.
5.
5.
7.
5.
4.
6.
5.
5.
UdB J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
;QN£ N.U
4 .
1 .
3.
4.
8.
4.
4 .
2.
7.
5.
2.
4 .
4.
6.
5.
4.
5.
5.
5.
OR J
0
0
o
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
Q
0
0
LQNC, N
4.
1.
3.
4.
S.
3.
4.
2.
6.
5.
2.
4.
4.
6.
4.
4.
5.
4.
4.
U.MB
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
0
0
n
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
-23.
if
-45.
o
-51.
0
-52.
0
T3TAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
16
-------
ROLLBACK AIR uUALlTY PROJECTIONS
LINEAR
ROLLBACK
STRATEGY: 2 FTPBACT
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
COB AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION) t PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS 9. PPM)
_-_B-A_S_£ 1982
0 £ G J. 0 N
G38SAH ISAbEL
J48CENTRAL FLORIDA
055CHATTANOOGA
GSOS.E. FLOEIDA
04 2F. WASH.
065HURL1NGTON
072PADUCAH
077EVANSVILLE
0350MAHA
^ 092S.C. IOWA
£ 094KANSAS CITY
11 JCUMbERLAND
125S.C. MICHIGAN
131M1NU-ST PAUL
H3M1LES CITY
ISliCLNTRAL NY
134CEN OKL A
2UCASPER
243WYOMING
Y EA R
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
197o
1976
8.
1 .
7.
9.
18.
8.
8.
3.
14.
11 .
3.
9.
9.
14 .
1C.
8.
11 .
1976 10.
1976 10.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
1.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
£QN£. f
6.
1.
5.
7.
13.
6.
6.
2.
11.
9.
2.
7.
7.
10.
7.
6.
9.
7.
7.
1987
1990
jyMfi £QN£ NUMB £QNC N
05. 04.
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1 .
4.
5.
9.
4.
4 .
2.
8.
6.
2.
5.
5.
7.
5.
4.
6.
5.
5.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .
3.
4.
8.
4.
4.
2.
7.
5.
2.
4.
4.
6.
5.
4.
5.
5.
5.
1999
LIMB C.QNC N^MB
0 4. D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
3.
4.
8.
3.
4.
2.
6.
5.
2.
4.
4.
6.
4.
4.
5.
4.
4.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
"Atf ETAGTTE P C EN T CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES AOOVE STD
~TCrTTC~NO"T~~o~F v i O'LA T i ON s
-23
-45
-51
-------
N)
ROLLBACK AIR
QUALITY PROJECTIONS
0
•*
LINEAR
ST
N02
RATEGY: I FTP
AIR QUALIT'
-------
ROLLBACK AI* QUALITY PROJECTIONS
LINEAR
ROLLBACK
STRATEGY: 2 FTPBACT
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 A
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
P R 0 J
R £ G I 0 N
0350MAHA
131M1NN-ST PAUL
158CENTRAL NY
24 1CASPER
H3MILES CITY
U?4kc
038SAN ISABEL
G48CENTRAL FL
055CHATT
E>
Y£AR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
A S E
£QN.£
.03
.04
.03
.00
.03
• 01
.02
.02
.03
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1982
E C
T E D
1987
£2N£. NU.MQ C.QNC NUMB
.03 0 .03 0
.01
.03
.00
.03
.01
.C2
.02
.03
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
.03
.03
.00
.03
.01
.02
.02
.03
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
1990
1
1999
£QN£ NU.MB
.03 ~ "6
.03
.03
.00
.03
.01
.02
.02
.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CQNC
.03
.04
.04
.00
.03
.02
.02
.02
.03
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U>
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO,, OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
-3.
0
0
-5.
0
0
-5.
0
0
6.
0
0
-------
APPENDIX G
COUNTY ECONOMIC PROFILES
244
-------
ECONOMC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
AL ALABAMA
AUTAU6A
BALDWIN
BARBOUR
6 IBB
ELOUNT
fcULLOCK
BUTLER
CALNOUN
CHAMBERS
CHEROKEE
CH1LTCS
CHOCTAU
CLARKE
CLAY
CLEBURNE
COFFEE
COLBERT
CONECUH
COOSA
COVlNGTOh
CRENSH AU
CULLMAN
DALE
DALLAS
DE KALB
ELHORE
ESCAHBIA
ETOWAH
FAYETTE
FRANKLI"
GENEVA
GREENE
HALE
HENRY
HOUSTON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAHAI
LAUDERDALE
LAWRENCE
LEE
LIMESTONE
LOWNDES
HACON
MADISON
RABENCO
MARION
MARSHALL
1«70
POPULATION
T.444
21.
59
22
1 ;
26
11
22
1C3
36
15
25
16
26
12
1C
3*
49
15
10
34
13
52
52
55
41
33
34
94
It
23
21
1C
15
13
56
39
644
14
66
27
61
41
12
24
186
23
23
54
t354
,46C
,382
,543
,81?
,653
,824
,CD7
,092
,356
,606
,1£C
,589
,724
,636
,996
,872
,631
,645
,662
,E79
,188
,44<
,995
,296
,981
,661
,912
,144
.252
.933
.924
,65C
,868
.254
,574
,202
,991
,335
.111
.281
,268
.699
,897
.841
.5*:
.819
,7B8
,211
PCT PCT
CHG URB
1975 1970
4
16
14
1C
4
17
- 5
- 1
3
C
14
1C
3
2
4
6
- C
C
C
4
2
5
1C
- 15
3
16
16
7
1
3
9
7
- 3
- 3
8
22
16
C
9
7
1
12
4
C
4
- 1
- 1
14
9
.9
.9
.2
.9
.5
.7
.0
.6
•2
.4
.0
.9
.2
.7
.2
.2
.1
.9
.{
.1
.6
.2
.3
.7
.7
.1
.1
.1
.2
.3
.e
.0
.4
.1
.C
.5
.2
.2
.9
.9
.4
.3
.3
.1
.C
.6
.6
.6
.1
58.4
53.6
26.6
4C.4
0.0
16.5
36.3
36.5
64.5
44.1
o.c
23.3
c.c
37.1
0.0
27.3
58.0
58.0
25.1
0.0
56.9
0.0
24.0
62.2
49.5
20.1
21.3
43.1
72.0
i9.1
32.6
33.0
26.3
21.2
42.9
64.9
31.3
£8.4
C.O
50.0
c.o
68.2
34.4
O.C
44.4
7C.6
43.5
26. 5
48.5
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS HFC EDU SVC
1,249,195
8,340
21,394
8,183
4,654
9.558
3,685
8,045
36,727
15,240
5,935
8,583
4.895
6,624
4,677
4,199
12,705
17,515
5,267
3,969
12.44C
4,659
19,409
11.205
17,464
14,533
1 2 . 08 1
11,951
74,774
6,162
8,650
6.710
2,877
4,402
4,885
22,897
14,379
248,269
5.596
25,073
9, 494
23.762
15,345
3,464
7,486
70,481
7.7C3
8.V65
20,099
6
8
7
6
5
9
7
6
5
5
6
14
6
7
4
5
6
6
6
5
6
5
6
6
5
9
9
6
C
^
7
6
6
b
8
10
6
9
5
10
7
13
4
9
16
7
4
5
5
7
28
25
26
2E
43
35
23
37
31
59
40
29
49
41
44
54
23
32
39
47
35
32.
32
17
22
38
24
32
35
46
41
26
19
28
26
21
42
24
46
26
36
29
26
16
12
23
36
5C
32
7
5
5
6
5
t.
5
6
6
3
5
4
4
5
5
3
t
6
7
5
5
5
7
6
7
t.
5
6
t
4
5
6
9
8
5
5
5
b
3
7
5
2C
7
8
23
t
t
4
4
9
9
9
13
6
5
11
1C
7
8
4
6
7
8
7
4
9
8
8
7
6
t
6
6
n
5
9
9
E
6
t
8
11
11
5
9
5
9
3
6
6
9
8
11
1C
9
11
5
7
GOV
17
16
15
15
13
12
16
12
23
7
12
13
10
14
15
16
20
21
17
14
12
12
11
24
17
11
1b
15
11
12
14
15
22
22
16
13
16
13
13
2C
17
27
23
21
32
31
IS
12
18
245
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
197C
STATE AN6 COUNTY
AL MOBILE
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
PERRY
PICKETS
PIKE
RANDOLPH
RUSSELL
ST CL*1R
SHELBY
SUMTER
TALLA0EGA
TALLAPOOSA
TUSC ALOOSA
WALKER
WASHINGTON
WlLCO*
WINSTON
AK ALASKA
ALEUT] AN I SLANDS
ANCHCP AGE
ANGOON
bARROW
BETHEL
BRISTOL bAY BOROUGH
BRISTOL bAY DIVISION
CORDOVA-MC CARTHY
FAIRBANKS
HA1NES
JUNEAU
KENAI-COOK INLET
KETCHIKAK
KOBUK
KOD1 Alt
KUSKOK WIM
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA
NOME
OUTER KETCH1KAN
PRINCE OF WALES
SEwARD
SITKA
SKAGWA V-YAKUTAT
SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS
UPPER YUKON
VALCEZ-CHITIMA-WMITT 1
WAtE HAMPTON
WRANGELL -PETERSBURG
YUKON-IOYUKUK
POPUL*
317
20
167
77
15
2C
25
1?
45
27
38
16
65
33
116
56
1ft
1ft
16
3:2
f
12ft
7
7
1
3
1
45
1
13
14
1C
4
0
2
6
5
1
2
2
6
2
4
1
•r
3
4
4
PCT
CHG
PCT CIVILIAN
URF/ LABOF.
T10N 1975 197C
,30F
,883
,79C
,306
,3EE -
,326
,C3F
,331
,394
.956
,037
,974 -
,28C
,84C
,C2?
,246
,241
• - 0? -
,654
,5*7
.221 -
,3*5
507
.451
,767
,147
,4£5
,857
,864
,5C4
,- 56
,25:
,041
,C4E
,409 -
,306
,50"
,749
,676
,106
,33ft
.109
.15"7
,179
,282 -
,C98
,917
.917
,75P
5.2
1 .4
8 .4
7.5
13.2
3.0
6 .1
0.7
1 .3
19.1
27 .8
6.7
1 .2
7.2
6 .8
15 .5
4 .9
12 .3
16 .2
1ft .2
7.5
22.4
59.0
21 .5
14 .7
e .0
9.0
14 .4
7 .7
36 .3
18 .5
E .5
2 .9
10 .4
5 .C
16.0
62.6
8.2
1 .1
20 .2
29 .8
4 .6
20.5
7.3
3.3
62. f
13.5
13.6
6.9
= ES
82
23
82
5P
27
14
56
28
55
20
16
17
53
49
74
24
r
c
24
48
0
fcf
C
c
3
c
c
c
73
0
45
24
73
C
73
0
C
0
0
c
0
57
0
0
c
c
u
0
0
.0
.2
.9
.7
.9
.0
.0
.6
.7
.5
.8
.9
.3
.2
.0
.C
.0
.c
.8
.8
.C
.5
.0
.0
.c
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.8
.6
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.c
.0
.c
.0
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS
112,410
7,188
63,630
28,754
4,604
7,244
9,664
7,027
16,761
9,541
13.661
4,682
24,000
13,690
40,962
18,534
4,987
4,446
6,17b
98,296
1,088
44 , 297
59
605
1,380
224
658
602
13,987
527
6.41C
4,933
3,988
731
2,935
341
2,091
1,466
491
627
700
2,734
727
942
560
1,306
450
1,867
1,170
7
t
7
e
8
5
10
E
8
9
9
7
6
5
6
7
7
7
8
9
10
1C
c
3
1
C
1
14
11
9
10
9
6
4
2
3
11
3
1C
3
6
3
1
14
7
19
0
3
5
HFG
22
39
11
32
23
43
18
51
34
35
30
21
42
53
22
26
50
35
46
7
13
•7
1C
0
t
c
t
7
2
29
2
12
19
2
23
2
2
1
21
74
11
2ft
6
C
4
1
5
34
1
EDO
7
6
8
5
12
6
14
4
3
5
7
13
6
4
15
6
6
7
4
10
6
E
4t
15
16
30
23
t
15
5
9
9
9
23
13
6
t
20
19
E
13
1 1
11
10
14
8
31
11
16
SVC
9
7
12
7
9
8
12
4
12
7
7
10
8
7
9
6
t
1C
4
7
9
t
r
U
3
6
2
4
7
7
6
6
6
5
7
4
1C
6
6
C
C
t
t
7
15
1
7
3
4
3
GOV
15
16
24
16
16
13
25
13
13
15
13
22
14
9
26
12
14
15
12
36
47
34
ec
59
62
67
49
24
37
21
57
20
27
56
33
47
33
49
61
1C
41
32
25
49
21
45
62
17
53
246
-------
ECONOMIC PfOMLES Of COUNTIES
STATE ANB COUNTY
At PRINCE Of WHALES ELD
KEUHIKAN ELD
WRANGELL -PETERSBURG E
S1TKA ELK
JUNEAU CLD
LYNN CANAL-ICY STRAIT
COROOVA-KCCASTHY ELO
VALOEZ-CMITINA-WHITTI
PALME* -WASILLA-TAKEET
ANCHORAGE ELO
&EMARD ELD
KENAI-COOK INLET ELD
KCDIAK ELD
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS ELD
BRISTOL BAT ELD
BETHEL ELD
KUSKOKMIP ELD
VUKON-KOVUKUK ELD
FAIRBANKS ELD
UPPER YUKON ELD
bARRCh ELD
KObUK ELD
NOAE ELD
UADE HAKPTOM ELD
riRST JD
SECOND JD
THIRD JD
FOURTH JD
AI ARIZONA
APACHE
COCH1SE
CCCON1NO
61LA
GRAHAM
6REENLEE
HARICOPA
HOHAVE
NAVAJO
PIHA
PINAL
SANTA CRUZ
YAVAPAI
TUHA
A* ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ASNLET
BAITER
BENTON
BOONE
1970
POPULATION
1,775
3?
61
4f
29
1<
1C
971
21
47
351
66
13
37
6C
1,923
23
2«
15
5C
19
0
c
e
c
D
C
c
0
£
c
c
c
c
c
p
c
0
c
r
c
f»
\,
e
r
c
r
r
b
c
0
,395
.304
,916
.32e
.255
.578
.33C
.22?
.P57
.559
,667
,57?
,9(6
,CC5
.527
.32?
.347
,976
.319
,476
,073
PCT PCT C
CH6 UREi
1975 197C
C.O
c.o
C.O
0.0
c.o
c.o
c.o
0.0
0.0
c.c
c.o
0.0
c.c
o.c
c.c
c.c
c.o
c.c
c.c
c.o
c.c
C.O
c.o
c.c
c.o
c.o
o.c
c.c
25.2
26.9
2C.C
35 .4
11.2
21 .9
15.0
25.4
44.5
22 .0
25.5
28.1
24.2
32.7
15.6
1C.O
- 1.3
C.5
77.1
18.3
17.5
C.C
0.0
c.o
0.0
c.o
c.o
o.c
0.0
o.c
r.o
c.c
c.c
0.0
0.0
c.c
o.c
o.c
c.o
P.O
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
c.o
o.c
0.0
c.o
c.o
79.5
o.c
64.4
54.0
43.6
32.2
49.2
93.4
26.4
26.9
65.3
47.9
63.9
42.9
62.4
50. C
61.6
48.8
25.7
45. C
36.1
1VIL1AN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS HFC EDU SVC GOV
641
6
18
16
9
5
3
376
9
12
122
21
4
12
20
6E8
e
8
0
C
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
L.
C
0
0
c
c
c
c
,000
,868
,559
,689
.667
,052
,645
,964
.512
.689
.311
.277
.588
,440
.739
.630
,674
.394
4,633
19
,566
7.C26
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
7
6
4
6
6
1C
9
7
19
8
7
6
6
11
7
6
5
6
16
7
E
C
C
C
c
c
c
c-
0
0
c
c
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
r
0
0
c
c
0
c
c
p
0
15
t
11
7
17
c
3
20
8
1!
8
1C
5
9
4
26
20
39
23
35
21
r
k
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
c
0
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
u
0
9
23
9
16
5
12
7
8
5
13
12
8
6
t
9
7
5
e
4
5
6
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
M
u
c
c
<•*
Ly
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
0
c
c
0
9
5
7
1C
7
E
5
9
11
6
1C
6
6
8
9
8
1C
8
9
5
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
18
55
31
36
16
22
10
15
16
31
21
19
20
19
26
15
9
1C
16
t
15
247
-------
FCONOriC PFCF1LES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
1C7C CHG URh LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION 1975 197C FORCE CONS MFG EDU SVC GOV
All
BRADLEY
CALHOUN
CARROLL
CHJCOT
CLARK
CLAY
CLEBURNE
CLEVEL AND
COLUMBIA
CONWAV
CRAIGHEAD
CRAWFORD
CRITTENDEN
CROSS
DALLAS
DESHA
DREW
FAULKNER
FRANKL IN
FULTON
GARLAND
GPANT
GREENE
hEMPSTEAC
HOT SPRING
HOWARD
INDEPENDENCE
IZARD
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JOHNSON
LAFAYETTE
LAWRENCE
LEE
LINCOLN
LITTLE RIVER
L06AN
LONOKE
MADISON
MARION
MILLER
MISSISSIPPI
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
NEVADA
NEWTON
OUACHITA
PERRY
PHILLIPS
12
5
12
18
21
1£
10
t
25
16
52
25
48
19
1C
1P
15
31
11
7
54
9
24
19
21
11
22
7
2C
85
1?
1C
16
1P
12
11
16
26
9
7
33
62
15
C
1C
5
3C
5
4C
,778
.57?
,301
.164
,537
,771
,349
,6C5
.952
,805
,06?
,677
,106
,78?
,022
,761
,157
.578
,301
,699
,131
.711
,765
,30E
,963
,412
,723
,381
.452
.32?
,63C
,018
.32?
,884
,913
,194
,789
.249
.453
,000
.385
,060
,657
,821
.111
.844
.896
.634
.046
- 1.8
0.1
14 .2
- 1.1
1 .9
6.3
34 .7
4 .4
- 0.2
5.2
14.1
16.2
4 .7
- 2.0
2.8
- 2.7
2 .5
21 .8
6 .4
14.7
13.9
23.0
16 .4
3 .7
7 .7
14.9
3 .f
26. C
6.1
- 2.0
14 .7
- 6.5
13.4
- 6.7
1 .0
4 .3
7.8
17.7
6.3
30.5
- C.I
- C.9
- 2.7
11.4
2 .1
16.C
- 3.5
23.£
- 4 .9
50.
0.
0.
63.
45.
30.
0.
C.
43.
43.
51.
32.
6C.
33.
46.
5C.
33.
49.
23.
C.
65.
C.
42.
45.
39.
35.
31.
C.
37.
70.
35.
C.
22.
32.
0.
31.
42.
35.
P.
0.
65.
52.
5C.
0.
3
0
C
1
7
9
C
0
6
C
9
6
4
8
E
1
5
1
2
0
8
C
6
6
9
2
4
C
5
9
1
C
7
8
C
2
1
3
C
0
3
3
9
0
4
1
4
5
8
6
3
2
9
5
2C
9
15
6
3
6
5
11
3
2
19
3
9
7
8
4
8
2
7
29
4
3
5
4
3
4
5
9
3
1
12
19
4
1
,151
,883
.74C
,361
.162
,264
,206
,114
,715
,796
,310
,214
,443
,868
,469
,216
,576
.285
,743
,333
,354
,445
.057
,406
,285
.253
,181
,554
,131
, 3T2
,664
,24C
,720
,869
,633
,002
,628
,162
,105
,996
.537
.431
.495
,930
3fc.3 3,357
C.
49.
C.
53.
0
1
C
8
1
11
1
11
.521
,213
,704
,794
6
7
7
7
4
5
12
7
5
6
6
7
7
5
5
5
6
b
13
11
e
6
6
7
6
5
8
8
6
5
10
6
6
4
5
5
9
8
6
8
7
5
3
8
9
11
5
9
4
36
42
25
15
27
27
25
41
3C
34
24
36
16
28
42
17
38
22
20
22
19
42
33
23
4C
37
31
28
19
24
31
30
19
26
27
42
27
23
26
25
23
23
24
33
27
32
41
24
25
5
8
4
7
22
5
6
6
1 1
6
11
4
5
6
6
7
13
17
10
5
3
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
8
7
6
11
1 1
5
5
6
5
5
6
e
6
7
6
6
4
5
6
9
11
7
7
12
7
6
8
6
11
7
8
5
11
8
6
9
8
6
6
6
14
6
6
9
6
5
7
6
8
V
7
8
6
7
6
5
5
7
5
10
9
10
7
6
6
7
9
4
9
13
17
12
15
20
9
15
16
1 7
10
15
8
12
14
14
14
19
26
18
18
11
13
11
16
10
1 1
12
13
10
18
14
14
13
19
13
17
1 £
12
1*
22
18
15
12
19
16
21
1 1
18
16
248
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Or COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AN 6 COUNTY
A* PIKE
POINSETT
POLK
FOPE
PRAIRIE
PULASKI
tAhDOLPH
ST FRANCIS
SALINE
SCOTT
SEACCV
SEbASTlAN
SEVIER
SHARP
STONE
UNION
VAN BO REN
WASHINGTON
WHITE
WOODRUFF
TELL
C* CALIFORNIA
ALAMEDA
ALPINE
AMADOR
6UTTE
CALAVERAS
COLUSA
CONTRA COSTA
DEL NORTE
EL DORADO
FRESNO
GLENN
HUMBOLDT
IMPERIAL
INTO
KEfcN
KINGS
LAKE
LASSEN
LOS ANGELES
MADERA
rARIN
MARIPOSA
MENDOC1NO
*ERC£D
MODOC
MONO
MONTC'EY
197C
POPULATION
8
:t
13
28
1C
287
12
3C
3t
8
7
79
11
£
t
45
8
77
39
1 1
14
1C, 571
1 ,T71
11
K1
i:
12
55f
14
43
417
1?
99
74
15
33C
66
19
It
7.C41
41
2Ct
t
51
104
7
4
24'
,711
,843
.297
,607
.249
,185
,645
,799
,107
,207
.731
.237
.272
.23!
,838
,*2£
.275
,37:
.25:
,5tt
,20r
,'f-
,44t
484
.821
,969
,58 T..
,*3C
,116
,58C
.833
.329
.521
,692
,492
,571
.234
.717
.548
.79<
,98-C
.519
,652
.015
,101
.629
,469
,016
,*sr
PCT PCT
CHG URF
1975 197T
11.5
2 .8
11 .3
19.2
- 3.1
12.9
21 .C
0.6
19.2
13.2
6 .5
38.2
1C. 4
28 .8
U .C
- 2.6
18 .3
15.5
17.6
- 12.5
16 .8
' .£
1 .6
64 .5
27.9
17.5
1fc .4
2.2
5.0
7.2
35 .1
7.8
7.8
5.5
i2.e
1C. 8
4 .1
2.2
29.9
12.2
- 1 .4
11 .6
3.5
39.1
12.7
13.1
7.4
83.0
7.5
0.0
35.3
34.1
41.1
0.0
64.5
35.9
4C.7
46 .0
0.0
0.0
82.1
33.9
C.O
c.o
55.7
0.0
tO. 6
3C.5
24.4
23. 2
9: .9
99. C
C.O
0.0
63.8
''.G
3P.9
93.6
38.9
41.8
75.1
39.8
47.1
67.8
22.5
8C.2
54.9
29.9
39.3
98.7
49.1
92.4
O.C
3*.5
50.0
39.3
C.O
74.6
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
2,953
9
4
11
3
112
4
10
13
2
2
32
4
2
2
16
2
30
14
3
5
7,992
445
,1*5
.533
.271
.377
,675
,306
.152
.706
,811
,410
,126
,19*
.6*2
,068
,906
.400
,808
,024
,617
.323
,168
,865
217
4,266
35
4
4
223
5
18
150
,199
,712
,766
,383
.458
,069
.724
6.780
17
25
6
117
19
6
5
3.014
13
84
2
18
33
3
1
?3
.548
.257
.292
,390
.326
,350
,914
.116
,641
.557
.224
.632
.966
.092
,87C
,S45
11
4
6
9
7
6
5
5
7
9
6
6
7
16
1C
6
9
5
8
3
1C
5
5
14
7
6
11
5
7
4
8
5
5
5
5
10
6
3
11
4
4
5
5
6
5
5
5
14
5
31
33
37
26
21
18
37
25
33
3t
4C
29
37
13
28
25
26
21
26
23
25
21
19
4
17
9
15
3
2C
27
8
11
9
25
6
3
7
9
5
9
27
9
9
5
23
1C
8
1
1C
4
6
6
10
3
6
5
7
5
7
6
4
4
5
6
6
6
14
10
8
5
8
9
11
10
13
5
b
8
8
6
9
5
10
a
6
8
10
6
8
6
£
9
5
6
9
6
6
8
6
7
5
7
5
9
5
9
4
6
4
7
5
4
6
10
5
6
7
6
5
8
8
17
9
8
6
8
7
6
16
6
6
6
7
12
7
6
13
6
9
6
9
20
7
6
7
25
9
60V
11
10
13
17
9
18
12
15
19
15
14
9
10
12
20
10
15
21
10
15
13
17
22
40
27
21
23
20
19
2C
19
18
17
20
21
28
20
21
18
46
14
17
18
33
22
21
26
30
19
249
-------
ECONOMIC PFOFUES Of COUNTIES
PAGE
1970
STATE ANC COUNTY
CA NAPA
NEVADA
ORAN6E
PLACE*
PLUMA5
dl VE R5 IDE
SACRA-ENTO
SAN BEN1 TO
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOAOUIN
SAN Lt'lS CBISPO
SAN HATEO
SANTA BARBARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRU2
SHAS TA
SIfcRRA
SI SKI rou
SOLANC
SONCH*
STANISLAUS
SUTTE*
TEHAM*
TR1NIT Y
TULARE
TUOLU»NE
VENTURA
YOLO
VUBA
CO COLORADO
ADAMS
ALAMOS A
ARAPAMOE
ARCHULETA
fcACA
BENT
BOULDER
CHAFFf E
CHEYENNE
CLEAI CREEK
CONE JOS
COSTILLA
CROULF V
CUST£P
DELTA
DENVER
DOLORES
POPULATION
79
26
1 ,421
77
11
456
634
1£
682
1,357
715
291
1C5
557
2t 4
1.C65
123
77
c
3?
171
r C4
194
41
29
7
1F£
2T
37F
91
44
2.2C9
185
11
162
t
t
6
131
1C
2
4
7
T
T
1
15
514
1
,14C
,346
.233
,632
.707
,916
.373
,226
,233
,854
,674
,C73
,69:
,361
,324
,313
,79C
,64C
,365
,225
,9fc9
,88T
,506
,935
,517
.615
.322
,169
,497
,7fcE
.736
,596
,789
,422
.142
,733
,674
.497
,f£9
,162
.396
,£19
,£46
,091
,086
,12C
,286
,67P
,*41
PC T
CHG
1975
E S S. S ~ E~
14.2
2fc .9
20 .3
17.2
19.7
14.7
E .5
9.2
2 .1
16.9
- 6 .5
2 .9
23 .1
2 .£
5 .£
1C.1
22 .4
14 .2
1C .0
5 .3
8.9
19.9
15 .1
9 .9
t .7
27.4
1C. 4
17.3
15 .7
1C .1
C.5
14 .7
15 .6
5.E
3C.6
15.0
- C .3
1 .7
26 .2
13.3
- £ .9
E .5
2.2
- C.2
: .7
4.0
11 .9
- 5.0
4 .6
PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
URE LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
197C
57.9
19.8
98.8
40.5
29.6
78.6
95.1
42.0
£9.6
93.5
C.C.
76.9
75 .5
98.3
BE. 5
97.5
75 .0
49.6
C.C
25.4
92. £
58.6
69.9
52.6
38.3
C'.O
53.8
14.0
92.4
75.4
71.4
78.7
93.7
6C.fc
97.4
0.0
C.C
49. C
77. E
42.7
C.C
C.C
C.C
C.C
o.c
C.C
24.1
r.c
P.O
FORCE CONS
30
9
575
28
4
160
244
7
237
459
340
11C
38
251
101
434
47
29
12
54
73
72
15
10
2
69
8
140
36
11
862
72
4
65
2
2
54
3
2
2
5
221
K ^3 » E .
.244
.372
,570
.953
.719
,89C
.280
,228
,716
,679
,075
,524
,202
,281
,425
,254
,616
, 11 C
be 4
.543
,32t
,113
,015
,519
,906
.725
,843
,172
,163
.334
,122
.133
,007
,465
,355
910
.220
,084
,880
.579
927
,074
.043
791
957
411
,231
.627
567
6
8
6
7
4
6
6
3
7
t
3
5
7
5
5
5
6
7
8
6
4
6
6
£
5
11
4
12
6
5
9
6
7
6
6
11
7
4
5
6
9
18
7
2
4
5
7
5
4
MFC EDU
19 10
1C
28
8
17
15
9
1F
19
17
11
15
5
17
12
30
16
17
24
22
20
12
19
7
25
21
10
12
1 7
8
1C
14
19
i
17
23
0
3
21
4
1
6
6
2
7
£
9
15
7
6
7
a
9
10
£
7
9
9
5
7
13
6
12
9
9
9
7
7
t
8
c
6
7
11
6
7
6
22
£
1C
6
22
8
12
13
£
1fc
6
12
5
16
19
9
6
b
8
6
SVC
7
10
7
6
7
9
7
7
8
9
11
7
9
9
1 1
8
8
9
6
7
7
8
7
6
7
6
6
9
6
7
&
fc
7
7
7
t
6
5
E
8
2
10
5
3
5
2
6
9
4
GOV
31
25
13
28
26
19
35
14
20
21
1V
21
29
14
21
14
1 7
21
21
19
37
2C
16
22
17
36
17
23
21
36
24
19
14
32
16
24
21
44
25
2C
22
16
26
32
29
20
1t
1 7
23
250
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE ANO COUNTY
CO DOUGLAS
EAtLf
ELBERT
tL PASO
FREMONT
6ARF1ELD
GILPI*
GRAND
CUNN1SON
HINSDALE
MUERF A NO
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
KIOWA
KIT CARSON
LAKE
LA PLATA
LAfilME 0
LAS ANIMAS
LINCOLN
LOGAN
MESA
MINERAL
MOM AT
MONTE7UMA
MONTROSE
MORGAN
OTERO
OURAT
PARK
PHILLIPS
PITKIN
PROWERS
PUEBLO
RIO BLANCO
DIO G CANOE
• OUTT
SA6UACHE
SAN JUAN
SAN MIGUEL
SEDGUIC*
SUMMIT
TELLER
WASHINGTON
WELD
TUMA
CT CONNECTICUT
FAIRFIELD
HAITfORD
1 9 7C
POPULATION
8
7
T
2?5
21
U
1
4
7
t
1
235
2
7
8
19
85
15
4
1?
54
t
12
If
•5 r
4. k
23
1
2
4
6
13
m
4
1C
t
t
1
1
2
3
c
89
8
3.C32
792
816
,407
,49P
,903
,97?
,*42
.821
,272
,1C7
,576
2C2
,59C
.811
,3tP
,229
,53C
.282
,199
,9DC
,744
,£36
,852
,374
78<
.525
.952
,3tfc
,1C5
,523
,546
,185
,131
.1*5
.258
,23E
.8*2
,494
.592
,827
831
,945
,4CI
.6*5
,3U
,5sr
.297
,544
.217
,814
.737
PCT PCT
CHG UR(<
1975 1970
86
33
37
21
16
17
42
5C
2t
74
- 2
- 2
29
5
C
- 1
i ?1
r- 34
- C
1
C
13
2
25
15
9
6
3
13
£6
7
44
T
t
7
1
50
1
1
9
- 3
1C4
72
- 1
2C
C
2
C
C
.7
.2
.6
.3
.5
.1
.2
.3
.0
.8
.9
.2
.5
.7
.7
.8
.3
.5
.3
.8
.4
.8
.C
.8
.9
.4
.5
.3
.8
.9
C
• ^
.2
.1
.1
.3
.5
.6
.e
.2
.1
.2
.1
.4
.4
.£
.6
.1
.1
.7
C.O
0.0
c.c
fcE.6
67.7
27.7
C.C
:.c
63.5
r.o
69.6
0.0
89.9
C.C
37.9
52.5
55.6
66.3
63.2
C.O
57.3
47.8
r.o
67.8
47.5
35.4
54.6
54.2
r.o
c.c
c.c
G.C
59.2
67.7
0.0
37.1
C.O
C.C
C.O
c.c
r.o
C.O
C.O
C.O
46. S
C.C
77.3
86.2
64.9
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
fORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC 60V
3,311
3,206
1,547
71,085
6,831
6,167
41C
1,fi99
2,773
63
2.099
706
97.866
756
2,864
3,152
7,002
36.C43
5.142
1,902
7.15C
21,285
319
2,639
4,343
6,660
7,746
8,111
612
622
1,616
3.C6C
5,005
42,641
1.986
3,967
2,613
1.282
302
703
1.386
1.301
1,202
2,136
34,807
3,275
1,298,483
340, C97
363.832
12
14
6
7
8
11
19
9
7
17
9
6
7
3
6
5
7
7
7
6
4
7
4
11
5
7
5
4
t
11
4
«
7
4
7
5
9
8
6
2
4
12
15
6
7
6
5
5
5
16
2
7
11
17
2
1C
5
2
0
4
12
17
5
3
3
5
15
3
1
7
1C
1
1
7
5
8
12
r
5
4
2
8
21
2
6
3
2
C
0
3
1
9
2
14
2
34
35
33
10
4
9
11
fc
7
1
3
27
0
9
t
£
10
9
8
12
20
13
7
12
10
t
6
9
7
7
1C
t
t
8
7
9
9
1i
6
1 1
7
U
V
5
7
9
t
13
E
t
7
7
6
18
6
10
8
11
14
15
11
19
9
2
7
4
6
4
10
7
7
4
6
8
6
1C
£
5
7
7
4
1C
6
16
6
6
£
7
10
3
8
4
6
11
3
4
6
6
e
7
5
19
13
20
23
21
15
19
22
36
17
25
23
16
26
16
12
22
27
30
20
15
19
22
24
22
20
13
20
1«
20
17
9
16
25
29
17
20
16
21
16
U
16
22
20
19
16
13
11
13
251
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
1970
STATE AND COUNTY
CT
DE
DC
ft
LITCHf IELD
RIDBtE SEX
NEtt HAVEN
NEtt LONDON
TOLLAND
UINDhAM
DELAttARF.
KENT
NEW CASTLE
SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLtneiA
FLORID A
ALACHUA
BAKES
eAY
BRADFORD
t R E V A R D
bROttABD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUM6 IA
DADE
DE SOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAM5IA
FLAGLER
FRANKL IN
bADSDEN
6ILCMR1ST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRV
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
H1LLSPORCUGH
HOLIES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFF EPSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE
POPULATION
144
115
744
23C
103
64
54?
81
3f 5
?C
756
756
6,791
104
9
75
14
23 r
6ZC
7
27
19
32
3F
25
1,267
13
5
52P
205
4
7
39
3
3
1C
7
14
11
17
29
49C
1C
35
34
E
2
69
105
,091
,01F
,94E
.654
,44C
,515
,U4
,892
,856
,356
,66P
,66f
.418
.764
.242
.283
,62'
,CO«
,1CC
,624
,559
,196
,C59
,C4C
,25C
.792
,06:
,48C
,865
,334
,454
,065
,164
.551
,669
,096
.78'
.889
,859
,004
.507
.265
.72C
,992
.434
,778
.692
,305
,216
PC T
CHG
1975
3.8
8.5
2 .1
4 .3
fc .4
7.1
5 .7
11 .9
3 .4
1C. 2
- 5.4
- 5.4
22.9
23.7
37.C
17.8
13.1
1 .1
39.1
6.C
54 .8
97.3
57.2
64 .0
13.9
13.5
33.0
14.9
7.9
7.8
44 .8
9.0
- 5.4
42.0
2C.7
1.0
5.4
21 .8
28.3
67 .5
39.0
19.5
16.6
27.8
12.8
7.3
1C. 5
27.9
47.7
PCT CIVILIAN EHPLOYHENT
URF LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
197C
4P.2
45.4
87.2
52.1
41 .3
3f .2
72.1
38.6
91.2
14.2
C.O
C.O
8C.5 2
69.0
29.6
76.4
33.3
85.1
99. C
C.O
59.1
C.O
5C.2
66.1
56.2
98.4
43.3
C.O
97.9
63.9
O.C
44.6
41.6
c.c
C.O
43.6
C.O
20.3
32.9
23.9
47.2
61.2
C.C
69.6
27.3
C.C
C.O
43.4
7C.3
FORCE CONS
62.200
49.C2C
321,648
83,230
41.996
36,490
219,155
28,433
157,222
33,500
348,113
348,113
,521,245
41,050
3,076
25,659
4,985
87,987
236,662
2,576
7,052
5,406
9,531
14,270
9,432
533,132
4,539
1,621
199,101
67,561
1,456
2.58C
12,940
1,199
1,304
3.454
2,596
5,742
4,683
5,521
9,828
188,262
3,475
12,902
11,458
3.094
936
23,977
37,175
6
6
5
6
6
6
7
8
7
9
4
4
E
6
11
£
7
t
11
1C
14
17
7
14
7
6
6
7
7
£
7
5
6
12
11
5
6
5
11
1C
6
6
11
9
7
7
14
7
14
RFG ECU SVC
3t I
36
35
34
32
43
29
24
30
3C
4
4
14
7
13
12
13
24
11
19
5
6
14
3
15
14
7
39
12
17
12
1 G
1:
17
t
36
14
9
13
5
6
17
23
11
11
10
20
11
5
6
9
8
15
10
8
£
£
6
7
7
7
26
t
fc
7
c
5
11
5
7
9
6
8
6
4
1 f
t
t
7
6
6
9
5
9
9
5
6
6
6
7
6
7
c,
1C
8
6
6
6
4
5
5
4
4
8
6
e
t
12
12
11
7
4
12
6
13
13
8
11
13
6
13
10
13
5
4
10
1C
15
6
7
5
6
8
7
6
9
7
8
9
5
11
7
6
3
9
11
60V
11
15
12
18
21
15
15
24
13
15
42
42
16
42
39
22
28
21
12
29
13
15
27
1 1
28
11
31
22
17
24
20
17
24
27
18
18
16
14
17
17
15
14
20
1 7
33
26
14
13
13
252
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PACE
STATE AN6 COUNTY
It LEON
LEW
LIbE"T*
»A»1SON
MANATE E
PAR ION
FAfiTlN
PONROE
NASSAU
GKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOL A
PAL* BEACH
PASCO
P1NELLAS
POLK
PUTNAP
ST JOHNS
ST LUCIE
SAM A ROSA
SAPASCT*
SEM1NOLE
SUMTER
SUbANNEE
TAYLOP
UNION
VOLUS1 A
bAKULl A
WALTON
WASHINGTON
61 GEORGIA
APPLIN6
ATKINSON
bACON
BAKER
BALDWIN
BANKS
BARROW
BARTOV
BEN HILL
BERR1EN
BIBB
bLECKLET
6RANTLET
BROOKS
BRTAN
fcULLOCH
BURKE
197C
POPULATION
1C!
12
T
13
57
6<5
2E
52
ZC
8f
11
344
25
348
75
J22
T2£
?£
11
5C
37
1::
FI
14
15
1*
E
169
t
16
11
4,587
12
c
8
j
34
6
U
32
13
11
143
1C
5
13
6
;i
if
,P47
,756
.379
,4t1
.115
,03C
.r35
,566
.626
,187
.23?
.311
,267
,993
.955
.329
.515
,424
,C35
,836
,741
.413
.692
,839
,559
,641
.11?
,487
,3re
,067
,*53
.93C
.726
,879
.233
,875
.240
,833
,S59
,911
.171
,556
,366
.291
.94C
.7*3
.539
,585
.Z55
PCT PCT
ChG URL
1975 197C
25.8
27.3
11.1
6.5
26.4
39.8
64 .C
- 2.3
36.7
17.9
52 .2
19.7
50. 6
71.8
66 .7
25. P
19.8
19.C
25.2
3C.4
2C.7
35.C
61 .2
35.6
17.2
1 .1
Z5 .7
23.E
43.7
8. 8
13.8
7.4
13.1
- C.3
10 .3
- 4.4
- I .8
- 1.4
14.C
9.C
e.s
7.8
- C.5
1 .7
25.7
1.5
22.1
3.4
- 0.7
75.6
C.C
c.c
2P.O
71.4
4C.4
16.8
71.2
33.7
62.0
33.1
83.2
47.6
91.1
33.8
96.1
6C.9
25.7
40.2
65.0
34.4
75.0
61.9
C.O
43.9
56.5
P.C
70.4
o.c
30.9
27.7
6C.3
27.2
0.0
44.3
C.C
75.5
C.C
38.9
3C.4
6C.9
36.5
£8.0
49.7
C.C
35.1
r.c
46.3
3C.3
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC 60V
44
4
1
4
29
Z5
9
15
7
23
.594
.566
.089
.913
.579
,3P7
,209
.525
.522
.250
3.89t
133
8
135
19
171
86
13
10
18
11
37
31
5
5
5
2
58
2
5
3
1.8P5
4
1
3
1
10
2
7
13
5
4
58
3
2
4
2
11
&
,058
,481
,7*4
.137
.027
,525
,049
,990
,874
,743
,773
,805
,C20
,703
,023
,003
,394
,375
,C72
,555
,019
.515
.924
.274
,080
.725
.670
.157
.5*3
.3*4
,510
,072
,940
,116
,999
,19£
,689
.953
6
12
4
3
8
8
12
8
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
b
7
4
7
9
9
11
9
6
7
6
7
8
12
12
15
6
13
<,
6
4
4
12
7
8
7
6
6
5
10
3
14
6
b
5
1*
35
2C
14
11
17
3
32
9
4
14
16
15
17
13
16
28
13
E
23
9
15
12
13
37
12
1C
14
15
1?
27
Z9
3C
26
21
21
43
43
49
29
30
18
ZC
24
19
26
19
31
22
7
8
11
6
8
6
5
6
10
8
7
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
7
9
6
6
7
8
7
9
fc
5
E
E
6
5
6
4
3
9
4
4
4
6
3
7
13
4
7
6
16
6
; = s v s :
9
11
5
7
11
1C
14
14
9
11
7
1C
7
12
7
12
8
9
12
9
7
13
9
8
7
9
7
13
£
7
9
9
5
5
6
6
8
4
7
5
9
7
11
7
4
9
&
9
10
S E v*
45
20
31
19
13
16
11
25
16
33
22
1*
17
12
11
13
12
15
19
16
26
11
13
15
19
17
41
14
23
28
28
16
14
12
10
19
**
16
9
11
13
11
li
35
14
13
Z3
19
14
253
-------
ECONOMIC PfOFILES CF COUNTIES
PAGE 10
STATE AM6 COUNTY
6* BUTTS
CAIMOUN
CAffOEN
CANOL.E H
CARROLL
CATCOS A
CHASLTON
CHATHAM
CMATTAHOOCHfE
CHATT006A
CH£BO»EE
CLARfcE
CLAT
CLAYTON
CLINCH
COfcB
COFFEE
COLttl TT
COLUH6 1A
COCK
COhETA
C( AW FO (D
CRISP
CADE
DAySON
DECATUR
DE KALE)
DODGE
DOOLY
DOUGHERTY
DOUGLAS
EARLY
ECHOLS
EFF1N6HAM
ElbERT
ERANUEL
EVANS
FANNIN
FAtETTE
FLOYD
FOBSYTH
FRANKL IN
FULTON
G1L"ER
GLASCOCK
GLYNN
GORDON
GRAVY
GREENE
197C
POPULATION
ir
t
11
6
45
2E
5
16?
25
2C
11
65
1
9f
6
196
It
3?
22
1?
3?
5
15
5
1
_>
22
41!
15
1C
65
28
12
1
13
17
IP
7
13
11
73
16
1?
6C5
6
2
5C
23
17
1C
,56C
.606
.33*
.412
,4C4
,271
,6tr
,816
,813
.541
,?59
,177
,636
,126
,4C5
,7*3
,828
.29?
.327
.125
,31C
,748
,087
,91C
,63?
,31C
,367
,65.8
,4C4
,635
,655
,6(2
.924
,632
,262
,357
.290
,357
.364
.74?
,92f
,784
,210
,956
,2tr
,52F
,57C
.826
,zir
PC T
CHG
1575
12.7
- 0.5
5 .3
3.5
16 .0
14 .D
15 .1
- 4 .4
- 35 .3
6.1
25 .2
13.3
- 2 .8
35 .1
3.1
23.0
£ .6
4 .1
26.4
1 .6
12.3
1C. 9
t .3
18.2
18 .2
t .9
1C. 2
3.9
3.2
1 .4
56 .9
C.P
4 .4
14.4
3.0
7.3
11 .3
6.2
55 .4
4 .6
27.5
t.5
- 3.5
14.2
8 .6
- 4.2
16.0
5.0
3.1
PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
URf- LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
197f FORCE CONS HFG SOU SVC
35.8
C .0
i9.7
45.4
38.3
46.4
0.0
69.3
72.8
24.6
11.8
6f .0
P.O
81 .4
47.7
73.9
44 .7
44.4
14.2
4C.7
34.7
C.C
59.3
O.C
c.o
48.8
93.7
34.6
0.0
fc5.5
31.6
41.5
0.0
0.0
37.3
4C.1
35.5
C.O
0.0
45.6
0.0
O.C
51.3
C.O
0.0
66.1
20.1
45.2
24.1
3
2
4
2
19
11
2
68
fc
12
26
1
41
2
P5
9
12
7
4
13
1
.906
,161
.359
,441
,152
,541
,015
,£24
713
,691
,513
,118
,250
,762
,2P7
,294
,313
,397
,534
,736
,255
,923
6,627
3
1
8
1E3
5
3
31
11
4
4
6
6
2
4
4
30
7
5
265
3
18
10
6
4
,618
,39C
,192
,765
,890
,482
,962
,399
,409
681
,646
,686
,956
.733
,503
,644
,476
.126
,300
.329
,492
924
,387
,197
.732
,121
7
4
5
5
8
6
3
7
9
4
8
4
5
7
5
7
5
5
9
4
7
6
4
8
9
4
6
6
5
7
11
6
4
10
5
7
6
7
t
6
12
7
5
5
9
7
6
6
4
36
21
47
2C
42
43
28
19
11
65
41
15
17
18
44
31
27
29
23
32
40
31
24
48
36
23
16
27
16
19
27
19
36
35
41
34
21
32
20
37
31
46
17
52
46
26
53
22
41
6
5
5
7
10
4
6
6
6
3
5
29
6
4
3
5
7
5
t
5
6
5
6
b
7
5
7
5
7
fc
5
5
3
4
A
6
5
6
4
8
4
7
7
5
4
6
4
6
7
5
13
7
7
6
5
11
11
13
4
t
9
14
6
5
6
6
7
10
6
9
9
13
<.
7
11
fc
7
1C
11
7
14
2
6
9
fc
f
5
8
7
6
c
j
12
3
9
14
6
6
6
GOV
19
13
10
13
13
7
15
16
36
7
10
36
19
14
1C
13
14
11
23
10
11
17
13
1C
15
13
15
20
1 7
15
1 1
14
16
13
1C
14
14
13
14
11
10
9
16
9
14
16
9
1 1
11
254
-------
ECOMOPK PfCFILES Of COUNTlfS
PAGE 11
STATE A»» COUNTY
6A 6U1RNETT
HABERSHAH
HALL
HANCOCK
HARALSON
HA*»1S
MAST
HEABB
MEKRt
HOUSTON
IRblfc
JACKSON
JASPER
JEM »AVIS
JEFFERSON
JENKINS
JOHhSOH
JOKE S
LAHAS
LAME*
LAURENS
LEE
L16ESTY
LINCOLN
LONG
LOtoNOE S
LUMPKIN
PC Durni
HI INTOSh
MACCh
MAB1SON
MARION
HERIHETHER
MILLER
MITCHELL
MONROE
MOMT60HERV
MORGAN
MURRAY
MUSCOCEE
NEWTON
OCONEE
OGLE THORPE
PAULO ING
PEACH
PICKfMS
PIERCE
PIKE
POLK
1970
POPULATION
72
11
59
9
15
11
15
r
2?
62
t
21
5
9
17
E
7
12
1C
c
•*
32
7
17
c
T
55
F
15
7
12
13
5
19
6
1F
1C
6
9
12
It
7
•?
17
15
9
9
7
29
,349
.6(1
,4C5
,019
.927
,52C
,f 14
.254
,72*
,924
,C3<
,093
,7tC
,425
,174
.132
.727
.27C
,6ff
,:?i
.738
,C4A
,5t?
,8*5
,74«
.112
,72E
,276
.371
.933
.517
,C99
,461
,42*
.956
,991
,C99
,904
,966
C
,212
.915
,59E
,52C
,990
,62C
.281
.216
.656
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
tht URf LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 1t?C- FORCE CONS MFC EOU SVC GOV
6C
11
12
4
7
5
4
1C
21
12
3
11
15
14
_ T
- 1
- C
2C
6
1
1
34
15
U
- 11
12
7
13
1C
C
14
14
4
- 4
C
6
3
6
24
C
21
15
4
25
16
7
11
12
e
.2
.6
.1
.3
.8
.3
.3
.3
.0
.4
.6
.1
.3
.5
.3
.5
.7
.4
.9
.3
T
• ^
.5
.3
.1
.6
.7
.7
.1
.8
.2
.C
.4
.C
.7
.7
.7
.2
.7
.C
.C
.7
.t
.2
.9
.1
.C
.7
.1
.3
26.6
14.6
26.1
c.c
39.9
6.C
3T.E
C.C
11.3
65.5
4C.4
17.6
C.C
43.1
15.7
44.6
C.C
15.5
46.2
55. E
46.1
C.C
4E.7
D.C
C.C
59.0
34.1
42.6
C.C
33.7
c.o
r.o
24.7
0.0
49. C
34.0
0.7
24.8
2C.E
C.O
39.7
O.C
C.C
0.0
57.9
C.C
28.3
C.C
44.2
29,917
8,623
25,079
3.02E
6,626
4,195
6.101
2.011
8.935
21,407
3,002
9,006
2,179
3,722
5,854
3,232
2.952
4,539
4,147
1,587
12,625
2.488
3,959
2.2CE
1,163
19,969
2,113
6,161
2 , 48 C
4,432
5,455
1,765
7,097
2,249
7,002
4,507
2,395
3.661
5.303
0
10.641
3,067
2,912
6.368
6,116
3.831
3,357
2,817
11,739
10
8
7
8
9
6
8
9
10
6
6
7
6
5
6
7
9
9
7
8
6
9
4
10
6
6
6
12
9
4
9
7
7
4
5
6
7
6
7
6
10
6
11
12
5
C
7
6
6
32
44
37
35
54
32
48
52
23
9
17
43
36
t5
32
28
38
29
45
21
3C
U
1E
41
2C
22
31
37
35
29
39
27
36
15
26
35
36
35
54
C
43
29
31
41
19
51
23
42
48
4
fa
5
7
3
5
3
5
3
6
7
5
5
4
6
5
4
5
fc
5
5
6
6
6
9
t
14
4
<,
t,
£
9
6
S
5
5
7
4
5
7
4
13
9
3
14
S
5
4
4
6
6
6
11
6
14
6
5
11
8
9
7
11
5
12
11
8
«
t
8
9
1C
11
8
E
1C
7
9
e
1C
6
10
9
10
8
13
5
9
5
11
7
8
1C
5
12
5
C
6
7
12
14
11
22
7
11
7
11
17
49
13
10
17
12
15
11
1C
16
12
16
17
18
25
13
30
17
20
15
19
14
1?
24
13
16
13
15
11
13
9
21
10
20
14
13
29
11
12
13
11
255
-------
ECONOMIC PfOFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
197C
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION
6A PULASKI P.C66
PUTNAP
OU1TKA J>
RABUN
RANDOLPH
Rl CHMC ND
fcOCKDALE
SCHLET
SCREVE K
SEfllNGLE
SPALBING
STEPHE MS
STEUAP T
SUHTE»
TALBOT
TALI AF ERRO
TATTNALL
TAYLO*
TELFAI R
TERRELL
THOMAS
TIFT
TOOHEtS
TObNS
TREUTl EM
TROUP
TURNER
TU1G6?
UNION
UPSON
WALKER
WALTON
WARE
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WEBSTER
WHEELE R
UNITE
WH1TFI ELD
WILCOI
WILKES
WILKlNSOt.
WORTH
COLUBEUS CITY
HI HAWAII
HAWAII
HONOLULU
HALAUA D
8,794
2,m
8 ,327
F ,734
162,437
1F ,152
3,097
12,591
7,C5
.7
• 2
.6
.3
.7
.6
.8
.C
.6
.0
.8
.t
.4
.8
• 2
.6
.C
.8
.8
.4
C
• .
.c
.5
.7
.4
.7
.3
.8
.2
.9
.7
.5
.1
.9
.1
.0
.3
.6
.7
.3
.7
.7
.C
4f .9
50.4
C.O
c.c
39.6
87.6
26.3
C.O
26.4
39.7
57.8
33.0
:.c
58. 7
£ * 2
c.c
18. C
C.O
it. 2
5C.5
52. t
44 .t
69.1
C.O
43.6
67.5
44 .1
0.0
'.C
42.6
42. f
35.3
65.5
C.C
31.7
5C.2
0.0
C.O
C.O
34.2
C.C
39.4
25.8
27.1
96.2
63. 0
41.5
93.0
C.C
2,
3.
3,
2.
51,
7,
1,
4,
2.
16,
9,
2,
9,
2.
4,
2.
4.
4,
12,
10,
7,
1,
2,
ie,
1
" t
2,
2.
10,
20,
9,
12,
2,
6.
6,
1.
3,
23,
2.
4,
3.
5,
57,
294,
25,
237,
977
487
635
416
982
553
324
006
782
486
965
141
077
636
110
857
936
941
339
019
911
£58
258
58i
118
363
585
473
344
393
496
900
600
1PC
229
703
717
7R7
120
973
281
115
427
258
273
484
889
336
C
7
6
9
9
3
6
12
2
4
t
5
7
6
4
6
7
7
1i
6
6
6
7
6
18
14
5
5
6
12
6
5
10
5
7
7
7
4
6
t
5
4
5
3
5
C
9
10
9
C
21
41
21
37
19
21
33
31
28
20
39
5C
21
27
40
39
19
22
27
27
24
21
30
20
3C
45
29
23
33
52
52
43
2C
37
22
33
26
33
42
56
28
33
U
25
2C
1C
15
1C
C
4
7
4
6
7
7
4
7
4
4
5
6
1 1
9
&
5
4
6
6
6
5
b
4
13
9
5
5
4
t
3
4
3
6
T
5
6
9
7
t
4
6
5
4
5
C
8
7
t
C
13
6
12
6
15
1C
5
11
12
9
t
6
13
11
11
6
£
1C
6
1 1
1C
9
8
6
f
9
11
11
4
9
5
7
8
t
12
1C
t
6
4
6
6
11
8
7
C
1C
12
9
C
GOV
21
15
16
13
12
24
12
20
11
10
13
8
24
16
16
21
21
2C
14
1 C
15
18
1C
20
25
1C
11
1 7
18
1C
8
11
15
12
16
14
2C
16
12
7
23
12
21
15
C
24
18
26
C
256
-------
ECONOK.lt PfOflLES 01 COUNTIES
PA6E 1!
1970
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION
NI «AUAI
MAUI
ID IDAHO
ADA
ADAMS
t ANNOCK
bEAR LAKE
BENEMAH
6 1N6NAP
l-LAINE
BOISE
BONNEP
BONNEVILLE
BOUNDARY
BUTTE
CAMAS
CANYON
CARIBOU
CASSIA
CLARK
CLEARWATER
CUSTE*
ELMOfiE
FRANKLIN
FREMONT
GEM
GODDING
IDAHO
JEFFERSON
JEROME
KOOTENAI
LATAH
LEMHI
LEkrIS
LINCOLN
MADISON
MINIDOKA
NE2 PERCC
ONE1DA
OUVHEE
PAYETTE
POnER
SHOSHONE
TETON
TU1N FALLS
VALLEY
bASHlNGTON
YELLOWSTONE
1L ILLINOIS
29,761
46,156
7 1 T , 0 1 5
112, 23C
?,E77
5 1 , 2 00
5 ,801
6.23C
2C.167
5,74?
1,76!
15.56C
52,457
5 ,4£4
? ,925
728
61 ,2ft
6,534
17,017
741
1 : .8 71
; i?67
17,479
7,373
8,7ir
?,3e7
8,645
12,891
11 ,74C
10,25?
35,332
24,898
5- ,566
3,867
7.C57
13,452
15,731
30,376
2.864
6,422
12,401
4,864
10,718
2,351
41,807
3.609
7,63'
NAT. PARK r
11,112,797
PCT PCT
CHG URf-
1975 197C
6
16
15
22
17
£
fc
9
1C
?9
3C
3C
1C
27
9
17
18
15
10
?C
- 12
11
13
1C
13
13
2 1
2
12
36
32
11
14
12
14
27
15
2
4
15
16
11
- 5
4
11
22
10
I
C
.9
.7
.2
.3
.0
.3
.5
.£
.7
.8
.r
.4
.8
.6
.£
.9
.5
.1
.1
.2
.2
.9
.4
.3
.8
.7
.0
.1
.4
.7
.4
.9
.6
.6
.2
.C
.8
.6
.5
.9
.C
.1
.6
.8
.6
.9
c
Ic
.3
23
42
54
7£
D
£2
46
39
3E
n
0
27
69
43
0
C
57
45
47
u
25
~G
71
45
32
42
3C
29
C
41
45
5t
52
C
C
64
3C
£5
n
c
36
65
iC
C
59
0
58
^
63
.2
.4
.3
.1
.0
.6
.4
.5
.6
.0
.0
.3
.8
.9
.0
.C
.1
.7
.5
.C
.6
.C
.9
.7
.1
.0
.6
.0
.0
.6
.9
.6
.3
.C
.0
.8
.C
.8
.C
.0
.7
.7
.6
.C
.4
.C
.c
.0
.c
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
12,447
16,810
271,593
46,554
1,147
20,425
1,999
2,160
10.536
2,699
665
5,533
18,714
2,152
1,103
222
24,311
2,478
6,685
32 C
4,101
1,139
3,989
2,413
3,143
3,353
3,416
4,632
4,382
4,086
13,006
9,614
1.E8C
1,424
1,059
4,937
6,26C
1 1 , 73 3
1,127
2,395
4,934
1,837
7,336
746
16,774
1.432
2,740
C
4,5«1.634
6
7
6
£
4
5
4
4
6
£
4
7
6
7
11
5
5
6
3
4
19
4
6
4
4
6
5
6
7
5
fi
4
5
4
12
4
4
fi
5
3
5
5
3
4
5
6
6
C
5
11
13
14
1C
17
13
£
26
17
4
35
20
11
21
9
4
18
13
22
1
24
2
3
10
7
23
5
23
14
11
22
10
t
17
4
10
25
20
10
12
22
18
14
4
11
20
11
C
3C
4
6
£
7
8
11
£
7
£
4
6
7
5
7
1C
16
fi
£
5
£
6
5
11
9
7
6
8
8
5
5
7
30
7
8
9
25
6
7
7
10
7
7
4
8
6
9
9
C
7
15
13
8
9
6
7
6
4
8
?5
4
6
18
7
7
£
6
5
6
10
4
7
7
5
6
4
4
4
6
8
£
6
5
5
3
5
4
7
8
3
7
6
4
£
7
9
4
C
6
GOV
16
17
17
19
27
19
14
21
20
13
21
19
13
22
18
36
11
16
10
29
22
25
30
14
15
12
18
20
14
11
16
18
19
16
27
12
12
15
15
20
10
17
11
15
13
24
17
0
13
257
-------
ECONOMIC PFOFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE 1*
197D
STATE AND COUNTY
H ADAMS
ALEXANDER
BOND
BOONE
BROWN
BUREAU
CALHOUN
CARROLL
CASS
CHAMPA 16N
CHRISTIAN
CLARK
ClAT
CLINTON
COLES
COOK
CRAWFORD
CUMBERLAND
6E It ALB
DE WITT
DOUGLAS
CU PA6E
EDGAR
EDWARDS
EFf INGHAr
FAYETTE
FORD
FRANKLIN
FULTON
r A i i A T 1 tj
L> A LL * " J "
GfiEENE
GRUNDT
HAMILTON
HANCOCK
HARDIN
HENDERSON
HENRY
1ROOUOIS
JACKSON
JASPER
JEFFERSON
JERSEY
JO DAVIESS
JOHNSON
KANE
KANKAKEE
KENDALL
KNOI
LAKE
POPULATION
?r
12
14
2',
5
3f
5
19
14
163
35
16
14
28
47
5.493
19
9
71
16
18
49C
21
7
24
2C
16
7t
41
7
17
26
f
2?
4
8
53
33
55
1C
31
ie
21
7
251
97
26
«r
3E2
,861
,015
.on
,44r
,586
,541
,675
,276
,219
,2£1
,94F
,2U
.735
,315
,815
,764
,824
,772
.654
,975
,997
,478
,591
,09C
,6C8
,752
.382
,329
,9c:
«* f
. IP
,014
,535
.665
,664
,914
,*51
,217
.532
,OCf
,741
,848
,492
,766
.55C
,OC<
,25C
,374
,939
.638
PCT
CHC
1975
- 1.2
- 2.1
3.7
4.2
- 4 .2
- 5.5
- 3.1
- 0.1
- 2.7
0.1
1 .1
- 0.2
2.3
3.9
- C.1
- 2.3
- 2.2
4 .1
- C.5
- C.7
- 2.5
1C .5
- 1 .C
3.5
11 .3
- 1 .3
- 9.2
6 .6
1 .5
_ -I *
J •{.
- 2.7
3.5
- 4 .7
- 7.6
2 .6
- 2.6
3 .5
- 2.7
- 5.6
3.1
6.C
5.1
1 .4
14.7
6 .3
- 1 .4
15 .1
0.3
3.7
PCT CIVILIAN
URb LABOR
197C
63
52
32
55
C
32
C
25
43
77
47
41
34
27
75
99
36
C
6E
44
33
95
46
D
38
24
47
4E
47
u
33
42
33
26
0
0
51
15
59
28
51
4C
29
0
t?
53
4?
70
81
.9
.2
.2
.3
.0
.5
.C
.1
.3
.C
.6
.1
.3
.0
.0
.7 2
.5
.C
.1
.6
.5
.3
.1
.0
.4
.9
.5
.9
.4
.7
.0
.1
.5
.C
.0
.7
.3
.6
.2
.1
.0
.1
.0
.5
.6
.1
.2
.4
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFG EDU SVC
28,553
4,144
5,329
11,179
2,062
15,752
1,981
7,771
5,439
63,922
13,619
6,183
5,410
10.00C
20.C54
,355,604
7,836
3.595
31.29C
7,036
7,330
203,584
8,467
2,66*
9,142
7,390
6.363
13, oec
15,800
2r n e
f JUC
6,174
10,934
3,010
9,132
1.606
3,356
20.961
12,861
20,670
3,825
11.648
6,783
8,577
2.623
107,694
37,503
11.242
25,458
143.466
4 26
5
t
3
9
6
11
4
6
c
5
7
5
7
6
4
b
7
4
5
7
6
9
4,
7
7
7
7
4
5
8
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
13
5
5
5
4
6
15
19
46
12
28
12
?C
20
8
22
19
22
20
22
31
30
25
27
24
23
28
24
26
18
15
1fc
18
31
24
37
19
21
9
27
28
22
12
17
19
26
26
14
38
34
43
27
32
6
7
1i
6
4
7
6
7
5
30
6
7
5
7
U
6
5
7
22
7
8
7
5
3
6
5
7
6
6
6
4
8
e
e
7
6
t
30
7
6
13
5
7
6
6
5
t
7
6
8
f
4
6
5
4
4
t
6
5
6
4
5
6
7
6
6
5
5
6
6
7
5
7
7
5
7
5
4
4
6
7
7
4
6
6
6
5
7
t
4
4
5
6
3
6
7
GOV
£•
17
12
8
11
12
15
16
15
38
12
15
12
16
24
11
11
15
26
12
16
5
12
10
13
18
20
13
9
13
12
17
1C
21
14
11
11
36
13
13
11
1C
31
10
16
10
13
13
258
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 15
STATE A«» COUNTY
1L L« SALLF
LAUtENCE
LEE
LIVINGSTON
LOGAN
HC DONOUGH
MC HEWRV
NC LEAN
MACOft
MACOUPIN
MADISON
MARION
MARSM* LL
MASON
MASSAC
MENARC
MERCER
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
MOULT* IE
OGLE
PEOR1A
PES» 1
P1ATT
PIKE
POPE
PULASKI
PUTNAM
RANDOLPH
R1CHLAND
ROCK ISLAND
ST CLAIR
SALINE
SAN6AMON
SCNUTLER
SCOTT
SHELBY
STARK
STEPHENSON
TAIEUELL
UNION
VERMILION
WABASH
WARREN
WASHINGTON
MAfNE
hHITt
WHITES IDE
1970
POPULATION
111
17
37
4C
3J
It
111
104
125
44
25C
38
13
16
13
9
17
1E
3C
36
13
t.2
195
19
15
19
3
8
5
31
16
166
285
25
161
8
6
22
7
48
116
16
97
12
21
13
17
17
62
.409
.522
.947
,693
,538
.653
.555
.389
,01C
.557
.911
,986
.3C2
,iec
.889
.685
.294
.831
.260
,174
,262
,»67
.318
.757
,5C9
.185
,857
,741
,OC7
,379
,829
.734
.591
.721
.335
.135
.096
,589
.51?
,861
,649
,071
,047
,841
,595
.780
,004
.312
,877
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG URIt LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 197C FORCE CONS HFG EDU SVC 60V
- 2
- 1
- 6
0
- 9
7
11
11
1
3
- 1
2
- 1
11
- 1
10
0
- 1
0
- 1
2
- 1
1
2
2
- C
11
- 2
9
3
2
- 1
- 2
2
4
- 1
- 0
1
- 5
- 2
4
- C
- 0
2
- 2
6
0
- 5
0
.7
.7
.3
.4
.C
.5
.4
.7
.9
.8
.3
.6
.4
.0
.0
.2
.2
.2
.4
.7
.C
.2
.2
.6
.8
.6
.4
.1
.5
.5
.1
.2
.1
.8
.6
.6
.6
.3
.C
.2
.6
.6
.5
.7
.1
.6
.0
.9
.2
64.6
33.5
47.8
40.0
52.3
64.1
51.6
66.2
79.8
38.3
71.7
SO. 2
19.6
43.8
5C.O
28.2
19.8
46.5
46.9
65.0
31.0
42.2
83.9
50.7
25.8
23.3
C.O
c.c
c.c
38. 8
53.4
65.8
83.2
52.1
76.0
40.8
C.O
20.6
C.O
56.8
75.2
29.6
62.0
63.7
51. C
22.0
35.2
35.8
54.7
44,659
6.440
14.52C
15,522
13.452
14,952
46,534
45,432
5 1 . 69 1
16.349
98,846
14,742
5,091
6.290
5.185
3.859
6.549
7,064
11.198
14,674
5.300
17,917
79,922
7,338
6.127
7,574
1.064
2,666
1,941
11.609
6.508
68,382
102,218
8,630
70,237
3,157
2.398
8.012
2.842
21,489
48.379
6.079
38,793
5.172
8.662
5,299
6.673
6.713
25,394
5
7
6
6
4
5
8
4
4
6
S
6
4
6
7
6
6
6
8
5
5
5
5
6
6
8
14
5
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
4
6
6
4
5
8
5
5
5
4
4
6
5
39
18
22
26
20
13
35
16
33
23
35
22
30
24
22
12
22
2C
17
19
35
41
31
28
24
18
11
17
31
2£
22
35
24
9
14
14
14
26
24
39
39
18
37
23
22
17
25
15
39
5
7
V
6
11
21
7
16
6
6
8
5
6
7
6
6
7
5
6
12
5
7
r
6
10
5
7
10
7
5
7
6
6
9
t
6
7
6
t
5
6
7
6
6
10
6
5
6
6
4
6
4
5
5
6
5
5
7
5
5
6
5
4
7
7
6
4
6
7
5
4
7
4
6
5
4
1C
4
3
6
6
7
6
7
6
4
6
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
6
:SS ~X
9
13
22
12
21
26
9
19
10
13
15
13
&
15
16
21
12
1 1
14
17
1C
1C
10
12
15
9
3C
20
9
13
12
15
15
19
25
17
14
13
13
7
9
29
12
11
12
14
12
12
11
259
-------
ECONOMIC PkOriLES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 16
STATE AND COUNTY
IL WILL
WILLIAMSON
WlNNEBAGO
WOODfORD
IN INDIANA
ADAMS
ALLEN
BARTHOLOMEW
BENTON
BLACKF ORD
BOONS
BROUN
CARROLL
CASS
CLARK
CLAY
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DAVIESS
DEARBORN
DECATUR
DE KALB
DELAWARE
DUBOIS
ELKHAR T
FATETTE
FLOYD
FOUNTAIN
FPANKL IN
FULTON
GIBSON
GRANT
GREENE
HAMILTON
HANCOCK
HARRISON
MEND RICKS
HENRY
HOWARD
HUNTINGTON
JACKSON
JASPER
JAY
JEFFERSON
JENNINGS
JOHNSON
KNOX
KOSC1USKO
LAGRAN6C
1970
POPULATION
247
49
246
28
5 ,19S
26
28C
57
11
15
3C
9
17
4C
75
23
3C
E
26
29
22
30
129
3C
126
26
55
1P
16
16
3C
63
26
54
35
2C
53
52
83
34
33
2C
23
27
19
61
41
*f
2C
,825
,C21
.62?
,012
,610
,871
,455
.322
.262
.see
,87C
,057
,734
,456
,876
.933
,547
,033
,6C2
,430
.738
,837
,219
.934
,529
,216
,622
.257
,»*3
.984
,444
.955
.894
,532
,09f
.423
.974
.603
,19?
,97C
.187
,*2
-------
ECONOMIC PfOFUES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 17
STATE *N» COUNTY
I« LAKE
LA PORTE
LAURENCE
MADISON
MARION
MARSHALL
MARTIN
MIAMI
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
NEKTON
NOBLE
OHIO
ORANGE
OWEN
PARKE
f ESfi Y
PIKE
PORTEP
POSET
PULASK I
FUTNAM
RANDOLPH
RlPLEt
RUSH
ST JOSEPH
SCOTT
SHEL6Y
SPENCEO
STARKE
STEUBEN
SULLIVAN
SWITZERLAND
TIPPECANOE
TIPTON
UNION
VANDERBURGH
VEBHILLION
V1GO
WA6ASH
BARREN
WARRICK
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WELLS
WHITE
WM1TLET
IA IOM
1970
POPULATION
546
10;
38
13F
753
34
1C
39
8«
33
44
11
31
4
If
1?
14
19
1?
87
21
1?
26
2f
21
21
245
17
37
17
19
2C
15
6
1C9
16
6
168
U
114
35
t
27
19
79
2!
2C
23
2.125
.25?
,342
,038
,522
,769
,966
,969
,246
,221
,930
,176
,606
.382
.289
,968
.163
,628
,075
,2»1
,114
,7*r
.534
,93:
.911
.13?
.352
,045
,144
.797
.134
,28C
.159
,889
,3C6
.378
,65C
,5£?
,772
,79?
.52F
.55?
.705
.972
,278
,1C9
.821
.995
.3V5
,368
PCT PCT
CHG URf
1975 197C
- C
- C
c
- C
- 0
8
1
1
6
1
8
12
2
6
1
8
6
2
- 2
1C
4
1
2
C
6
- C
- 1
9
2
1
6
13
- 1
8
3
- 1
1
_ i
- C
- 3
- C
- 8
2C
3
_ T
4
2
5
1
.3
.1
.3
.3
.6
.4
.0
.6
.6
.4
.5
.3
.1
.9
.3
.6
.2
.6
.C
.0
.4
.8
.C
.5
.8
.7
.6
.7
.6
•2
.4
.8
.5
.6
.1
.5
.0
.4
.8
.5
.3
.7
.0
.5
.0
.C
.1
.7
.6
94.5
66. C
45.3
70.0
99.8
31.9
26.1
48.5
50. 4
40.8
35.1
C.O
32.1
0.0
19.3
O.C
19.3
41.6
23.3
63.3
31.1
C.C
32.9
32.8
16.3
32.9
84.7
57.3
39.8
14.3
17.7
25.4
24. C
C.O
72.4
31.1
C.C
84.4
32.3
7C.6
53.9
:.o
2C.5
26.4
55.6
34.2
23.2
21.0
57.2
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
fORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
210,156
42.652
15,293
56,174
334.732
14,239
4,109
13,760
35,757
13,423
16,800
4,637
13,510
1,671
6,701
4,478
5,173
7,493
4,403
74,123
7,747
4,777
9,928
11,805
7,950
7,757
101,285
6,738
15,300
6,498
6,725
8,172
7,046
2,533
46,415
6,655
2,772
69,402
6,493
46.001
15.476
3,343
10,367
7,553
32,646
10,046
8,436
10.023
1,127,433
5
5
5
3
5
6
6
4
5
5
6
7
4
8
7
8
12
9
9
t
8
6
5
4
4
5
4
4
5
7
8
5
9
7
6
4
6
5
11
6
3
4
7
6
4
5
6
5
5
45
41
37
49
27
34
28
38
18
34
34
23
47
35
33
33
22
47
26
37
32
25
26
48
39
3C
33
51
38
34
35
31
26
33
18
39
3C
31
33
24
44
33
38
42
39
39
26
40
20
6
5
5
5
6
£
3
5
33
7
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5
6
10
5
7
14
5
6
6
9
6
5
6
6
1C
6
6
25
5
7
6
7
12
9
7
5
4
t
5
6
5
9
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
4
1C
5
7
4
4
5
5
6
7
5
6
6
6
3
5
6
5
t
6
5
5
4
6
7
4
6
3
6
5
3
6
4
6
5
6
10
1C
19
9
14
9
32
11
36
11
12
11
7
a
16
14
15
12
14
1C
8
14
12
9
14
13
9
13
10
6
11
10
13
17
27
8
12
1C
13
17
9
1C
8
12
11
9
12
10
14
261
-------
ECONOMC ft. of uts OF COUNTIES
PAGE 18
STATE AND COUNTY
I« ADAIR
ADAMS
ALLAMAKEE
APPANOOSfc
AUDU6 0 K
BENTO*
BLACK HAWK
BOONE
BREMER
BUCHANAN
BUENA VISTA
BUTLER
CALHOUN
r A D D A t 1
LAMM UL L
CASS
CEDAR
CEfiRO GORDO
CHEROKEE
CHICKA SAW
CLARKE
CLAY
CLAYTON
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DALLAS
fcAVIS
DECATUR
DELAWARE
DES MOINES
DICK INSCN
DUBUQUE
EMBET
FAYETTE
FLOYD
FRANKL IN
FREMONT
GREENE
GRUNDV
GUTHRI E
HAMILTON
HANCOCK
HAfiDIN
HARRISON
HENRY
HOWARD
HUMBOLDT
IDA
IOWA
JACKSON
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
1970 CHG URt LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
POPULATION 1975 197C FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
9
6
14
15
??
132
26
22
21
2T
16
14
c c
17
17
49
17
14
7
1 t
2r
56
19
26
r.
1?
46
12
9!"
14
26
19
13
9
12
14
12
18
13
22
16
U
11
12
9
15
2C
.487
, ? 2 2 -
,968
,C07
e oc
,5 VI
,885
,916
,47: -
,7?7
,762
,697
,95?
,292 -
017
, V 1 1
,007 -
,655 -
,22? -
,269 -
,96?
,581
,464
,6C6
,740
,116 -
,0*5
,2C7
,77C
,962 -
,56r
,609
,OC9 -
,89P
,P6C
.255
.282 -
,716 -
,119 -
.243
,383 -
,5C6 -
,24F -
.24C
,114 -
.442
.519 -
,283 -
.419 -
,?39
5 .4
2 .1
1 .3
1 .1
A. L
*» **»
1 .1
1 .2
C.6
7.2
2.5
1 .7
C.9
3.8
1 7
I • f
C.9
2.5
1 .5
3 .3
I .5
4 .6
2 .C
1 .9
2 .2
4.3
3.6
4.0
1 .6
2 .4
E .5
3.7
1.2
C.4
1 .6
C .6
2.1
4.2
1 .0
6.8
1 .4
C.5
1 .1
2 .6
1 .7
C .5
1 .1
3.9
C.5
1 .7
C
0
26
43
33
fc5
47
31
27
41
D
r
7 D
•• C
43
16
74
41
24
41
55
Q
73
21
27
34
25
75
25
73
56
38
46
33
0
37
19
C
46
C
41
22
38
33
37
r
C
27
.0
.0
.8
.5
.4
.0
.1
.9
.2
.5
.0
.0
.0
.3
.8
.8
.5
.4
.7
• L'
.7
.2
.3
.7
.1
.7
.8
.3
.4
.5
.7
.0
.C
.2
.2
.C
.C
.6
.9
.1
.8
.5
.3
.0
.0
.5
3 , 94 3 5
2,354
5,646
5,508
3ec 5
t 5fc c
8,618
54,007
10,189
6,875
7,931
8,114
5,936
5,073
67O R
»iVO
6,881
6,729
20,153
6,530
5,138
3,052
7,228
7,657
23,007
7.33C
10,714
3,123
3 ,786
6,517
20,259
5,120
34,322
5,236
9,999
7.33C
5,180
3,738
4,973
5,392
4,736
7.563
5.006
8,659
6,176
7,779
4,157
4,587
3 , 51 F
6,459
8.060
5
4
6
5
4
6
3
5
3
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
4
5
6
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
7
6
5
6
5
5
6
7
5
4
C
4
5
5
4
7
14
16
19
3C
13
19
U
1?
16
6
6
12
17
11
16
11
11
16
31
13
17
U
7
15
36
18
32
18
f
26
9
e
11
18
7
19
14
12
12
1t
9
1C
7
19
21
6
6
5
7
7
10
10
13
7
9
7
10
7
1C
7
7
t
5
6
6
6
7
6
C
? "^
C J
7
6
6
9
9
1C
7
6
7
7
6
7
7
t
5
t
11
6
10
6
t
6
6
5
6
E
5
6
7
5
6
6
5
6
5
5
8
5
5
7
6
t
6
6
5
6
«
j
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
5
5
6
5
t
7
5
6
5
9
4
6
5
4
5
12
14
1 1
13
12
13
21
13
17
13
1 1
17
14
16
11
16
10
14
1 1
1 1
9
11
16
18
1 ;
1 £
12
11
13
7
14
12
12
13
14
16
12
13
13
13
16
13
21
12
15
10
11
14
262
-------
ECOMoric pfiOfUES or COUNTIES
PAGE 19
STATE AND COUNTY
1A JASPER
JEffERSON
JOHNSON
JONES
It E OK UK
KOSSUTH
LEE
LINN
LOUISA
LUCAS
LTON
MADISON
MAMASK A
MARION
MARSHALL
HILLS
MITCHELL
WONONA
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MUSCATINE
OXBR1EN
OSCEOLA
PACE
PALO ALTO
PLTMOUTH
POCAMONTAS
POLK
POTTAWATTAM1E
POWESHIEK
ftlNGGOLD
SAC
SCOTT
SHELBY
SIOUK
STOHT
TAMA
TAYLOR
UNION
VAN BUREK
WAPELLO
WARREN
WASHINGTON
UAVNE
WEBSTER
WIMNtBAGG
WINNESHIEK
WOOD6URV
WORTH
1C 70
POPULATION
35
15
72
19
1?
22
42
16:
1C
1C
13
11
22
26
41
11
1?
12
?
12
3'
ir
6
18
13
24
12
2C6
66
16
6
15
1*2
15
27
62
2C
e
13
t
42
27
18
t
48
12
21
103
t425
.774
.127
,868
.943
.937
,996
,213
.682
.167
.34P
.55E
,177
,352
,076
,832
.108
,069
.357
,781
,1E1
.522
,555
.537
,28"
.322
,793
.130
,9*1
,801
.373
,573
,667
,52E
,996
.78?
.147
,790
.557
,643
.149
,432
,967
,4C5
.391
,990
.75E
.052
8.904
PCT PCT C
CHG URfc
1975 197C
2.3
- 8.2
4 .7
0.2
- 2.2
0.2
- 4.9
1.9
3.6
1.4
- 1 .4
7.2
- 0.3
4.3
4.4
7.9
- 3.3
- C.8
- C.7
1.3
5.5
C.7
C.C
3.4
- 0.6
- 0.3
- 6.3
4.7
- C.4
7.2
- 3.2
- 2.9
4.8
- 1.3
4 .8
6.9
1.C
- 5.7
- 3.9
- t.6
- 6.7
15.7
- 7.7
- 0.3
- 2.5
3.8
- 0.9
2.4
- 0.5
44.0
55.6
73.7
40. 1
0.0
26.3
65.9
82.8
0.0
49.4
19.3
31.6
50.6
54.6
64.2
36.1
28.8
27.2
44.4
49.7
60.4
26.2
33.5
ei.O
32.6
33.5
C.C
92.8
74.7
45.3
C.O
21.6
68.5
32.5
34. C
71.1
14.9
0.0
6C.6
C.O
70.5
39.8
33.1
O.C
64.6
28.8
34.3
£4.5
0.0
IVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
fORCE CONS MEG EDD SVC
14
,696
6,498
31
7
5
8
17
69
4
3
4
4
8
1C
16
4
4
4
3
5
15
6
2
7
4
6
4
125
34
7
2
5
57
5
10
26
7
3
5
t
16
10
7
3
19
5
8
41
3
.862
.507
.245
.311
.004
.010
.157
.957
.777
.538
,601
,178
.845
.362
,758
.423
.452
.010
.237
.324
,879
.830
,730
,866
,411
,E77
.517
,919
,675
.640
,197
.501
.196
,99C
,346
,391
.235
.234
.366
,964
.419
.255
,415
,335
.410
,061
.413
3
3
3
4
7
5
4
5
5
6
5
6
5
4
4
7
6
7
5
5
4
4
4
6
4
5
4
5
6
4
4
5
5
7
5
6
5
6
6
4
3
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
32
26
7
20
10
11
34
34
29
11
9
10
16
17
32
8
11
6
22
15
35
8
12
9
9
10
10
19
16
12
5
E
29
7
13
6
14
8
12
24
29
20
14
8
2C
26
7
17
2C
6
11
2fc
e
7
c
6
7
e
7
8
4
10
11
6
13
6
8
6
6
5
10
7
£
9
10
7
7
6
13
6
7
7
7
11
31
7
5
8
6
6
9
8
7
t
1C
15
8
i
6
6
6
4
4
6
6
6
5
4
6
5
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
6
6
6
3
5
6
5
5
7
7
5
5
4
6
6
5
9
5
4
6
7
7
6
t
4
8
4
5
7
5
60k
11
13
42
13
12
8
13
9
14
16
10
13
14
17
11
23
13
15
16
11
12
13
13
15
1fc
12
11
14
11
11
15
1C
15
13
1C
42
14
14
18
19
11
1£
U
16
11
10
11
11
1C
263
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 20
STATE AND COUNTY
1A WRIGHT
KS KANSAS
ALLEN
ANDERSON
ATCHISON
BARBEC
tiARTON
BOURBON
BROWN
BUTLER
CHASE
CHAUTAUOUA
CHEROKEE
CHEYENNE
CLARK
CLAY
CLOUD
COFF EY
COMANCHE
COPLEY
CRAWFORD
DECATUfi
DICKINSON
DONIPH AN
DOUGLAS
EDWARDS
r | u
t L *
ELLIS
ELLSWORTH
F1NNEV
FORD
FRANKL IN
GEARY
GOVE
GRAHAM
GRANT
GRAY
GREELEV
GREENWOOD
HAMILTON
HARPER
HARVEY
HASKELL
HOD6EMAN
JACKSON
JEIFERSON
JEWELL
JOHNSON
KEARNY
PCI PCT
197C CHG URt-
POPULATION 1975 197C
17
2^ i O
.249
15
f
19
7
3C
15
11
3f
7
4
21
4
2
5
1?
7
2
?5
37
4
19
9
57
4
24
6
19
22
2C
2P
7
4
5
4
1
9
2
7
27
3
2
1C
11
6
22C
3
.294 - 1 .9
A "74 r fi
f C7"
,C47
,5C1 -
.165 -
,016 -
,66!
.215
,685 -
,65E
,4C?
,642
,549 -
,256 -
,896 -
,89C -
,46t -
.797
,7C2
,012 -
,E5C -
,9EP -
,997
,U7 -
,932
,5fc1 -
0 CO _
, C JC
.73:
,146
.029
.5E7
,007 -
,111
,94T -
.751 -
,961
,516
,819
.141 -
.74'
,871 -
.236
,672
,662 -
.342
,945
,099 -
.073
,047
L .C
1 .2
C.2
3.8
3.2
0.6
2 .2
2.1
1 .8
1 .6
C.7
1 .t
4 .9
1 .7
1.4
2.9
4 .1
2 .7
3.4
i .2
2.7
3.7
1 .4
13.3
1.7
1 7
1 •_
4 .4
C.1
13 .6
4 .6
C.2
11 .7
2.C
6.0
12.2
7.P
2.4
4 .5
4.0
3 .8
4.E
9 .6
1.8
6.3
6.8
6.4
« .4
e .9
41 .4
, f 4
66 • T
43.1
36.9
65.6
36. C
62.7
58.9
26.8
47.1
0.0
C.O
53.9
0.0
C.C
5C.2
52.8
C.C
C.C
7C.E
6C.1
C.C
49.1
13.7
83.2
C.O
^ 0
62. E
0.0
77.9
62.5
55.2
63.9
C.C
c.o
62.2
C.C
c.o
4C.7
C.O
35.3
56.7
C.O
C.O
29.6
o.c
c.o
91. e
C.C
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFG EDU SVC
6
fi fi A.
Bco
5
3
7
2
12
6
4
15
1
1
7
1
1
3
5
2
1
13
14
1
7
3
23
1
10
2
7
9
7
6
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
11
1
3
4
2
92
1
.435
A *5 i
.624
,704
,013
,421
,877
,347
.359
,370
,421
,268
,600
,510
,706
.125
,992
,406
.743
,1Ct
,£1C
,69C
,926
,673
,380
.826
,763
e 5 e
t Jt 0
,471
,383
,473
,404
,985
.777
,4U
.777
.451
,762
800
.458
,156
,281
.883
.321
973
,851
.749
.215
.1*2
.121
6
5
ft
5
7
5
7
5
6
1C
5
5
5
5
7
6
6
2
5
5
4
6
6
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
6
£
6
7
6
2
9
4
7
4
4
2
9
1C
6
5
5
12
22
13
21
11
9
12
1C
26
4
£
32
1
2
£
6
5
t
21
16
4
11
17
17
11
7
7
9
11
19
5
2
2
11
5
1
6
C
6
23
C
1
22
19
2
19
1
8
6
7
14
8
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
1 1
7
5
9
14
10
7
f
27
E
16
6
11
8
11
6
6
fc
7
10
I
7
12
6
9
6
5
4
8
5
7
11
5
5
4
5
5
£
6
5
7
5
6
7
6
4
6
5
5
11
t
6
4
6
7
6
4
7
6
7
7
5
1C
3
4
6
5
4
£
7
7
6
4
8
4
5
7
5
5
GOV
13
14
18
12
14
1C
11
16
12
22
14
14
15
25
17
14
17
15
16
22
18
16
13
35
16
23
1 1
16
14
16
32
18
1 1
14
14
19
16
23
17
9
14
17
16
2C
12
13
16
264
-------
ECONOMIC Picnics or COUNTIES
PAGE ?1
STATE AM* COUNTY
KS K1MCMAN
mow*
LABETTE
LAME
LEAVEMVORTh
LINCOLN
LINN
L06AN
LTON
MC PMERSON
MARION
MARSHALL
MEAOE
MIAMI
MITCHELL
MONTGOMERY
MORRIS
MCtTCh
NEMAH*
NEOSHC
NESS
NORTON
OSACE
OSBORKE
OTTAWA
PAfcNCE
PHILLIPS
POTTAUATOM1E
PRATT
PAUL1NS
RENO
REPUBl 1C
RICE
RILET
EOOKS
RUSH
RUSSELL
SALINE
SCOTT
SEBCUICK
SEMARD
SHAUNEE
SHER1C AN
SHERMAN
SMITH
STAf »ORD
STANTON
STEVENS
SUMMER
1970
POPULATION
8
4
25
2
5!
4
7
i
32
24
13
17
1
19
E
39
6
3
11
1£
4
7
13
6
«
£
7
11
1C
4
6C
t
12
56
7
c
9
46
5
35C
15
155
i
7
i
5
?
4
2!
,866
,08£
.775
,7C7
,34C
.562
,77C
,614
,071
.778
,935
.139
,912
.254
,010
,949
.432
,576
.8*5
,812
,791
.279
,352
.416
.U?
,4£4
,868
.755
,056
.393
,765
.498
,32C
,7£8
,628
,117
,428
,592
,6C6
.694
,744
.322
,659
.792
,757
,943
,2*7
.198
.55?
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHt URE LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 1970 FORCE CONS MF6 EDU SVC
- 1
- 4
- 2
- 4
2
- 4
4
- 2
1
1
- 1
2
C
7
- 2
- 3
2
- 3
_ i
- 3
- 4
- I
2
- 5
0
1
1
6
- 2
- 4
2
- 6
- 3
6
- 7
- 2
- 5
5
2
- 2
3
- 2
- C
4
- 2
- 1
10
9
- 1
.1
.3
.6
.7
.9
.0
.6
.3
.3
.7
.C
.4
.0
.6
.5
.2
.0
.4
.4
.C
.1
.2
.6
.5
.4
.6
.2
.6
.9
.1
.3
.6
.0
.0
.0
.7
.4
.C
.7
.2
.2
.4
.9
.9
.6
.2
.1
.4
.5
4C.6
C.C
50.0
C.C
69.4
c.o
0.0
0.0
72.7
54.4
19.6
28.4
C.O
46.1
52.3
7C.C
C.C
C.O
o.c
54.9
C.O
49.5
19.6
C.D
O.C
54.3
41.2
27.3
67.6
0.0
60.7
36. C
35.3
74.5
32.1
C.C
62.5
80.9
72.4
9C.5
65. C
65.0
C.C
69.3
C.C
C.C
0.0
67.6
38.2
3,260
1,721
9,617
1.030
15,231
1,667
2.927
1,481
13,657
10,359
5,427
4,780
1.982
7,252
3.122
15.250
2.545
1,411
4,190
6.985
1,750
2,fc2£
4,964
2,340
2.37C
3.433
3,101
4,699
4,124
1.684
24,609
3,352
4,757
17,267
2,736
2.055
3,900
16,087
2,325
145,182
6,784
61,600
1,400
3,264
2,746
2,422
619
1,661
6,766
7
4
6
3
6
6
11
6
5
6
5
9
5
9
5
5
7
4
6
6
4
9
1C
8
6
4
5
1C
4
6
5
5
4
5
6
6
5
£
4
5
4
6
5
7
4
5
4
5
4
11
2
26
1
14
5
12
1
14
23
13
4
3
19
5
26
6
3
6
23
1
3
11
4
11
6
7
£
£
1
2C
4
1C
4
8
5
4
1?
6
27
12
14
1
4
4
5
1
1
22
6
11
6
5
9
t
8
7
17
12
11
6
7
7
£
6
7
7
7
6
10
7
7
8
£
5
7
12
9
9
7
7
11
31
7
9
9
9
£
7
7
7
9
4
7
7
11
11
7
5
6
5
10
t
5
4
e
6
C
5
5
6
j
6
7
4
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
£
3
7
6
7
7
5
c
9
7
6
fc
6
6
5
9
6
£
3
5
5
GOV
1 7
17
19
22
30
17
18
19
23
11
15
16
20
23
19
14
2C
11
1t
16
14
24
2C
16
19
29
14
21
16
20
12
16
14
41
18
21
18
14
14
13
12
22
2i
13
11
16
20
15
16
265
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGf 22
STATE AND COUNTY
KS THOMAS
TRE60
WABAUNSEE
WALLACE
WASHINGTON
WICHITA
WILSON
WOOD SO N
WYANDOTTE
KT KENTUCKY
ADAIR
ALLEN
ANDERSON
BALLAFD
BARREN
BATH
£>ELL
600NE
BOURBON
bOVD
BOYLE
E RACKE N
6REATHITT
BRECKINR1D6E
BULL1TT
BUTLER
CALDUELL
CALLOWAY
CAMPBELL
CARLISLE
CARROLL
CARTER
CASEY
CHRIST1AK
CLARK
CLAY
CLINTON
CRITTENDEN
CUMBERLAND
DAVIESS
EDMONSON
ELLIOTT
ESTJLL
fAYETTE
FLEMING
FLOYD
FRANKLIN
FULTON
GALLATIN
PCT PCT
1973 CHG UR^
POPULATION 1575 197C
7,5C1 7
4 ,436
6,397
2,215
9,2*5
3,274
11 ,317
i 7 a c
4 , f o v
166 ,845
3.22C.711
13.C37
12 ,59f
5,358
8,276
2£ ,677
9,225
31 ,121
32,812
1F ,476
52 ,376
21 ,861
"-,227
14,221
14 ,765
26.09C
5.723
13 ,179
27,692
68 ,7C4
5,354
f ,523
19,? -SC
12.93C
56 ,224
24,090
18,481
8,174
? ,49?
6.85C
79,4t6
8 ,751
5,933
12 ,752
174,323
11 ,366
35,885
34,4f1
1C, 1f3
4.134
- C
j
- 5
4
4
- C
4 4
11
4
5
10
7
15
1
7
0
5
13
2
- C
4
3
1C
£
28
r
2
5
- 4
3
1
9
e
24
9
12
5
5
- C
2
8
- 3
4
8
5
11
I
- t
5
.7
.6
.8
.4
i
• «*
.9
.8
.8
.4
.3
.6
.C
.3
.2
T
• -i
.3
.0
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.4
.5
.7
.1
.0
.2
.6
.2
.2
.9
.2
.7
.9
.2
.8
.4
.2
.9
.3
.1
.6
.4
.7
.2
.6
.7
64.6
C.O
c.c
c.c
T.O
c.c
56. E
Cr\
m U
92.0
52.4
24.8
26.1
38.2
C.C
39.4
C.C
48.2
37. E
42.3
72.5
54.7
C.C
C.C
C.G
1C. 6
C.C
46.1
48.9
87.2
C.C
45.6
C.C
c.c
62.0
55.6
C.C
C.C
36.7
C.C
67.1
o.c
c.c
22.8
91 .7
C.C
9.5
61.9
61 .2
C.O
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MF6 EDU SVC GOV
3,
1,
2.
3,
1.
4,
,
77,
1,141,
4.
5,
3,
2,
11,
2,
8.
12,
7.
17,
8,
2 ,
3.
5,
9,
3,
4.
10,
33,
1,
3,
5,
4,
15,
9,
3,
2,
7
- f
2,
31,
2,
1,
3,
73,
4,
9,
15,
3,
1.
223
819
281
£81
424
210
355
A ^ •»
O f J
020
594
375
046
897
873
327
894
243
84C
535
973
876
467
172
083
095
166
664
386
472
917
244
641
C24
585
458
488
710
138
305
213
705
457
537
433
C91
496
275
672
334
4
5
9
2
7
7
7
6
7
6
5
6
15
7
11
6
7
6
7
C
6
1C
6
7
10
7
6
6
1C
6
10
7
5
6
11
3
9
6
8
16
27
11
5
9
1C
9
5
1C
3
1
5
2
3
e.
28
23
25
21
32
39
24
23
24
16
25
23
31
25
27
7
21
43
35
29
2C
2fc
33
31
3C
27
21
27
7
28
26
25
25
34
11
29
16
23
9
22
26
25
12
7
t
9
6
1 1
6
5
e
C
4
5
5
4
6
10
t
5
5
9
C
J
26
5
4
5
t
22
5
3
4
t
t
6
5
15
9
5
7
7
5
12
4
12
5
1C
7
i,
7
8
6
4
6
4
8
t
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
7
7
I
4
5
6
5
5
6
t
1
6
5
6
4
5
6
5
5
4
7
t
5
6
t
6
5
6
5
1C
4
17
12
18
20
13
21
13
15
15
1 1
1C
17
13
1C
18
17
12
14
1C
12
8
35
16
1C
15
16
30
9
1 5
17
14
12
18
15
2£
16
14
14
1C
1 7
32
17
24
14
2C
37
1 1
13
266
-------
ECCHOfK ri-OFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 23
STATE AN» COUNTY
KV GARRARD
GRANT
GRAVE;
GRAYSON
GREEN
GREENUP
HANCOCK
HAROIN
HARLAN
HARRISON
HART
HENDERSON
HENRY
HICK.MAN
HOPKINS
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JESSAr 1NE
JOHNSON
KENTOK'
KNOTT
INCX
LARUt
LAUREL
LAWRENCE
LEE
LESLIE
LETCHER
LEWIS
LINCOLN
LIVINGSTON
LOGAN
LYON
MC CRACKEN
MC CREARV
MC LEAN
MA01SON
MAGOf f IN
MARION
MARSHALL
MARTIN
MASON
HEADE
MENIFFE
MERCER
MEUALFE
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
197C
POPULATION
«.
9
3C-
16
1C
33
7
7F
37
14
1?
36
K
6
38
ir
695
17
17
129
14
2?
1C
If
1C
t
11
2?
12
.457
,999
,935
,445
,35C
,192
.DEC
.421
,37C
,156
,98C
• C31
,910
.264
,U7
.COS
.05!
,43C
.539
,44C
,69E
,6EC
,672
,3£6
,726
,5E7
,623
,165
.355
16,663
7
21
5
58
12
9
42
1C
ie
2C
9
17
IE
4
1 '_
8
11
15
1C
,596
.793
.562
.281
.548
,062
.73C
.443
.714
,3E1
,377
.27:
.796
,C5C
,96C
,177
,642
.364
.C19
PCT PCT C
CMC URfc
1975 197C
6
17
4
1C
4
1
4
- 8
6
2
5
2
5
3
12
4
0
26
16
C
14
11
8
14
12
5
7
14
2
5
14
1
5
3
14
12
10
9
- 1
9
14
2
- 5
7
1C
2
3
12
C
.2
.1
.5
.8
.4
.8
.1
.2
.5
.8
.3
.4
.5
.E
.4
.t
.t
.£
.9
.8
.3
.2
.8
.1
.7
.6
.3
.8
.8
.9
.C
.5
.4
.4
.C
.7
.9
.0
.C
.3
.7
.6
.3
.5
.2
.8
.8
.0
.2
34. E
0.0
34.7
19.1
C.O
46.8
C.O
69.0
17.8
44.9
C.O
63.8
C.O
c.c
47.4
0.0
94.7
53.1
22.1
8t.1
0.0
iC.O
24.0
15.8
r.o
c.c
c.c
11. C
3.C
C.C
C.C
29.6
C.C
6C.7
C.O
o.c
55.7
C.O
32.5
17.5
C.O
42.9
31.9
C.O
42.2
C.C
C.C
33.1
C.O
IVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LAfcOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS HFG EDU SVC GOV
3,561
3,677
12,116
5.355
4,016
10,378
2.432
16,174
9,166
5,532
4.94C
13,922
4,200
2,371
13.686
2.688
279,663
7.26C
4,851
50,635
3.102
5,981
3,677
7,817
2.781
1,570
2.18C
5,347
3,986
5,789
2.63C
8.387
1,806
22,676
2.582
3.29C
17,197
1,819
5,445
7,499
2.193
6.553
4,213
1,022
6,690
2,616
3,990
5,718
2,695
9
8
8
12
7
5
19
7
6
5
6
6
4
8
7
9
5
8
11
5
13
9
7
10
11
12
7
5
E
8
11
5
10
7
7
9
6
15
5
12
12
5
7
8
E
4
6
8
12
28
IE
35
23
29
29
39
15
7
30
21
33
26
26
12
14
32
17
1C
25
5
18
24
18
20
11
5
4
35
28
26
35
37
19
25
28
17
6
30
36
7
27
22
38
26
24
2£
33
17
C
6
4
6
4
5
7
7
11
4
6
5
5
4
5
11
C
17
10
5
IV
12
6
8
E
1C
14
9
7
6
4
4
6
7
15
4
21
15
7
4
17
6
E
8
6
c
7
5
10
5
8
7
5
4
4
3
10
7
6
6
7
5
8
6
4
7
6
6
7
5
9
6
7
5
7
6
6
3
5
e
7
3
8
t
5
7
4
5
7
5
7
7
1
7
6
5
7
5
12
13
11
15
10
8
1 1
28
17
10
13
10
16
12
16
29
12
13
1£
11
3C
21
17
16
19
31
33
16
11
11
15
11
18
15
28
14
23
35
8
13
35
1C
29
22
13
16
14
11
25
267
-------
ECONOMIC PJCMLES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 24
STATE AND COUN1T
KT MUHLENBERC
NELSON
NICHOLAS
OHIO
OLDHAM
OWEN
OUSLEY
PENDLE TON
PERR Y
P1H.E
PObELL
PULASK 1
ROBERTSON
FOCKCASUE
ROMAN
RUSSELL
SCOTT
SHtLbT
SIMPSON
SPENCE R
TAYLOR
TODD
TRIGG
TRIMbL E
UNION
MAfcREN
WASHINGTON
WATNE
UEtSTER
WH1TLE Y
taOLFE
UOOOFORD
LA LOUISIANA
ACADIA
ALLEN
ASCENSION
ASSUMPTION
AVOVELLES
BEAURE6ARD
BIENV1LLE
BOSSIER
CADDO
CALCAS IEU
CALOVELL
CAMERON
CATANOULA
CLA1BOBNE
CONCOPDIA
tl SOTO
197:
POPULATION
27,537
22,477
6,508
18 ,79C
14 ,
7
f
7
6
7
t
6
8
e
6
7
9
7
;
9
7
V
6
SVC
4
6
3
6
6
7
2
4
6
5
6
8
2
5
5
7
fe
8
5
1
6
7
6
5
f
6
6
5
5
10
6
8
1C
9
9
9
6
11
7
11
10
12
9
11
6
11
11
10
14
GOV
16
1 1
15
11
17
20
43
14
23
16
26
15
2C
23
35
2C
12
14
6
12
8
14
17
15
16
16
1 1
14
1 5
16
33
15
1 7
15
1 7
14
12
17
24
17
19
14
15
18
15
19
19
14
12
268
-------
ECONOMIC PtOHLES Of COUNTIES
PACE 25
STATl AND COUNTY
LA CAST BATON ROUGE
CAST CARROLL
EAST FELICIAS*
EVAN6ELINE
MANKL IN
tRANT
IBERIA
1BERVILLE
JACKSON
JEf f ERSON
JEFFERSON DAVIS
LAFAYETTE
LAFOURCHE
LA SALLE
LINCOLN
LIVINGSTON
MADISCN
FOfiEHOUSE
NATCHITOCHES
ORLEANS
OUACNI T«
FLAQUFMINES
POINTE COUPEE
GAPIOES
RED RIVER
R1CHLAND
SAblNE
ST BERNARD
ST CHARLES
ST HELENA
ST JAKES
ST JOHN THE BAPTIST
ST LANDRT
ST MARTIN
ST HART
ST TAMMANY
TAN6IPAHOA
TENSAS
TERREBONNE
UNION
VERMILION
VERNON
WASHINGTON
bEBSTER
VEST BATON ROU6E
WEST CARROLL
WEST fELIClANA
MINN
NE MAINE
197C
POPULATION
285
12
17
31
2!
13
5'
ir
15
33F
2?
111
6P
13
33
3f
15
32
T C
5S3
115
2C
22
11P
9
21
1f
51
2?
9
19
21
80
32
tc
63
65
9
76
It
43
53
41
39
16
iU7
.864
,657
.932
,946
,671
.397
,746
,963
,229
.554
.6*3
,941
,29J
,800
,511
,065
.463
,219
,*71
,387
,225
,cor
,07?
,226
,774
,63t
,1£5
,550
.937
.733
,813
,364
,45?
,752
,585
,875
,732
,049
.44^
,071
,794
,987
,93<>
,864
13,028
1C
U
993
,761
.36?
,722
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG LRt LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 1970 rORCE CONS MFC E.OU SVC
9
- 7
- t
- C
- 3
4
7
- 1
- C
17
1
12
4
8
6
16
- 4
- 1
1
- 4
8
2
- 2
2
0
C
4
13
8
- 6
- C
3
- 1
5
- C
20
7
- 13
9
4
2
- 7
C
- C
j
- 2
- 14
- 2
t
.2
.5
.3
.6
.4
.5
.0
.2
.6
.0
.0
.2
.5
.8
.9
.0
.3
.1
.4
.9
.8
.P
.0
.9
.0
.1
.6
.C
.3
.3
.7
.5
.2
.1
.3
.2
.1
.0
.6
.7
.7
.5
.0
.8
.7
.2
.3
.1
.6
66.6
46.0
26.6
40.6
22.3
0.0
63.5
23.8
31.9
95.9
63.0
72.0
39.0
O.C
64.4
18.5
63.3
45.3
45.4
99.7
78.7
28.9
17.9
52.1
O.C
31.5
16.7
91 .6
26.9
C.O
32.9
51.9
39.1
37.2
65.3
36.9
35.5
0.0
52.6
16.5
38.4
60.9
52.4
51.2
39.7
0.0
c.c
43. <
50.9
107,422
3,412
4,723
8,937
6,792
3,648
18,456
6,663
5,526
127,048
9,239
39.184
21.900
4.08C
12.069
11.649
4,157
9,726
10,915
221,532
41,595
8.229
6, Of A
37,345
2.945
6.225
5,137
18,423
9,297
2.663
5.329
6,682
22,120
8,971
20,094
20,625
20,516
2,525
23,737
6,006
13.325
7,440
13,222
14,184
4,982
3,604
1,929
5,126
3E1.714
9
5
7
7
8
11
6
13
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
18
6
5
e
5
7
12
16
7
E
9
7
1C
8
13
6
1C
14
15
7
10
10
4
6
9
9
8
7
6
13
12
4
7
6
17
5
19
11
10
15
12
17
42
15
8
5
15
22
11
17
13
29
7
11
15
10
12
12
21
13
2?
21
32
14
44
3<
6
8
13
20
15
7
11
2e
6
10
27
37
23
13
31
36
31
13
9
5
6
9
1C
6
6
7
6
8
10
9
6
29
f
£
7
20
8
9
6
7
9
7
9
7
4
7
13
9
7
9
6
5
7
11
4
6
8
7
£
6
6
6
7
6
C
I
10
13
9
10
6
6
10
10
9
7
9
11
7
9
9
7
11
10
12
12
11
6
10
1C
9
1C
9
5
6
6
4
5
1C
9
10
1C
9
17
a
1C
1C
E
£
10
9
7
6
9
6
60V
22
16
37
15
17
33
12
18
14
12
14
16
13
12
37
20
16
13
33
17
17
14
23
24
16
17
16
14
1C
31
18
11
15
14
10
14
20
14
10
15
16
35
18
16
14
16
27
16
15
269
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 26
STATE AND COUNTY
=r=*= = *x .:===== = = = = == = =
HE ANDOOS COGG1S
AROOSTOOK
CUMBERLAND
FRANKLIN
HANCOCK
KENNEPEC
KNOX
LINCOLN
OXFORD
PENOBSCOT
PISCATAOUIS
SAGADAHOC
SOMERSET
WALDO
WASHINGTON
YORK
MD MARYLAND
ALLEfcANY
ANNE ARUNDEL
BALTIMORE
CALVEPT
CAROLI NE
CARROLL
CECIL
CHARLE S
DORCHESTER
FREDEP 1C*
GARRETT
HARF OPD
HOWARD
KENT
MONTGOMERY
PRINCE GEORGES
CUEEN ANNES
ST MARTS
SOMERSET
TALBOT
WASHINGTON
NICOMICO
WORCESTER
BALTIMORE CITY
MA MASSACHUSETTS
BARNSTABLE
BERKSHIRE
E-PISTOL
DUCES
ESSEX
FRANKL IN
HAMPBfN
1970
POPULATI ON
= = = = = = =« =
91
94
192
2?
34
95
25
20
43
125
16
23
4C
23
29
111
3,923
84
298
62C
20
19
65
53
47
25
84
21
115
62
16
522
661
IP
47
18
23
10?
54
24
905
5 ,685>
96
145
444
6
637
5«=
45«
= = = =
.279
,078
,528
,444
,59C
,3C6
,C13
.537
,457
.353
,28T
,452
,597
,32P
,859
,576
,697
,044
,C42
,4C5
,682
,781
,C06
,291
,678
,405
,927
,476
,37P
.354
.146
,805
,719
,422
,38E
,924
,682
,829
,236
,442
,787
,17C
,656
,402
,3C1
.117
,887
.210
,050
PCT
CHG
1975
=======
3.6
2 .4
5 .2
5.5
13 .2
5 .7
5 .7
12 .4
3.4
7.5
2 .0
13.C
6 .8
13.4
5.9
8 .7
4 .4
- 1 .2
12 .9
2 .4
26 .6
9 .3
16 .1
4 .4
23 .9
C .5
13 .C
fc .9
17.3
55 .2
2.6
7.9
2 .5
8 .4
5 .3
2.8
7.7
3 .3
9.C
8 .5
- t .0
2.2
34 .1
- C.3
4 .4
31 .3
- 1 .1
7.3
1 .0
PCT
URH
197C
======
74.9
5C.5
62.8
13.8
13.3
60.5
41 .5
0.0
21.9
61.4
19. C
52.7
41 .0
25.4
13.5
56.8
76.6
52.6
67.3
88 .6
0.0
C'.O
10.4
19.9
16.0
35.4
32.0
c.o
51.8
34.8
21.5
89.2
52.3
0.0
19.3
16.2
28.8
4C.4
28.1
14.6
0.0
64.6
41.3
69.8
82.7
C.O
89.5
39.9
89.5
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC ECU SVC GOV
======
38
29
77
6
12
37
10
7
16
47
6
9
15
8
10
43
1,590
30
110
266
7
7
27
18
16
12
34
6
40
24
6
220
275
7
12
7
10
40
23
9
369
2,389
J3
61
191
2
270
24
188
= == = =
,527
,901
,704
,£89
,701
,849
,894
,847
.568
.221
.388
,068
,748
,760
,200
,449
,094
,682
,773
,209
,398
.714
,994
,390
,528
,955
,763
,949
.729
,475
.765
,003
,980
.715
,491
,282
,197
,939
,420
.916
.823
.419
.623
.680
,530
.449
,567
.920
.442
SC = X
6
5
6
4
.12
6
6
10
5
5
4
6
5
8
7
6
6
5
6
6
22
8
10
8
11
6
11
10
7
9
9
5
6
11
11
7
10
7
7
9
5
5
13
5
c
19
4
7
4
41
21
22
49
19
26
26
22
48
26
43
39
47
32
31
44
15
31
19
27
4
29
30
32
13
38
18
2C
21
16
20
7
7
19
5
26
16
32
24
22
25
29
7
39
42
6
74
28
35
"==
6
9
8
8
fc
8
6
6
8
13
6
6
6
7
5
7
8
8
fc
7
7
6
6
7
6
4
8
7
6
9
10
8
5
8
12
7
6
5
7
i.
7
8
7
9
6
4
7
14
7
=== =
5
6
7
7
9
6
9
7
5
6
6
5
5
6
7
5
7
6
t
5
b
6
5
5
7
5
5
6
5
7
7
9
7
8
7
6
11
5
7
K
6
6
1C
6
4
11
5
5
5
= ===
9
18
14
12
15
20
14
18
11
18
13
14
9
13
16
16
25
1 5
28
17
24
13
16
21
37
14
21
18
32
26
11
33
39
18
38
17
11
13
14
12
20
14
17
1
2
5
4
7
3
270
-------
ECONCK1C PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 27
STATE AN6 COUNTY
M HAMPSHIRE
MtOLESEX
NANTUCKET
NORFOLK
PLYMOUTH
SUFFOLK
WORCESTER
HI MICHIGAN
ALCOMA
AL6ER
ALLE6AN
ALPENA
ANTRIP
ARENAC
BARAGA
BARRY
BAY
bEKZlE
bERRlE *
BRANCH
CALHOUN
CASS
CHARLEVOIX
CHEBOYCAN
CHIPPEH*
CLARE
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DELTA
DICKINSON
EATON
EMMET
6ENESEE
6LADWIN
606EblC
(.RAND TRAVERSE
6RAT10T
HILLSDALE
HOU6MTON
HURON
INtHAP"
IONIA
IOSCO
IRON
ISABELLA
JACKSON
KALAMA700
KALKASKA
KEMT
197C
POPULATION
123
1,198
T
604
333
735
in
F,f81
•^
f
66
3T
12
11
7
36
117
?
16:
3'
141
4?
U
16
32
16
4S
6
T r
23
66
1f
445
13
2C
35
39
37
34
34
261
45
24
13
44
14?
201
c
411
,961
,397
,774
,854
.314
,190
,C37
,826
,111
,56£
,575
,70E
,6K
.149
,769
,166
.339
,597
,94C
,90fc
,•=63
,312
.541
.573
.412
.695
.492
.482
.924
,753
,692
,331
,589
,471
,676
,175
,246
.171
,652
,?83
.03"
,846
,9C5
,P13
,594
,274
.55C1
.372
,044
PCT PCT
ChG URE>
1"75 197D
7
0
'.{.
2
13
- 1
1
3
19
2
7
7
19
19
i
7
i
15
4
0
- 0
5
11
H
11
27
9
24
1C
5
9
16
1
23
C
15
1
9
6
4
3
2
15
3
14
2
C
49
•»
.8
.0
.C
.5
.9
.7
.7
.1
.7
.9
.6
.6
.3
.4
.9
.6
.0
.5
.2
.0
.5
.4
.3
.5
.5
.5
.7
.8
.0
.7
.9
.4
.1
.0
.C
.1
.3
.5
.0
.5
.8
.S
.5
.4
.0
.7
Jt
.4
.9
69.0
91.3
r.o
t>8.5
6f.9
c.c
71.9
73.9
c.o
44.3
22.6
45. C
C.O
0.0
35.5
17.0
t>6.9
0.0
46.6
24. C
5«=.6
20.2
40.6
35.9
66.2
16.3
21.3
C.C
57.4
71.6
42.4
34.2
77.3
0.0
68.9
46.1
42.4
20.8
39.7
6.8
85.7
33.4
41 .8
19.4
46.0
S4.9
75.4
C.O
63. i
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDb SVC
50,502
593,645
1,606
253,600
130,687
318,991
266,777
3,455,346
2,074
2.989
25,432
10,312
4.389
3,879
2,510
14,483
43.868
3,161
66,769
14,212
58,415
17,33b
6,342
5,598
9,000
5.558
18,521
2,342
12,244
8,197
27,330
6,835
168,389
4,424
6,897
14,743
14,770
14.659
10,656
11,652
111,542
16,544
6,070
4,533
16,833
55.326
P2.997
1,657
166,035
5
5
17
5
7
4
4
4
12
5
6
4
5
8
5
5
5
9
5
6
3
5
7
6
9
9
7
7
6
7
6
9
3
7
3
6
5
4
6
5
5
5
9
6
4
4
4
13
4
25
26
3
22
26
1?
36
35
22
35
41
2<5
40
33
26
44
39
2C
43
33
36
5C
31
24
5
26
31
22
26
21
34
15
46
40
17
17
31
37
E
29
21
40
14
8
15
35
33
27
31
21
10
4
9
7
7
7
6
6
7
6
11
5
7
7
6
fc
10
7
5
7
5
6
£
13
6
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
5
7
7
9
6
23
7
19
5
6
8
25
7
12
7
7
5
t
15
6
6
7
5
6
4
5
5
5
6
4
3
5
4
6
5
4
5
4
8
8
7
5
4
11
6
6
5
1C
5
7
5
6
5
5
6
5
6
5
8
7
6
5
5
7
7
60V
24
14
12
15
15
17
12
13
23
19
10
19
14
13
26
11
9
15
9
16
14
6
13
16
34
13
15
20
13
16
17
14
11
11
17
17
9
13
26
11
30
15
22
25
33
12
17
18
9
271
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES PAGE 28
197?
STATE AND COUNTY
POPULATION
— S =X = =E= = « SE== ===«. =
HI K EWE EN AW 2
LAKE
LAPEER
LEELANAU
LENAWEE
LIVINGSTON
LUCE
MACKINAC
MACOH6
KANISTEE
MAROUETTE
MASON
MECOSTA
rENOMINEE
MIDLAND
MISSAUKEE
MONROE
MONTCALM
MONTNOREhC V
MUSK EG ON
NEbAYGO
CAKL AN D
OCEANA
OtEMAb
ONTOfcAGOk
OSCEOLA
OSCODA
OTSE60
OTTAWA
PRESOUE ISLE
ROSCOMHOK
SA6INAU
ST CLAIR
ST JOSEPH
SAMILAC
SCHOOLCRAFT
SHIAWASSEE
TUSCOLA
VAN BUREN
wASHTENAb
UATNE
WEXFORD
MM MINNESOTA
AITKIN
ANOKA
BECKER
BELTfiAMl
BENTON
Bib STONE
r
52
1C
81
5f
6
e
tit
20
64
2?
27
24
63
7
119
39
5
157
27
9C7
17
11
ir
u
4
1C
12?
12
9
219
11"
47
35
f
6?
48
56
23*
2 ,67C
19
3,eo<
11
15*
24
26
2T
7
,264
,661
,361
.872
,951
,967
.789
,66C
,204
,39?
,6£6
,612
,992
,5£7
,769
,12t
.215
,6tC
,247
,426
,99?
,671
,964
,9C3
,54E
,838
,7^6
,42:
,181
,83t
,892
,74Z
,28?
.39?
,181
.226
,075
,6C3
.17:
,1C3
,36F
,717
.103
,403
.712
.372
.373
.841
.941
PCI
CHG
PCT CIVILIAN
UR( LABOR
1975 197C
- t
U
18
13
c
>
7 T
7
1C
6
6
fc
t
25
7
C
>
22
6
11
71
- C
1C
6
16
24
7
U
29
28
9
<,
45
3
9
8
9
4
1C
1C
1C
9
- 5
11
3
10
19
7
13
t
0
.1
.2
.3
.0
.8
.1
.7
• 2
.9
.1
.7
•2
.9
.6
.8
.7
.1
.6
.9
.4
.7
.6
7
• ^
.6
.C
.4
.7
.6
.6
.9
.2
.2
.4
.0
.5
.8
.5
C
• -
.5
.5
.0
.5
.1
.9
.8
.5
.4
.1
.0
0.0
C'.O
12.0
C.O
40.2
11.0
r.c
29.9
92.2
38.4
65.3
39.9
42.9
43.7
54. E
0.0
34.8
18.9
0.0
69.2
12.4
9C.O
O.C
C.C
c.c
C.O
0.0
28.9
48.5
3:. 3
G . 0
69.6
46.1
35.1
0.0
52.5
37.6
13.4
21.6
78.3
9E..2 1
51.0
66.4 1
0 . G
E7.8
23.6
43.4
44.2
35.9
FORCE
605
1,816
18,040
3,864
T2.959
22,166
2.1P3
3,056
240,015
7,50£
?0,986
8,623
10,275
8,720
23,470
2,472
44,086
15,064
1,579
60,084
9,631
363,526
6,330
3,653
3,626
5,522
1,444
3,922
50,183
3,794
3,031
80,572
44,456
19,21 1
1 2 , 76 4
2,623
24,248
16,788
21,147
102,749
,061,985
7,039
,526,436
3,626
60,775
7,942
9,375
7,701
2,949
EHPLOTHENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
CONS
4
8
4
12
4
6
5
11
4
4
3
7
5
5
5
e
6
5
12
3
6
5
6
11
4
4
9
6
t
6
11
4
6
4
6
5
4
5
6
4
3
7
5
5
7
9
6
6
5
MFC
18
21
41
15
43
34
7
7
42
39
6
33
20
37
45
22
41
41
29
44
35
34
38
20
14
38
17
22
36
12
15
38
35
49
34
13
42
39
40
23
37
30
21
15
33
9
7
2C
6
EDU
6
7
6
7
8
7
5
1C
6
6
16
7
24
6
t
10
6
6
&
6
6
8
6
c
1C
7
11
6
6
&
fc
6
6
5
5
8
7
6
6
23
6
7
k
9
6
7
21
U
£
SVC
4
8
4
9
5
6
6
9
5
5
6
5
5
4
6
7
4
4
4
5
5
6
5
5
3
4
13
1 1
5
5
7
5
5
4
5
7
4
4
5
5
7
7
7
8
6
7
6
5
6
GOV
34
30
16
15
9
12
46
33
10
14
27
13
33
12
1 1
14
9
10
22
1 1
12
1 1
1 5
16
1t
13
2t
15
10
16
21
10
1C
1C
11
24
10
15
11
3C
12
15
15
19
12
16
37
16
16
272
-------
ECONOMIC profiles or COUNTIES
PAGE 29
STATE AMD COUNTY
HI HUE EARTH
6RGMN
CARLTON
CARVER
CASS
CH1PPF. bA
CHISAGO
CLAY
CLEARWATER
COOK
COTTONUOOD
CROW WING
DAKOTA
DODGE
DOUGLAS
FARIBAULT
HLLHORE
rPEEBORN
600DHUE
GRANT
HENNEF1N
HOUSTON
HUBBAPD
ISANTI
ITASCA
JACKSON
KANABEC
KANDIVOH1
K ITT SON
KOOCHICH1NG
LAC BUI PARLE
LAKE
LAKE OF THE WOODS
LE SUEUD
LINCOLN
LVON
MC LEOD
H ANNO" EN
MARSHALL
MARTIN
MEEKER
MULE LACS
MORRISON
MOWER
MURRAY
N I COLLET
NOBL£S
NORMAN
OLMS1EO
1070
POPULATION.
52
2?
21
?P
17
15
17
46
e
i
14
34
1 Jc
11
e. 2
2C
21
It
34
7
?to
17
1C
U
35
U
9
3C
6
17
11
13
3
21
E
24
27
C
13
24
18
15
26
44
1?
24
23
10
F4
,32?
,887
.072
.331
.32?
.1 Cr
,49?
,6 OF
,01?
.42:
,887
.826
,8CP
.037
,9ir
,896
,916
,C64
,8f4
,46?
,ot:
,556
.SE1
,56C
,53C
,35?
,775
,54P
,FS:
,131
,164
.351
,967
,33?
,143
.27?
,66?
,635
,OtC
,:it
,387
,703
,949
,919
,5 OP
,518
,20P
.OOP
.104
TCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CH6 URf' LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 197C FORCfc CONS MrG EDu SVC GOV
- 0
2
1
rc
15
C
25
1
7
6
6
12
24
2
8
- 2
C
- 3
7
- 1
- 3
C
<,
24
5
1
15
6
C
2
2
6
t
3
4
1
4
C
2
7
9
13
3
4
- 7
- 5
- 1
4
5
.5
.e
.5
.C
.2
.1
.5
.4
.7
.2
.1
.9
.7
.6
.3
.E
.0
.6
.3
.0
.(.
.4
.7
.1
.8
.4
.9
.£
.9
.1
.0
.2
.3
.f
.5
.0
.8
.2
.8
C
.2
.2
.5
.5
.1
.2
.3
.9
.2
59. C
65.8
31.4
32.5
0.0
41.1
o.c
68.7
0.0
0.0
25.7
33.5
84.5
0.0
3C.5
32.3
11 .7
51. C
30.2
C.O
9P.4
32.8
26.2
20.9
2C.4
24.7
26.4
42.1
C.O
37.7
0.0
56.8
O.C
22.1
r.c
51.5
43.5
C.O
C.O
44.2
28.0
17.0
27.7
57.2
C.O
63.3
4?. 3
0.0
7'. 5
21.601
11,048
9,997
11,476
5.221
5,564
6.367
18,683
2.864
1,373
5.593
11,925
54,912
5,127
8,751
7,517
8.329
14,971
13,732
2,512
433,510
6,946
3,405
5,995
11.866
5,175
3,804
11,788
2,470
6,181
3,947
4,713
1.217
7,815
2,811
9,483
1 1 , 32 2
1,874
4,467
9,331
6,787
5,546
9,066
16,909
4,145
9,552
8,731
3,361
36,173
5
5
5
7
7
5
8
5
5
9
5
8
6
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
7
8
8
6
4
8
6
5
3
5
4
7
7
4
6
5
5
6
5
6
7
6
4
4
4
4
5
5
15
22
37
2F
12
7
24
6
12
7
14
14
27
16
9
16
10
28
24
5
21
17
9
23
14
10
21
11
7
4:
5
«
16
26
3.
9
31
10
1C
17
22
19
17
33
6
17
14
7
16
15
7
7
7
8
e
7
18
10
E
E
8
7
7
e
8
6
6
7
10
8
6
10
8
11
8
6
7
8
9
7
7
£
7
6
12
b
10
9
7
6
9
9
E
6
15
9
6
6
5
6
4
t
8
6
5
7
5
11
5
6
5
8
7
5
6
6
5
4
9
5
9
5
6
5
7
4
5
7
5
4
9
5
5
5
4
6
5
6
4
5
4
6
5
5
5
5
8
19
9
17
8
25
13
18
17
21
33
12
23
13
11
1*
12
13
8
13
16
13
1 1
24
23
24
14
19
16
18
18
14
16
25
13
13
16
10
19
15
10
12
17
16
11
12
17
13
1*
11
273
-------
ECONOMIC PfOFlLES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 30
PCT PIT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
1970 ChG URP LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
STATE AN6 COUNTY POPULATION 1975 197C FORCE CONS MF6 EDO SVC GOV
MM OTTE» TAIL
PEMNIK6TON
PINE
PIPE STONE
POLK
POPE
RAMSEY
RED LAfcE
REDWGGC
REbVlLLE
RICE
ROCK
ROSEAU
ST LOUIS
SCOTT
SHER6URNE
SIBLEY
STEASNS
STEELE
STEVEN S
SWIFT
TODC
TRAVER SF
WAbASHA
WAfiEN*
WASECA
WASHINGTON
WATONWAN
MS
bINONA
WRIGHT
YELLOW MEDICINE
MISSISSIPPI
ADAMS
ALCORN
AM1TE
ATTALA
BEfcTON
BOLIVAR
CALHOUN
CAiROLL
CHICKASAW
CHOCTAW
CLAIBORNE
CLARKE
CLAY
COAHOPA
COPIAH
COVlNtTOt.
46
13
16
12
34
11
476
r
2C
21
41
11
11
22C
3?
1 f
15
95
It
11
1 3
12
t
17
12
16
8?
1 T
c
44
3F
14
? ,ri6
37
27
1?
19
7
4C
14
0
It
8
1C
15
1?
4C
24
14
,097
,266
,821
,791
.435
,107
,?55
,388
,024
,1 39
,5E2
.346
,569
,691
,423
,344
,845
,4CC
,531
,21f
,177
,114
.254
,224
,412
,66?
,CO?
,29F
,389
,409
,53?
,523
,994
,293
,179
.76?
,57C
,505
,4C9
.62?
,397
,8CS
,44C
,C86
,C49
,84C
.447
,764
,002
c
9
11
- 6
2
- 1
- 3
4
- 3
- 2
4
- C
5
- 2
2?
43
1
7
t
- 1
- C
5
3
5
9
2
23
_ c
t
1
19
- 2
5
3
6
- 5
2
- 3
2
5
- 6
3
7
7
C
3
- 5
3
2
.6
.7
.4
.0
.4
.3
.9
.1
.2
.0
.9
.4
.5
.6
.4
.4
.4
.2
.0
• u
.6
.9
.7
.7
.7
.4
.7
.6
.3
.5
.9
.6
.£
.7
.2
.8
.9
.C
.2
.0
.2
.8
.7
.C
.7
.3
.1
.1
.7
27.0
t?.7
C.O
41.7
46.3
22.9
99.7
C.C
24 .1
12.1
64 .3
41.5
22.1
71 .9
37.4
21.4
C.O
4C.C
57.0
48. 5
26.4
11 .9
C.O
2C.4
37.4
41 .0
69.0
30.2
43.7
59.4
8.4
17.9
44.5
52.8
42.6
C.C
37.1
C.C
42.1
C.C
C.O
34.0
C.O
26.3
18.5
45.2
53.6
35.0
C.O
16
5
6
4
12
4
204
1
6
7
16
4
4
81
12
6
6
33
11
4
4
7
2
6
4
6
71
4
3
18
14
5
756
12
10
4
6
2
15
5
2
6
2
2
5
6
11
7
I
,901
,46V
,016
,663
,618
,150
,45C
,757
,941
,521
,261
.239
,173
,613
,394
,514
,147
,779
,295
,221
,795
,63£
.152
,482
,043
,566
,180
,961
.224
,193
,485
,074
,487
,615
,536
.253
,573
,407
,388
,139
,99t
,071
,699
.992
.248
,742
,935
,93 1
.577
5
4
7
3
5
5
5
7
5
6
5
4
5
5
8
8
5
5
5
6
4
4
5
6
6
4
7
5
4
5
8
5
7
4
5
7
7
5
5
5
6
4
9
4
5
5
4
7
12
9
16
15
7
1C
9
26
2C
8
11
15
13
24
14
30
22
21
18
?8
4
12
13
3
20
f
32
31
1 7
4
24
23
g
25
24
42
34
32
35
17
40
23
47
43
3C
39
34
12
32
30
7
i>
7
1 1
9
7
9
1C
&
7
22
7
9
9
6
12
6
12
7
1 9
f
9
9
6
9
6
t
8
jj
15
6
9
9
9
4
8
6
11
15
5
6
5
&
20
fc
11
13
t
7
6
6
4
t
6
6
6
4
t
4
5
5
5
6
4
5
4
5
5
7
5
4
6
6
6
4
5
6
5
6
8
3
9
11
7
b
9
7
9
7
6
7
t
9
8
11
13
9
6
16
15
24
17
16
15
16
2C
15
14
18
12
20
17
10
2C
11
16
12
3C
16
12
20
12
18
1 1
13
12
12
14
1 1
19
18
13
12
16
14
23
21
12
17
9
17
25
15
13
23
15
16
274
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 31
STATE AND COUNTY
MS BE SOTO
FORREST
FRANKLIN
6EMCE
SRIIME
6RENAPA
HANCOCK
HARRISON
HIII0S
HOLMES
HUMPHREYS
1SSAQUENA
1TAWAMBA
JACKSON
JASPER
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON DAVIS
JONES
KEMPER
LAFAYETTE
LAMAR
LAUDERbALE
LAWRENCE
LEAKE
LEE
LEFLORE
LINCOLN
LObNOES
PAOISCN
MARION
MARSHALL
MONROE
MONT60MEDY
NESMOPA
NEMTON
NOkUBEE
OKTIBBEHA
PANOLA
PEARL RIVER
PERRY
PIKE
PONTOTOC
PRENTISS
AUITMAN
RANK IN
SCOTT
SHARKE V
SIMPSON
SMlfM
1970
POPULATION
35
57
8
12
P
,8h5
,849
,011
,459
,54!
1<»,B5t
17
134
214
23
14
2
16
87
15
Q
12
56
1C
24
15
67
11
17
4<
4?
2t
49
29
22
24
34
ir
2C
IF
14
28
26
27
p
31
1*
20
15
41
21
8
19
13
,387
,se2
,973
,12C
,6C1
,737
,P47
.971
,994
.295
,936
.357
,233
,1M
,2C*
.06?
,137
.C£5
,148
,111
,19f
,70:
,737
,?71
,027
.04?
,918
,eoz
,963
.268
.752
.829
,802
,065
,81?
.367
.133
,88f
,031
.369
.937
,947
,561
PCT pf? CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG Ufil LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 1970 FORCE CONS MFC C6U SVC 60V
?5
4
4
9
•»
1
4
9
7
- C
- 4
- 14
6
20
3
- 7
- C
4
- C
12
2C
7
6
3
12
2
1
9
1C
5
14
C
3
I
4
- 1C
9
2
- 0
9
6
12
4
- 9
29
3
- 1C
6
7
.1
.4
.0
.8
.6
.(
.4
.1
.6
.6
.1
.7
.9
.2
.1
.6
•2
.2
.1
.4
.C
.5
.9
.3
.C
.{
.f
.1
.2
.2
.6
.9
.6
.8
.5
.3
.1
.9
.6
.1
.7
.3
.0
.7
.8
.2
.0
.4
.3
24.9
77.7
c.c
c.o
c.o
50.1
57.8
63.2
63.9
23.8
21.2
O.C
17.2
71.6
c.r
c.c
c.o
51.1
C.O
57.5
2.1
67.2
C.O
17.7
44.4
53.2
4C.8
6C.3
35.3
32.8
23. E
39.4
42.5
30.6
16.7
20.1
55.9
14.1
37.6
C.O
37.3
19.9
29.3
16.4
27.8
31.4
O.C
14.6
0.0
11,982
21.486
2.546
3,977
2,596
7,522
5.851
39,508
84,729
6,429
4,143
789
6,742
3C.634
4,625
2.306
3,815
19,616
2.V16
8.2CO
4,996
23,714
3,329
5,628
19,17fc
14,357
9.3C2
17,456
9,213
7,293
6,914
13,264
4,516
7,487
6,806
4,350
10,001
6.924
9,569
2.964
10.761
6,313
6,153
4,432
15,543
7,237
2,769
6,752
4,711
7
6
8
11
7
6
15
11
7
6
6
2
6
6
9
10
6
7
6
6
13
6
9
10
5
5
E
5
5
1C
8
4
4
£
6
5
5
7
12
9
6
7
7
5
9
7
4
8
7
29
17
3C
36
42
36
19
12
13
16
10
9
50
41
34
24
24
24
26
11
29
19
31
32
33
16
27
26
29
29
29
46
35
36
32
22
14
28
31
38
24
39
44
21
1
-------
ECONOMIC PfcOflLES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 32
1970
STATE AND COUNTY
MS STONE
SUNFLOWER
TALLAH ATCHIE
TATE
TJPPAH
TISHOK INGO
TUNICA
UNION
WALTHA LL
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WEBSTER
WILKINSON
WINSTON
YALOBUSHA
YAZOO
MO MISSOURI
ADAIR
ANDREW
ATCHISON
AUtR AI N
fc ARR Y
BARTON
BATES
BENTON
60LLINGER
BOONE
BUCHANAN
BUTLER
CALDWELL
CALLAWAY
CAMDEN
CAPE GIRARDEAU
CARROLL
CAfcTER
CASS
CEDAR
CHAR1TW
CHRISTIAN
CLARK
CLAY
CLINTON
COLE
COOPER
CRAWFORD
DADE
DALLAS
OAVIESS
POPULATION
F
37
19
U
15
14
11
19
12
44
70
16
m
11
1F
11
2?
4,677
21
11
9
2r
19
ID
15
9
f
£ 0
86
1 1
f
25
1?
4^
12
?
39
9
11
15
8
123
12
46
14
14
t
1C
8
,101
,047
,33F
,544
,852
,94C
,854
,?V6
,5c:
,"61
,581
,650
,047
,099
,406
,9 15
.314
,62!
.472
,91?
,24C
,36:
,597
,431
,46J
,69'
,E2C
,935
,915
,52C
,751
,991
,315
,35^
,565
,678
,44P
,424
,CP4
.124
,26C
,702
,462
.228
.732
,E2F
,85C
,054
.42?
PCT
CHG
PCT
1975 1970
3.8
- 4.0
- 7.0
10.9
11 .2
4 .0
- 9.0
b.2
1 .1
5 .5
- 0.1
6 .0
C .9
- 12.3
7.4
4 .4
- 3 .4
1 .8
£ .5
M .1
C .7
1 .1
9 .0
4 .6
3.1
U .2
9.7
9.0
- C.5
9 .3
7.P
4.7
19 .8
5 .3
- 2 .9
15 .1
2C.C
M.I
- 4 .6
27.2
- 1 .5
6 .9
13 .5
9.3
- 1.2
6.6
t .1
15.3
3.7
36.2
31.4
13.6
22.9
22 .0
C.O
0.0
33.7
C.C
56.9
69.3
26.2
C.O
C.O
35.7
30.2
39.5
7C.1
6P.4
27.9
27.2
5f .9
21.2
36.0
25.8
C.O
0.0
77. fc
t7 .6
49 .7
0 .C
47.1
0.0
74.6
38.4
0.0
44.7
33.1
C.O
0.0
C.O
90.2
26.5
69. t
50.4
6.9
C.O
C.O
0.0
CIVILIAN
LABOR
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS
2
10
5
6
5
5
3
7
4
16
23
5
3
3
5
4
6
1,845
9
4
3
10
7
3
5
3
2
35
34
11
3
9
4
20
4
1
14
3
4
5
2
54
4
19
5
5
2
2
3
,8PO
,695
,250
,005
,944
,572
,005
,251
.048
,440
,778
,213
,371
,416
,907
,171
,665
,402
,706
,457
,807
,176
,019
.917
,8CO
,37£
,711
,886
,005
,02b
,005
,828
,474
,403
,686
.202
,770
,303
.202
,759
,939
.217
,729
,166
,£70
,016
,501
,166
.052
11
4
4
7
6
7
5
5
9
14
7
6
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
8
7
4
5
5
6
6
9
5
5
6
b
6
15
7
7
7
8
11
7
9
6
5
5
10
5
b
8
9
6
MFG
27
15
19
27
36
45
13
4C
27
20
19
31
40
32
39
34
20
24
14
15
9
33
3C
14
14
16
34
6
27
15
15
17
11
19
19
3C
27
23
15
32
24
23
18
10
20
31
13
17
15
EDU
13
12
7
10
8
6
9
6
7
7
9
7
7
7
5
9
6
7
19
6
15
6
5
5
5
4
5
31
4
7
9
11
5
1 1
5
7
6
7
7
6
6
6
5
8
9
5
6
6
7
SVC
6
1 1
1 1
10
6
7
12
6
6
10
11
7
7
9
b
1C
13
7
6
6
6
5
7
7
6
6
3
6
7
8
6
4
13
7
7
5
5
5
6
5
3
5
7
7
4
4
5
e
6
GOV
2C
20
1 7
16
13
14
14
14
17
24
1 7
15
13
15
11
1 b
15
14
23
13
11
10
9
12
14
11
10
41
11
15
16
29
11
15
12
22
16
15
11
1 j
11
11
12
34
14
9
19
11
13
276
-------
ECONOMIC PfOfllES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 33
SI ATE AMD COUNTY
MO DE KAIB
DlfcT
DOUGLAS
DUfcKLIN
f RANKL1N
6ASCONADE
GENTRY
GREENE
GRUNDY
HARRISON
HENRY
t* T f V f\B V
If I (K Of T
HOLT
HOtoAftO
HOhELL
IRON
JACKSON
JASPEF
JEfFCRSON
JOHNSON
KNOX
LACLECE
LAf ATCTTE
LAURENCE
LEWIS
LINCOLN
LINN
LIVINGSTON
DC DONALD
MACON
MADISON
PARIES
MARION
MERCER
MILLE?
MISSISSIPPI
MONITE AU
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
NEW MADRID
NEMTON
NODAMA V
OREGON
OSAGE
OZARK
PENI&COT
PERRY
PE1T1S
1070
POPULATION
7
11
c
3?
55
11
f
152
11
10
If
t
1C
2?
9
654
75
105
34
c
19
2t
24
1C
ie
T5
15
12
n
p
6
28
4
15
16
1C
9
11
1:
22
32
22
9
1C
6
2t
14
34
,305
.45?
,268
,74J
.127
,F7F
,C6C
,929
,819
,257
,451
L IM
,«l O 1
,654
,561
.521
,529
.17?
,es2
,24P
.172
,692
,944
.626
.581
,99?
,041
.125
,36?
,35-'
.43?
,641
,851
.121
,91C
,026
,647
,742
.542
,ocr
,oe?
.42?
,961
,467
,18C
.994
.226
.37?
.3*2
.137
PCT PCT C
CMC URt
1975 1970
C
•>
14
17
7
14
7
0
9
- 5
- i
1
7 i
* *»
1
- 2
13
6
2
3
14
C
- 3
£
6
11
- 2
9
- 0
1
25
2
5
2
- C
- 3
b
- i
t
3
3
:c
2
6
- 4
6
1C
14
- 5
4
3
.4
.1
.£
.C
.2
.9
.7
.9
.C
.1
.9
.1
.1
.1
.5
.4
.7
.0
.1
.1
.5
.4
.4
.6
.9
.7
.7
.9
.4
.2
.4
.7
.6
.5
.8
.9
.8
.3
.9
.1
.9
.6
.8
.7
.9
.1
.7
.5
6.1
36. e
27. C
44.7
43.3
23.6
O.C
79.3
51.3
29.5
56. C
OP
• u
c.o
33.3
29.3
0.0
96.7
t£ .6
16.8
52.6
C.C
42.2
47.9
39.2
24.4
14.1
53.6
60.5
C.C
34.7
4f .2
0.0
76.5
0.0
23.5
49.0
28.3
C.O
C.C
C.C
27.5
29.7
43.8
C.C
0.0
0.0
4C.5
35. f
66.9
IVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS Mre EDU svc
2,556
4,042
3,117
11,099
21,408
4,796
3,045
62.674
4.622
3,695
6,868
IT*. I
• JO J
2,553
4,146
8,220
2,894
287,811
31,061
39,686
11,626
2,002
7,217
1 0 , 95 3
9,214
4,18b
6,519
6,154
6,314
4,392
6,032
2.73Z
2,661
11 ,167
1,743
5,708
5.160
4.155
3,455
3,850
3,636
6,930
12,022
8,885
2,783
3,965
2,1Ct
7,690
5.27C
13,162
1C
7
4
5
1C
7
5
6
5
6
7
4
8
7
7
5
5
8
5
4
6
6
6
5
10
4
6
7
7
I
10
t
4
9
6
9
5
5
8
7
7
7
8
E
1C
5
6
6
10
2t
26
23
35
39
12
20
18
7
1t
5
12
27
25
23
26
35
14
12
27
25
27
19
27
22
17
32
19
25
30
23
6
15
18
26
19
26
23
18
30
6
21
23
It
It
21
21
7
6
6
e
5
5
7
8
6
7
5
t
12
t
t
5
t
5
25
t
4
9
5
11
5
5
7
4
6
6
t
6
9
6
fc
5
6
5
6
11
6
Ifc
7
7
fc
1C
5
5
5
6
5
a
4
5
t
e
6
6
7
5
6
7
2
t
7
5
t
5
7
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
7
5
9
9
4
6
5
1C
7
7
5
5
5
U
7
4
£
GOV
16
14
9
15
8
10
18
12
11
12
10
9
15
13
1C
15
10
9
34
14
15
16
17
11
12
10
14
10
17
15
20
12
13
2C
14
15
1C
11
10
17
10
24
14
18
14
19
8
11
277
-------
ECONOCIC PFOMIES OF COUNTIES
PAGF 34
1570
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION
MO PHELPS 29
PIKE
PLATTE
POLK
PULASK 1
PUTNA*
fcALLS
RANDOLPH
RAY
REYNOLDS
RIPLEY
ST CHARLES
ST CLAIR
ST FRANCOIS
ST LOUIS
STE GENEVIEVE
SALINE
SCHUYL ER
SCOTLAND
SCOTT
SHANNON
SHELbY
STODDARD
STONE
SULLIVAN
TANEY
TEXAS
VERNON
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WEBSTE R
WORTH
WRIGHT
ST LOUIS CITY
MT MONTANA
BEAVERHEAD
bIG HORN
6LAINE
BROADVATER
CARBON
CARTER
CASCADE
CHOUTE AU
CUSTER
DANIELS
DAWSON
DEER LODGE
FALLO*
16
32
1C
53
5
7
2 t
17
t
9
92
T
36
951
12
24
£
5
33
7
7
25
<;
7
13
TF
19
P
15
f
15
3
13
622
694
P
10
6
2
7
1
61
6
12
7
11
15
4
,567
,92P
,081
,415
,967
,916
,764
.434
,599
,1C6
,PC3
,954
,667
,P-7f
,671
,867
,837
,66r
,499
,25C
,196
,9C(
,771
,921
,572
,C23
,32C
,065
,69?
,086
,546
,562
,359
,667
,236
,409
,187
,057
,727
,526
,C8C
,95t
,804
,47?
,174
,C83
,260
.652
,C'5r
PCT PCT C
CHG URl
1975 197C
3.5
1 .2
It .1
15.5
- 26.2
4 .7
5 .5
3.6
7.5
4 .2
?1 .6
21 .9
23 .0
4.9
1 .3
5 .1
- 3.5
t .t
- C.3
5 .7
4 .5
- 2 .6
5 .1
2t .1
- C .£
32 .7
12 .3
4 .9
25 .3
t .4
17 .5
16 .4
"" C *C
7.8
- 14.2
7.8
1 .8
t .8
1 .0
11 .5
t .8
- 3.E
3 .5
- 3.5
- 1 .2
- 3.0
- 8.1
- 2 .7
- 0.3
54.9
44.6
43. C
3C.9
65.2
C.O
2.7
5fr .5
2f .7
C.C
C.O
4P.5
r .c
46.1
95. £
34.7
5£.5
C.C
C.D
51. b
C.O
C.O
23.4
C.O
0.0
-.C
C.C
51.9
C.O
18. P
C.O
19. C
C.O
25.9
C.C
53.6
56.5
27.0
C.C
C.O
C.O
u.C
66.9
C.O
73.9
0.0
5fc .7
62.4
68 .4
IVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
10,
6.
12,
5,
7,
2,
2,
6.
6,
1,
2,
36,
2,
12,
398,
4,
9,
1,
1,
12,
2,
2,
8,
3,
2,
4,
6,
7,
3,
4,
2,
5,
1,
4,
247,
26C,
3,
3,
2,
2,
28,
2.
4,
1,
4,
5,
1,
464
212
995
521
303
124
764
23C
482
647
738
71 C
663
622
024
343
982
76fc
731
285
283
905
71 1
723
797
821
074
001
557
411
340
374
207
387
586
649
310
317
327
920
524
825
101
479
684
C94
371
686
536
t
5
6
9
6
fc
7
5
9
1C
3
6
7
7
5
9
6
4
6
6
5
6
6
9
4
8
6
6
1C
b
7
7
5
6
3
6
6
5
6
4
4
2
6
3
7
3
6
2
6
9
26
16
14
11
12
26
15
29
22
26
34
9
17
27
36
23
19
7
21
45
13
27
26
16
8
31
9
32
22
26
28
12
28
27
9
4
ir
2
10
5
2
12
2
2
0
3
33
1
19
6
6
1 1
1C
5
7
6
6
6
P
7
7
7
8
5
9
4
6
7
6
5
7
7
3
20
7
9
b
9
5
5
9
5
5
10
13
11
11
6
9
10
8
1C
7
6
7
6
7
6
6
5
5
10
4
5
6
4
7
7
5
6
6
6
4
5
3
4
7
4
6
6
9
4
<,
5
6
3
5
9
6
3
t
9
7
7
3
6
t.
9
2
8
3
9
7
8
5
9
35
13
1C
1C
34
IE
14
14
14
1 7
17
9
1 7
16
12
9
19
12
15
13
1 7
12
12
1C
1 1
1 1
19
25
1 1
14
14
12
16
12
16
20
24
29
21
18
16
21
18
18
21
16
15
28
13
278
-------
ECONOMIC PfOMLES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 35
STATl AND COUMTV
•T ff F fi C U 3
nl r C HO W w
FLATHEAD
GALLAT1N
GAftMELD
6LACIES
GOLDEN VALLEY
GRANITE
HILL
JEFFE'SCN
JUDITH PAS1N
LAKE
LEWIS AN6 CLARK
LIBERTY
LINCOLN
MC CONE
MADISON
MEA6HER
MINERAL
KISSOULA
MUSSELSHELL
PARK
PETROLEUM
PHILLIPS
PONDER A
POWDER RIVER
POWELL
PHAIRI E
RAVALLI
RICHLAND
ROOSEVELT
ROSEBUD
SANDERS
SHERIDAN
SILVER BOW
STILLWATER
SWEET CRASS
TETON
TOOLE
TREASURE
VALLEY
WHEAT LAND
WIBAUV
YELLOWSTONE
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL
Nfl NEBRASKA
ADAMS
ANTELOPE
ARTHUR
BANNER
1?70
POPULATION
IT
1 b
3<>
32
1
1o
?
!••
5
2
14
33
2
1f
2
5
t
2
5£
T
11
5
6
2
6
i
14
9
10
6
7
5
41
4
2
t
5
1
11
2
1
67
1,465
10
9
1
A 11
ffO 1 1
,460
,505
,796
.78*
931
.73'
,!5£
,23F
,«67
,445
,261
.359
,C63
,675
,014
,122
,95F
,263
,'34
,197
675
.386
,611
,862
,66r
,752
,4C9
,637
,365
,032
,093
,779
,9M
,632
,9BC
,116
.839
,069
,471
,529
,465
,367
64
.333
.557
.047
60*
.034
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG UR6 LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1075 197C FORCE CONS MFG ECU SVC GOV
£
n
19
- 12
7
- 0
- 1
t
n
2
17
1C
4
- 12
- 6
15
3
1£
14
6
7
- 2
1
4
- 16
11
7
2£
- 1
- 3
42
13
- 7
3
13
- C
6
- 8
14
16
- 6
- C
11
0
3
i
2
- t
- 9
r,
•v
.1
.4
.9
.4
.4
.9
.C
.4
.1
.6
.9
.9
.7
.6
.2
.6
.1
.3
.9
.3
.4
.3
.6
.8
.7
.6
.3
.1
.5
.4
.5
.1
.0
.5
.9
.7
.3
.2
.0
.1
.5
.5
.0
.8
.6
.8
.6
.1
c-t n
J J • U
41.8
57.4
0.0
36.2
0.0
c.c
t:.4
G.C
C.C
3.0
68.3
C.O
18.1
C.O
C.C
:.o
C.O
74.6
0.0
63.1
C.O
0.0
47.1
0.0
67.7
0.0
o.c
47.3
3C.3
C.C
0.0
o.c
81.2
O.C
C.O
0.0
53.3
0.0
40.5
C.O
0.0
66.6
C.O
61.6
77.1
r.o
r.o
C.O
4 re /
t 3 J **
13,613
12.828
735
3.5E2
387
999
6,511
1,768
1,018
4,821
U.710
867
6,697
1,054
2,003
862
1,216
23,104
1,440
4,48fe
261
2,032
2,492
1,148
2,446
735
5,261
3,463
3,506
2,346
2.48C
2.003
15.4E3
1,617
1,276
2. IB 7
2,191
385
4,252
1.096
538
34,996
24
592,142
12.802
3,268
214
378
7
5
8
6
9
14
3
11
4
4
9
2
20
1
7
1
7
6
6
4
6
4
4
5
3
6
5
3
6
5
4
5
4
6
7
5
2
7
6
1
1
6
0
5
5
5
6
5
23
6
2
2
C
19
3
4
C
12
5
1
27
1
1
19
24
12
3
5
0
1
3
0
13
1
13
7
3
7
21
1
6
e
3
4
4
1
11
2
2
8
0 *•
13
16
4
1
2
7
27
10
9
9
7
11
11
8
9
9
13
6
8
5
6
17
16
5
7
9
8
e
3
6
4
0
8
9
11
1C
7
7
7
6
1C
8
13
9
6
5
9
&
8
8
7
5
M
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
3
7
6
5
5
3
7
5
5
8
11
10
3
5
5
4
5
5
7
6
6
3
7
6
6
5
7
5
9
3
5
10
5
9
0
7
7
5
5
1
15
34
1V
26
23
21
21
41
18
18
32
25
15
15
21
15
31
24
14
15
21
19
17
9
28
18
23
15
26
24
25
15
15
14
14
16
22
27
20
16
22
14
C
15
16
13
I
2C
279
-------
ECONOMIC PKJflLES OF COUNTIES
PAGf 36
STATE AND COUNTY
107C
POPULATION
PC T PCT
CHG URI
1975 197C
CIVILIAN
LABOR
FORCE
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
BLA1NE
eOONE
BOX BUTTE
BOVD
BROUN
BUFFALO
BURT
BUTLEP
CASS
CEDAR
CHASE
CHERSY
CHEYENNE
CLAY
COLFAX
CUBING
CUSTES
DAKOTA
DAWES
DEOEL
DIXCh
PODGE
DOUGLAS
DUNCY
FILLMOfcE
FRANKL IN
FRONT1 ER
FURNAS
GAGE
GARDEN
GARFIELD
GOSPES
GRANT
6REELE Y
HALL
HAMILTON
HARLAN
MATES
HITCHCOCK
HOLT
HOOKEP
HOWARD
JEFFERSON
JOHNSON
KEARNE V
KEITH
KEYA PAH A
k 1MB AIL
8
i:
?
4
31
9
9
1 f
12
4
6
1:
?
9
12
14
1 '
9
1°
L.
7
34
E 9
2
f
4
7
t
25
2
2
C
1
4
42
8
4
1
4
12
t
1C
c
6
f
1
<
847 -
.19: -
,094
,752 -
,C21
,222
,24" -
,461 -
,076
,192 -
,1 29
,846
,77F
,266 -
,49f
,034 -
»C9? -
,137
,761 -
,771
,717 -
,453 -
.782
,455
,926 -
,13" -
,566 -
,9sr -
,69"
,731 -
,92° -
,41'
.17?
,019 -
,r-or -
,851
,867 -
,35"
.53:
t~ 51
,933
939
.BC? -
,436
.747 -
,70"
,48?
,340 -
,009 -
0.6
0.3
1 .C
6 .2
1 .1
0.7
4.0
5 .4
7 .1
4 .8
6 .4
1 .5
0.2
0.4
2 .1
2 .9
0.1
12 .0
5.3
4 .5
4 .0
6 .f
4 .1
5 .5
4 .2
2 .7
C.5
3.1
1 .0
7.6
4.0
9.6
4 .5
7.8
I .7
5.3
1 .8
0 .1
0.6
3 .5
C.3
5 .4
1 .5
1 .6
2 .9
3.C
9.2
1 .5
7.1
C
0
69
0
0
61
c
c
35
0
D
40
59
0
37
28
26
60
6C
65
0
r
66
95
0
^
0
c
0
48
0
c
**••
r
0
73
35
0
0
0
30
C
0
51
0
3£
58
0
56
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.2
.C
.0
.0
.1
.0
.3
.1
.5
.3
.1
.6
.0
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
.c
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.1
.0
.9
.1
.0
.5
2
3
1
1
13
3
3
6
4
1
2
4
2
326
,879
,759
,335
.511
,184
• 49£
,316
,341
,024
,592
,750
,125
,779
3,353
4
5
5
3
7
1
2
14
161
1
3
1
1
2
9
1
1
1
17
3
1
1
4
2
4
2
2
3
2
,451
,443
,013
,eet
,619
,135
,935
,312
.734
,133
,036
,871
,602
,425
,717
,083
,121
721
352
,438
,947
,207
.731
511
,387
,571
430
,334
,158
,260
,639
.643
430
.522
0
3
3
4
8
6
5
5
6
4
7
3
5
fc
4
4
4
6
5
5
6
7
6
6
4
6
6
3
6
5
4
3
1C
3
T
5
6
5
4
4
3
10
5
7
7
4
6
2
8
0
4
3
1
3
13
8
13
20
4
2
1
5
6
14
10
9
23
2
20
4
12
22
17
4
3
3
2
3
13
13
5
6
C
7
20
9
7
1
7
2
5
6
8
14
7
19
4
7
5
K
8
9
7
1 1
5
6
6
9
fe
6
7
9
7
6
7
5
19
6
9
9
6
7
e
6
7
9
6
7
4
5
4
9
6
5
5
7
14
8
6
6
7
7
6
o
6
12
8
1
3
7
5
6
7
5
5
5
5
7
7
9
8
6
6
4
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
1
6
7
4
7
6
4
10
3
10
8
8
5
7
2
5
6
14
4
7
7
6
10
2
e
22
15
14
16
19
17
12
12
14
1 1
21
12
15
15
1 1
8
15
8
29
1 1
19
17
1 1
13
21
15
18
1 7
10
17
13
1 J
11
1 7
9
13
1 7
17
14
18
10
14
18
14
15
14
13
16
15
280
-------
ICOKOK1C PkOIILES 01 COUNTIES
PAGE 37
STATE AND COUNTY
NB KNOI
LANCASTER
1 1 fttf Al hi
L 1 Wv VL n
LOGAN
LOUP
RC PMERSON
RADISON
RERRICK
RORR1LL
NANCE
NERAHA
NUCKOLLS
OTOE
PAWNEE
PERKINS
PHELPS
PIERCE
PLATTE
POLK
SEC HILLOW
RICHARDSON
SOCK
SALINE
SARPY
SAUNDE RS
SCOTTS BLUff
SEWAR6
SHER1D AM
SHERMAN
SIOUX
STANTON
THAYER
THORAS
THURSTON
VALLEY
bASHINGTON
KAYNE
UEBSTCR
MHEELER
YORK
NV NEVADA
CHURCHILL
CLARK
DOUGLAS
ELKO
ESRCRALDA
EUREKA
MUHBOtDT
LAN»CR
1970
POPULATION
11
167
5O
C T
27
E
C
c
p
7
15
4
3
9
f
2t
6
12
12
?
12
66
17
36
14
7
4
2
5
7
6
5
13
1C
5
1
1?
486
1C
273
6
1?
6
2
,72?
.972
991
854
62^
,402
.751
,P1?
.142
.976
.404
.576
.47?
.42?
.55?
,49?
.544
,46P
,191
,277
,231
.805
,20C
.018
.432
,46C
,285
.72!
.034
,756
.775
954
,942
.783
.3 1C
,40C
.396
.051
,665
,738
.51?
,2EE
.88?
.958
629
94f
.375
.666
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG URF- LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 1970 fORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
- 5.0
1C. 4
Uo
• 7
3.9
fc.7
1 .6
5.5
I .4
4.5
- 5.6
-13.0
- 7.1
- 2.6
- 5.3
- 3.3
4.0
1 .2
t .5
- 2.9
4.1
- 6.7
3.9
- 1 .7
13 .6
5.7
- C.f
4.2
- 1.0
- 5.5
C.E
12.3
- 4.C
1 .5
4.5
- E.8
1C.1
- 15.5
- 6.5
1 .7
4.1
21.1
11.4
21.7
67.3
9.5
16.9
13.1
15.1
12.3
0.0
91.3
AC fi
v J • C
0.0
o.c
o.c
6C.5
31.6
0.0
0.0
4C.4
35.1
47.8
0.0
C.O
63.6
0.0
5f .4
C.O
66.9
44.0
0.0
35.1
64.6
22.5
55.2
36.6
C.O
0.0
C.O
C.O
c.c
C.O
r r
w • w
0.0
45.9
5C.5
C.C
C.O
49.5
60.9
28.1
94.5
0.0
54.6
C.O
c.c
55.5
C.O
3
77
11
3
2
1
3
2
t>
1
1
4
3
10
2
4
4
4
16
6
14
6
2
1
2
2
2
2
5
4
1
5
208
3
113
3
5
2
1
,646
,507
7» 7
,733
435
310
217
,345
,411
.173
,759
,6U
,832
,572
,736
.435
,052
.202
,969
,526
,822
.775
923
,906
,979
,276
,756
,107
,713
,614
716
,046
,E53
305
,452
,161
.345
,054
.982
405
,635
,996
.577
.669
.431
,975
221
444
.733
.050
4
6
7
10
4
5
5
2
4
9
5
6
5
5
5
6
4
5
7
5
4
6
6
7
4
6
i
5
3
3
5
7
4
5
7
5
5
4
6
8
9
8
7
6
24
10
9
i
3
12
4
3
2
15
12
8
fr
12
9
18
7
3
14
4
29
6
1C
13
c
17
16
14
13
e
3
1C
2
7
2
2
1?
6
15
3
6
2
13
5
5
4
t
1
22
C
2
2
5
14
t
7
15
0
7
6
6
14
6
7
12
9
6
7
5
8
e
6
7
1 2
6
6
9
20
5
5
4
4
7
4
V
E
9
16
7
4
b
6
7
5
3
t
1
•J
b
7
C = = X =
7
3
1
C
7
c
4
5
5
5
6
•*
6
7
4
5
6
7
6
6
5
7
c
7
5
6
3
T
3
5
7
C
7
6
5
7
7
6
22
E
3C
12
14
12
6
16
6
GOV
10
25
15
17
6
14
13
12
12
19
12
11
21
16
12
10
9
15
15
12
19
17
17
11
13
13
15
2C
6
10
12
16
25
17
7
24
17
8
12
18
27
14
12
22
24
20
21
23
281
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 38
1970
STATE AND COUNTY
NV LINCOLN
LYON
MINERAL
NVE
ORMS6T
PERSHI *G
STORET
WASMOE
WHITE PINE
CARSO* CITY CITY
NH NEW HAMPSHIRE
fcELKNAP
CARROLL
CHESHI RE
COOS
GRAF TCH
HILLSPOROUGh
PERR I* ACK
Ct f\ f V t k £LU A M
HULK 1 PI «n KH
STRAFF OR D
SULLIVAN
SJ NEb JERSEY
ATLANT 1C
EERGE*
BURL 1NGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE fAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
GLOUCE ST£R
HUDSON
HUNTERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAI C
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
•ff NEW MEXICO
BERNAL ILLO
CATRON
CHAVES
COLFAX
CUR«Y
PCT
CHG
PCT
URt-
POPULATION 1975 197T
(.
f
7
s
2
121
10
15
737
32
if
5:
34
54
22?
£C
1 T P
1 2 C
7C
7 r
7,171
175
897
323
456-
59
121
S32
172
6C7
6
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 39
STATE AN* COUNTT
M CE BACA
DOHA A MA
EOftT
fcBANT
6UA6ALUPE
HARKING
HIDALGO
LEA
LINCOLN
LOS ALAMOS
LUNA
PC KINLET
MORA
OTERO
(IUAT
RIO ABRIBA
ROOSEVELT
SANOGV AL
SAN JUAN
SAN MIGUEL
SANTA FE
SIESC*
SOCORRO
TAOS
T09RAMCE
UNION
VALENCIA
NT NEW TORK
ALBANY
ALLEtANY
BRONX
BROOKE
CATTAP AUGUS
CAYU6A
CNAUTAUCUA
CMEMUNG
CHENAN60
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CORTLAND
DELAWARE
DUTCMESS
ERIE
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
FULTON
CENESEE
6REEME
HAMILTON
1970
POPULATION
2
69
41
• ^
t i
4
1
4
49
•7
15
11
47
4
41
1C
25
16
1?
52
21
54
7
9
17
r
4
4r
If ,241
286
46
1 ,471
221
E1
77
147
1C1
46
7?
51
45
44
222
1,11?
34
41
52
5P
33
4
,547
,773
,119
,03C
,969
,34E
,734
,554
.560
,19P
,706
,2 Of
.672
,C97
,9C3
,17C
.479
,*V2
,517
.951
,'74
,169
,761
,5U
,29r
,925
,576
,391
,742
,45E
,701
,M5
,666
,439
,305
.537
,36?
,934
.519
,894
,71f
.295
,*91
,631
,93t
,637
,722
.136
.71*
PCT PCT
ChG (iff-
1975 1970
2
14
3
11
- 2
- t
19
3
25
4
23
16
4
3
4
11
- 1
29
24
7
13
17
C
1C
2C
- C
13
- C
C
7
- 6
- 1
3
r
w
- C
- 1
C
14
7
4
5
5
e.
1
1
3
2
15
4
.1
.7
.2
.5
.2
.8
.5
.2
.e
.6
.6
.4
.7
.9
.1
.1
.4
.0
.4
.C
.1
.7
.1
.1
.4
.f
.4
.7
.7
.1
.4
.t
.4
.4
.3
.4
.4
.1
.0
.6
.3
.6
.C
.?
.1
.6
.9
.3
.7
0.0
66.4
76.8
48. 2
".0
0.0
75.2
81.5
r.o
99.7
69.8
<.2.9
0.0
fc3.3
68. C
15.1
04.0
:.o
48.3
63.2
77.5
70.5
4f.6
:.o
P.C
63.7
33.5
£5.6
85.7
20.5
0.0
73.3
35.7
44.7
54.7
74.3
19.1
40.5
17.4
51.9
25. E
42.8
67.9
22.0
40.0
56.7
3£.3
U.C
c.o
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
831
23.C24
14,901
7,358
1,295
452
1,561
19,015
2.853
6,425
4,004
12,072
91t
11,086
4,141
6,656
6,113
4,350
16,393
6,025
19,553
2.2P6
2.953
4, £74
1,576
1,825
12,407
7,421,579
122,798
17,086
552,442
90,320
31.032
30,166
58,452
39,377
i«.3eo
22.855
19,925
18,392
17.34C
84,934
442,667
12,785
14,864
2Z.734
23,817
12.31C
1.671
4
6
5
5
12
6
4
6
8
2
12
5
16
5
6
13
5
11
9
1C
11
10
7
6
11
7
7
4
6
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
5
7
6
4
11
6
4
6
11
21
1
6
4
5
2
10
0
5
3
2
5
9
2
10
4
5
5
14
9
2
3
3
8
5
1
2
6
24
15
26
20
37
32
*3
34
34
35
15
25
33
23
32
31
14
20
45
36
22
14
5
17
9
11
10
19
9
6
6
16
7
15
13
9
7
17
23
15
12
2C
12
C
22
13
13
9
9
f
1C
1b
5
8
9
9
£
7
8
15
7
13
1 1
9
6
9
12
7
7
7
10
4
9
9
7
12
T
9
9
12
7
11
6
5
13
12
11
6
U
7
7
10
7
5
13
5
1C-
7
I
6
5
9
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
5
12
7
5
4
£
11
GOV
2C
37
15
21
20
21
22
11
29
70
16
37
36
37
19
44
30
32
24
45
35
27
40
25
36
20
24
16
29
16
17
16
17
16
14
13
15
29
16
19
23
19
16
21
20
13
14
21
3£
283
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Cf COUNTIES PAGE *0
STATE AN6 COUNTY
KX S*5 = **«* XS X.S ~ — — — Z
NT HERKl^ER
JEFFERSON
KINGS
LEWIS
LIVINGSTON
MADISON
HONROE
MONTGOMERY
NASSAU
NEW YORK
NIAGARA
ONEIOA
ONONDA GA
ONTARI 0
ORANGE
ORLEANS
OSfEGO
OTSE6C
PUTNAM
euEENS
RENSSE LAER
RICHMOND
KOCKLAND
ST LAWRENCE
SARATOGA
SCHENE CTADY
SCHOHARIE
SCHUYLER
SENECA
STEU8EN
SUFFOLK
SULLIVAN
T10GA
TOMPKINS
ULSTER
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WESTCMESTER
WYOMING
YATES
NC NORTH CAROLINA
ALAMANCE
ALEXANDER
ALLEGHANY
ANSON
ASHE
AVERT
fcEAUfORT
197C
POPULATION
6? ,407
££ ,5 OP
2,60?,eir
23,644
54 ,041
6?, 864
71 1 ,917
55, £62
1 ,42f ,63F
1,53", 233
235, 72C
273, C7C
472,835
7f ,849
221,657
37,305
ICC ,897
5t,1£1
56,696
1 ,987,174
152, 51T
295,44?
22', 903
11: ,30?
121 ,764
161 ,07E
24.75C
1< ,737
35 ,063
99,546
1 ,127, C30
52.58C
46 ,517
77,06*
141 ,241
4<5,402
52,725
79.4C4
£94,406
37,668
19,831
5,CE4,411
96.5C2
19,466
f ,134
23.46E
19,571
12,655
35.98C
PC T
CKG
PCT CIVlLiAK
URt LABOR
1975 197C
1
1
- 6
6
6
T
- 0
- C
- 3
- 5
C
2
C
6
9
2
t
3
22
«. f
t
C
1C
t
1
17
- 1
15
C
J
_ -3
1
1C
14
7
9
9
6
2
3
- 1
1
5
7
3
12
t
2
t
11
5
.5
.9
.4
.2
.C
.6
c
• *
c
• .
.2
.5
.C
.5
.C
.0
.4
.0
.9
.0
.4
.6
.7
.0
.4
.5
.4
.9
.4
.3
.C
.2
.0
.7
.9
.9
.7
.1
.8
.6
.9
.E
.5
.2
.0
.0
.5
.3
.7
.5
.C
52.8
39.2
0.0 1
15.5
33.1
42.9
67.1
55.5
99.7
0.0
72. C
68. 3
£1.6
34.6
51.1
31.1
4C.1
2£.5
3F.S
O.C
63.6
0.0
96.2
44.2
47.2
88.9
17.6
16.7
3P.7
36.9
69.8
19.6
33.6
41.6
37.5
47.2
34.3
26.6
93. E
29.6
26.3
45.0 2
52.6
C.O
O.C
16.9
0.0
c.c
24.9
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS HFG EDU SVC
27
33
,012
8
21
23
301
23
585
741
92
104
191
31
83
14
36
21
20
9T6
60
115
86
37
46
64
9
6
12
36
4C3
21
17
31
54
ie
19
30
383
14
7
,054
46
9
3
&
7
4
13
,481
,582
,423
.488
,621
,6?f
,2E8
,778
, 516
,741
,647
,153
,964
,658
,047
,951
,544
.947
,675
,921
,e?9
,276
,555
,975
,148
,960
.272
,463
.£23
,399
,17C
,07£
,427
.977
.772
,620
,121
,£54
.138
,126
,734
,638
.405
,C22
.353
,634
,464
.571
.731
4 44
6
3
6
6
6
4
5
5
1
4
4
4
6
7
5
6
6
10
4
6
5
6
5
6
5
10
6
6
5
7
10
5
4
7
7
6
5
5
6
8
6
5
4
10
7
e
12
7
23
22
28
25
25
40
42
20
18
42
29
26
27
23
39
33
17
20
21
23
14
21
2C
28
2?
Ifc
33
26
34
21
t
42
14
29
25
36
39
20
32
22
35
52
61
42
43
46
31
24
6 4
8
5
9
15
13
8
6
9
7
7
&
9
fc
9
6
12
16
9
5
1C
7
1C
16
11
9
1 1
11
9
6
1C
6
9
33
1C
7
7
6
£
6
12
7
5
3
4
5
5
11
6
6
£
6
4
6
5
4
7
13
c
5
6
5
6
4
5
7
7
9
t
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
4
6
6
19
5
6
7
7
5
4
9
5
C
7
6
4
6
7
4
t
6
GOV
13
17
17
20
26
16
11
15
16
13
12
22
14
16
19
16
1£
22
17
15
21
24
20
23
19
19
24
17
27
15
21
17
11
19
16
16
16
16
14
1 7
13
13
8
5
13
12
1C
15
13
284
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE ANft COUNTY
j- B C ft K *•* &C SCBCCBKSESS5
NC BERTH
BLADEN
BRUNSWICK
FUNCO'BE
bURKE
t ABA •» US
CALDbELL
CAMDE*
CARTE SET
CASUELL
CATAWBA
CHATHAM
CHEROKEE
CHOWAN
CLAY
CLEVELAND
COLUMPUS
CRAVEN
CUMBERLAND
CUSRITUCH
CAKE
t A V I D S ON
DAV1E
OUFLIN
DURHAM
EDGECOMBE
FORSYTH
FRANKLIN
GASTON
GATES
GRAHAM
GRANVILLE
GREENE
GUILFORD
HALIFAX
HARNtTT
HAVWOOD
HENDERSON
HERTFORD
HOKE
HYDE
IREDELL
JACKSON
JOHNSTON
JONES
LEE
LEN01R
LINCOLN
PC IOMELL
1970
POPULATION
2
it
24
145
6T
74
56
*
31
19
9C
71
16
1C
5
72
46
t2
21Z
6
e
95
1P
3£
132
S2
21S
26
14F
£
6
32
14
Iff
54
49
41
42
24
1<
5
72
21
61
9
3C
55
32
5C
,52P
,477
.22?
.056
,364
,629
,699
,453
,60?
,055
,873
.554
.330
,764
.is:
,55t
,93?
.554
,C42
,976
,99?
,627
,855
,015
,661
,341
,11P
.£20
.415
.524
.562
,7*2
,967
,645
.354
,667
.710
.804
,439
,43<
.571
,197
.59?
.73?
,779
,467
,204
,662
,64E
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG URb LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1075 1970 FORCE CONS MFG EDU SVC GOV
1 .F
7.e
74.4
4.1
7.2
6.C
7 .1
4 .2
13.2
2 .6
10.0
2.4
4 .5
4 .7
E .2
7.7
7.1
V.1
9.e
43.9
?C.F
5 .6
11 .4
6.1
6.1
2.9
5 .1
5.8
5.8
- 3.C
- 1.0
C.5
1 .e
4.1
1 .4
£.2
5.3
14.8
- 3.0
5.5
- 1.7
£.6
13 .3
6.2
- 2.6
11 .3
5.1
U.2
1C .2
r.c
0.3
G.O
52.3
2P.5
64.0
31 .0
c.o
27.2
0.0
42.9
15.9
C.C
44.3
C.C
3?.E
8.9
55.2
76.1
C.C
C.C
37. C
13.4
15.3
76.1
47.1
69.2
11. C
60.4
C.C
c.o
32.7
C.C
76.3
36 .£
22.5
27.6
28. 0
34.2
19.3
0.0
44.2
C.C
23.1
C.O
3E.1
45. C
15. £
31.1
*^.^»*_S*vB
6.43E
9
E
60
27
36
24
1
11
7
44
13
5
4
1
31
16
18
49
2
2
44
8
14
56
20
91
10
68
2
2
11
5
130
1fe
19
15
16
8
5
1
32
7
25
3
12
21
15
12
,432
.247
,OEC
.379
,502
.546
.673
.863
,451
,156
.129
,958
.179
.771
,993
.973
,304
,635
.275
,426
,713
,121
.828
,955
,252
.649
.029
,946
,920
,369
.759
,642
,095
,562
,542
.912
.846
,439
,983
,890
,699
,790
,356
,485
.956
.446
,037
,819
»K* a
4
U
14
7
4
5
5
9
6
5
5
5
9
8
10
6
7
6
6
16
13
5
7
7
6
4
5
5
4
7
16
6
8
6
6
9
7
9
8
4
10
6
13
10
1C
7
1C
S
5
i SE C E
33
32
25
30
56
55
60
20
14
50
53
44
41
29
41
49
27
17
16
16
5
55
47
26
19
29
35
34
54
32
35
2f
23
34
33
31
44
36
27
40
17
48
26
26
20
41
2?
52
62
K= = S
b
6
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
6
4
6
4
7
7
5
7
7
9
8
3
4
4
t
14
6
7
6
4
6
10
7
5
k
6
fc
5
4
8
5
1C
4
16
6
9
5
7
4
4
S— — E
8
6
t
fc
4
4
5
9
9
5
5
6
5
£
3
t
7
8
10
11
13
5
5
7
8
1C
7
7
5
10
7
7
6
7
10
7
6
7
9
9
6
6
10
7
t
6
9
5
\
ss xs
14
13
16
12
12
7
7
21
29
11
6
15
13
16
11
8
12
28
24
23
22
7
8
14
17
1 1
1 1
13
7
14
23
26
11
12
11
13
10
9
16
17
25
t
25
14
23
10
16
8
E
285
-------
ECONOMIC PfCFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 42
197C
STATE AND COUNTY
NC MACON
PAD1SON
MARTIN
MECKLENBURG
MITCHELL
MONTGOMERY
MOORE
NASH
NEW HANOVER
NORTHAMPTON
ONSLOW
ORANGE
PAMLICO
PASOUCTANK
PENDER
PEROUI MANS
PERSON
PITT
POLK
RANDOLPH
RICHMOND
f ObE SOS
ROCKINGHAM
ROWAN
RUTHER FOhD
SAMPSON
SCOTLAND
STANLY
STOKES
SURR Y
SWAIN
TRANSYLVANIA
TYRREIL
UNION
VANCE
WAKE
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WATAUG A
WAYNE
WILKES
WILSON
VADKIN
YANCEY
ND NORTH DAKOTA
ADAMS
BARNES
fcENSON
BILLINGS
POPULATION
15
16
24
354
13
19
3C
5e
62
23
103
5""
Q
2t
18
f
25
73
11
76
3?
£4
72
9C
1,7
44
26
42
21
51
t
15
3
54
32
229
15
14
23
65
4C
57
24
12
617
3
14
t
1
,7t8
.9C?
,73C
,656
.447
,267
,C-4P
,122
,956
,?99
,126
,567
,467
,824
,145
,351
,914
,9CC
,735
,35f
,?89
,842
,41?
,035
.337
,954
,929
,822
,7f2
,415
,835
,713
,806
,714
,691
,C06
,34C
,C3£
,404
,408
.524
.466
,599
,625
,752
,832
,669
.241
.196
PCT
CHG
PCT C
URt
1575 197C
15 .4
5.4
C.2
5.7
4 .7
3 .3
5 .C
9.5
15 .3
- C.2
- 1 .8
15.1
- 0.7
3.C
14 .0
1 .1
3 .6
5 .9
6 .5
7 .7
2 .5
10 .4
7.C
4 .C
6 .1
7.C
11 .3
4 .6
2C .5
7.8
9 .1
7 .6
6 .4
14.2
2 .3
15 .2
8 .5
1 .5
23 .1
5 .2
9.6
4.5
8.C
9.7
2 .9
- 3 .3
- 6 .7
1 .1
- 3.8
0.0
C.O
2t .6
75.8
C.O
C.C
15 .3
32.2
69.1
O.C
57.4
5C.3
C.O
51.8
C.C
C.C
2C.5
45.6
C.C
3C.C
33.4
27.3
44.7
42.1
30.1
15.9
32.6
26 .1
0.0
24.8
C.O
26 .9
O.C
25.3
42.2
69.4
C.O
34.0
37.4
46.6
6.9
51.1
C.O
0.0
44.3
C.C
53.5
C.C
C.O
IVILIAN
LABOR
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS
5
5
8
158
I
8
15
22
33
7
18
24
3
9
6
2
10
26
4
36
16
30
32
41
20
17
10
20
9
22
2
7
1
23
13
97
4
4
8
28
20
22
10
4
214
1
5
2
,802
,554
,939
,637
,639
,255
,486
.921
,717
.438
,459
.521
,145
,772
,724
,771
,652
,710
,823
,905
,083
,240
,416
,623
,387
,553
,9C3
,209
,575
.026
.721
,786
.273
.323
,167
,585
,960
,£37
,653
.489
,353
,672
,633
,641
,344
, 54t
,553
, 44f
393
13
9
7
5
6
4
5
6
6
8
6
i.
7
7
9
8
7
7
6
5
5
9
6
5
6
7
3
6
7
9
12
6
11
10
6
7
10
5
10
6
6
7
7
11
5
6
6
2
1
MFG
32
28
25
20
41
57
34
28
25
29
10
15
2C
16
27
23
43
17
44
56
4C
33
52
49
55
27
42
54
48
43
27
45
19
3?
37
15
3C
42
22
?3
46
24
42
43
4
6
3
2
C
ECU
6
1C
7
6
7
4
5
5
t
5
9
26
6
11
5
5
5
12
4
3
5
7
3
C
4
6
11
5
7
4
9
6
10
5
5
11
6
5
17
7
5
7
4,
5
1C
5
12
10
12
SVC
6
4
9
9
4
6
11
8
1C
9
9
8
6
1C
7
7
7
6
10
4
7
7
5
5
6
6
7
5
3
6
7
5
t
6
7
8
9
6
6
1 ;-
C
9
5
4
6
4
5
5
C
GOV
16
15
14
1C
12
8
1 1
10
12
15
3 C
39
24
26
19
17
10
19
9
6
9
13
6
9
7
12
10
7
7
9
26
1 3
16
8
9
24
14
13
25
20
8
13
6
12
18
1 1
16
2C
21
286
-------
ECONOMIC PIGMIES or couNTirs
PAGE 43
STATE AND COUNTY
NO POTTINEAU
BOM* AN
BURKE
BURLE1GH
CASS
CAVALI ER
DICKEY
DIVIDE
DUNN
EDDT
EMRONS
FOSTER
GOLDEN VALLEY
GRAND FORKS
GRANT
6R1665
HETTIN6ER
KIOCEC
LA HOURE
LOCAN
PIC HENRY
HC INTOSh
MC KENZIE
BC LEAN
MERCER
NORTON
BOUN TRAIL
NELSON
OLIVER
PEMB1NA
PIERCE
RAMSEY
RANSOH
RENVILLE
RICNLAND
ROLETTE
SARGENT
SHERIDAN
SIOUI
SLOPE
STARK
STEELE
STUTSPAN
TOKNER
TRAILL
bALSM
HARD
WELLS
WILLIAMS
1970
POPULATION
9
T
4
40
73
8
6
4
4
4
7
4
2
61
5
4
5
4
••
4
t
5
t
11
,496
,901
.739
,7H
,653
,213
,976
,564
,695
,1C3
.200
,83?
,611
,102
.009
,164
,C75
,362
,117
,245
,977
.545
,127
,251
6,175
?r
8
5
2
1C
6
1?
7
^
1P
11
5
T
;
1
1?
j
23
4
9
16
58
7
19
,3 1C
.437
,807
.322
,728
,32T
,"15
,1C2
,828
,C89
.54?
,937
,23:
.632
,464
,61?
,749
,55C
,645
.571
,251
,s*r
,8*7
,301
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CMC URF LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 157C fORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
4
4
- 1C
15
9
47
4
- 9
- 6
- t
- 5
1
• 4
2
1
» t
- 6
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 3
- 5
- 1
2
1
6
- c
- 1
3
6
4
4
£
- 1
C
9
i
\
15
- t
2
- 3
- C
- 10
- 1
- 0
3
- E
- 2
.0
.3
.4
.7
.8
.C
.5
.3
.C
.3
.6
.7
.C
.2
.C
.5
.6
.2
.7
.5
.4
.8
.7
.6
.1
.3
.8
.5
.7
.4
.7
.1
.5
.C
.6
.8
.4
.5
.0
.3
.0
.8
.5
.4
.9
.1
.1
.7
.9
2S.3
J.O
j.C
85.2
79.2
c.o
c.o
o.c
0.0
0.0
c.o
o.c
c.c
81.2
C.C
c.o
c.o
c.c
c.o
c.c
c.o
c.c
0.0
:.c
c.c
55.3
C.O
0.0
c.o
r.o
46.6
56.2
C.O
0.0
39.1
C.O
c.c
c.o
o.c
c.c
63.9
C.O
65.3
O.C
26.7
36.6
75.5
O.C
59.5
3,065
1,490
1,569
16,726
29,797
2,500
2.66C
1,553
1,737
1,373
1,873
1,632
919
19,932
1,638
1,309
1,502
1,393
2,296
1,33t
3.011
1,651
2.061
3,745
2.212
6,790
2,743
2.024
793
3,369
2,026
4,623
2,433
1,240
6.236
3,23t
2,110
1,149
1,045
504
6,971
1,111
8.658
1,456
3.309
5.471
16,306
3,574
7,045
3
5
3
1C
5
5
6
2
4
7
2
5
2
5
1
5
3
3
3
5
4
4
3
7
7
8
4
3
5
4
4
4
2
3
4
4
2
7
5
2
5
4
4
5
4
4
6
»
6
1
C
1
5
6
1
2
1
C
1
1
3
C:
7
c
8
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
7
6
1
C
1C
5
2
t
2
4
5
19
0
2
3
5
3
4
1
3
4
4
1
4
9
7
7
7
11
8
1C
6
9
t
7
6
t
18
7
5
6
8
9
5
7
7
6
11
6
7
7
6
5
8
9
1 1
6
7
15
16
6
8
13
7
12
6
9
6
14
10
1C
7
6
5
7
I
7
8
4
3
5
3
11
2
5
4
7
3
3
7
3
3
5
3
6
6
4
4
6
3
8
2
t
4
£
4
2
5
4
3
4
3
3
6
4
5
4
6
6
6
6
7
GOV
17
11
13
23
19
13
15
14
15
13
11
14
16
26
14
16
15
14
13
1C
14
13
13
16
14
14
18
12
12
18
17
19
12
17
19
39
14
13
49
14
15
15
20
12
19
19
16
10
11
287
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 44
STATE AN* COUNTY
ee = == = =»r-====r===z* =
OH OHIO
ADAfti
ALLS N
ASHLAND
ASHTA8ULA
ATHEKS
AUGLAI ZE
fcCL^ONT
E ROW ft
BUTLER
CARROLL
CHAMPA 1GN
CLARK
CLERHONT
CLINTON
COLUHB IANA
COSHOC TON
CR Ab FC RC
CUYAHCGA
bARKE
DEFIANCE
DELA.*RE
EKIE
FAIR F I ELD
FAYETTE
F RANCL IN
FULTON
GALLIA
GEAUGA
GREENE
GUERNS EY
HAH1 LTON
HANCOC K
HAfctlN
HARR I SON
HENRY
HIGHLAND
HOCKING
HOLMES
HURON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
KNCX
LAKE
LAbRENCE
LICKING
LOGAN
LORAIN
LUCAS
197C
POPULATION
=r === = = = == = = = == = :
1C ,657,427
18,95T
ni 1 LL
\ f 1 ••*•
47.3C7
98 ,237
55,747
38 ,60?
£^,917
26,635
226, 2C'
21 ,57
-------
ECONOMIC PtOMLES 01 COUNTIES
PAGE 45
FCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
1970 thC URP LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION 1575 197C FORCE CONS MF6 ECU SVC GOV
OH MADISON 11
MAMONING
MARION
MEDINA
MEIGS
MERCER
MIAMI
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
MORROW
MUSKINGU*
NObLE
OTTAWA
PAUL01NG
PERRY
PICK AUAY
PIKE
PORTAGE
PREBLE
PUTNAP
(1CHLAKD
ROSS
SANDUSKY
SC10TC
SENECA
SNELBY
STARK
SUMMIT
TRUM8ULL
TUSCAP AWAS
UNION
VAN UERT
V1NTON
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WILLIAMS
WOOD
WYANOOT
OK OKLAHOMA
AC AIR
ALFALFA
ATOKA
BEAVER
BECKHAM
fcLAINE
BRYAN
CADDO
304
64
82
10
35
f 4
15
608
1?
21
77
1C
l-r
19
27
4.0
19
125
24
11
129
61
6C
76
6C
37
3'2
553
232
77
23
2«
9
f 5
57
87
j 3
£<;
21
2,559
15
^
1C
6
15
11
25
:F
,31F 10
,54?
,724
,717
,799
,55P
,342
,739 -
,413 -
.375
,34E
,626
,42?
,:9<;
,329
,434
,C71
,114
,R6f
,7ic
,124
,997
,211 -
,9f?
,951
,69e -
,748
,2ir
,371 -
.579
.211
,786
,194
,42C
,5C5
,16C
.123
,669
.72:
,B26
,463
,141
,224 -
,972
,2t: -
.754
,794
.552
.931
r
4
19
7
5
T
o
3
I
14
3
6
L
5
7
9
7
5
3
C
C
C
T
5
C
6
3
3
3
4
21
1
9
2
4
4
3
12
2
5
7
1
5
t
C
4
5
*
.£
.t
.5
• C
.6
.e
.5
.e
.4
.9
.9
.0
.2
.7
.9
.7
.4
.1
.6
.4
.7
.3
.7
.5
.C
.3
.6
• 2
.3
.*
.1
.0
.0
.2
.6
.1
.4
.1
.6
.1
.9
.9
.4
.1
.0
.c
.4
•2
.1
35.8
84. C
59.8
49.7
27.6
32.5
5?. 6
2C.6
92.1
D.C
13.9
46.8
c.c
26.6
15.9
26.1
29.2
26.1
53.5
17.7
11.6
69.4
4C.6
50.5
49.6
55.6
42.5
73.4
9C.4
69.7
51.7
24.1
5C.9
C.C
42.6
42.1
40. 2
33.2
53. e
42. C
68. C
C.O
0.0
31.4
O.C
63.0
2«>.7
43.5
23. C
10,944
118,014
25,29u
32,219
6,171
13,640
34,379
4,675
249, £47
4,C6c
8,175
29,371
3,603
13,946
6.93G
9,031
13,642
5,557
50,310
13,640
10,826
53,022
21,315
23,322
25,017
23,345
15,361
147,663
221,702
93,216
29,064
9,<.St
11,679
2,955
32.182
20,624
36,023
13,613
36,188
8,t6C
968,430
4,184
2,743
2,904
2,543
5,643
4,270
9,530
9.613
6
5
3
6
11
5
4
8
4
8
7
5
7
5
4
5
7
9
5
6
5
4
6
6
7
4,
4
4
4
4,
5
5
4
8
6
9
5
4
5
6
6
8
5
12
6
t
6
7
6
26
37
3P
3b
U
35
45
36
3fc
28
44
33
22
38
46
42
30
2F
37
36
41
43
32
41
29
42
47
42
39
49
41
34
41
29
46
29
37
44
2*
37
15
28
2
11
4
6
14
U
11
5
6
5
6
7
6
5
7
6
6
4
7
k
6
5
5
6
E
14
7
6
c
*
t
6
7
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
c
6
t
9
5
16
4
8
10
1C
7
7
6
6
13
9
6
5
6
4
5
5
5
5
7
3
4
6
7
5
4
5
6
7
4
6
c
6
6
5
5
4
5
5
t
4
5
7
6
4
5
7
5
4
5
6
fc
6
7
6
6
10
7
7
7
_ _ v KS
16
10
10
1 C
17
7
10
14
14
17
10
9
17
11
10
13
15
21
2C
11
1C
1C
18
10
14
9
-------
ECONOMIC PfOMLES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 46
197C
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION
sx S— — ccxxss—d— r *~ ~ ~
OK CANADIAN
CARTE*
CHEROr EE
CHOCTAW
CIMAHRON
CLEVEL AND
COAL
COMANCHE
COTTON
CRAIG
CREEK
CUSTER
DELAY* RE
DENE Y
ELLIS
GARF IE LD
GARVJN
GSAD Y
GRANT
GREER
HARMON
HAKPEB
HASKELL
HUGHES
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JOHNSTON
KAY
KINGf 1 SHER
KIOUA
LAT1ME R
LE FLORE
LINCOLN
LOGAN
LOVE
KC CLAIN
MC CURTAIN
MC INTOSH
MAJOR
MARSHALL
MATES
MURRAY
MUSKOGEE
NOBLE
NOUATA
OKFUSK EE
OKLAHOMA
CKMULGEE
OSA6E
22.245
3?,3t?
23 ,174
15 ,141
4,145
81,639
5,525
1Cfi,144
6 ,83T
14,722
45,522
22 ,665
17,767
5,656
5,12?
56 ,343
24,874
29,354
7,117
7,97?
'. ,136
5 ,151
? ,57?
1T,22f
2C.90;
7,125
7.S7C
4? ,791
12,857
1:,532
f ,6C1
32,137
19,4fa2
19,645
5,637
14,157
If ,642
12,472
7,52?
7,6£2
23,302
1C ,669
59,542
10,043
9,773
U,6£3
527,717
35.35E
29.75T
PC T
CHG
PCT CIVILIAN
URI LABOR
1975 197C
34
f.
9
12
- 4
24
5
4
3
- C
6
• 2
1 1
- 7
- C
i
7
IE
4
- C
- 1C
- 1
1
b
e
9
6
2
- 1
i.
14
9
9
1 5
15
32
23
6
£
9
1f
- 0
3
3
6
4
2
i
7
.4
.5
.6
.3
.1
.6
.2
.£
.6
.4
.7
.5
.3
.5
.t
.4
.8
.5
.2
.1
.1
.F
.4
.1
.4
• 2
C
• .*
.6
.2
.5
.0
.7
.3
.£
.6
.9
.9
.f
.6
.1
.6
.2
.5
.£
.5
.2
.C
.7
.4
tl.C
55.9
39.9
43.6
0.0
fc3.4
T.C
EE.7
39.3
29.7
51.3
72.1
C.C
c.o
r.c
£0.5
3F.1
4E.3
0.0
51.4
63.1
C.C
C.C
3E.3
74.9
C.C
34. £
77.7
21 .4
37.4
C.O
21.7
26.2
4F.7
r.c
29.2
31.2
24.4
27.6
37.5
30.3
4£.e
62 .7
55.7
27.2
26.6
97.4
60.9
30. C
EMPLOYMENT
PCI DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC
11
13
7
4
1
22
1
26
2
5
16
9
4
2
2
21
8
10
2
2
1
2
3
4
8
2
2
19
4
4
2
9
7
7
2
5
e
3
2
2
7
3
2C
3
3
3
226
11
11
,941
,311
,741
,652
,614
,608
,613
,084
,590
,244
,625
,450
,963
,181
,009
,195
,621
,6£3
,531
.574
,826
,107
.129
,575
,738
,615
,402
,256
,777
.557
,641
,606
,003
,383
,041
,019
,537
,640
,785
,666
,807
,671
.446
,670
.567
,212
,OC5
.2*1
.471
5
7
10
10
7
5
t
5
7
6
6
7
12
6
7
6
8
6
8
5
6
9
16
1C
6
8
9
4
5
7
9
10
6
5
9
11
10
14
8
10
11
10
9
e
6
7
6
6
6
1 7
13
£
18
2
9
12
5
12
12
27
6
20
4
2
9
9
17
5
7
5
2
1C
14
7
11
12
31
5
4
12
23
12
15
23
11
3C
1C
6
14
24
1C
16
11
15
13
14
22
16
EDU
6
6
25
7
10
19
9
9
4
6
5
14
7
L
9
8
7
&
9
6
1C
5
fc
5
b
I
12
7
7
fc
20
7
7
12
7
t
6
9
6
5
5
t
6
7
4
8
6
1 1
5
SVC
7
1C
7
7
5
6
£
10
6
7
7
9
7
8
5
11
7
8
5
9
9
6
6
8
9
9
4
7
E
11
4
i
4
£
6
6
7
10
6
9
£
E
£
7
7
6
&
f
7
GOV
18
14
36
18
22
37
34
31
20
26
1 1
25
13
18
24
14
18
1fa
16
22
21
23
23
18
23
15
23
13
13
1E
41
17
24
23
18
23
17
27
18
19
16
24
21
1fc
12
24
23
19
15
290
-------
ECONOMIC PkonLES or COUNTIES
PA6E 47
STATE AND COUNTt
OK OTTAWA
PAWNEE
PAVNE
FITTSBURG
PONTOTOC
POTTAWATOM1E
f-U&HMATAMA
"f ROGER HILLS
•* ROGERS
SEM1NOLE
SEOUOYAH
STEPHENS
TEXAS
TILLHAN
TULSA
WAGONER
WASHINGTON
bASHITA
kOOtS
WOODWARD
0« OREGON
tAKEP
bEKTON
CLACKAMAE
CLATSCP
COLUME- If
COOS
CROOK
CUKR»
DESC MUTES
DOUGLAS
GILLIAM
GRANT
HARNET
HOOD RIVER
JACKSON
JEMERSON
JOSEPHINE
KLAMATH
LAKE
LANE
LINCOLN
LINN
MALHEUR
KAftlON
MORROW
MULTNOMAH
POLK
SHEflffAN
1970
POPULATION
2<>
11
5r
27
n
43
9
i.
26
2T
27
3S
16
12
399
22
42
12
11
15
2,r9i
14
t T
166
2f
2£
56
9
12
3C
71
2
t
•»
13
94
E
35
5C
6
21'
25
71
23
151
4
554
3«
2
.eoc
,32F
,654
.521
,867
,13*
,3fcS
.452
.425
,14<
,37r
,902
.352
,901
,982
.163
.302
,141
,92r
,537
,533
,01?
,776
.rss
.47?
,79C
r5V
,9f:
,006
,**2
,743
.342
,996
,?15
,1E7
.533
,54?
,74t
,021
.341
,401
.755
,014
,169
.30°
,*
-------
ECONOriC PROFILES Of COUNTIES PAGE 48
STATE AXfc COUNTY
SX f S IZ • 51 * * — — SSS — ~ — SS £ ~ ~ X — ~
OR T1LLAPOOK
UMATILLA
UNION
hALLOW A
UASCC
HASH1N6TON
WHEELE R
YAKHIL L
Pit PENNSYLVANIA
ADAMS
ALLEGHENY
ARMSTR ONC
BEAVER
BEDFORD
E:ERKS
bLAIR
bRADF ORD
EiUCX S
BUTLER
CAM6R1 A
CAMERON
CAS60N
CENTRE
CHESTE R
CLAD ION
CLEARF IELD
CLINTON
COLUMB 1A
CRAWFORD
CUMBER LAND
DAUPH1 N
DELAWARE
ELK
ERIE
FAYETTE
FOREST
FRANKL IN
FULTON
GREENE
HUNTINGDON
INDIANA
JEFFERSON
JUNIATA
LACKAUANNA
LANCASTER
LAWRENCE
LEBANON
LEHI6H
LU2ERNE
1
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE *9
STATE AID COUNTT
X££ECES*EE=S=SEEEEESSE:
P» LTCOMING
ft KE.AN
MERCER
Piif LIN
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MOfcTOUR
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMPEPLAND
PEfcR Y
PHILADELPHIA
PIKE
POTTER
SCHUYLKILL
SNVDER
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSCUEHANNA
T106A
UNION
VENANGO
bAKREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WESTMORELAND
WYOMING
YORK
ftl RHODE ISLAND
fcPlSTOL
KENT
NEWPORT
PROVIDENCE
WASHINGTON
SC SOUTH CAROLINA
ABBEVILLE
AIKEN
ALLENDALE
ANDERSON
BAMBERG
BARNWELL
BEAUFORT
BERKELEY
CALHOUN
CHARLESTON
CHEROr EE
CHESTER
CHESTERFIELD
CLARENDON
COLLCTON
1970
POPULATION
:s BSE s ss = =
11?
51
127
45
45
C24
u
214
00
2f
1 ,940
1 1
U
uc
29
7t
C
34
3?
2*
t:
1.7
zir
21?
376
1?
272
94?
45
142
94
5P1
fc<
2,S9^
21
91
?
1C5
15
17
51
56
ir
247
36
29
3!
25
27
SSSE =
.296
,915
.225
,26E
.42?
,ceo
,508
.545
,i9r
,615
,996
,?18
.795
,089
,269
,037
,961
,344
,691
,603
.353
,612
,876
,5b1
.935
,082
,6c:
,727
.937
,38:
,228
,47C
,7C6
,P35
,112
,02?
,783
,474
,950
,176
,136
,199
,7sr
,565
,79'
,811
,t>f
,604
,707
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG U»b LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 197C FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
'== = =
1
- 1
- 1
- C
21
1
-i
4
0
9
6
21
4
- 0
5
2
- 2
6
3
9
1
- 1
1
10
is
1t
4
2
- 0
7
- 19
- 0
- 6
t
2
j
3
9
3
11
3
14
•t
6
10
1
2
1
4
cs =
.4
.F
.0
.9
.7
.0
.3
.4
.2
.9
.4
.3
.7
.6
.8
.6
.8
.1
.7
.3
.3
.2
.5
.2
.C
i
• _>
.e
.4
.8
.9
.6
.6
.9
.8
.2
.9
.7
.5
.3
.9
.6
.7
.9
• 2
.C
.2
.1
.£
.C
======
5P.6
39.5
49.8
30. 0
29.4
61.4
37.0
71.9
59.8
7.9
0.0
C.D
17.3
51.9
17.5
21.6
r.o
o.c
2C. 5
31.4
48.7
27.3
44.0
17.7
59.9
0.0
56.3
fc7.0
95.1
91.7
68.0
92.4
59.1
47.6
26.2
44.8
39.1
40.8
41.7
41. C
5C.3
45.1
r.c
62. 0
46.2
32.8
16.7
15.7
22.7
BCSSSS ES £K
45,352
20,658
47,360
17,926
19,009
262,375
5,914
92,119
40,127
11,173
800,326
4,428
5,925
64,242
11,356
27,843
2,096
13,207
14,10;
10,642
21,253
18.C52
76,497
10,979
138,572
7,389
118,671
388,002
18,942
61,144
27.06E
252,599
28,249
991,844
8.842
35,791
3,643
47,315
5,i51
6.912
11,563
15,950
3,781
81,073
15,510
12,422
13,586
8.901
9.837
ESC X
5
4
3
4
9
5
5
4
7
8
4
14
5
7
6
7
13
fc
4
6
5
4
5
9
5
9
6
5
5
5
6
5
5
7
4
6
6
6
7
5
8
9
8
7
9
5
5
7
10
ssrs
42
41
42
44
29
34
37
49
41
26
2E
?C
34
45
36
27
4C
34
32
35
37
39
33
27
4C
34
43
35
41
35
17
37
27
36
56
43
29
49
33
44
9
33
26
2C
49
52
51
23
3P
SE ES
7
5
8
5
8
7
5
6
5
5
6
7
7
4
9
6
5
6
12
15
7
5
7
5
6
6
5
7
k
5
1C
7
15
7
7
6
7
5
11
6
9
7
7
9
6
4
5
6
5
SEES
5
5
5
4
11
6
3
4
5
5
t
11
6
4
3
6
5
5
4
5
6
4
6
8
6
6
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
E
8
6
12
6
9
9
15
t
11
9
6
8
6
12
1C
= s ss
10
11
9
9
16
10
17
8
11
20
17
14
15
1C
15
13
20
12
18
13
17
16
12
15
9
11
9
15
12
16
24
13
26
14
9
11
18
8
14
13
30
27
13
30
1 J
8
9
13
17
293
-------
ECONOMIC PFOFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 53
STATE AND COUNTY
==" = -= = ,;====== = == =
SC DARLINGTON
DILLON
CORCHE STER
EDGE Fl ELD
FAIRFI ELD
FLORENCE
GEORGE TOWN
GREENV ILLE
GREENWOOD
HAMPTON
HORR Y
JASPER
KERSHAw
LANCAS TE R
LAURENS
LEE
LEXINGTON
fC COR HI CK
MARION
MAKLBORO
NEUBEPRY
OCON£F
ORANGE BURG
PICKEN S
R1CHLAND
SALUDA
SPARTANPURG
SUMTEB
UNION
WILLIAMSBURG
YORK
SD SOUTH DAKOTA
ARMSTRONG
AURORA
BEADLE
BENNETT
BON HOMME
BROOKINGS
BROUN
BRULE
BUFFALO
BUTTE
CAMPBELL
CHARLE S MIX
CLARK
CLAY
CODING TON
CORSON
CUSTES
1?
70
POPULATION
= = = = == = = = == = =•
5'
2t
32
15
11
£9
T 7
240
4C
15
6C
11
34
47
49
1P
£c
~
3C
2 7
29
4C
69
5 £
237
14
177
79
2 5
74
85
666
4
20
7
8
22
76
C
1
7
2
e
c
12
19
4
4
= == =
,442
,E3F
,276
,69?
,99
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 51
STATE ANC COUNTY
SD DAVISON
DAY
DEUEL
DEHEY
DOUGLAS
EDRUhD S
FALL PIVER
FAULR
GRANT
GREGOF Y
HAAKON
HAUL IK
HAND
HANSON
HARDING
HUGHES
HUTCHINSON
HYDE
JACKSCK
JERAULD
JONES
MNGSE-URY
LAHE
LAWRENCE
LINCOLN
LVMAN
PC COOK
ftC PHERSON
MARSHALL
MEADE
KELLETTE
MINER
P I NN E H AH A
HOCDY
PEkNIftGTON
PERKINS
POTTER
SOBCRTS
SANBORN
SHANNON
SPINK
STANLE Y
SULLY
TO»D
TRIPP
TURNER
UNION
bALMORTH
WASHABAUGH
1073
POPULATION
17
P
5
5
4
r
j
7
i
9
I
e
r
C
7
1
11
1C
c
1
T
1
•J
11
1?
11
t
7
c
5
17
2
4
95
7
59
4
4
11
T
f
1C
2
2
6
P
9
9
7
1
.319
.713
,666
,170
,569
,54F
,503
.897
.ros
,71C
,802
,520
,8S'
,781
.P55
,632
.370
,515
,531
,310
,?62
,657
,45d
.45?
,7ei
,2t"
,246
,C2T
,965
,C2C
,42C
.454
,2C9
,622
,349
,769
,449
,67P
,697
,198
,595
,*57
,36:
,606
,171
,872
,643
.842
.389
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHC Ufif LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 197C FORCE. CONS MFC EDU SVC
2.7
- 2.7
1 .1
1S.1
- 1.5
C.9
11 .6
- 7.2
7.8
- 3.5
- 3.C
- 1 .0
- £ .9
- 3.5
1 .3
16.3
- 6.1
- 3.0
7.5
- 9.0
- 12.?
- t .1
- 7.1
- 4.1
t .4
C .7
- 4 .3
- 7.6
- 5.2
7.6
- 1 .2
- 7.5
5 .1
- C.4
13. <
- C.2
- 5.3
1 .0
- 7.3
14.9
- 6 .0
3.3
- 7.7
1C.f
1 .t
- 5.1
J .1
C .1
1 :• .6
76.1
D.C
:.c
0.0
0.0
D.C
59.1
c.o
43.9
C.O
c.o
0.0
"• r
L • U
C.O
0.0
6 .3
.0
.C
.0
.0
w • C
c.o
55.0
5*. 5
22.7
- n
w . w
' .0
r .0
C.C
62.2
C.O
C.C
7£.9
C.C
79.1
C.C
c.o
2t.5
W • O
42.0
27.6
C.O
r.o
0.0
47.7
O.C
P .8
58. 4
0.0
7
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
5
3
1
2
4
6
4
1
2
1
1
4
1
38
2
21
2
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
,277
,905
,980
,627
,678
,933
,802
,346
,354
.382
,109
,874
,111
,196
657
,263
,697
683
623
,192
699
.752
,594
.552
,612
,564
.475
,726
,967
.069
607
,646
,550
.741
,815
,074
,62C
.005
,313
,229
,582
,012
824
,636
,059
,449
,701
,891
330
B& K S
5
4
4
2
4
5
2
7
5
6
2
4
5
4
2
11
3
4
12
7
11
5
5
3
4
12
5
4
5
5
4
3
4
4
fc
3
5
5
5
6
3
14
4
5
6
4
4
6
3
= E S S
6
4
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
0
2
1
5
1
2
4
w
0
1
C
4
5
7
12
1
5
2
1
4
U
2
16
4
10
1
1
3
5
4
2
1
0
6
1
5
13
3
1
S — — 5
8
7
6
16
5
7
6
6
7
8
6
6
9
b
5
8
c
14
5
1C
1
C
j
16
13
7
fc
6
I
5
8
14
10
6
7
9
7
3
9
8
17
5
j
12
24
5
5
6
7
&
'= S = S
9
5
4
7
3
4
5
7
6
6
7
7
8
2
2
7
5
4
5
6
3
C
>
6
k
6
t
5
2
6
t
2
4
8
6
7
4
6
5
t
7
t
t
4
2
6
6
t
1C
1
60V
Sf S.S
11
17
13
33
12
18
32
17
10
13
11
14
16
12
10
43
13
15
30
16
1 5
13
24
23
1 1
17
11
14
14
28
24
16
11
15
19
9
10
17
15
4t
18
19
14
41
13
1C
11
11
16
295
-------
ECONOMIC P^OMLES OF COUNTIES PAGE 52
STATE ANt COUNTY
SO WASHINGTON
YANKTCN
2IE6ACH
TN TENNESSEE
ANCE R? ON
bEOFOF D
fcENTON
BLF.CSC E
BLOUNT
BRADLEY
CAMPBE LL
CANNON
CARRCL L
CARTER
CMEA TH AM
CHESTE f
CLA16CRNE
CLAY
COCKE
COFFEf
CROCKE TT
CUMBE t LAND
D AH OS ON
CECATt'R
DE KALB
KICK SON
DYER
FAYETTE
FENTRE SS
FRANK I 11.
GIESOK
GILES
GRAlNfEP
GREENE
GRUNDY
HAMBLEN
HAMILTON
HANCOCK
HARDE'AN
HARD IN
HAWKINS
HAYWOO t>
HENDEB SON
HENR V
HICKMAN
HOUSTON
HUMPHREYS
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
197;
POPULATION
19
L.
1 ,c2t
tr
25
12
7
67
5C
2t
f
25
43
13
9
1C
t
21
32
14
21
447
C
11
21
3r
22
12
2 7
47
c Z
1 7
4"
1C
3£
255
t
2 "i
If
1 3
19
17
23
12
5
17
8
24
r
,039
,221
,ri£
,7 or
,039
,1 2<
,647
,744
,ttt
,04?
,467
,741
,25?
,199
.92'
,420
,6 24
,2£7
,572
,402
,737
.£ 77
,457
,151
,<=77
,42"
,692
,597
,2f °
,871
,13?
,C4P
,6ZC
,631
,69<
,C77
,710
,435
,212
,75"
.596
,36C
,74<5
,C9t
»? 53
,5tr
,141
,94C
PC T
CHG
1975
C .0
- 5 .7
2C .3
6 .7
1 .5
2 .7
i .4
13 .3
9 .2
15 .7
17.E
10 .£
2 .6
6 .1
21 .6
11 .0
16 .6
1 ,c
1C .C
4 .4
1 .8
15 .1
C .7
- C .7
11 .6
19 .2
2 .5
5 .7
1C .1
3 .5
- 1 .3
3 .4
11 .4
4 .E
15.4
11 .6
4 .2
- 3.5
- 1 .5
E .E
1C .5
4 .1
1C.1
4 .4
1C .4
E .3
9 .7
2 .3
1C. 2
PCT C
URt:
1970
0.0
61 .2
r .0
58 .E
56.4
49. C
25.1
C.O
42.1
5C.E
26.5
C.O
33.3
2E .8
C.O
36.1
r .0
0 .C
29.0
64.1
C.O
26.0
97.4
: .c
26.9
25.6
47.7
C.O
0.0
21.4
50. 2
31 .6
C.C
2E .f
r ~
k' . U
52 .5
fcO.E
0.0
29.7
3C.6
29.2
35. £
2E.7
41 .7
21.4
0.0
2E.C
r.c
2C.5
1VILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFG EDU SVC
7
1 ,526
22
10
4
2
24
21
7
3
10
15
4
3
5
2
9
12
5
7
189
3
4
6
12
6
A
10
19
e
4
19
3
15
104
1
7
7
11
6
6
9
4
1
4
2
9
n
,679
£85
,055
,605
,62fc
,614
.344
,119
,674
,201
,407
,947
,715
,986
,827
,684
,363
,02 2
,685
,259
t C? £.
.793
.930
,623
,693
, 70 C
,ED5
,143
,390
,95E
,903
,922
,267
.475
,889
,796
,679
,123
,025
,6P7
,352
,640
.2P3
,4fC
,995
,762
.834
.732
0
4
3
6
7
7
10
11
7
5
13
a
5
e
15
9
7
11
6
7
7
fc
6
7
11
1C
7
7
7
7
6
7
11
7
9
5
6
6
5
7
9
7
7
6
9
16
11
9
6
0
10
2
3C
37
39
75
35
35
46
28
41
46
42
7,1
37
25
33
50
26
39
33
21
47
77
37
36
25
36
24
45
40
41
37
33
45
31
29
35
39
42
24
45
31
43
2F
33
39
37
0
9
14
7
t
4
4
fc
a
5
fc
4
5
7
5
7
13
g
7
6
6
5
fc
4
4
4
5
7
4
13
4
5
5
5
6
4
7
1 1
6
6
5
6
4
5
I
5
3
t
fc
C
5
6
E
fc
9
6
3
7
6
fc
5
c
5
7
6
5
6
c
21
&
t
9
5
6
5
7
9
4
12
7
S-
A
5
r
c
fc
1.
7
6
5
£
4
9
6
5
fc
3
4
GOV
0
1 E
25
16
24
13
19
21
14
10
19
13
14
15
13
11
1 e
22
14
15
13
13
15
1 1
14
15
13
1ft
22
19
13
12
fc
1 1
14
7
14
23
22
14
13
17
14
14
13
38
1 fc
16
1 C
296
-------
ECONOMIC rioiuis or COUNTIES
PAGF S3
STATE ANC COUNTY
TN JOHNSON
KNOX
LAKE
LAUftERDALt
LAWRENCE
LEWIS
LINCOLN
LOUOOfc
MC MINN
MC NA1RY
MACOM
MADISON
MARION
MARSHALL
MAURV
MEIGS
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MOORE
MORGAN
CB10N
OVERTCN
FERR Y
P1CKETT
POLK
PUTNAP
RHEA
ROANE
ROBERTSON
RtlTHE* FORt
SCOTT
SEOUATCHIE
SEVIER
SHELBY
SMITH
STEWART
SULLIVAN
SUMNER
T1PTON
TROUSOALE
UN1C01
UNION
VAN BURES
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
UEAKLE Y
WHITt
WILLIAMSON
197:
POPULATION
11
276
f
20
2"
t
24
24
35
1P
12
65
2T
17
44
c
22
f 2
?
1.7
3r
14
5
3
11
35
17
3t
2C
59
14
6
2?
722
12
7
12'
56
2t
5
15
9
T
26
73
12
2F
16
34
,569
.293
,074
.271
,C97
,761
,31E
,266
,462
.269
.315
.774
.577
.219
»r!2£
.219
.475
.721
,565
,619
,247
,f tt
.23?
,774
.669
,4£7
,2C2
,P81
,102
,42?
,762
.231
.241
,111
,5C9
,2 1C
.329
,266
,OC1
,115
,254
,C7Z
,75E
.972
.924
.36'
.£27
.129
.423
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
CHG URB LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 1V7r' FORCE CONS MFG EDt SVC
1C
6
- 7
9
11
15
5
6
11
1C
9
;
5
4
2
15
I
17
2
c
t
4
11
f
3
14
18
4
9
15
12
13
13
3
6
1C
5
24
5
2
2
12
1C
9
9
6
6
9
2*
.6
.F
.£
.2
.2
.7
.1
.6
.4
.5
.f
.4
.5
.2
.7
.1
.1
.£
.2
.9
.5
.6
.0
.2
.6
.9
.1
.5
.7
.8
.4
.1
.9
.2
.9
.F
.6
.3
.2
.7
.4
.2
.0
.2
.5
.£
.1
.0
.*
C.C
69.1
r.c
23.6
3C.5
51.6
2E.9
37.3
43. £
1?.2
21. C
60.9
1E.C
41.6
57.6
C.O
29.6
65.4
r.c
0.2
4E.7
2C.5
C • C
c.c
c.c
4C.2
25.4
53.5
32.4
5F.7
16.9
C.C
9.4
94.2
0.0
C.O
55. t
5C.4
2C.7
C.C
47.4
C.C
C.O
39.5
45.7
C.C
28.0
3C.1
27.4
4,231
1C7.623
2,621
6.55C
10,233
2,602
9,980
9.647
14,073
6,754
5,207
25,436
6.923
7,433
17,574
1,97£
8,7<>C
19,427
1,667
3,964
12,44d
5,421
2.0E8
1.293
4,241
13,439
6,248
15,493
11.C57
23,112
4,394
2,197
11,277
278,926
5,413
2,566
51,082
22, £63
8,797
2.3B7
5,481
3,231
1,562
11,200
28,006
4,691
11,573
6,456
13,623
9
6
5
5
8
1C
8
7
t
7
6
7
9
6
7
11
7
5
9
7
5
6
6
1C
£
e
5
7
8
7
4
11
12
5
9
7
7
9
7
5
5
10
9
6
£
5
5
6
E
47
22
35
32
46
46
32
46
45
43
39
25
36
46
32
44
42
23
43
42
32
44
55
43
41
3C
45
4?
30
24
32
39
27
20
3C
29
41
35
25
39
42
39
61
4C
3C
5f
35
49
24
5
11
3
5
4
t
6
4
5
4
6
£
6
3
5
6
6
8
4
7
5
b
4
1C
5
12
£
4
5
11
8
£
5
7
5
5
S
4
5
4
6
2
3
5
1C
4
12
4
6
4
£
9
7
5
4
7
6
c
5
4
9
4
5
£
5
5
f
6
c
£
7
4
2
4
7
4
5
6
£
6
2
1C
10
5
6
6
6
7
6
4
6
C
7
6
4
5
5
Q
GOV
12
2C
12
14
13
14
19
17
10
15
13
17
16
1C
12
15
1C
26
12
24
12
12
11
23
13
20
1£
17
12
21
21
13
12
17
11
29
11
1 1
16
£
11
12
13
9
17
13
22
1C1
11
297
-------
ECONOMIC Ff.O»ILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 54
STATE ANt COUNTY
in UllSC*
TX TEXAS
ANDERSON
ANDREWS
ANGELINA
ARANSAS
ARCHER
ARMSTRONG
ATASCOSA
AUSTIN
BAILED
BANDER A
BASTROP
BAYLOR
EEE
BELL
BEXAR
bLANCC
BORDER.
EOSOl/f
BObl I
t PA2
-------
ECONOMIC PtoruES cr COUNTIES
PAGE 55
STATE AND COUNTY
TI CONCHO
COOUE
CORTELL
COTTLE
CR»»«£
CROCKFTT
CROSBY
CULBEB SON
DALLAS
DALLAS
DAUSOM
DEAF SMITH
DELTA
DENTOK
OE MITT
DICKENS
DIHH1T
DONLEY
DUWAL
EASTLAND
ECT08
EDriAHD S
ELLIS
EL PASO
ERATH
FALLS
FANN1N
FAVETTE
FISHER
FLOTD
FOARD
FORT SEND
FRANKLIN
FREESTONE
FRIO
GAINES
6ALVESTON
GARZA
CILLESPIE
GLASSCOCK
GOLIAC
GONZALES
GRAY
GRATSON
GREGG
GRIME:
GUACftLUPE
MALE
MALL
1970
POPULATION
2
2?
35
3
l>
•»
9
7
t
1,327
16
IP
4
7T
1f
3
9
T
11
1P
9?
2
46
35*
18
17
22
17
6
11
2
52
t
11
11
11
16?
5
1C
1
t
1<
26
8?
7'.
11
33
34
t
.937
,471
.311
,2C4
.172
,f85
,C85
,42?
,012
.69S
,6U
,999
.927
,633
,6tC
.737
,C39
,641
,722
.092
,66C
,1C7
,63P,
,291
,141
,30C
,7C5
,65:
,344
,044
.211
,314
,291
,116
.159
,593
,M2
,269
,55?
.155
,ttO
,375
,949
.225
.929
.?55
.554
.137
.015
PCI PCT C
CHG URf
1975 197C
- 3.6
6.E
43.2
- 7.C
- 7.3
5.8
- 5.4
6.6
5.E
5.4
- 4.9
2.2
- 6.4
73.7
- 2.t
- 8.9
17.6
2.7
C.8
1 .9
6 .6
- 2.4
1C. 3
15.4
t .9
- 5.6
1 .3
- 2.2
- 1C. 8
- 2.5
- 1 .3
42 .7
23.3
C .6
2.7
- 2.5
7.2
- 4.2
7.1
- 2.0
- 3.2
C.7
- 6.7
- 5.1
6.5
2.7
14 .4
4 .9
- 3.6
C.C
St. 9
69.3
C.O
84.2
77.2
C.O
C.O
75.5
99. C
69.2
7C.6
r.c
65. C
50.4
C.C
59.8
0.0
58.4
57.3
89.4
C.C
52.8
96.3
67.1
37. C
34.4
18.3
C.C
37.2
:.c
55.3
17.9
25.8
51.6
45.5
89.9
73.9
50.3
0.0
C.O
3C.1
8C.3
69.8
75.2
43.1
59.3
41.1
59.5
IVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
fORCE CONS HFC EDU SVC
1
9
6
1
1
1
3
1
2
592
5
6
1
32
6
1
2
1
.138
.423
.963
,326
.624
,441
.100
.292
,4P7
.213
.984
.955
,826
,003
,B2fc
.262
,606
,4U
3,608
6
37
19
112
6
5
£
7
2
3
16
1
3
3
4
67
2
4
1
6
11
32
29
4
12
12
2
,906
,524
632
,113
,825
,956
,b54
,336
,166
,235
.693
627
,342
,98C
,962
,491
.272
,53C
.129
,350
420
,633
,164
.377
,355
,716
,094
.203
,562
.355
3
6
7
4
2
7
3
16
6
6
4
6
6
8
7
5
6
7
13
7
9
6
7
6
8
7
7
8
5
3
1C
1C
12
14
8
4
9
7
1C
4
13
r
7
7
7
9
8
6
5
1
21
6
3
2
2
C
2
6
23
5
7
19
21
16
1
5
T
3
12
11
1
28
17
1C
11
32
5
1C
1
K
23
21
7
2
5
2C
23
11
1
2
13
19
29
23
11
14
6
t
4
k
9
7
6
5
6
9
4
5
7
7
c
>
19
6
6
10
8
11
7
7
6
5
9
11
6
5
5
5
t
3
6
4
9
9
9
fc
5
4
6
8
5
5
6
7
fc
t
8
4
6
8
9
7
5
15
8
13
11
9
11
8
7
6
8
7
9
9
8
8
9
2
9
8
6
12
7
9
7
I
9
t
1C
9
t
t
6
7
7
1
1C
f
1C
7
1C
11
1C
9
6
GOV
15
12
35
18
15
19
12
19
7
10
13
12
11
27
13
18
20
16
22
13
11
16
10
22
2C
16
14
1 C
12
13
U
11
11
15
14
13
19
13
12
18
20
15
12
11
9
14
19
1 1
14
299
-------
ECONOMIC FFOFUES Of COUNTIES
PA6E 56
STATE AND COUNTY
T« HAMILTON
HANSFORD
MARDE»AN
HAfcDIN
HARRIS
HARRI SON
HARTLf Y
HASKELL
HAYS
HEMPHI LL
HENCER SON
HIDALf G
HILL
HOCKLE Y
HOOD
HOPKINS
HOUSTON
HOWA fit
HUCSP? TH
HUNT
HUTCH! NSON
1RIOS
JACK
JACKSON
JASPER
JEFF CAVIS
JEFFERSON
JIM HCGC
JIM WE LLS
JOHNSC N
JONE S
HASHES
KAUFMA N
KEND AL L
KENEDY
KENT
KERR
KIHBLE
KING
KINNEY
KLEBERG
KNOX
LAMAF
LAMB
LAMPAS AS
LA SALLE
LAVACA
LEE
LEON
10
POFULA
-,
t
t
2 <•
1 ,'4 1
44
t
f
27
t
26
181
22
2f
t
2C
17
37
2
47
24
1
t
12
24
1
24<
4
1 T
45
16
17
72
6
1
19
7
L
r i
r
36
17
9
C
17
f
f
70
T10N
,198
,751
.795
,996
,9 ir
,£41
,78 2
,512
.642
,Cfc4
,46(
,535
,596
,396
,7 tf
,710
,855
,796
.792
,94F
,447
,C70
,711
,975
,692
,527
,4C2
,654
,032
,769
,1C(
,462
.392
,964
67t
,434
,454
,904
464
,OC6
,166
.972
,06?
,77C
,72:
,014
,9C7
,04.?
,77E
PC T
CHG
PCT C
UPt
1=75 197C
3.1
- 5.9
- 4 .7
16 .6
12 .7
- C .9
U .£
- 7.0
li. .2
r i .?
15 .7
21 .6
1 .1
2 .5
(C.5
2 .1
- 1 .4
- 1 .C
19 .1
3 .5
C .1
2 .6
- -.0
- 1 .5
f .1
- 4 .6
- 2 .9
3 .1
1 .4
23.6
- 2 .f
- 2.5
13 .f
:c .7
- 1C. 9
- 13. C
13 .C
7.9
- 9 .5
12 .8
- 1 .?
- 5 .4
4 .4
- 6 .4
71 .6
4.3
- 3 .1
6 .4
2 .5
37.4
57.1
53.7
25.7
95.5
51.2
49 .6
46.0
6E.2
0.0
36.4
74.1
32.4
55.9
0.0
51.0
37.1
76.3
r .0
65.9
6F .4
C.C
53.6
41.1
25.3
r.c
95 .0
92.5
72.6
51.1
65.4
53.4
56.1
C.O
C.C
0.0
65.7
64.9
C.O
C.C
fc6.2
r- ~
- • W
65. C
3?. 5
62.5
76.6
35.2
34.6
0.0
IVILIAN
LABOR
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS
3,
2,
001
404
2,647
10,
773,
16,
3,
10,
1,
9,
55,
8,
7,
2,
8,
5,
13,
19,
10,
2,
4,
6.
03,
1,
11,
18,
6,
4,
11,
2,
6,
1,
10,
2 ,
14,
6,
7
i!
5?fc
789
732
958
171
3? 6
164
491
321
347
471
4P7
185
385
458
£34
533
04 C
367
466
640
136
602
914
594
031
118
176
474
754
713
304
62C
823
637
215
705
204
117
3C7
112
32f
458
6,355
2,
2,
79 fc
779
8
5
t
1C
fc
7
3
5
7
5
11
6
7
5
9
7
6
5
8
6
6
£
fc
1C
9
9
7
13
8
7
5
6
10
11
0
11
9
15
2
6
9
5
7
4
9
13
t
12
11
MFC
1C
4
14
2?
2C
29
2
2
f
2
23
7
19
2
22
24
17
11
7
27
26
5
8
f
3C
C
28
4
4
2f
7
3
15
6
3
n
9
2
0
0
8
1
27
3
9
0
21
13
7
EDU
5
9
4
7
6
9
6
5
30
4
7
10
6
11
6
4
8
8
1 1
12
7
i.
10
fc
5
15
7
7
a
5
5
9
5
6
5
V
7
6
2
8
19
V
6
7
6
12
6
4
9
SVC
7
7
9
7
10
1C
7
£
8
12
8
8
7
7
7
7
12
7
f
7
7
7
6
9
1C
12
9
9
1C
7
1C
1C
9
14
12
C
9
7
2
13
9
7
9
9
9
1C
8
6
11
GOV
12
12
15
1C
1C
12
9
11
34
12
13
16
12
13
15
1C
20
24
22
19
12
13
1 fc
1 5
1C
39
1 1
20
14
11
11
1 4
18
22
1C
1 7
24
1 7
16
20
26
1 7
1C
9
22
25
11
1C'
19
300
-------
ECONOMIC PIGMIES or COUNTIES
PAGE 57
STATE AND COUNTY
IX LIBERT*
LIMESTONE
L1PSCOMB
LIVE OAR
LLANO
LOVINC
LUbBOCK
LtfcN
MC CULLOCH
MC LENNAt.
MC MULLEN
MADISON
MARION
MARTIN
MASON
MATA60RD*
MAVERICK
rE01N»
MENARD
MIDLAND
Ml LAM
MLLS
MITCHELL
MONTAGUE
MONTGOMERY
MOORE
MORRIS
MOTLEY
NAC06DOCHE S
NAVARRO
NEhTON
NOLAN
NUECES
OCMILTREl
OLOHAM
ORANGE
PALO PINTO
PANOLA
PARKER
FARMER
PECOS
POLK
POTTER
PRESIDIO
RAINS
RANDALL
REAGAN
REAL
REO RIVER
1970
POPULATION
T 7
IP
•?
6
6
176
<;
f
147
1
•7
F
4
j
27
IF
2C
2
65
2C
4
Q
15
4<
14
12
1
3f
31
11
U
237
<;
1.
71
2?
15
T t
U
13
14
?r
4
3
53
i
I
14
.014
,10C
,486
,697
,970
164
.29?
,107
,571
,553
,095
.69?
,517
.774
,35C
,913
,:e
,249
,64<
,433
,"-2f
,212
.07:
.32*
,47?
,ot:
,3ir
,178
,362
,15C
,657
,22C
.544
,7C4
.25f
,17C
,962
,894
,8tf
,50?
,74?
.457
,511
,842
,'52
,865
,22C
,0V
,29f
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOTHENT
CHG URH LABOK PCT DISTRIBUTION
1C75 1970 rORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
12.t
- 1.2
- 1 .5
- 5.9
24 .5
- 3C.5
?.7
- 1.3
- 3.3
b.2
- 11 .1
5 .7
-15.0
3.1
- o.e
- 1.4
17.5
7.1
- t .8
6 .5
- C .6
C.3
- i.1
7.1
tt .6
- C.7
6.7
- 17.3
17.2
C.7
3 .9
- 1 .3
4 .£
- 7.1
12 .7
5.9
- 2E .6
3.2
1 .6
- 1 .<
C .3
26.9
- 2.9
- 4.9
16.7
1£.9
7.0
15 .4
1 .6
45.5
32.7
O.C
o.c
39. C
c.c
69.3
34.3
69.2
t3.5
D.O
36.2
33.7
C.C
r.c
55.5
It. 2
43.3
C'.O
V2.6
51.1
0.0
60.3
52.3
24.2
69.6
21.4
C.C
62.0
65.0
r.o
73.9
94. C
79.9
O.C
66.3
66.3
33.9
42.7
2?.fc
59.9
27.1
95.6
56.8
C.C
90. 4
C.C
o.c
23.4
11
5
1
2
2
70
3
3
58
2
2
1
1
10
5
6
27
7
1
.327
,837
.331
,177
,722
26
,121
,032
,400
,996
423
.121
,752
,696
,327
,046
,G6t
,666
951
,495
,107
,504
3,447
5
17
5
4
13
12
3
6
84
3
25
9
5
12
3
5
4
38
1
1
23
1
4
,911
,553
,67t
.172
795
,99fc
.302
,209
,25t
,879
,S2t
827
,667
,433
.402
,457
,923
,C6E
,525
.043
.555
,1B9
,315
,262
727
.549
13
7
9
12
10
57
6
4
£
6
12
11
9
6
5
10
5
9
5
5
6
7
6
9
15
6
3
9
5
b
13
4
fc
6
7
10
5
12
8
3
7
11
7
9
16
5
5
5
9
13
12
1
3
7
0
11
2
12
20
1
4
25
2
3
13
17
11
1
6
20
5
6
2C
16
19
38
1
22
20
36
15
11
T
PI
36
16
21
21
6
5
21
12
0
2C
7
2
7
26
7
13
9
7
5
C
12
5
6
10
5
7
5
7
5
7
11
6
6
7
5
4
fc
5
6
7
6
8
17
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
11
7
e
6
9
7
5
6
&
11
9
9
6
vS B 1
1C
8
6
7
16
C
9
9
5
9
b
12
12
7
7
10
5
9
4
12
9
9
e
7
E
t
t
10
P
10
5
1C
1C
1C
£
6
7
8
5
7
9
11
12
13
5
7
7
£
7
11
29
17
20
16
0
18
9
16
15
19
23
14
1C
14
12
20
19
11
11
1C
7
17
11
12
12
13
13
23
16
19
12
19
9
20
1C
18
14
16
11
14
15
12
21
22
18
14
17
23
301
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES 0» COUNTIES
PAGE 5?
STATt AND COUNTY
TX REEVES
REFU610
ROBERTS
&06ERTSON
ROCKWA LI
RUNNEL S
RUSK
SABINf
SAN AUGUSTINE
SAN JACINTO
SAN PATR1C10
SAN SAbA
SCMLEI CHER
SCURRY
SHACKE LF Otii
SHELBY
SHERMAN
SMITH
SOHERVELL
STARR
STEPHENS
STERLI N6
STONEWALL
SUTTOK
SWlShFR
TARRANT
TAYLOF
TERREL L
TERRT
THROCKMORTON
TITUS
TO* 6PEEN
TRAVIS
TRINITY
TYIER
UPSHUP
UPTON
UVALDE
VAL VERDE
VAN 2ANOT
VICTOR ]A
WALKER
WALLER
WARD
WASHINGTON
WffcB
WHARTON
WHEELE R
WICHITA
19?;
POPULATION
16
(,
U
7
12
24
7
7
(
47
r
c
1^
7
10
1
<,-
f
17
F
1
t.
-j
1C
71 5
5T.4
£0.9
69.5
29.2
22. C
25.7
5£.1
62. C
-------
ECONOMIC PFOFILIS Cf COUNTIES
PAGE 59
STATE AND COUNTY
Tl U1L.BARCER
tlLLACV
WILLIAMSON
WILSON
MINKLE R
WISE
WCCD
VOAKUf
YOUNG
ZAPATA
2AVALA
UT UTAH
BEAVEF
bOI ELDER
CACHE
CARBON
DAGGETT
DAVIS
DUCHESNE
EMERY
GARFIELD
GRAND
IRON
JUAB
KANE
MILLARD
MORGAN
PIUTE
RICH
SALT LAKE
SAN JUAN
SANPETE
SEVIER
SUMMIT
TOOELE
UINTAH
UTAH
UASATCH
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
wEBER
VT VERMONT
ADOISON
BENNINGTON
CALEDONIA
CMJTTENCEN
ESSEI
FRANKLIN
GRAND ISLE
POPULATION
15
15
37
13
C
1C
1 f
7
15
4
11
1.C59
i
2F
42
15
95
.355
.570
.305
,041
,64C
,6i7
.560
.344
,4 or
.352
.37:
.273
,800
.12?
,331
,647
666
,C't£
7,250
c
-
e
12
4
2
t
•>.
1
1
45E
9
1C
1C
5
21
12
137
5
13
1
126
444
24
29
22
59
c
31
3
,137
,157
,68?
,177
.574
.421
,988
,963
,164
,615
,6C7
,6C6
,976
.103
,879
.545
.684
,776
,66?
,669
.46!
.278
.732
,266
.262
,785
,1 31
,416
.262
.574
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
ChG URP LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
1975 197' FORCE CONS MFG ECU SVC
1 .1
2.5
29.5
6.1
- 5.7
10.8
14.7
- 1 .0
3.6
11.2
C.7
13.9
7.4
3.1
14 .0
16.8
16 .7
14.5
75.4
2C .3
2.8
- 5.8
21 .9
7.3
37.0
1C. 6
11 .4
7.0
4 .6
12.1
24.6
7.9
14.8
12.1
5.6
36.5
22.9
13.4
32 .1
16.5
5 .8
6.1
5 .7
6 .0
8.1
6.9
13.4
5.2
M .1
73
52
5C
28
fe?
35
31
56
76
0
71
fcD
C
59
6C
40
C
66
r.
0
c
76
74
66
0
G
r
c
r
95
0
c
46
0
71
32
67
55
51
C,
67
32
C
27
C
61
C
3*
r
.6
.5
.2
.4
.3
.9
.9
.4
.C
.0
.1
.6
.C
.6
.1
.4
.C
.1
.0
.c
.c
.5
.7
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.c
.7
.7
.6
.3
,£
.0
.4
.2
.0
.1
.0
«•
• u
.0
.2
.0
5,929
4,496
14,783
4,471
3,856
7,130
6,576
2,803
6.295
1,029
3,098
399,162
1,451
10,475
15,402
5.569
207
3 3 , 98 7
2.482
1,671
1,073
2,437
4,794
1,717
885
2,684
1,493
432
619
180,017
2,686
4,071
3,891
2,239
8,076
4.383
48.533
2,002
4.525
544
50,817
174,802
9,449
12,015
8.62C
39,875
1,676
11.547
1,301
6
3
9
8
7
5
8
7
7
15
4
5
6
4
6
6
13
4
6
14
10
t
7
4
6
5
6
6
4
5
13
6
8
8
2
6
5
10
12
12
3
7
6
7
7
6
A
5
6
9
2
15
7
j
24
17
3
12
12
14
14
5
24
14
5
0
11
5
5
16
3
6
2f
13
6
16
17
14
15
4
16
13
8
11
5
20
1C
£
5
11
23
20
32
23
23
39
25
16
6
14
1C
5
t
6
6
t
5
18
11
11
7
1C
26
11
1
9
16
9
13
6
17
9
4
12
11
14
12
9
13
15
6
fc
5
6
22
8
12
13
8
11
19
8
10
13
9
7
10
1C
6
f
6
6
7
9
7
11
3
7
6
8
5
4
6
16
5
4
t
9
1C
E
4
12
7
4
3
3
7
5
5
4
9
4
5
5
5
7
12
5
e
6
1C
7
7
1
7
9
GOV
2C
17
15
18
14
12
11
12
12
27
16
25
15
26
37
24
50
35
33
34
26
16
30
17
23
21
35
28
2£
17
38
15
19
23
61
19
15
19
22
34
42
15
13
11
14
15
16
13
18
303
-------
ECONOMIC PfOFJLES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 60
1970
STATE AND COUNTY
VT LAMOILLE
ORANGE
ORLEANS
RUTLAND
WASHINGTON
WINDHAN
WINDSOR
VA VIRGIN*
ACCOMA CK
ALBEMARLE
ALLEGHANY
AMELIA
AMHERST
APPOMATTCX
ARLINGTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
6EDFOR D
BLAND
BOTETOURT
bRUNSW ICK
bUCMAN AN
bUCK INGHAH
CAMPBELL
CAROLINE
CARROLL
CHARLES CITY
CHARLOTTE
CHESTE RF IELC
CLARKE
CRAIG
CULPEPER
CUMBERLAND
DICKENSON
DINUIDD1 E
ELIZABETH CITY
ESSEX
FAIRFAX
FAUQUI ER
FLOYD
FLUVANNA
FRANKL IN
FREDER ICK
GILES
GLOUCE STER
GOOCHLAND
GRAYSON
GREENE
GREENS VILLE
POPUL ATI ON
13
17
20
52
4'
33
44
4,651
29
37
12
7
26
c
174
44
c
25
c
1f
it
3?
1 C
34
13
23
6
12
77
F
3
IE
t
U
21
7
454
26
9
7
26
24
16
14
1C
15
5
9
,309
,676
,153
,637
,659
,476
,062
,44P
,004
,7fC
,461
,59?
,C72
,764
,2*4
,22C
,192
,242
,423
,193
,172
,071
,597
,24f
.925
,C92
,15E
,366
.045
,102
,524
,21F
.170
,077
,66P
r
,099
,275
,375
.775
,621
.163
,107
,741
,059
,069
.439
.245
.604
PC T
CHG
PCT
UPR
1975 197C
16.2
1C. 4
6 .0
2.9
3 .6
3.6
4 .6
6 .£
7.E
23.7
- t .6
1C.F
5 .6
14.1
- 12 .£
11 .1
7.7
12 .9
1 .C
13.2
- 2.7
5.1
4 .7
17.C
14.2
3 .9
1C .3
C.C
32 .4
5 .3
9 .1
13.7
U .2
11 .1
- 7.4
U *G
1C. 7
13.2
8 .9
3 .0
17 .7
9 .8
14 .C
- 2.2
2C.2
6.8
- 1 .3
24.7
2.0
C.O
c.o
23.1
36.7
45.3
38.0
12. £
63.1
C.C
C.O
0.0
0.0
29.4
O.C
C.C
c.o
C.C
1.8
C.O
C.C
C.C
C.C
o.c
25.6
C.C
O.C
C.C
c.o
53.8
C.O
C.O
33.2
C.C
0.0
37.7
C.C
0.0
69.1
15.3
O.C
o.c
14.9
C.O
C.C
C.C
C.C
o.c
c.o
C.C
CIVILIAN
LABOR
FOR
5
6
7
20
18
13
18
1 ,766
11
14
4
2
9
3
?4
EMPLOYMENT
PCT DISTRIBUTION
CE CONS
,356
,84C
,185
,560
,475
,581
,122
,74C
,22C
,515
.316
.812
,632
,984
,696
17,662
2
10
1
7
6
fe
3
16
4
9
2
4
32
3
1
7
2
3
7
2
167
10
3
2
10
11
6
5
3
t
2
3
.1*1
.643
,94t
,15£
,072
,637
,721
,309
,840
,078
,112
,2CO
,013
.4E5
,245
.111
,130
,706
,£91
c
,738
,132
,002
.643
,763
.722
.612
,397
,436
,426
,367
,OP3
, 2<54
12
9
5
7
9
9
8
7
E
7
6
11
7
E
4
9
6
8
10
9
1C
5
10
7
10
7
5
7
t
11
U
15
6
7
9
u
16
5
14
10
16
7
9
8
7
12
6
12
6
MFG
13
19
25
25
16
22
32
22
23
21
43
25
37
46
5
36
15
42
39
2£
34
6
35
46
25
51
36
43
2fc
17
34
14
25
6
34
C
21
6
7
45
21
43
29
48
19
18
55
39
31
EDU
11
1 C
6
9
11
11
6
7
4
14
4
7
7
3
6
5
3
4
5
5
t
7
t
5
6
5
k
6
8
6
9
5
t
11
7
C
5
£
7
4
12
6
4
8
S
4
4
6
3
SVC
15
7
£
£
6
7
E
7
7
7
5
11
7
5
E
5
40
7
4
t
7
4
7
6
9
7
14
5
5
9
4
1C
1C
3
6
C
t
E
13
2
1C
5
5
4
9
10
5
4
1C
GOV
= r r r
16
15
13
1 3
23
12
14
23
1 4
24
1C
1 5
1 4
12
43
14
12
10
19
10
12
12
16
10
19
1 0
15
12
22
15
26
18
16
2C
22
0
13
39
22
16
14
6
9
14
31
16
9
13
1C
304
-------
ECONOMIC PF-OFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE tt
STATE AND COUNTY
«t HALIFAX
HANOVER
HENR1CO
HENRt
HIGHLAND
ISLE Of blGHT
JAKES CITY
KING AND QUEEN
KING GEORGE
KING WILLIAM
LANCASTER
LEE
LOUOOUN
LOUISA
LUNENEERG
MADISON
MATHEWS
HECKLE N6UR&
MIDDLESEX
MONTGOMERY
NANSEMOND
NELSON
NEb KE NT
NORrOLK
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOWAY
ORANGE
PAGE
PATRICK
PITTSVLVAN1A
POhHATAN
PRINCE EDWARD
PRINCE GEOSCL
PRINCE WILLIAM
PRINCESS ANNE
PULASK1
RAPPAHANNOCK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
ROCKBRIDGE
ROCK INCH AM
RUSSELL
SCCTT
SHENANDOAH
SMTTH
SOUTHAMPTON
SFOTSVLVAN1A
STAFFORD
197C
POPULATION
3C
J7
154
50
?
If
1'
f.
t
T
<;
20
37
14
11
(
7
ir-
t
4'
11
C
14
9
14
1?
16
1f
5f
^
14
ft.
91
2<;
r
6
53
16
47
24
24
22
31
18
1t
24
,076
,47
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE t2
197C
STATE AND COUNTY POPULATION
rxx^ = =!:»:,:===== = = == = = ====== =
VA SURRY
SUSSEX
TAZEWELL
WARREN
WARWICK
WASHINGTON
WESTMORELAND
WISE
WYTHE
YORK
ALEXANDRIA CITY
BEDFORD CITY
BRISTOL CITY
feUENA VISTA CITY
CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY
CHESAPEAKE CITY
CLIFTON FORGE C ITY
COLONIAL HEIGHTS CITY
COV1N6TON CITY
DANVILLE CITY
EMPORIA CITY
FAIRFAX CITY
FALLS CHURCH CITY
FRANKL IN CITY
FREDEP ICKSBURG CITY
GALAX CITY
HAMPTON CITY
HARRISONBURG CITY
HOPEWFLL CITY
LEXINGTON CITY
LYNCHBURG CITY
MANASSES CITY
MANASSES PARK CITY
MAHT1NSV1LLE CITY
NEWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
NORTON CITY
PETERSBURG CITY
POBUOSON CITY
PORTSMOUTH CITY
(SADFORD CITY
RICHMOND CITY
ROANOKE CITY
SALEM CITY
SOUTH BOSTON CITY
SOUTH NORFOLK CITY
STAUNTON CITY
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY
= == = =
r
11
39
1 \
36
12
35
21
2^
11C
6
10
6
3f
8C
r
15
1C
46
c
22
1C-
t
14
6
12C
14
2?
7
64
ir
6
19
13?
307
4
44
5
110
11
249
105
21
6
24
45
172
= = r= :
,BS:
,464
,f 16
,701
r
,03?
,142
,947
,139
,762
.927
,011
,659
,425
.per
,580
,501
,097
,OtC
,391
,3 CO
,727
,772
,860
,450
.27?
,779
,6C5
.471
.597
,64:
,75F
,844
,653
,177
,951
,172
,202
,441
,963
,596
,431
,637
,982
,889
C
.504
,024
,10*
PCT PCT C
CHG URt
1975 197C
: = £ =• r
_ c
- 3
1:
21
C
9
fc
14
5
9
_ 7
11
3
5
1
15
_ c
13
- t
- C
6
- t
- 7
8
1f
4
7
25
- C
- 7
- 2
6
35
t
0
- 7
3
1
27
- 2
- C
- 6
- 3
4
- 3
0
- 6
5
26
==:
.6
.4
.6
.C
.0
.2
.5
.1
.3
.2
.2
.2
.9
.4
.9
.9
.7
.9
.4
.9
.1
.7
.6
.2
.4
.3
.0
.1
.6
.6
.2
.4
.7
.3
.0
.3
.0
.7
.2
.7
.4
.9
.2
.4
.t
.C
.5
.4
.5
=======
0.0
0.0
35 .6
55. £
: .0
11.7
C.C
19.6
26.5
23.4
0.0
0.0
c.c
c.c
O.C
92.2
C.O
0.0
: .0
0.0
T.O
O.C
O.C
c.o
r.c
c.o
c.c
0.0
c.o
O.C
c.o
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
c.o
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
O.C
c.o
0.0
0.0
O.C
O.C
O.C
c.o
96.9
1VILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
==========
2,191
4,131
12,446
6,373
0
14,734
4,252
10,570
8,713
8,589
52,811
2,508
5,597
2,713
17,539
32,088
2,17*
6,492
3,69*
20,857
2,192
8, 641
4,813
2.89C
6,221
2,805
41,686
6.20C
9,156
2,707
23,233
3,619
2,200
8,846
47,08*
89,741
1,351
14,005
2,013
40,834
4,524
107,329
39,790
8.910
3,009
0
10,611
17,691
50,076
=="
10
6
6
13
0
8
12
7
12
6
5
3
7
5
5
9
3
5
5
5
8
7
5
5
7
4
6
6
5
5
5
0
0
5
5
7
7
4
0
7
3
6
5
8
6
0
4
10
t
== = =
27
27
ie
30
c
30
20
8
33
16
6
41
30
52
12
22
17
25
49
41
26
5
5
36
15
54
23
21
42
11
33
9
8
47
28
10
10
2?
20
25
34
2C
19
26
39
0
24
31
e
====
6
8
5
5
C
7
6
10
5
9
6
7
7
8
17
6
9
5
5
6
8
9
7
5
16
4
9
1 7
5
; c
9
0
0
5
7
7
8
7
0
6
22
8
6
7
10
0
11
5
8
== = =
£
10
6
5
C
6
10
7
6
6
9
8
8
6
t
7
7
5
6
8
10
7
9
13
6
6
7
7
5
10
£
0
0
7
7
1C
8
10
0
8
5
9
10
6
8
0
8
7
9
GOV
= == =
14
17
10
12
0
15
23
17
15
38
38
13
9
7
35
28
13
25
8
11
15
38
36
10
29
7
28
22
1 7
24
12
C
0
8
23
29
14
27
0
33
30
21
12
16
14
0
19
19
27
306
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 63
STATE AND COUNTY
V* WARWICK CITT
VAYNESBORO CITT
WILLIAMSCURG CITT
WINCHESTER CITT
MA WASHINGTON
ADAMS
ASOTIN
BENTON
CNELAN
CLALLAH
CLARK
COLUMBIA
COWLIT2
DOUGLAS
FERRY
FRANKLIN
6ARFIELD
GRANT
GRAYS HARBOR
ISLAND
JEFFERSON
KING
KITSAP
KITTITAS
KLICKITAT
LEbIS
LINCOLN
BASON
OKANOGAN
PACIFIC
PEND OREILLE
PIERCE
SAN JUAN
SKAGIT
SKAHANIA
SNOHOMISH
SPOKANE
STEVENS
TMURSTON
WAHKlAKUft
WALLA WALLA
WHATCOM
WHITMAN
TAKIMA
WV WEST VIRGINIA
tARBOUR
BERKELEY
BOONE
BRAXTON
1970
POPULATION
H
?
19
3.413
12
1?
67
41
34
12P
4
6t
M
3
25
7
41
5«
27
1C
1,15"
101
21
12
45
9
20
25
15
6
412
3
52
e
265
287
17
7t
T
42
61
37
145
1 ,744
14
36
25
12
C
,707
,C6?
,*29
.244
.014
,799
,54P
,10:
,770
.454
.439
,616
.7*7
.655
.816
,911
,8fc1
,553
,011
,661
,369
,732
,r39
,138
,467
,572
,918
,867
,79t
,025
,344
,85t
,381
,845
,236
,487
,405
,894
,592
,m
.983
.900
,212
,237
,030
.356
,11f
,666
PCT PCT
CMC URP
1975 1970
c.o
C.2
17.0
9.6
3.9
fc.1
7.3
12 .2
- 1.8
17.7
19.2
3.6
4.0
12 .4
T2.2
2.8
- 2.2
t .1
1 .9
23. C
11 .0
- C.9
14.6
1 .5
10.9
7.5
1.C
12.8
6.8
2.1
25.0
- 0.6
40.5
4 .6
- 1.8
- 1.0
6.1
29.1
21.2
4.3
0.9
1C. 5
10.6
5.9
3.4
12.4
10.6
9.1
3.1
C.O
o.c
0.0
0.0
72.6
34.3
74.8
65. 8
4C.9
47. C
64.0
57.8
56.3
0.0
O.C
68.5
0.0
51.1
58.0
33.9
4i.4
92.4
44.2
54.2
C.O
34.7
C.O
31.1
16.1
20.1
0.0
82.5
O.C
46.5
0.0
71.7
85.7
21.5
54.1
0.0
73.2
51.4
61.1
51.2
39.0
21.4
4C.2
C.O
0.0
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC
7
3
6
1,338
4
5
27
17
12
50
1
25
6
1
10
1
16
22
7
3
5C2
36
9
4
16
3
7
10
5
2
135
1
19
2
104
107
5
10
1
16
30
14
54
579
4
14
6
3
0
,464
.725
.509
.513
,931
,133
tH9
.191
.580
.371
.868
,986
,896
,465
.642
,041
,435
,811
,124
.902
,233
.549
.900
.721
.375
.731
.210
.082
,885
,053
.915
,263
,758
.016
,173
.328
,625
.434
,259
.840
.806
,281
.551
,316
,456
,091
,686
,162
0
4
1
6
6
4
7
6
6
6
7
6
5
8
7
7
12
6
5
7
7
5
4
6
6
8
6
5
7
4
5
6
17
6
8
8
5
6
9
3
8
6
3
5
7
8
7
5
19
C
47
4
23
21
14
20
18
13
29
28
19
41
11
12
10
0
13
34
10
28
23
32
5
27
27
7
34
11
34
22
19
6
23
35
27
12
19
13
43
9
18
3
13
23
11
32
7
14
G
6
29
5
9
6
8
7
7
6
7
4
6
6
9
10
3
8
7
9
6
9
6
26
7
7
9
6
6
5
a
9
8
7
9
7
9
7
8
3
16
13
37
a
6
13
4
8
1C
0
6
16
9
7
4
E
19
6
fc
5
4
5
5
6
8
10
5
7
7
4
7
6
7
4
6
7
6
5
7
4
6
17
6
3
6
9
6
6
2
7
6
5
7
6
5
6
4
6
GOV
C
9
42
10
19
17
12
13
16
17
16
17
12
19
41
18
20
23
15
30
24
16
47
35
19
16
19
28
22
17
26
21
23
19
33
14
16
22
37
9
24
19
42
15
16
12
16
16
24
307
-------
ECONOMIC PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 64
PCT PCT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
1970 CHG URC< LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
POPULATION 1075 197C FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
STATE AND COUNTY
BROOKE
CABELL
CALMOUN
CLAY
DODDRICGE
F AYETTE
G1LMER
GRANT
6REENBRIER
HAMPSHIRE
HANCOCK
HARDY
HARRISON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
KANAWHA
LEbIS
LINCOLN
LOGAN
MC DOUELL
MARION
MARSH* LL
MASON
MERCEP
MINERAL
MIN60
MONONGAL1A
MONROE
MORGAN
NICHOLAS
OHIO
PENDLETON
PLEASANTS
POCAHONTAS
PRESTON
PUTNAM
RALEIGH
RANDOLPH
RITCHIE
ROANE
SUMMERS
TAYLO*
TUCKER
TYLER
UPSHUR
UAYNE
WEBSTER
UET7CL
UlfiT
3C
106
T
9
t
49
7
f
12
11
35
E
7^
20
21
229
17
1f
46
5P
61
37
24
63
23
32
63
11
8
22
63
7
7
a
25
27
7C
24
1C
14
13
13
7
9
19
37
9
2C
4
5
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
•
,
,
,
,
,
•
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
*
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
V
,
443
918
046
33^
,389
332
76?
6C7
09C
710
74?
P55
028
902
780
515
847
012
26°
666
356
598
306
206
10°
78 0
714
272
547
552
439
031
274
87C
455
625
080
596
14S
111
213
876
447
929
092
561
809
314
154
0
- 2
fc
2
4
6
1
C
2
10
1
4
3
5
14
- 1
2
t
- 0
1
3
5
3
5
7
3
7
5
4
8
4
5
6
- 2
5
10
5
5
1
4
1
10
2
1
1 1
3
3
1
9
.£
.3
.3
.5
.0
.1
.9
.C
.9
.0
.7
.1
.6
.9
.8
.2
.6
.5
.2
.1
.3
.6
.4
.0
.2
.5
.0
.2
.2
.7
.2
.5
.4
.7
.0
.1
.3
.2
.1
.e
.1
.0
.4
.1
^5
.2
.4
.6
.C
49
67
0
C
0
13
o
0
r>
6
65
0
47
35
14
6E
41
C
15
h
46
50
25
36
28
17
54
0
*
16
86
0
2
0
1C
17
2f
34
C
C
34
46
L
1C
38
35
C
44
C
.9
.0
.0
.C
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
.7
.1
.1
.5
.7
.0
.2
.0
.7
.7
.2
.7
.5
.8
.1
.0
.0
.5
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.4
.0
.0
.0
.1
.4
.c
.8
.5
.3
.0
.7
.0
11 , 01 7
39.788
1,877
1,968
1,904
12,553
2,357
2,953
10,620
4,273
14,599
3,178
25,844
6.780
8.410
85,642
5,534
4,554
12,160
11,971
21,937
13,885
7,576
21,288
7.809
7.365
22,907
3.445
2.972
6,573
25,235
2,095
2,331
2,552
7,915
9,013
?0,327
8,152
3,164
3,910
3,501
4,599
2,411
3,035
6,156
11,935
2,380
6,425
1,285
4
6
12
7
14
5
5
9
9
7
3
11
6
11
9
8
7
14
4
2
5
6
9
6
8
4
6
10
8
6
5
17
1C
9
8
13
5
7
13
10
5
5
8
e
7
9
6
8
10
46
26
28
20
22
15
15
29
13
24
55
3C
23
38
20
19
22
22
7
4
26
36
28
14
32
6
11
30
26
12
21
27
33
23
23
31
7
18
36
24
8
21
31
44
21
31
18
43
41
9
t
7
10
8
10
25
5
7
1C
5
6
5
8
10
6
5
9
8
9
7
4
6
10
7
11
25
8
6
7
8
5
10
6
8
6
7
7
6
7
7
7
t
5
14
6
9
5
7
4
7
5
5
4
6
5
5
16
5
4
4
7
5
7
7
5
5
7
4
7
4
5
9
6
5
7
7
7
4
9
4
3
3
4
5
6
4
3
6
5
7
5
5
6
5
5
6
4
10
15
34
21
17
18
42
12
16
2C
b
15
1 1
16
20
16
24
16
15
16
13
10
16
18
14
17
37
21
16
14
12
24
27
34
19
14
15
17
12
22
19
17
28
15
16
15
23
11
19
308
-------
ECONOMIC PKOFILES 01 COUNTIES
PAGE 65
STATE AND COUNTY
WV WOOD
WYOMING
MI WISCONSIN
ADAMS
ASHLAND
BAftRON
BAVF1ELD
feROWN
BUFFALO
BURNETT
CALUMET
CN1PPEWA
CLARK
COLUMBIA
CRAWFORD
DANE
DODGE
DOOR
DOUGLAS
DUNN
EAb CLAIRE
FLORENCE
FOND DU LAC
FOREST
GRANT
GREEN
GREEN LAKE
IOWA
IRON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JUNEAU
KENOSHA
REWAUNEE
LA CROSSt
LAFAYETTE
LAN6LADE
LINCOLN
MANITOWOC
MARATHON
MAR1NETTE
MARQUE TTE
MENOM1NEE
MILWAUKEE
MONROE
OCOMTO
ONE1DA
OUTAtAMlt
02AUKEE
1970
POPULATION
66
30
4,417
9
16
3?
11
15E
13
9
27
47
30
4C
15
29C
69
rc
44
Zt
67
t
84
7
48
26
T6
10
6
15
6C
"•'•-" 1 f
" ' • • ' S 117
;': ; 1E
eo
17
19
23
82
97
35
8
2
1.054
31
25
24
119
54
,818
,095
,821
i234
.747
.955
.663
.244
.743
.276
.604
,717
,361
,150
.252
.272
.004
,106
,657
,991
.219
,29?
,567
,691
.398
,714
,878
,30*
.533
.325
.060
,*55
,917
,961
,46?
.4^6
.22C
.499
.294
,*57
,810
,865
,607
.249
,61?
,553
,427
.396
.461
PCT PCT
CMC URP
1975 197C
1
7
4
25
- C
10
5
8
f.
14
5
4
5
5
5
6
5
13
- 0
10
7
6
4
12
1
6
3
- 1
- 0
3
6
3
4
5
5
2
3
7
0
7
3
16
a
- 2
4
5
1t
4
16
.5
.3
.2
.2
.4
.4
.8
.9
.7
.4
.2
.0
.9
.6
.7
.7
.5
.1
.3
.4
.8
.2
.3
.7
.9
.0
.3
.3
.5
.1
.7
.6
.«
.5
.7
.3
.2
.6
.4
.5
.6
.3
.6
.0
.5
.4
.3
.5
.7
67.4
1C.O
65.9
0.0
57.8
21.4
0.0
81.6
0.0
0.0
44.5
34.4
9.1
29.1
36.3
77.2
45.8
33.8
73.3
38.7
69.2
O.C
57.2
0.0
33. C
41.8
31.4
17.2
C.O
21.4
52.3
18.1
71.4
36.4
74.7
0.0
47.0
54.9
6C.3
49.6
43.4
C.O
P.O
C.O
37.6
28.1
33.6
68.5
67.3
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
32,941
7,816
1,774,008
3,141
6,204
12.508
4,064
59,613
5,130
3,275
10.404
16,763
11,133
16,214
5,671
126,911
27,083
7,497
16.891
11,319
27,989
1,071
33,971
2,389
17,765
11,323
6,767
7,265
2,247
5,938
24,409
6,627
47,171
7,720
31,816
6.488
6,710
9,006
33.083
38,307
12.766
3.378
633
454,085
11,861
8,650
8.918
44.891
22.105
7
4
5
11
4
6
9
5
7
8
4
5
4
6
7
5
4
8
5
5
5
6
4
3
5
5
7
9
6
6
4
6
4
7
5
5
5
6
5
4
5
6
9
3
5
5
7
6
5
37
7
31
24
23
21
22
27
16
21
42
29
22
24
12
12
36
27
14
15
22
26
32
32
17
22
29
12
21
15
35
24
42
38
25
14
22
34
42
30
37
26
42
34
11
32
25
34
41
6
7
8
5
10
8
8
7
8
8
5
6
6
7
10
18
•5
6
10
17
10
8
7
8
13
6
5
7
7
5
8
b
7
5
9
7
8
7
6
6
6
7
11
6
0
5
6
8
7
7
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
6
4
4
4
6
5
6
j
5
5
5
6
4
5
6
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
4
4
6
5
5
5
4
5
4
7
3
6
5
4
7
5
t
13
14
14
17
15
12
22
1 1
12
16
e
17
10
14
13
33
11
12
19
23
17
16
9
18
19
11
9
13
21
U
1
7
1
9
3
5
14
13
9
9
11
14
30
12
26
12
15
t
10
309
-------
ECONOMIC PFOFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 66
STATE ANO COUNTY
bl PEPIN
PIERCE
POLK
PORTAG E
PRICE
RACINE
RICHLAND
ROCK
RUSK
ST CROIX
SAUK
SAUTED
SHAWANO
SHEBOYGAN
TAYLOR
TREMPE ALEAU
VERNON
V3LAS
UALUORTH
bASHBURN
WASHINGTON
bAUKES HA
WAUPACA
WAUSHARA
UINNEPAGO
WOOD
UY WYOMING
ALbANY
bit MORN
CAMPBELL
CARBON
CONVERSE
CROOK
FREMONT
60SHEN
HOT SPRINGS
JOHNSON
LARAM1 E
LINCOLN
NATRON A
NIOBRARA
PARK
PLATTE
SHERIDAN
SUBLCTTE
SUEETUATER
TETON
UINTA
KASMAK1E
1970
POPULATION
7
26
it
47
U
17C
17
131
14
34
3«
9
3i
Qt
16
21
24
1C
6?
1C
61
221
37
14
129
65
332
It
1C
12
1?
c
4
2P
1C
4
5
5f
f
51
2
17
6
17
3
18
4
7
7
.319
,65?
,666
,541
,52C
,838
,079
,970
.23?
.354
,057
,6?r
,65r
,66C
,95?
,344
,557
,95F
,444
,601
,£39
.335
,78C
,795
,946
,362
,4K
.431
,202
.957
,354
,938
,535
.352
,885
,952
.567
.360
,64C
.264
.924
.752
,4S6
,852
,755
,391
.823
.100
.569
PCT PCT C
CHG URt-
1575 197C
4.3
11 .3
11 .6
11 .1
7.8
2.9
- 4.0
1.9
6.7
13.9
3 .4
19.6
5.5
3.C
7.7
1.9
3 .8
22.7
3.8
15.6
19.8
9.6
8 .8
8.2
1 .1
3.9
12.6
2.7
7.9
- 2.4
25 .1
34.7
7.2
9.3
7.5
- 3.0
0.3
12.5
13 .1
6.5
- 2 .3
4 .9
1C. 3
11 .7
6.7
66 .8
31 .6
26. f
6.2
0.0
23.4
c.c
49.4
19.9
75.9
29.8
74.8
26.1
28.6
32.0
0.0
19.9
61.0
20. 4
0.0
15.2
c.o
38.7
C.C
47.0
80.2
35.4
C.3
77.7
52.2
60.4
87.1
0.0
55.5
59.1
43.9
0.0
57.2
39.0
62.3
62.6
80.3
C.C
77. C
C.O
56.0
C.C
60. 8
3.0
87.1
C.C
62. 2
66.0
IVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE CONS MFC EDU SVC GOV
2,
10,
10,
18,
4,
68,
6,
52,
4,
13,
15,
2,
11,
40.
5,
8,
9,
3,
26.
3,
25,
92,
13,
5,
52,
24,
129,
10,
3,
4,
5,
2,
1,
10,
4,
1.
2.
20,
3,
21,
1,
7,
2.
6,
1,
7.
2.
2.
3.
531
328
240
326
829
255
536
758
838
176
523
913
788
198
843
644
389
645
345
779
727
390
828
396
675
716
577
469
916
933
286
261
645
748
204
£52
240
219
130
415
160
104
720
957
543
304
237
773
08 C
9
5
7
5
6
3
6
4
4
6
6
7
5
4
4
6
5
12
6
5
6
6
6
7
4
4
6
4
8
5
5
9
10
8
6
7
12
7
8
6
6
5
7
6
6
7
9
5
5
13
23
23
19
30
44
20
41
U
25
28
12
27
41
2C
21
14
16
29
16
41
73
2P
27
36
34
t
5
8
3
7
2
4
6
7
4
3
6
1C
7
2
S
4
4
3
8
5
2
8
9
13
7
13
7
7
6
7
10
7
5
10
6
6
a
6
6
5
11
7
6
b
6
fc
8
6
10
32
10
5
6
6
10
10
9
7
I
9
1C
8
7
10
6
9
8
6
6
9
8
i
5
c
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
1C
5
4
4
5
5
9
8
7
4
5
5
5
5
5
£
8
6
9
10
7
4
t
5
7
10
9
7
9
9
8
5
1C
10
9
17
9
7
14
19
13
17
17
11
16
10
14
12
12
22
9
9
13
11
13
16
15
22
9
1 2
14
12
14
1 1
21
42
2C
8
19
16
18
20
17
22
15
28
20
17
15
19
14
23
17
14
22
3j
16
310
-------
ECONOMIC PKOMLES OF COUNTIES PAGE 67
PCT PCTCIVILIANiilPLO»ilENT
1970 CHG URP LABOR PCT DISTRIBUTION
STATE ANC COUNTY POPULATION 1975 197C rONtt CONS HfG ECU SVC 60V
•CKXBC»xcssBC=BZKS =====i=z = == = rr = tr = == = r K=zm=tr= = r = =r=zzm«rim==i= = = = rr== =
WT UESTON 6.3C7 - C .<» 52.4 2,381 5 3 5 9 17
YELLOWSTONE NAT. PARK 0 C.C 0.0 000000
311
-------
APPENDIX H
COUNTY TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL
PROFILES
312
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND KETEORCLC&ICAL PROFILES rr COUNTUS
PACE
STATE AM COUNTY
= = ^ _ _ ______________ _.^__
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
ALABAMA
AUTAUG A
BALDfcl N
BARBGLIR
BIbB
BLGUNT
BULLCCfc
BUTLtB
CALHOUN
CHAKeE RS
CHERC* EE
CH1LTCN
CHOCT* to
CLARKE
CLAY
CLLBUCNE
COFFEE
COL6EST
CONECUr
COCSA
COVING TON
CRENSH AW
CULL"* S
DALE
DALLAS
bE KALfa
ELHORE
ESCARP IA
t TCbAH
f AYETTE
FRANKL IN
GENEVA
GREENE
HALE
HENRY
HOUSTON
JACKSON
JEFFEPSON
LAMA ft
LAUDERDALE
LA.RENCE
LEE
1 IKE STONE
LOtaNOE S
KACON
HA61SCN
r.AKENCC
MAfilOfc
MARSHA LL
LAND AREA
1975
:G,70P
599
1.57E
891
tl',
63LELANDF.
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
BLAINS
OPEN-hlLLS-WTNS
0»EN-H1LLS-«TNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
»L A1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNf
OPEN-H1LLS-HTN5
OPfN-HlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILL5-HTNS
TABLELANDS
LOCAL FRE6 OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD I AT
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
3- 500
3- 500
0- 3TC
C- 300
3- 5 DC
0- 3CO
i- src
3- 50C
0- 3CO
3- 5CJ
5-1CCO
5-10CO
C- JOG
3- S?0
C- 30D
5-IGCu
0- 3CO
C- 3CO
3- SCO
0- 3CC
0- 3CC
5-100C
3- SCO
C- 30C
5-1CCO
3- 5CC
3- 5CG
0- 300
C- 3CC
C- 3TO
0- 3CC
C- 300
1-3CCO
3- src
3- SCO
C- 300
0- 300
C- 30C
0- ZOO
C- 30C
C- 300
0- 3CC
C- 300
3- 50C
5-1CCO
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
t-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
= ~~ VK_WW —
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-43C
4-500
3-400
4-5CO
*-5CO
4-500
3-4CG
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-50G
4-500
3-40G
4-500
-.-500
3-40C
4-500
4-5CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-5CO
4-50C
4-500
*-500
4-5C;
3-400
3-400
3-4JG
3-400
3-40C
fc-50C
3-4DC
4-5CO
*-5CC
3 -4 0 L-
4-500
3-*OG
3-40C
313
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND MtTi0ROLOtICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
L
STATE ANC. COUNTY
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
MOBILE
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
FERRY
PICK EN S
F IKE
(. ANDCL PH
fcUSSEL L
ST CL» I*
SHELtY
SUMTE*
TALLADECA
TALLAPOOSA
TUSCAL OOSA
WALKEC
WASHINGTON
W ILCCX
WINSTON
ALASH
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS
ANCHC& ACE
ANGOG*
t At. ROW
E ETHEL
bRISTOL BAY BOROUGK
BRISTOL BAY DIVISION
COSDOVA-MC CARTHY
FAIRBANKS
HA1NES
JUNEAU
KENA1-COOK INLET
HE TC H I HA N
KOfaUK
KODIAr
KUSKOK WIM
MATANUSKA-SUS1TNA
NOME
OUTER KETCHIKAN
PRINCE OF yALES
SEwARD
SITKA
SKAGWA T-YAKUTAT
SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS
UPPER YUKON
VACDE7-CH1T1NA-UH1TTI
WADE HAMPTON
bR AN GELL -PETERSBURG
YUKON- KOYUHUK
AND
ARE*
1975
1
1
1
1
56C
14
1
3
57
1<:
3t
15
7
L.
2
12
1
<.<
C
55
21
IL
?
3
2
?
9
17
at
IP
it
5
71
i
t
i
t
t
r
t
t
t
,
t
t
i
t
i
t
f
•
i
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
24C
0.32
790
570
734
867
673
581
627
640
79P
915
750
704
331
805
Ot6
89C
615
6CC
563
69?
O&T
567
642
531
836
481
321
1CC
565
195
345
97F
743
95?
233
96E
728
485
72"
766
8Er
1£2
142
845
77?
? 10
250
LAND
SURFACE fORMS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
°LA1NS
PLAIN'S
CPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTMS
PLAINS
PLAINS-H1LLS-MTNS
CPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
"LA1NS
DPEN-HILLS -MTNS
DPEN-HlLLS-MTNS
HiLLS-HTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-hULS-MTNS
PLAINS
°LAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
Hi LLS -MTNS
PLAINS
HiLLS-KTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-KTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTN:
HI LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS -MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-M1LLS-MTN?
LOCAL
REL1E F
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 3CC
0- 300
3- 500
0- 3CG
3- 500
0- 300
5-1000
3- 500
0- 300
3- 50C
3- 500
3- SCO
3- 500
0- 30C
3- 500
3- 5CO
T JOO +
300 J«
300C*
5 -1 OCu
C- 300
C- 3CC
0- 3CO
3i.'00*
1-30CC
3000*
7 C00«
C- 3CO
1-30CO
1-30CO
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
3000*
1-3000
1-30CC
3 000 +
1-30CO
1-3000
1-30CO
3000*
0- 300
3COO*
1-3000
FREt
INSTABJ
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
OF SOLAR
L1TY RAOIAT
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-4CO
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
INSUF
314
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE ANC
COUNTY
LAND AREA
1975
PRINCE Of yHALE S ELD
KETCHIKAN ELb
b RANG ELL -PETERSBURG i
SITKA ELD
JUNEAL/ ELD
LYNN CANAL-ICY STRAIT
COFcDCVA-KCCARTHY ELD
VALDEZ-CHITlNA-bHITTI
PALME* -WAS1LLA-TAKEET
ANCHORAGE fcLb
SEWARD ELD
KENAI-COOK INLET ELD
KODIAf ELD
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS ELD
bRISTCL bAV ELD
bETHEL ELD
KUSKOKbl* ELD
VUKON-KOYUKUK ELD
FAIRBANKS ELb
UPPER YUKON til
fcA&ROW ELD
KObUK ELb
NOME E UD
bADE HAPPTOK ELD
FIRST JD
SECOND JD
THIRD JD
FOURTH JD
ARIZONA
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
APACHE
COCHIS
COCONI
G1LA
GRAMA"
GREENL
E
NO
EE
rARICCPA
MOHA VE
NAVAJO
PIMA
FINAL
SANTA
VAVAPA
VUMA
CRUZ
I
ARKANSAS
AR
AP
AR
AR
AR
ARKANS
ASHLEY
E-AXTER
PENTON
bOONE
AS
11?
11
t
1F
£
&
1
<,
13
9
9
C
1
8
9
51
1
^
\J
0
0
1
C
n
i
c
n
r
0
c
^
0
n
*\
r
n
0
r
c
r»
n
C
C
n
.41'
,171
,?5t
,54r
,748
,618
,E79
,155
,217
,910
.24C
,364
,2*e
,091
,9£3
,945
,015
926
537
851
586
LAND
SURFACE FORK'S
TABLELANDS
PLMNS-hlLLS-HTNS
TAbLELANDf
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
MILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
t
5-10CO
3000*
1-30CO
3000 +
3000 +
300C +
1-3000
3000 +
5-1000
1-3000
1-3000
3C30 +
1-3000
1-30CO
0- 3CO
C- 3CC
5-1000
5-1COO
5-1CCO
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
i6-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
500-
500-
500-
500-
500-
500-
500-
500-
5CO-
500-
500-
500-
500-
5CO-
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
315
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND W ET E 0 R OLD & I C A L PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
AR
AR
AD
Aft
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
BRADLEY
CALHOUN
CAkROLL
tMICOT
CLARK
CLAY
CLIBURNE
CLEVELAND
COLUMB IA
CONVAV
CRAIGHLAD
CRAWFORD
CR1TTENDEN
CROSS
DALLAS
DESHA
DREW
F AULKNER
ft ANKL IN
FULTON
GARLAND
GRANT
GREENE
hEMPST EAl/
HOT SPRING
HOWARD
INDEPENDENCE
IZARD
JACKSON
JEFFER SON
JOHNSON
LAFAYE TTE
LAkRENCE
LEE
LINCOLN
LITTLE RIVtR
LOGAN
LONOKE
MADISON
MARION
MILLER
MISSIS SI PP1
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
NEVADA
NEKTON
OUACH1 TA
PEfcRt
PHILLIPS
LAND AREA
1975
651
629
626
643
87P
639
554
601
76?
561
7H
596
608
625
67?
736
63?
641
613
6CE
65P
631
570
726
621
56P
75?
574
62?
P73
673
523
59C
60?
563
486
718
796
?3?
584
627
904
6C7
775
616
82?
736
551
686
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HlLLS-f«TNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNE
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAlNS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HULS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LL5-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
'LA1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HHLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
°LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
0- 300
C- 3CO
5-1000
C- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
3- SCO
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
3- 5CG
0- 3CO
3- 500
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 3CG
C- 300
3- 500
3- 5TO
3- 500
5-10CO
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
3- SCO
3- 5CC
0- 3CC
C- 300
3- 50C
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CC
0- 300
C- 300
1-3000
0- 300
1-30PO
5-1000
0- 3CO
C- 300
C- 300
5-1000
0- 3CO
1-30CO
C- 3CO
5-1000
0- 3CO
FREU OF
INSTABILITY
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
• 16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-2S
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
KADI AT
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-50C
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-50C
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-4CC
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
316
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
C*
CA
CA
C»
CA
C*
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
PIKE
F01NSETT
POLK
F-OPE
PRAIRIE
PULASK 1
RANDOLPH
ST FRANCIS
SALINE
SCOTT
SEARCY
SEbAST IAN
SEVIER
SHARP
STONE
UNION
VAN bUREK
h ASH1NGTON
bMITE
hOODRU FF
YELL
CALIFORNIA
ALANEC »
ALPINE
AMADOU
fcUTTE
CALAVE RAS
COLUSA
CONTRA COST*
DEL NORTt
EL DORADO
FRESNO
GLENN
HUMBOL DT
IMPERIAL
INTO
KERN
KINGS
LAKE
LASSEN
LOS ANGELES
MADERA
MANIN
MAR IPOS*
MENDOC INO
MERCED
MODOC
MONO
MONTEREY
LAND AREA
1975
1
1
156
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
i.
1f
8
1
1
4
A
2
1
•?
1
t.
t
\
600
76?
859
812
661
765
647
635
721.
89P
664
527
522
581
60F
,05C
699
95E
,041
591
92"
,361
733
727
561
.645
,024
.152
735
,007
,715
.966
,314
,586
,241
,13C
.is:
,396
,261
,561
,P69
,145
S2C
.453
,511
,95?
,097
,027
.324
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLI-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-MLLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
MllLS-MTNS
H1LLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEh-hlLLS-MTNS
LOCAL FREfc OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300
C- 300
5-10CO
3- 5PO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
0- 3CC
3- SCO
3- SCO
0- 300
J- 500
5-1000
0- 300
0- 3CO
1-30CO
1-3000
7000*
1-3000
1-30CC
1-300C
0- 300
1-3000
7000*
3COO«
C- 300
0- 300
1-3000
0- 300
3000«
3000*
0- 300
1-3000
1-30CO
5-1000
3000*
1-3000
3000*
1-300C
0- 300
1-3000
3000*
1-3000
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
6-15
26-35
26-35
26-35
6-15
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-3S
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
500-
500-
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
317
-------
TOP06RAPH1CAL AND METECfiOLDB1C AL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
C3
CO
CO
CO
NAPA
NEVADA
ORANGE
PLACER
PLUMAS
RIVERSIDE
SACRAMENTO
SAN 6ENITO
SAN BERK ARC, I NO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOAGUIN
SAN LUIS OfalSPO
SAN MATEO
SANTA BARBARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ
SHASTA
SURRA
SISK 1Y OU
SOLANO
SONOMA
STANIS LA US
SUTT ER
T EHAMA
TRINITY
TULARE
TUOLUMNE
VENTUR A
YOLO
YUbA
COLORA DO
ADAMS
ALAMOS A
ARAPAHOE
ARCHULETA
bACA
EENT
bOULDER
CHAFFE E
CHEYENNE
CLEAR CREEk
CONEJOS
COST1LLA
CROULE Y
CUSTER
DELTA
DENVER
DOLOHE S
L AND
AREA
1975
1
£
7
1
2C
4
1
7
2
1
3
t
1
1
C
?
4
c
1
1
103
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
787
973
78?
,431
,566
,17f
975
,396
,117
,261
45
,41?
,183
447
,737
,30C
44C
,78?
"58
,26?
823
,6C4
,511
603
,9b?
.173
,61?
.252
,863
,02E
639
,766
,237
719
797
,364
,563
,519
74?
,D3f>
.77?
394
,26?
.213
80?
737
,154
95
,026
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HJLLS-MTNS
"LAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
"L A INS -HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
QPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS -MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
"LAISC
PLAINS
HI LLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
HILLS -MINI
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PL A1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
H1LLS-MTNS
HILLS -KTMS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTNS
HILLS -MTNS
PLAINS
TAEiLE LANDS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
LOCAL
RELIEF
1-3000
1-30CC
5-10CO
3000 +
3000 +
1-3000
0- 3CO
1-3000
1-3000
1-30CO
1-7000
C- 300
1-3000
1-3000
1-7.000
1-3000
1-3000
3000 +
3 CDC*
3000 +
C- 30C
1-3000
C- 3CO
C- 3CO
1-3000
3000 +
7000 +
7CDO +
1-30CC
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
7- 500
3000 +
0- 3CO
7- 50C
30CO +
70CO +
C- 300
3000 +
3000 +
0- 300
7- SCO
3000 +
3000 +
C- 3CO
1-30CC
FRE6 OF
1MSTABILI
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
TY RAD I AT
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
500-
4-500
4-500
500-
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
3-40C
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
3-4CO
4-50C
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-5CO
318
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND H £ T t OROLO t1 C AL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
C3
CT
CT
DOUGLAS
EAGLE
ELBERT
EL PASO
FREMONT
GARFIELC
GILPIN
GRAND
GUNMSON
HINSDALE
MUERFANO
JACKSON
JEFFER SON
K IOWA
KIT CARSON
LAKE
LA PLATA
LARIHE ft
LAS AN IF AS
LINCOLN
LOGAN
HESA
MINERAL
HOf FAT
MOhTEZ UMA
HONTROSE
MORGAN
OTERO
OURAY
PARK
PHILLIPS
PITKIN
PROWER S
PUEBLO
RIO BLANCC
RIO GRANDE
ROUTT
SA6UACHE
SAN JUAN
SAN MIGUEL
SEDGWICK
SUMMIT
TELLER
WASHINGTON
WELD
VUMA
CONN EC TICUT
f AIRFIELD
HARTFORD
LAND AREA
1975
1
1
2
1
2
1
7
1
1
1
•<
t
1
C
L
2
1
j
i.
2
2
1
1
?
1
2
t
-
•»
1
?
4
2
t
843
,68^
,864
.157
,561
,996
148
,854
,22?
,054
,574
,622
78?
,767
,171
379
,68?
,611
,794
,59?
,822
,301
921
.74?
,094
,238
,27F
,254
54T
,162
66?
97?
,621
,405
,26?
915
T t *";
.144
391
,26?
544
604
55?
,526
,002
,379
f ? C £.
62*
739
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-hlLLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
M1LLS-MTNS
TADLE LANDS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
TAbLf LANDS
HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
TAPLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HI LLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
JPEN-HILLS-HTNS
H1LLS-KTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
LOCAL FREb OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
3- 500
3000*
3- 500
3- SCO
3000*
3000*
3000*
3000*
3000*
2000*
2000*
3000*
?000«
0- 300
0- 30C
3000*
3COO*
3000*
5-10CO
3- 500
0- 3CO
1-300C
3000*
1-3C/U
1-3000
1-30CO
0- 300
3- SCO
1-3CCC,
1-30CO
0- 3CO
3000*
3- 500
3- 500
30CO*
3000*
3000*
3000*
3000*
1-3000
0- 300
3000*
?OOC*
0- 300
0- 2^0
0- 30C
5-1000
5-10C&
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
<--50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-SOu
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-5CC
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-4CO
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4 »5 QQ
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-4DC
3-430
3-400
319
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND MtTECROLOE1CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
£X X
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
DE
DE
DE
DC
ft
FL
FL
fL
FL
fL
FL
FL
FL
FL
fL
FL
FL
FL
fL
fL
FL
FL
fL
fL
fL
fL
fL
fL
fL
fL
FL
fL
FL
FL
FL
fL
FL
f L
fL
fL
L1TCHF 1FLD
MIDDLE SEX
NE» HAVEN
NEv LONDON
TCLLAND
b INDHAP
DELAtaA RE
K ENT
HI, C» STLE
SUSSE«
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
D1STR1 CT OF COLUM6J A
FLORIDA
ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVAR D
t ROWA" D
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
C 1TRUS
CLAY
COLLIE R
COLUMB IA
CADE
DE SOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMB IA
f LAGLE R
F RANKL IN
GADSDE N
GlLCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLS60ROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFEf SON
LAf AYE TTE
LAKE
LEt
LAND AREA
1975
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
925 OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
172
604
667
41(
5U
1,98?
594
43?
95T
61
61
54,090
916
585
747
294
1,011
1 ,219
561
7CT
56C
591
;,ooc
764
:,042
64F
69?
766
665
487
536
51Z
346
751
565
514
629
1 ,187
484
997
1.03E
482
506
935
6cr
549
961
765
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAJNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL FREC OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
5-1000
5-1
5-1
3-
5-1
3-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
9-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
o-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
r ^
0-
0-
c-
OCD
000
500
oco
5CG
3CO
300
3CO
300
3CO
300
300
30C
3CO
300
3CO
500
300
3CO
3CO
30C
30C
300
300
3?C
300
300
300
3CC
3CO
3CC
300
3CO
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
3?C
300
300
3?0
i- f. E. *__*.— _.
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
-.-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
320
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
IL
fl
ft
fl
FL
IL
FL
FL
FL
fL
FL
fL
fL
FL
FL
fL
fL
FL
FL
FL
FL
fL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
fL
fL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
LEON
LEW
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATE E
MAhlON
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOO SA
OKEECH06EE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM PEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST JOHNS
ST LUC1E
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMTEP
SUwANNEE
TATLOP
UNION
VOLUSI A
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON
GEORGIA
APPL1NO
ATKINSON
BACON
BAKER
BALDWIN
BANKS
BARROW
BARTOW
BEN MILL
BERRIEN
BlfaB
BLECKLET
BRANTL ET
BROOKS
BRYAN
BULLOCH
BURK£
LAND AREA
1975
670
•".os:
839
707
739
1.6CC'
556
1,034
65C
944
777
91C
1,313
:,023
74?
265
1.85P
77
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND HETEOROLO&ICAL PROFILES of COUNTIES
PAGE 1C
STATE AND COUNTY
6*
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
BUTTS
C ALHOUN
CAMDEK
CANDLE R
CARROL L
CATOOS A
CMARLTQN
CMATH* «
CHATTA HOOChEE
CHATTOOGA
CHEROr EE
CLARKE
CLAY
CLAYTON
CLINCH
CO&e
COFFEE
COLOUl TT
COLUW5 J*
COOK
COWETA
CRAWFO RD
CRISP
CADE
DAhSON
DECATUR
OE KALt-
DODGE
DOOLY
DOUGME RT Y
DOUGLA S
EARLY
ECHOLS
E F f ING HAM
ELBERT
EKANU! L
EVANS
FANN1N
FAYETTE
FLOYD
f ORSYTH
FRANKL IN
FULTON
G1LHER
GLASCOCr
GLVNS
GORDON
bRADY
GREENE
LAND AREA LAND
1
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 11
LAND AREA LAND
STATE AND COUNTY 1975 SURFACE FORHS
6»
6A
6A
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GMINNE TT
HABERSMAM
MALL
HANCOCK
HARALSON
HARRIS
HART
HEARD
HENRY
HOUSTON
1RWIN
JACKSON
JASPIP
JEFF DAVIS
JEFFE" SON
JENKINS
JOHNSON
JONES
t AHAk
LAME*
LAbRENS
LEE
LlbERTY
LINCOLN
LONG
LOriNDE S
LUHPK1 N
MC DUFFIE
MC INTOSH
RACON
MADISON
MARION
MERIbE THER
MILLER
MITCHELL
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
MURRAY
MUSCOGEE
NEfeTON
OCONEE
OGLE THORPE
PAULDING
PEACH
PICKENS
PIERCE
PIKE
POLK
437 PLAINS
282
37P
47E
2E5
465
331
297
231
380
37?
346
373
331
530
351
313
40?
181
177
81C1
355
514
193
4C?
SOP
29?
253
426
403
281
365
499
267
51C
39P
237
356
34?
0
271
18*
435
31f
151
225
342
230
312
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
DPEN-HULS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TAE
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 1?
STATE AND COUNTY
S —
GA
GA
GA
6A
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
HI
PULASK I
PUTNAM
fiUlTMA N
R ABUN
RANDOL PH
RICHMOND
ROCKDA LE
SCMLEY
SCREVE N
SEMINCLE
SPALDI NG
STEPHE NS
STEWART
SUKTER
TALBOT
TALIAf EPRO
TATTKA LL
TAYLOR
TELFA J R
TEftREL L
THOMAS
TIFT
TOOMfaS
TOWNS
TREUTL EN
TROUP
TURNER
TW1GGS
UNION
UPSON
WALK £ P
WALTON
WARE
WARREN
WASH1 NGTQN
WAYNE
WEbSTE K
WHEELER
WHITE
WH1TH ELD
WlLCOX
WILKES
WILKINSON
WORTH
COLUMBUS CITY
HAWAII
HAWA1 I
HONOLULU
K ALAWA D
LAND AREA
1?75
253
339
156
36fi
436
323
12F
16?
651
246
201
173
452
488
39C
195
49n
403
440
32"
54?
266
36P
166
194
415
293
364
309
334
445
33C
912
284
674
645
195
306
243
261
3E3
46£
4se
579
220
t,42<
4,037
596
r
LAND
SURFACE FORKS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
'LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL FREfc OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CC
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
C- 3 CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 3CC
0- 300
C- 3CO
1-3000
C- 3CC
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3TO
1-3000
C- 3CO
3- 500
0- 300
C- 300
C- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
5-100C
3- SCO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
1-3GCO
3000 +
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
16-Z5
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-50C
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-50:
4-500
324
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROL06ICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PACE 13
LAND AREA
STATE AND COUNTY 1975
HI
HI
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
RAUAI
MAUl
IDAHO
ADA
ADAMS
bANNOCK
BEAR LAKE
CENEWAH
blfcGHAM
bLAINE
bOISE
60NNER
BONNEV 1LLE
BOUNDARY
BUTTE
CAMAS
CANYON
CARIBOU
CASSIA
CLARK
CLEARVATEfi
CUSTER
ELMGKE
FRANKL1K
FREMONT
6EM
600DING
IDAHO
JEFFER SON
JEROME
KOOTENAI
LATAH
LEHHI
LEblS
LINCOLN
MADISON
MINIDOKA
NE2 PERCE
ONEIDA
OWTHEE
PAtETTE
POWER
SHOSHONE
TETON
TWIN FALLS
VALLEY
WASHINGTON
YELLOWSTONE NAT. PARK
ILLINOIS
1
82
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
2
1
I
t.
i
1
t
1
1
1
4
1
1
7
1
2
1
3
1
55
,
t
t
,
t
t
t
t
t
,
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
i
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
i
610
173
677
047
371
122
984
788
084
647
910
733
836
275
239
054
57P
746
544
751
521
029
04?
664
864
555
720
516
096
595
24
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND MET[0ROLO6 1CAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE U
STATE ANt COUNTY
er =
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
U
IL
U
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
U
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
U
IL
IL
IL
U
:===================:
ADAMS
ALEX AN DE •<
BOND
bOONE
BROUN
faURE AU
C ALHCUN
CARRCL L
CASS
CHAMPA 1GN
CHR1 ST IAN
CLARK
CLAY
CLINTON
COLES
COOK
CRAWFORD
CUMBER LAND
DE KALf
DE WITT
DOUGLA S
DU PAGE
i DLA ft
EDfeARD S
E FFlNGHAf
F AYETTE
FORD
FRANKL IN
FULTON
GALLAT IN
fcRfcENF
GRUNDY
HAMI LT ON
HANCOCK
HARD1N
HENDEP SON
HENRY
1ROOU01S
JACKSON
JASPER
JEFFER SON
JERSEY
JO DAV IESS
JOHNSON
KANE
KANKAK EE
KENDAL L
KNOX
LAKE
LAND AREA
1°75
r z ~ ~ — — ~ — ~ — — — s —
86?
229
37F
283
30t
866
247
456
371
1.0CC
7c<;
5cr
464
434
5C6
954
443
34'
636
399
42C
331
62f
225
481
707
4fcfr
434
877
328
543
43?
435
797
183
376
?2t
1 ,122
605
495
577
37t
60fr
345
52C
67P
32:
72f
457
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
=================
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LA1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
°LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 30C
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 30u
0- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
0- 30C
0- 3f'C
0- 300
0- 300
C- 3CD
G- 300
0- 300
0- 30C
0- 300
0- 30u
0- 300
0- 3ru
0- 300
0- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
C- 3CO
C- 300
C- 300
0- 300
r- 300
0- 300
r- 3oc
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
r- 3oc
C- 300
0- 30C
o- 3 re
FREC OF
1NSTABIL1
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
SOLAR
TY RADIAT
= i r = =E i = s
3-40:
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
326
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND M ITEOROLOE 11AL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 15
STATE AND COUNTY
SX K
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
U
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
«"«« =i=s==s:
LA SALLE
LAURENCE
LEE
LIVINGSTON
LOGAN
MC OONOUGH
MC HENRY
MC LEAN
MACON
MACOUP1N
MADISON
MARION
MARSHALL
FASON
MASSAC
MENARD
MERCER
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
MOULT* IE
OGLE
PEOP1A
PERRY
PIATT
PIKE
POPE
PULASK I
PUTNAM
RANDOLPH
bICHLA ND
ROCK ISLAND
ST CLA IP
SALINE
SAhGAKON
SCHUYL £0
SCOTT
SHELBY
STARK
STEPHENSON
TAZEhELL
UNION
VERMIL ION
WA6ASH
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYJ.E
WHITE
WHITtSIDE
LAND AREA
1975
:r£ES==£r= =========
1,1 SC
374
72P
1,04?
622
58T
610
1,17?
57F
872
733
57"
391
541
2fcS
312
556
382
705
561
32?
75F
621
43"
43?
82F
}f1
2C4
It*1
594
3t4
424
67?
363
879
434
251
752
291
568
652
416
899
222
541
564
715
5C?
6S7
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
:=£r::=:2====:r::
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PL A I N S
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LA1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLT-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LA1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD I AT
: s = s s.
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
n »
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
n ..
c-
c-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
1 _
c-
0-
r _
c
0-
c-
0-
c-
s z ssxs
300
300
300
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
3CC
3CO
2CO
ICo
3CG
300
30C
SCO
300
300
300
300
300
3CO
3PO
3CO
30C
30C
3CO
300
300
300
500
300
300
300
300
3CC,
300
30C
=====*=
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-i5
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-2S
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
s r == = == = ss
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-403
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4Ci,
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-403
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-430
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
327
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOBOLDG1C AL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAfeE 16
STATl AND COUNTY
1L
U
1L
1L
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
WILL
WILLIAMSON
WINNEBAGC
WOODFO RD
INDIANA
ABAMS
ALLEN
bAkTHOLOHEb
BENTON
bLACK FORD
i>OOH I
BROWN
CARROLL
CASS
CLASH
CLAY
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DAVIES 5
CEAP60RN
DECATUR
DE KALt
DELAWA RE
DUbOlS
ELKHAR T
F AYETT I
FLOYD
FOUNT* IN
F RAKKL IN
FULTON
GIBSON
GRANT
GREENE
HAMILTON
HANCOC 0.
HARRIS ON
HENDR I Cr S
HENRY
HOWARD
HUNTINGTON
JACKSON
JASPER
JAY
JEFFER SON
JENNINGS
JOHNSON
KNOX
nose lusrc
LAGRANOE
LAND AREA
1975
8*7
429
519
52B
36.09?
345
671
40?
409
167
427
31
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROL06UAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 17
STATE AND COUNTY
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
LAKE
LA PORTE
LAWRENCE
MADISON
MARION
MARSHALL
MARTIN
MIAMI
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
NEwTON
NObLE
OHIO
ORANGE
OWEN
PARKE
PERRY
PIKE
PORTER
FOSEY
PULASK I
PUTNAf
RANDOLPH
RIPLEV
tUSH
ST JOSEPH
SCOTT
SHELbY
SPENCER
STARK.E
STIUEEN
SULLIVAN
SWIT2E SLANb
TIPPEC ANCE
TIPTON
UNION
VANDERBURGH
VERMILLION
VIbO
WAbASH
WARREN
WARRICK
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WELLS
WHITE
IOWA
LAND AREA
1975
513
607
459
45?
392
443
345
377
386
5C7
406
413
412
67
405
39P
445
38*
335
425
412
433
490
457
442
409
4t6
193
4P9
396
31C
309
457
221
SOP
261
168
241
263
415
39?
36f
391
516
405
365
497
337
55,941
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNJ
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TAFLE LANDS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINb
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
FflEQ OF
SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0-
p-
3-
0-
0-
0-
0-
;-
0-
3-
0-
c-
3-
1 _
6-
0-
3-
C-
c-
p-
0-
c-
c-
c-
p-
p-
0-
0-
r-
0-
0-
p-
3.
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
p-
0-
c-
c-
0-
p-
0-
0-
c-
300
300
5PO
300
300
300
:co
SCO
300
500
3PC
3CO
SCO
500
300
300
50C
3PO
300
3CO
3CO
2CC
300
3PC
300
3PO
300
3PO
300
300
3PO
300
500
300
300
300
300
3CO
300
300
3CO
300
300
3PC
3PO
3TG
300
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
329
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE 18
STATE AND COUNTY
IA
1A
1A
IA
IA
1A
1A
1A
1*
1A
IA
IA
1*
IA
IA
1A
1A
IA
1A
1A
IA
1A
1A
1A
IA
IA
1A
IA
1A
1A
IA
1A
IA
IA
1A
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
1A
IA
1A
1A
IA
IA
IA
IA
ADA1R
ADAHS
ALLAMAKEE
APPANOOSE
AUDUbON
6EKTGN
bLACH HA*H
bOONE
bRLMER
bUCHAN AN
bUtNA Y1STA
BUTLER
C ALHOUN
t AkROL L
CASS
CEDAR
CEKRO GOPDC
LHtRGK ii
CHiCHASAw
CLARKE
CLAY
CLAYTON
CLINTON
C PAW FC RL
DALLAS
DAVIS
DECATUR
DELAW* RE
DES BOINtS
DICK1N SON
DUbUOU E
EHMET
f AYETT t
FLOYD
FRANKL IN
r REKON T
GREENE
6RUNDY
GUTHRI E
HAMILTON
hANCOC K
HAfiDIN
HARRIS ON
HENRY
HOHARD
HUHBOL DT
I DA
IOMA
JACKSON
LAND AREA
1975
569
426
636
523
44P
718
56F
57?
439
56?
57T
5fc2
571
574
559
565
575
57T
5C5
429
57C
779
693
7U
597
50^
53C
572
40"
3EC
612
394
72?
50^
5t(
524
5t9
5C1
596
577
5?:
574
696
44?
471
425
431
5£t
644
LAND
SURFACE F
OPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PL A INS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILL5
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAIN:
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
OPEN -HILL?
PLAINS
LOCAL
ORHS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-HTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-PTNS
DPEN-HILL5-HTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
°L A1NS
PLA INS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
-MTNS
-MNS
-FTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
FREO OF
SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY HAD1AT
0-
0-
c-
t-
D-
C-
n —
c-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
c-
c-
c-
0-
1 _
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
H .
0-
c-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
0-
c-
c-
c-
c-
3CO
3CC
300
3CO
300
300
3CO
3CO
300
30G
300
3CO
300
3TO
300
300
300
3CC
3 GO
300
3Cu
SCO
3TC
300
300
300
3CO
3fC
3CO
3CC
3CC,
300
3CO
3CO
jro
3CO
300
300
300
30:
3CO
300
3CC
3CO
300
3 CO
3CO
3CO
ZOO
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
fr-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4QC
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-40C
3-4::
3-40C
3-40C
3-4CO
330
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND CETEOROLOGI CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 19
STATE AND COUNTY
1A
1A
1A
1A
IA
1A
IA
IA
1A
IA
IA
1A
IA
IA
IA
1A
IA
1A
1A
1A
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
1A
1A
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
1A
1A
IA
1A
1A
IA
IA
1A
IA
IA
IA
IA
JASPER
JEFFERSON
JOHNSON
JONES
HEOKUK
ROSSUTH
LEE
LINN
LOUISA
LUCAS
LYON
MADISON
MANAS* A
MARION
MARSHALL
MILLS
MITCHELL
MONONA
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MUSCAT INE
OXBRIE N
CSCEOLA
PAGE
PALO ALTC
PLYMOUTH
POCAHONTAS
POLK
POTTAUATTAMIE
POwESHIEK
RINGGOLD
SAC
SCOTT
SHELBY
SIOUX
STORY
TAMA
TAYLOR
UNION
VAN BUREN
UAPELLO
WARREN
WASHINGTON
bAVNE
UEbSTEP
WINNEBAGO
MINNESHIEK
KOOOfcURV
kORTH
LAND AREA
1S75
731
Of
61?
5£5
579
979
527
717
40?
434
5fE
564
57?
498
574
447
467
699
435
42?
443
575
?9f
535
561
S6I
5E1
57F
963
cgO
53?
57E
454
5P7
766
5tP
72C
52f
425
4£7
437
55S
56P
532
71£
401
6*f
?71
40:
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
OPEN-MILLJ-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTN5
OPEN-hlLLS-WTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
CPEN-MJLL:-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-KTNS
PLAINS
LOCAL fREB OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0-
c-
o_
k
0-
0-
0-
c-
^
k
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
c-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
c-
c-
0-
c-
r-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0~
0-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
p-
c-
3CO
300
3CO
3CC
3CO
3CO
3CO
3TO
3CO
3CC
zee
300
3CO
3CO
3CC
3CC
3CC
3CO
3CC
3CC
3DC
3CC
300
3CC
3Cu
3CC
3CG
300
310
3 CO
3CO
3fO
300
300
300
300
3CU
3CO
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
3CO
30C
3CO
30C
3CO
6-15 3-400
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-4CC
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-*00
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-40C
3-400
331
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND * 11 i 0 ROLO C. I C A L PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
EKS — — — — —
1*
US
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
WRIGHT
KANSAS
ALLEN
ANDERS ON
ATCH1SON
BARBER
BARTON
BOURBON
BROUN
BUTLER
CHASE
CNAUTA UQUA
CHEROKEE
CHEYENNE
CLARK
CLAY
CLOUD
COf FEY
COHANC HE
CObLEY
CRAWFORD
DECATUfc
DICK IN SO'.
tOMPHAN
DOUGLA S
EDWARD S
ELK
ELLIS
ELLSWORTH
f INNEY
FORD
F RANKL IN
GEARY
GOVE
GRAHAP
GRANT
GRAY
GREELE Y
bREENWOOL
HAMI LTON
HARPER
HARVEY
HASKEL L
HODGEHAN
JACKSON
JEF FER SOS
JEWELL
JOHNSON
KEARKY
LAND ARE*
1975
577
M ,767
sos
57^
427
1.146
394
63C
57'
1 ,44?
774
647
566
1 ,027
9fc?
635
711
617
FCC
1 ,136
59£
899
?55
3f P
471
617
647
9o:
717
1 ,301
1 ,091
577
374
1,070
£91
571
f.7Z
787
1,133
99?
P01
54C
56"
P6C
656
51C
910
476
655
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAIKS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
;PEN-HILLS-«TNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELAND:
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELAND'
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-Hl LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS- KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-hlLLS-HTNJ
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPf N-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
FREO OF
SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD1AT
- — — — — —— . — — — ^-tw— • — f — = = = = Z=E£= =
0-
c-
0-
c-
•* _
0-
0-
c-
0-
•^ ^
t ^
c-
0-
3-
0-
n *
c-
7 _
0-
c-
c-
r ^
c-
0-
c-
T _
0-
0-
c-
c-
c-
7 _
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
3-
c-
c-
0-
0-
n-
0-
r _
n _
0-
fl
L
3CO
300
300
3CO
500
300
300
300
300
SCO
500
300
3CO
500
300
300
300
500
3TO
300
300
3CO
300
3CG
3CO
500
300
300
300
300
300
500
300
300
300
300
300
500
300
300
300
300
300
300
30C
300
3TO
300
16-Z5
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-40C
3-400
4-50C
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-50C
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-50u
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
332
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES of COUNTIES
PAbE 21
STATE AND COUNTY
KS
KS
KS
US
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
K INGMAN
K10MA
LAbETTE
LANE
LEAVENMORTh
LINCOLN
LINN
LOGAN
LTON
MC PHEDSON
RAMON
MARSH* LL
fcEADE
MI A* I
MlTCMf LL
MONTGOMERY
MORRIS
MORTON
NEMAhA
NEGShC
NESS
NORTON
CSA&E
OSbORNE
OTTAbA
PAtaNtf
PHILLIPS
POTTAWATOM1E
PRATT
RAhLINS
RENO
REPUbL 1C
SICE
RILET
ROOKS
RUSH
RUSSELL
SALINE
SCOTT
SEOGUICK
SEWARD
SHAWNE E
SHERIDAN
SHERMAN
SMITH
STAFFORD
STANTON
STEVCNS
SUMMER
LAND AREA
1975
864
72C
654
72r
46<
725
606
1 ,073
841
896
945
P6J
979
592
714
62F
697
72E
70F
587
1 ,061
872
7C7
8E6
727
755
897
EZC
729
1 ,C78
1,2tP
71f
725
597
ttt
724
867
720
724
1 ,007
646
54?
89?
1,055
89!
795
67 1
731
1,186
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
»LA1NS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAlNS-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-KTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0-
3-
0-
0-
3-
3-
r-
0-
T-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
T.
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
7 _
b-
0-
p-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
3CO
500
300
300
500
500
300
300
SCO
300
300
3PO
3CO
300
300
300
500
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
3CO
3CO
300
SCO
300
30C
3CC
3CO
3CO
500
300
300
300
300
300
3PO
300
3CO
300
300
3PO
300
300
3CC
300
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-40C
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
2-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-50C
4-50C
4-50C
4-500
333
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTUS
PAGE 22
STATt ANC,
rs =
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
THO»AS
TREGO
bAbAUN
to ALL AC
COUNTT
SEE
E
WAS.HIK GTON
HCHl T
b 1LSGS
HOCDSO
bTANDC
KENTur
ADA1 R
ALLEN
ANDES':
BALLAF
BARREN
BATH
BELL
BOOSE
bOoREC
tOTC.
BOTLt
E RACK E
bRE ATH
bRECKl
bULLIT
fcUTLE":
CALDWE
CALLOW
C AMPBE
CARL1S
C AfcROL
CARTE*
CASET
CMR: ST
CLARK
CLAT
A
S
TTE
KT
OK
0
S
S
ITT
NR IDL-t
T
LL
AT
LL
LE
L
1AK
CLINTON
CR1TTE
CUMBER
CAVieS
NDEN
LAND
S
EDHONSON
tLLIOT
ESTILL
I ATETT
T
E
FLEMING
f LOTD
FRANKL
IULTON
fcALLAT
IN
IN
LAND AREA
1975
1 ,070
9C1
79?
911
891
724
574
497
152
3°,65r
37C
351
20*
259
46P
287
37C
240
IOC-
ISP
163
204
494
554
3 CO
443
35-
?84
149
19S
13C
397
435
72?
259
474
19C
365
310
462
29f
24C
26T
28C
350
399
211
20?
10C
LAND
LOCAL
SURFACE FORMS
"LAINS
PL A INS
OPEN-hlLLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEK-hlLLS
DPEN-H1LLS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
HI LLS -X TNS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
H1LLS-KTNS
OPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
HILLS -MTNS
OPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
CPEN-HILLS
H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-fTNS
OPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
OPEN-HILLS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
HILLS -rTNS
H1LLS-PTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
HILLS-PINS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
FRED OF
SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0
0
3
0
0
P
C
0
0
C
0
1
C
0
7
1
3
0
3
7
t
C
7
7
7
- 300
- 300
- 500
- 300
- 300
- 3CO
- 300
- 300
- 300
-1000
- 300
-500
- 300
-300
- 500
-30CO
- 500
- 300
- SCO
- 500
- 5Cu
-lore
- 500
- 5CC
- 500
0- 300
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS
-MTNS
C
7
C
3
•»
3
r
0
5
5
3
r
0
7
C
C
0
3
5
3;
C
3
- 300
- SCO
- 300
- 50C
- 500
- 5CC
- 3CC
- 300
-1000
-1000
- 500
-1000
- 3CO
- 500
-1000
-1000
- 3CO
- 500
-1CCG
- 500
- 300
- 500
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
334
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND HETEOROLO&KAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 23
STATE AND COUNTY
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
GAfiRAR D
CHANT
CRAVES
GRATSON
GRtEN
GREEfcUF
HANCOC K
HARD1N
HARLAN
HARRISON
HART
HENDERSON
HENRY
hlCKPAN
HOPKINS
JACKSON
JEFFER SON
JESSAMINE
JOHNSON
KENTCN
KNOTT
KNGX
LARUE
LAUREL
LAURENCE
LEE
LESLIE
LETCHER
LEhlS
LINCOLN
LIVINGSTON
LOGAN
LTON
MC CRACKEN
MC CREART
MC LEAN
MADISON
MA&of F IN
MARION
MARSHALL
MARTIN
MASON
MEADE
MENIFE E
MERCER
HETCALFE
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
LAND AREA
1975
236
2*9
56C
496
2&r
351
167
616
469
30E
42C
43?
289
246
55?
337
375
177
264
165
356
37!
26C
446
42"
2H
40?
339
486
340
311
563
216
25C
41P
257
446
3C3
34?
303
231
23E
305
21T
256
296
334
204
369
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
MILLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
H1LLS-KTNS
TABLELANDS
H1LLS-MTNS
MILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-KTNS
HllLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HJLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
MILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL FRED OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300 16-25
3- 500
0- 300
3- SCO
0- 3CO
3- 5fO
3- 5CC
3- SCO
1-30CO
3- 500
3- 500
0- 3PC
0- 3CO
0- 300
I- 500
5-1000
0- 300
0- 3TO
5-1000
3- 5PO
5-1000
5-1000
C- 300
5-1000
5-10CC
5-1000
1-30PC
1-30CC
5-10CC
3- 500
0- 3CO
0- 300
3- 500
0- 3CO
5-1LCO
0- 300
C- 300
5-1000
3- SCO
0- 300
5-1000
3- 500
3- SCO
5-1000
0- 300
0- 3PO
C- 3CC
3- SCO
5-10CO
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4PC
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400.
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
335
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND f! t T E 0 ROLO E1 C A L PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PACE 2*
STATE AND COUNTY
KT
KT
KT
KY
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
KT
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MUHLENBERG
NELSON
NICHOLAS
OHIO
OLDHA*
OVEN
CWSLET
PENDLF TON
FERRY
PIKE
POWELL
PULAS* 1
ROBERT SON
ROCKCA STLE
ROWAN
RUSSEL L
SCOTT
SHELbY
SIMPSCN
SPENCE R
TAYLOR
TODD
TRIGG
TRIMbL E
UNION
WAfcR E N
W ASH INGTON
W ATNE
WEBSTF R
WH1TLE Y
WOLFE
WOODFO RD
LOU1SI ANA
ACADIA
ALLEN
ASCENS ION
ASSUMPTION
AVOTELLE S
BEAUREGAfcD
BUNVI LLE
EOSS1E R
CADDO
CALCAS lEb
CALDWE LL
CAMERON
CATAHOULA
CLAIBORNE
CONCOROIA
DE SOTO
LAND AREA
1975
481
437
204
596
184
351
197
279
341
762
17}
653
1C1
311
29C
238
2 £4
38!
230
193
277
376
40P
146
34C
546
3C7
440
339
459
227
19?
•.4.93C
66?
774
301
356
?32
1,181
832
£49
899
1 ,105
551
1 ,441
742
763
718
894
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
0 P E N - H I L L S - H T N S
HI LLS-P TNS
3PEN-H1LLS-M1NS
HI LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTN:
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEK-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HI LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
3- 5PO
0- 300
3- 500
3- 5CC
C- 3CO
3- 500
5-10CC
3- 5:0
1-30CO
1-3COO
5-10CO
?- SCO
3- 500
3- 500
5-1 OOC
5-10CO
3- 5CO
C- 300
0- 300
C- 3nO
0- 300
C- 300
3- SCO
?- sro
0- 300
C- 3CC
C- 300
5-1000
C- 3CO
5-100C
5-1GCO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
D- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 30C
C- 300
FREfc OF
1NSTAB1L1TT
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
RADIAT
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40U
3-4CO
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CC
3-40C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
336
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND PtTEOROLOS1CAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 25
STATE Alt COUNTY
=x«
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
rzr=s = *=*=.«=== = = = = s = =r=:
EAST BATON ROUGE
EAST CARROLL
EAST FELICIANA
EVANGEL1NE
FRANKL IN
GRANT
IBE»!A
IBtRVILLE
JACCSCN
JEF FER SON
JEFFERSON DAVIS
LAFAYETTE
LAFOUPCHE
LA SALLE
LINCOLN
LIVINGSTON
MAblSON
MOfcEHOUSE
NATCHI TOChiS
ORLEANS
OUACHI TA
PLAQUE HINE s
P01STF COUPEE
RAPIDE S
RED RIVER
RICHLAND
SAblNE
ST BERNARD
ST CHARLES
ST HELENA
ST JAMES
ST JOHN THE BAPTIST
ST LAN DRY
ST MAR TIN
ST MARY
ST TAMMANY
TANGIPAHOA
TENSAS
TERREBONNE
UNION
VERMILION
VERNON
WASHINGTON
bEbSTER
WEST BATON ROUGE
WEST CARROLL
WEST FELICIANA
WINN
MAINE
LAND AREA
1975
= === = = ====:
45"
436
454
66C
648
67C
569
627
562
369
658
283
1 ,141
643
469
654
661
604
1,292
197
638
1.03C
56?
1 ,318
406
576
87?.
514
294
420
25?
22'
932
736
624
887
808
626
1 ,368
885
1,205
1,351
ttl
615
203
356
4C5
95C
3C.92C
LAND LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
SURFACE FORMS RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
:============
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"»LAINS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
= = —= = ==:
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
p-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
p-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
:SS££ = £SS=£SSE£ = S = S.E S =S
300
30C
300
3PO
3CO
3PO
300
300
300
3PC
3CC
3PC
300
300
3CC
3CC
30C
300
300
3CO
3CO
30C
300
300
3PC
3PO
3CO
3CO
300
3CO
300
300
30u
300
3PC
3PO
3CO
3CO
3CO
3CC
300
300
30C
300
3CO
300
3PO
3PO
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-Z5
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
4-500
3-4CO
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50G
3-4CO
4-500
4-5CO
3-400
4-50C
4-5CO
3-4CC
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
3-40C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-5CC
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
3-40C
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
3-400
fc-5 00
4-500
337
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 2t
STAT
= : =.=
ME
HE
ME
BE
ME
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
E AND COUNTY
ANDROSCOG61N
AROOST 00 H
CUMBERLAND
F RANKL IN
HANCOCK
( ENNEB EC
K NGX
L 1NCOLN
OXFORD
FENObS COT
F1SCATAQUI S
SAGADAHOC
SOHERS ET
taALDO
WASHINGTON
YORK
MARYLAND
ALLEGA NY
ANNE ARUNDtL
fcALTlMORE
CALVER T
CAROLI NE
CARROLL
CECIL
CHARLE S
DORCHE STER
FREDER 10
GARRET T
HARFOR D
HOWARD
KENT
MONTGOMERY
PRINCE GEOhGES
QUEEN ANNES
ST HAR YS
SOHERS ET
TALBOT
WASHINGTON
WICOHJ CO
WORCESTER
BALTIMORE CITY
MASSACHUSETTS
BARNSTABLE
BERKSH IRE
BRISTOL
DUKES
ESSEX
FRANKl IN
HAMPDE N
LAND AREA
1975
474
6,821
P79
1,709
1,536
87T
369
454
?,360
7,39?
3 ,S92
25?
3,894
737
I ,554
1 ,001
9,891
42P
423
59E
217
321
456
!62
459
594
665
659
453
251
2E1
495
485
375
373
339
261
459
381
479
7t
7,826
39?
941
554
104
494
708
ei9
LAND
SURFACE fORWS
PL AINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HI LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HULS-HTNS
PLAlNS-hlLLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HI LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILL1-MTNS
°LAlNS-hILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HULS-MTNS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TAtLE LANDS
PLAINS
°LAINS
TAPLELANDS
T»FLE LANDS
PL A1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
LOCAL
RELIEF
5-1000
3- 50C
0- 300
1-3COO
5-1COO
5-1CCO
3- 500
0- 3CC
1-3000
3- SCO
5-10CC
0- 3CO
1-3CCO
5-10CC
3- sro
5-1000
1-3000
o- 3 ro
3- 5CC
0- 3CO
0- 3CG
3- src
3- SCO
0- 3CC
0- 300
0- 300
1-30CO
3- 5CO
3- 500
0- 300
3- SCO
0- 3CO
C- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 30C
C- 3CO
0- 300
C- 3CO
C- 3CO
1-3COO
0- 3CO
0- 30C
0- 300
1-3000
5-1000
FREG OF
INSTABILITY
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
RADI AT
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
338
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND HI T 1C ROLOG It AL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 27
STATE AND COUNTY
HA
MA
NA
MA
MA
MA
MA
HI
HI
HI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
HI
HI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
HI
HI
HI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
HI
MI
HAMPSHIRE
MIDDLE SEX
NANTUCKET
NORFOLK
PLYMOUTH
SUFFOLK
WORCESTER
MICHIGAN
ALCONA
AL6ER
ALLE6AN
ALPENA
ANTRIM
ARENAC
bARAG*
BARRY
BAY
6ENZIE
bEhRIE N
BRANCH
CALHOUN
CASS
CHARLE W01X
CHEBOYGAS
CHIPPE WA
CLARE
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DELTA
DICKINSON
EATON
EMMET
GENESE E
GLADWI N
GObEbl C
GRAND TRAVERSE
GRATIOT
HILLSD ALE
HOUGHTON
HURON
1N6HAM
IONIA
10SCO
IRON
ISABELLA
JACKSON
k ALAHA700
K ALKAS KA
KENT
LANt AREA
1975
529
82r
46
394
654
56
1.5C9
56 ,517
67?
905
826
56S
476
36"*
901
554
44-1
316
se?
506
7C9
491
414
721
1,59:
571
57Z
561
1 ,177
757
571
461
64<
505
1,1C~
46t
566
600
1,017
819
55"
575
544
1 ,171
572
69E
562
566
857
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
3PEN-M1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PV.MNS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAIN:
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-MILLS- KTNS
"LAINS-hlLLS-WTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HIULS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAIM
LOCAL FREfi OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
1-30PO
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
5-1
0-
0-
3-
C-
0-
0-
0-
1 _
3-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
p-
0-
3-
0-
0-
5-1
3-
G-
0-
3CO
300
300
SCO
3CO
500
3CC
300
300
300
SCO
3PO
COO
300
300
SCO
zno
3PO
?PC
3CC
5 PC
500
3CO
300
300
300
3CC
300
300
500
30U
3CO
CCO
SCO
300
'300
5-1000
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
r-
0-
0-
300
300
3PO
300
300
3PO
300
300
300
3CO
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C,
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
339
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 28
STATE AND COUNTY
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
K EWE EN AW
LAKE
LAPEE&
LEELANAU
LEKAWE E
LIVING STCN
LUCE
HACK INAC
H ACOHB
HAN1ST EE
HAR6UE TIE
MASON
HECOST A
HENOhl NE E
MIDLAND
HISSAUKEE
HONROE
HONTCA L"
HONTMO &ENC Y
HUSKEGON
NEWAYGO
OAKLAN D
OCEANA
OGEMAW
ONTONA GON
CSCEOLA
CSCODA
OTSEGO
OTTAWA
PRESQUE ISLE
ROSCOHMON
SAGINA br
ST CLA1R
ST JOSEPH
SANILA C
SCHOOLCRAFT
SH1AWA SSEE
TUSCOL A
VAN BUREN
WASHTE NAW
WAYNE
WEXFORD
MINNESOTA
AITKIN
ANOKA
BECKED
bELTRAMI
BENTON
Bib STONE
LAND AREA
1975
538
571
65E
34'
755
572
906
1 ,014
48C
553
1,828
490
560
1 ,03?
520
565
557
71?
555
501
849
867
53t
571
1 ,31t
561
56?
527
56T
64£
521
814
734
506
961
1,161
54T
815
603
711
605
559
79,289
1 ,828
424
1 ,297
2,507
402
49T
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LA1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-hl LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTN?
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LA1SS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OLAUS
LOCAL FREG OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
_.. _____*_«._«._ — • t — ~ "• ~ *• — —— — — —
5-1000
0-
0-
3-
0-
G-
0-
0-
0-
t .
0-
3-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
c-
0-
7 .
c-
300
30C
500
300
300
300
300
300
500
3CO
SCO
300
300
300
300
3CO
3CO
3 DC
300
300
300
SCO
30u
5-1000
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
n-
0-
0-
0-
C-
0-
7 _
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
300
300
5CC
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
3CO
300
500
3CC
300
300
300
300
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
003-4C
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-430
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
0- 3
3-4DO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
340
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND *tTEOROLOCII*L PROFILES Of COUNTIES
P»tt 29
STATE AND COUNTY
cs x:
RN
HN
HN
RN
RN
HN
HN
HN
NNV
MN
RN
MN
HN
HN
MN
MN
MN
RN
MN
HN
MN
NN
MS
MN
HN
HN
HN
HN
RN
MN
TIN
MN
RN
HN
RN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
RN
HN
RN
RN
RN
HN
RN
HN
HN
:====r======r:r== = = r=; =
BLUE EARTH
BROWN
CARLTON
CARVER
CASS
CHIPPE wA
CHISAGO
CLAY
CLEARWATtR
COOK
COTTONWOCD
CROW WING
DAKOTA
DODGE
DOUGLA S
FARIbAULT
FILLHORE
FREEBORN
600DHUE
GRANT
HEkNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUbBAF D
ISANTI
1TASCA
JACKSON
KANAfcE C
KANDIVOHI
KITTSON
KOOCHICHING
LAC GUI PA RLE.
LAKE
LAKE OF THt WOODS
LE SUEUR
LINCOLN
LYON
HC LEOD
HAMNOMEN
MARSHALL
MARTIN
MEEKER
MILLE LACS
MORRISON
HOWE*
MURRAY
NICOLLET
NOBLES
NORMAN
OLHSTCO
LAND AREA
1975
= = — = = == = == =
737
610
862
35
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD PETECROLOG icAL PROFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE 30
STATE AND COUNTY
S.—
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HN
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
KS
OTTER TAIL
PENNINGTON
PINE
PIPESTOMt
POLK
POPE
RAHSEY
RED L»KE
REDWOO D
HENV1L LE
RICE
ROCK
ROSEAU
ST LOU IS
SCOTT
SHER6UKSE
S1BLEY
STEARNS
STEELE
STEVEN S
SWIFT
TODD
TRAVEC SE
WAbASM A
WACEXA
WASECA
WASHINGTON
WATONWAN
to ILK IN
WINONA
WRIGHT
YELLOW hEDICINt
HISSIS SIPPI
ADAHS
ALCORN
AH1TE
ATTALA
BENTON
BOLIVA R
CALHOUN
CARROLL
CHICKA SAW
CHOCTA W
CLA1BORNE
CLARKE
CLAY
COAHO* A
COP1AH
COVING TON
LAND AREA
1
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE 21
STATE AND COUNTY
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
DE SOTO
FORREST
I RANKLIN
6EOR6E
CREENE
GRENADA
HANCOCK
HARRISON
HINDS
HOLMES
HUMPHR EYS
ISSAOUENA
ITAUA»bA
JACKSON
JASPER
JEFFER SON
JEFFERSON DAVIS
JONES
KEMPER
LAIAYE TTt
LAMAR
LAUDERDALE
LAbSENCE
LEAKE
LEE
LEFLORt
LINCOLN
LObNCES
MADISON
MARICN
MARSHALL
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
NESHOPA
NEWTON
NOXUBEE
OKTIBBEHA
PANOLA
PEARL RIVER
PERRY
PIKE
PONTOTOC
PRENTISS
tUlTHAN
RANKIN
SCOTT
SHARKE V
SIMPSON
SMITH
LAND AREA
1975
476
468
56P
481
728
431
4f?
565
P76
769
421
414
541
736
683
521
414
70?
75?
66E
50C
70S
437
set
455
593
586
SOP
727
55C
71C
76V
407
56F
58C
695
454
693
82f
652
4C"
501
41?
412
775
615
436
587
64?
LANb
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLt-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILL?-"TNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
'LAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL FREC OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
r .
0-
0-
c-
c-
•o-
c-
n_
0-
0-
p-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
C1-
c-
0-
c-
c-
0-
c-
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
3CO
30C
3CO
3PG
300
30L
300
3CC
300
3CO
30C
3CC
300
300
3TO
200
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
3CC
300
SCO
30C
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
i6-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-2S
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-50C
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-40C
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-50C
4-500
4-5CO
3-400
3-40C
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
343
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND PETEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 3?
STATE AND COUNTY
MS
MS
HS
MS
MS
MS
ns
MS
HS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
no
MO
MO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
HO
MO
HO
STONE
SUNFLOWER
TALLAH ATCH1E
TATE
T1PPAH
TISMOM 1NGO
TUNICA
UNION
WALTHA LL
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WEBSTE R
WILKINSON
WINSTON
TALOBUSHA
YA200
MISSOURI
ADAI t-
AND*) EW
ATCH1SON
AUDRA I N
t ARRt
fc ARTCN
BATES
fcENTON
BOLLIN GE t
bOONE
EiUCHAN AS
BUTLEP
CALDWELL
CALLAW AY
CAHDEN
CAPE GIRARDEAU
CARROL L
CARTER
CASS
CEDAR
CNARITON
CHRISTIAN
CLARK
CLAY
CLINTON
COLE
COOPER
CBAWf 0 RD
DADE
DALLAS
DAVIESS
LANt AREA
LANE
1975 SURFACE FORMS
44f PLAINS
694
644
405
464
443
458
42?
40!
581
734
827
416
674
606
48P
93E
68 .995
57?
436
549
69?
7t?
594
£41
735
621
6E5
404
715
430
835
64C
574
697
506
69E
496
754
567
5C6
41?
420
3fc4
5t6
76"
5C4
537
56?
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DFEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
LOCAL
REL
C-
0-
c-
0-
0-
7 _
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
c-
0-
c-
c-
0-
0-
c-
c-
0-
c-
5-1
c-
c-
T .
T .
c-
0-
c-
0-
3-
3-
i _
0-
5-1
0-
0-
0-
fREb OF
SOLAR
IEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
300
300
300
300
3CO
5CO
3CO
3PC
300
3TO
3CO
30C
300
300
3 CO
3CO
300
300
3CC
300
3fC
CCC
3CO
3CO
500
5CG
3TO
3CO
300
300
500
SCO
500
306
000
300
300
300
5-1000
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
3-
0-
T _
0-
300
300
300
SCO
300
SCO
300
SCO
300
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-13
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-Z5
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-1S
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-4CC
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-4CC
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-4DC
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
344
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PfcOFILES OF COUNTIES
PAbE 33
STATl ANO COUNTY
HO
NO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
MO
HC
HO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
Of. KALB
OEM
DOUGL* S
DUNK LI N
f RANKL IN
GASCONADE
GENTtV
GREENE
GRUNCY
HAfcfi IS ON
HENRY
H1CKCS Y
HOLT
HOWARD
HOyELL
IRON
JACKSON
JASPEP
JEf FE? SON
JOHNSC S
KNOX
LACLECE
LAFAYE TT i
LAURENCE
LEWIS
LINCOLN
LINN
LIVINGSTON
MC DONALD
MACON
MADISON
MARIE!
MARION
MERCER
MILLED
MISSISSIPPI
HONITE AD
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MORGAN
NEW MADRID
NEwTON
NODAUA Y
OREGON
OSAGE
OZARK
PEH1SCOT
PERKT
PETT1S
LAND AREA
1975
427
756
8 DC
54!
934
519
48fc
677
435
72C
734
377
45?
47?
920
554
60?
64?
668
826
51:
77C
63C
619
508
625
622
53C
54C
798
49(
525
436
455
6CC
415
419
669
534
59?
679
t2<>
877
7£4
60E
732
49?
471
679
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILL5-BTNS
PLAINS
TAELE LANDS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-WTNS
"LAINS
OPEN-HILLS-NTNS
3PEN-H1LL5-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3FEN-HILLS-WTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
3PFN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
»LA1NS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
"LAINS
TAf-LELANDS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
5PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
LOCAL FREQ OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
D- 300
2- 500
5-1000
0- 300
3- 500
?- sro
0- 300
3- SCO
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
3- 5CO
C- 300
3- 5C'C
0- 300
5-1000
C- 300
C- 3CO
3- 500
C- 3CO
C- 3CO
3- 50C
0- 300
3- SCO
C- 3TO
3- 5CC
0- 3CO
0- 30C
5-1000
0- 300
5-1000
3- 500
C- 300
0- 300
3- 500
C- 3CC
0- 3PO
0- 3CO
P- SCO
?- 500
0- 3CO
3-500
0- 300
3- 500
3- 500
5-1CPO
0- 3CO
?- SCO
0- 3CO
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
i-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
345
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND MITEOROLOEICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 34
STAT
ST — =
MO
MO
HO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
MO
MO
HO
HO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
MO
M3
HO
HO
HO
MO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HT
HT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
HT
MT
MT
MT
MT
HT
E AND COUNTY
PMELPS
PIKE
PLATTE
POLK
PULASK 1
PUTNAr
R ALL S
R ANDOL PH
RAY
REYNOL DS
* IPLEY
ST CHA RLlS
ST CLA 1R
ST FRANCOIS
ST LOU IS
STE GENEVIEVE
SALINE
SCHUYL E"»
SCOTLAND
SCOTT
SHANNON
SHILEY
STODDA RD
STONE
SULLIVAN
TANEY
TEXAS
VERNON
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WEBS1E h
wOfcTh
WRIGHT
ST LOUIS CITY
MONTANA
bEAVERHEAD
BIG HORN
BLA1NE
BROADWATER
CARBON
CARTER
CASCADE
CMOUTE AU
CUSTEK
DANIEL S
DAWSON
DEfcR LODGE
F ALLON
LAND AREA
1975
677
681
427
637
551
518
47?
47?
572
817
639
551
697
457
499
499
757
306
441
421
99C
5d
82"
449
654
615
1,102
E-3P
426
760
7tt
59C
267
684
61
14S ,567
5,551
5,023
4 ,275
1 ,193
2 ,06<
2,3V
2 ,661
2,92"'
3,756
1 ,443
I ,370
74?
1 ,633
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
DPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-H] LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PL »INS
DPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPfN-HlLLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HI LLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HULS-MTNS
TAFLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TAE>LE LANDS
OPEN-HIi-LS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLE LANDS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL
RELIEF
3- 500
3- 500
C- 3CO
3- 500
3- SCO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
5-1000
3- SCO
0- 3CO
3- 500
3- SCO
3- SCO
5-10CO
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
5-1000
0- 300
C- 300
5-1000
C- 300
5-1000
3- 500
C- 3CO
3- 500
5-10CO
3- SCO
5-10CO
0- 30C
5-1000
3CDO«
5-1000
1-3000
3000*
3000*
5-1000
3000*
3- SCO
5-1000
3- SCO
3- SCO
3000*
5-10CO
fREU OF
1NSTAB1L1
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
SOLAR"
TY RADIAT
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3 -4 0 C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
5-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-4?G
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-40:
346
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND M ETE OROLO& 1 C AL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 35
STATE AND COUNTY
NT
NT
HI
NT
NT
NT
MT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
MT
NT
NT
NT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
«T
M7
MT
MT
MT
NT
MT
MT
NT
MT
MT
MT
NT
MT
KB
NB
KB
NB
FERGUS
FLAT HE AD
GALLAT1N
GARF1ELD
GLACIER
GOLDEN VALLEY
GRANITE
HILL
JEFFERSON
JUDITH PASIK
LAKE
LEWIS ANl CLARK
LIBERTY
LINCOLN
MC CONE
MADISON
MEAGHE R
MINERAL
NISSOULA
MUSSELSHELl
PARK
PETROLEUM
PHILLIPS
PONDER A
POWDER RIVER
POWELL
PRAIRI E
RAVALL I
RICHLAND
ROOSEVELT
ROSEBUD
SANDER S
SHERIDAN
SILVER POt,
STILLWATER
SWEET GRASi
TETON
TOOLE
TREASURE
VALLEY
WHEATLAND
WlbAUX
YELLOWSTONE
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL
NEBRASKA
ADAMS
ANTELOPE
ARTHUR
BANNER
LAND AREA
1975
4
5
£
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
i
1
•»
2
7
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
1
7
2
1
2
2
2
C
2
1
1
1
2
1
t
1
2
76
,2*2
.137
,517
,455
,964
,17t
,737
,927
,65?
,88C
,494
,476
,439
,714
,60'
,52E
,354
.222
,612
,f87
,626
,655
.213
,6A5
.268
,336
,730
,382
,079
,3£T
,T37
,77f
,694
715
.794
,fUC
,294
,95?
985
,974
,420
89C
,642
269
,46?
562
85?
704
73f
LANli
SURFACE FORMS
TABLELANDS
HllLS-PTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-KTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELAND?
DPES-H1LLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
MILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
SPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
TABLELAND?
MILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TAPLE LANDS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
TABLELANDS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HllLS-MTNf
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TAPLELANDS
TABLELAND?
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAISS-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-MILLS-HTNS
LOCAL FREQ OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
3- 500
3000 +
30CO«
3- 500
3000*
5-1000
3000*
1-3000
3000*
3000 +
3000*
3000 +
3- SCO
3000*
5-10CO
3000*
3000«
3COu«
;ooo«
3- SCO
3COO«
3000-»
?- SCO
3000*
5-1000
3000*
?- SCO
30CO +
3- 500
3- 500
5-1000
300C*
3- 500
3000*
3000«
3000 +
3000 +
3- SCO
3- 500
3- 500
3000 +
5-1 OCO
5-10CO
3000 +
0- 300
0- 3CO
3- 5PO
?- 500
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-*00
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
347
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD MtTEOROLC11 CAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 36
STATE AND COUNTY
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
N9
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
KB
NB
N9
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
S^. = EKK S_i.i._— __.
6LA1NE
BOONE
BOX BUTTE
BOTD
bROWN
BUFFALO
6URT
bUTLER
CASS
CEDAR
CHASE
CHERRY
CHEYENNE
CLAY
COLFAX
CUMIKG
CUSTER
DAKOTA
DAkES
DAySON
DEUEL
DIXON
DODGE
DOUGLA S
DUNDY
FILLMOf-E
FRANKL IH
FRONTI ER
FURNAS
GAGE
GARDEN
GARF1E LD
GOSPER
GRANT
GREELE Y
HALL
HAMILTON
HARLAN
HAVES
HITCHCOCK
HOLT
HOOKER
HOWARD
JEFFER SON
JOHNSON
K EARNE Y
* EJTH
Ik EVA PAH*
* 1MB ALL
LAND AREA
1975
71C
683
1 ,065
538
1,216
949
46?
56^
555
71-1
89C
f. ,966
1 ,186
57C
406
571
2.55F
255
1 ,3£6
975
436
475
52£
33!
921
577
57P
962
722
85?
1.67E
56°
464
764
570
53'
537
556
711
712
2,405
722
564
57'
377
512
1,032
76P
95?
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
CPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LA1NS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DL A1NS
DPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
CPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
FREQ OF
SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
3-
1 .
0-
0-
7 _
C-
P-
0-
0-
0-
c-
3-
C-
C-
0-
0-
3-
0-
n_
0-
C-
0-
r _
C-
0-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
T _
3-
C-
3 _
T _
c-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
3-
3-
c-
0-
0-
J _
c-
c-
500
SCO
300
3CC
500
300
3CO
3CO
3CO
300
300
500
30C
300
300
3CO
500
300
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
SCO
500
300
500
500
300
300
300
300
3CG
3CO
500
500
300
3CC
300
SCO
300
300
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40:
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
348
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 37
STATE AND COUNTY
NB
KB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
KNOX
LANCASTER
LINCOLN
LOfcAN
LOtP
AC PHERSON
MADISON
PERR1CK
NORR1LL
NANCE
NEMAH*
NUCKOLLS
OTOE
PAWNEE
PERKINS
PHELPS
PIERCE
PLATTE
POLK
RED hlLLOW
RICHARDSON
ROCK
SALINE
SARPT
SAUNDFRS
SCOTTS BLUFF
SEbARD
SHERIDAN
SHERMAN
SIOUX
STANTON
THAVER
THOMAS
THURSTON
VALLEY
WASHINGTON
HAYNE
WEbSTEB
UHEELE R
YOhK
NEVADA
CHURCHILL
CLARK
DOUGLAS
ELKO
ESMERALDA
EUREK*
hUMBOLDT
LANDS*
LANb AREA
1975
1,107
845
2,522
570
574
856
572
48P
1,40?
429
40C
579
619
432
885
544
57?
667
422
6lt
55C
%C09
575
239
759
726
571
2,46?
567
2,063
431
577
716
3Ef
569
386
442
575
576
577
109,869
*,8E3
7,874
7C2
17,162
2,57:
4,162
9,702
5,621
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-hULS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-PTNS
LOCAL FREfi OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300
0- 300
2- SCO
2- sro
3- 5CC
3- 500
0- 300
0- 3CO
7- SCO
0- 30C
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
C- 3CO
C- 300
0- 2 CO
C- 3fO
2- SCO
P- 3CO
0- 300
C- 300
?- SCO
C- 3CO
C- 3CO
C- 300
2- 5CC
0- 3CO
C- 300
3- SCO
C- 3CO
0- 30L
0- 3CO
3- 500
0- 3CO
2- SCO
0- 2 CO
0- 300
C- 300
3- SCO
0- 300
1-3000
1-300C
3000*
3000*
1-2CCO
1-30CO
300C«
2GDO«
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-13
-15
-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
2-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
4-50C
500-
4-500
3-400
500-
4-50C
3-40C
4-5CO
349
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND *tTE0ROLOC 1C A I PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 3P
STATE AND COUNTY
CB :
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
: = = * = =*====.= " = === —
LINCOLN
LtON
MINERAL
KYE
ORMSbY
PERSHI NG
STOREY
hASHOE
bHITE PINE
CARSON CITY CITY
NEb HAMPSHIRE
fcELKNAP
CARROLL
CHESHI RE
COOS
GRAFTCN
H1LLSB OROUbH
fcERR 1MACC.
KOCKINGHAM
STfcAF F OPL
SULL IVAN
NEb JERSEY
ATLANT 1C
BERGEN
fcURLINGTON
C AMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
6LOUCE STEP
HUDSON
HUNTER DON
MERCER
MIDDLE SE »
MONMCU TH
MORRIS
CCEAN
PASSAI C
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
b AhR EN
NEb MEXICO
bEKNAL ILLO
CATRON
CHAVES
COLf AX
CURRY
LAND AREA
1975
:;=i=== ========
1C. 649
;,P3C
3 ,765
1f ,064
0
6,001
262
f ,366
F.904
15C
9,027
400
93F
715
1 ,82C
1 ,732
887
93C
691
376
53°
7,521
569
234
810
221
267
5CC
13G
329
47
423
228
312
476
468
642
192
365
307
527
103
362
121 ,412
1,169
6,897
t ,0£4
3,764
1,403
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
====== =========.==
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTN5
H1LLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
O^EN-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
H1LLS-PTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
PL A1NS-H1 LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
=======:
1-3000
3000*
1-30CO
1-3000
1-30CO
3000 +
300C-?
3000*
1-30CO
1-30CO
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-30CO
3- 5^0
5-10CO
1-30CO
C- 3CC
3- 5TO
C- 3CC
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3?G
3- 500
0- 3CO
3- 5CO
3- 500
C- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
5-1000
C- 300
5-1000
0- 300
3- 50C
3- 500
3- SCO
3- 500
3000*
3000*
0- 30u
5-10PO
0- 3CC
FRC6 OF
1NSTAB1L1
!" = = = =«= =
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
SOLAR
TY RADIAT
•: = = === = = =
4-500
4-500
500-
500-
4-560
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
-3CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
500-
500-
500-
4-500
4-SOC
350
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGILAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 39
STATE AND COUNTY
NM
NM
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NM
NM
NM
NX
NM
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NX
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NV
NT
6E BACA
DONA ANA
EOCT
GRANT
GUADALUPE
HARDING
HlbALGO
LEA
LINCOLN
LOS ALAMOS
LUNA
MC RINLET
MORA
CTERO
bUAT
RIG ARRIBA
ROOSEVELT
SANDOVAL
SAN JUAN
SAN MIGUEL
SANTA FE
SIERRA
SCCORPO
TAOS
TOfcRANCE
UNION
VALENC IA
NEb TOR*
ALbANT
ALLEGAhY
tfiCNX
E-ROOME
CATTARAUGUS
CAYUG*
CHAUTAUOUA
CHEMUNG
CHiNANGO
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CORTLAND
DELAWARE
CUTCHESS
ERIE
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
FULTON
GENESE E
GREENE
HAMILTON
LAND AREA
1975
?
3
4
3
?
2
t
4
4
?
c
1
(
?
c
2
3
c
t
1
4
t
2
t
t
c
-c r ,ooc
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
,356
,804
,16?
,97?
,998
.134
,447
,393
,85?
1C8
,957
,454
,94C
,638
,675
,843
,454
,714
,5CO
,741
,90?
,166
,6C*
,256
,346
,P 16
,656
,CC7
526
,047
41
714
,31P
698
,081
415
903
,050
645
5C2
,443
813
,05E
.823
,674
498
501
653
.735
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HULS-MTNS
PLAINS
M1LLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
"LA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
TtlLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HULS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
TABLELAND;
M1LLS-KTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
CPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TAbLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TAtLELANDS
PLAINS
H11LS-MNS
OPEN-HILLf-MTNS
LOCAL FREC OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
3- 500
1-3000
0- 300
3000*
3- SCO
5-10CO
5-1000
0- 30C
1-300C
3000*
5-1000
5-1000
5-1000
1-3000
3- SCO
3000*
0- 3CO
5-1000
5-1000
5-10CO
5-1000
3000*
3COO*
3000*
3- 500
5-1000
3COO*
1-3000
5-1 OCO
0- 30C
5-10PO
5-1000
C- 300
3- 500
5-1000
5-1000
5-1000
3- 500
5-1000
1-3000
3- SCO
0- 300
1-3000
1-3000
3- 5PO
0- 30C
1-3000
1-30CC
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
26-35
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
500-
500-
500-
500-
500-
4-500
500-
4-500
500-
500-
500-
500-
4-50C
500-
4-500
4-500
4-500
500-
500-
5CO-
500-
500-
500-
4-500
500-
4-500
500-
-300
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
-300
-300
-300
3-400
-30C
-300
351
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND »ETECROLOtICAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 40
LAND AREA
STATE ANC COUNTY 1975
NT
NT
NT
NY
NY
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NY
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
HERKIHER
JEFFER SON
K INGS
LEKIS
LIVINGSTON
MADISON
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
NASSAU
NEW TO Kit
NIAGARA
CNEIDA
ONONDA GA
CNTAR 1 0
ORANGE
ORLEAN S
OSbEGC
OTSEGC
PUTNA''
CUEENS
RENSSELAER
RICHMOND
fc OCKLA NO
ST LAWRENCE
SARATOGA
SCMENE CTADT
SCHOHAFIE
SCHUTL EC
SENECA
STEUBE N
SUF FOL K
SULLIVAN
TIOGA
TOBPIU NS
ULSTER
WARREN
WASHINGTON
yATNE
WESTCHESTER
WYOMING
TATES
NORTH CAROLINA
ALAMAN CE
ALEXANDER
ALLE6HAN Y
ANSON
ASHE
AVF.HY
BEAUFORT
1,435
1 ,294
7C
1,291
63£
661
675
4 OF
289
2?
532
1,223
794
651
?33
396
964
1 ,C13
231
10f
665
5P
176
2,7fcf
eif
207
624
330
330
1 ,4ic
929
9e:
524
482
1 ,141
867
836
606
44?
59E
343
4E ,798
42E
259
225
533
426
245
826
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PL AINS
TAELf LANDS
TAPLE LANDS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
"LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS-MLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLE LAND!
T4E-LE LAND?
H1LLS-MTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-hlLLS-^TNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
3FEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLMNS-HILLS-HTNS
HI LLS-fTNS
PLAINS
H1LLS-PTNS
MILLS -MTNS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
3- SCO
0- 3CO
C- 3TO
3- SCO
3- SCO
3- SCO
C- 3CC
3- SCb
C- 300
C- 300
C- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
3- SCO
0- 3 CO
0- 3CO
5-1COC
3- 500
0- 300
3- SCO
C- 3CO
3- 500
0- 3CC
3- 50C
?- 500
1-30CO
5-1000
3- 500
5-1CCC
0- 30C
5-1000
5-1000
5-1 COG
1-30CC
1-30CC
5-10CC
C- 300
3- 500
3- 500
3- 500
C- 300
5-1000
1-3000
C- 300
1-3000
1-3CCO
C- 30C
FREG OF
INSTAFjlLlTY
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
RACIAT
-300
-300
3-40C
-300
3-40C
-300
3-40C
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
-300
3-40C
3-400
-300
3-400
3-40C
-300
-300
-300
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
352
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOBOLO&ICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 41
STATE AND COUNTY
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
BERTIE
BLADEN
BRUNSWICK
BUNCOMBE
BURKE
CABARRUS
CALDWE LL
CAMDEN
CARTERET
CASWEIL
CATAUB A
CHATHAM
CHEROK it
CHOUAN
CLAY
CLEVELAND
COLUMPUS
CRAVEN
CUMBER LAND
CURRITUO
DARE
DAVIDSON
CAVIE
DUPL1N
DURHAM
EDGECOMPE
FORSYTH
rRANKL IN
6ASTON
GATES
GRAHAM
GRANVILLE
GREENE
6U1LF ORD
HALIFAX
HARNETT
HAYUOOC
HENDERSON
HERTFORD
HOKE
HYDE
1REDELL
JACKSON
JOHNSTON
JONES
LEE
LENOIR
LINCOLN
HC DOtfELL
LAND AREA
1975
698
683
856
657
511
367
469
23S
536
42P
39*
709
452
177
209
46P
945
699
654
246
391
549
2fc
?15
295
51C
419
491
35t
337
292
537
267
655
734
6CJ
551
378
353
369
613
572
491
797
467
256
400
29?
436
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-hlLLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAlNS-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
»LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTM
LOCAL FREB OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAOIAT
0- 3CO
D- 300
C- 3CC
1-3000
1-30CO
C- 300
1-3000
0- 30C
0- 3CO
0- 300
5-1000
0- 3CO
1-3000
0- 300
1-3000
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CC
0- 3CO
C- 300
C- 3PC
0- 3CO
C- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
1-3CCO
0- 3CO
0- 30C
0- 300
C- 3CO
0- 300
1-3000
1-3COO
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
1-3000
C- 300
0- 3PC
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
1-30CO
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-Z5
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-50C
4-50C
3-400
3-400
4-50C
3-400
4-500
3-4CC
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
4-50C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-40C
3-40C
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
353
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND M £TE0ROLO11CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 42
STATE AND COUNTY
= =-'
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
Nt>
==============
MACON
HAD1 SON
MARTIN
HECKLE NPURt
MTCHE LL
MONTGOMERY
MOORE
NASH
NEW HANOVER
NORTHA MPTON
ONSLOW
ORANGE
PAMLIC 0
P ASQUOTANK
PENDER
PEROUI MANS
PERSON
PITT
POLK
RANDOLPH
KI CHMOND
ROBESON
ROCK 1NGHAM
ROkAN
RUTHER FORD
SAMPSON
SCOTLAND
STANLY
STOKES
SURRY
SWAIN
TRANSYLVANIA
TYRREL L
UNION
VANCE
WAKE
W ARR EN
WASHINGTON
WATAUG A
WAYNE
WILKES
WILSON
Y ADK IN
YANCEY
NORTH DAKOTA
ADAMS
BARNES
BENSON
bILLINGS
LAND AREA
1975
===================
513
450
455
530
215
468
704
544
H5
536
765
400
338
22F
871
246
401
655
239
798
475
94«
569
523
563
945
31^
39?
457
536
524
382
39C
639
249
858
424
343
317
557
757
375
336
312
6$ ,277
989
1 ,479
1 ,403
1,139
LAND
SURFACE fORMS
= == = = ====== = = = = = ==:
HI LLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
"LA1NS-H1 LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
BLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
"LAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
BLAINS-HULS-MTNJ
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HI LLS-MTNS
H1LLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL
RELIEF
E s r = r — ~
1-3000
1-30CO
0- 300
0- 300
1-3000
3- 500
0- 300
C- 300
0- 30C
0- 300
C- 3CO
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
C- 300
1-300C
3- SCO
C- 3CO
C- 300
0- 300
C- 3CO
5-1COC
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
5-1000
1-3CCO
1-3000
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
1-3200
0- 300
5-10CO
0- 300
5-1CPO
1-3000
3- 5CC
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
5-1000
FREC OF
INSTABILITY
=======e====:
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
SOLAR
RADI AT
=======
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-50C
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-40C
3-400
4-50Q
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-50C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
<.-5CG
3-400
3-400
3-4CC
3-400
3-40C
3-400
354
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND f ETEO ROLO 11 C AL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 43
STATE AND COUNTY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
60TTINEAU
BObRAN
BURKE
BURLE1GH
CASS
CAVALI EP
DICKEY
DIVIDE
DUNN
EDCY
EMNONS
fOSTEP
GOLDEN VALLEY
GRAND FORKS
GRANT
GRI66S
HETTlNGEk
UDDER
LA MOURE
LOGAN
HC HENRY
HC INTOSH
ft KENZ1 E
HC LEAN
MERCER
NORTON
HOUNTRA1L
NELSON
OLIVER
PEM61NA
PIERCE
RAMSEY
RANSOH
RENVILLE
RICHLAND
ROLETTE
SARGENT
SHERIDAN
SIOUX
SLOPE
STARK
STEELE
STUTSMAN
TOMNEC
TRA1LL
bALSH
WARD
WELLS
WILLIAMS
LAND AREA
1075
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
1
1
?
1
2
,677
,170
,110
.625
,745
,51?
,143
,;oo
,99?
e35
,503
645
,014
,438
,66*
710
.13*
,358
.136
,001
,87«
99?
,735
,C65
,C4?
,9?:
,ei9
995
721
,1 24
, - 3F
.24?
861
£86
.44*;
913
853
989
,103
,225
,316
71C
,264
,043
861
,286
,044
,299
,064
LAND
SURFACE FORKS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAlNS-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLb-KTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TADLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-hlLLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
LOCAL
BELIEF
0-
3-
0-
0-
0-
0-
P-
p-
3-
0-
0-
p-
3-
c-
3-
0-
3-
0-
0-
c-
o-
0-
5-1
0-
7 _
T .
0-
0-
3-
P-
P-
P-
0-
c-
c-
c-
0-
0-
3-
3-
T _
P-
0-
c-
c-
c-
c-
0-
3-
300
500
300
3CO
3CC
300
300
30C
SCO
30C
3CC
300
500
300
500
3TO
5CG
300
300
300
300
3PO
OCO
300
SCO
SCO
3CC
3PO
5PO
300
300
3PO
30C
3CO
300
300
3PO
300
5CC
500
500
300
300
3CO
300
3CC-
300
3PC
5CC
FREC OF SOLAR
INSTABILITY RADIAT
6-15 3-40C
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-43C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-4CC
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
355
-------
TOP06KAPH1CAL AND MtTE0ROLO61CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 44
ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
CH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
CH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
ATE AND COUNTY
OHIO
ADAMS
ALLEN
ASHLAND
ASHTAPULA
ATHENS
AUGLAI 21
BELMGN T
bRoy N
bUTLER
CARROL L
CHAMPA IGN
CLARK
CLERMONT
CLINTON
COLUMP IANA
COSHOC TON
CRAW FORD
CUYAHCGA
DAftKE
DEFIANCE
DEL**.* RE
ERIE
FA1RF I ELD
FAYETT E
FRANKL IN
FULTON
GALL 1*
GEAUGA
GREENE
GUERNS EY
HAM1 LT ON
HANCOC K
HARDI*
HARR I S ON
HENR Y
HIGHLA ND
HOCKING
HOLMES
HURON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
KNO»
LAKE
LAWRENCE
LICKING
LOGAN
LOfcAIN
LUCAS
LAND AREA
1«75
40,975
587
41C
424
700
504
4or
534
490
471
39?
432
402
45P
410
534
562
404
456
605
412
45C
264
50'
404
53F
407
471
407
415
52?
414
522
467
401
416
549
421
424
497
4 19
411
521
231
456
666
46C
495
343
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
H1LLS-KTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLE LANDS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
TAPLE LANDS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
3- SCO
0- 3TO
3- SCO
C- 2CO
5-1COC
C- 300
5-1000
3- 500
3- 500
5-1CCO
0- 3CC
0- 300
3- SCO
C- 3CC
5-1000
5-1000
0- 300
3- 5Co
0- 300
r- 300
C- 300
C- 300
3- SCO
C- 300
0- 3PO
0- 300
5-1000
0- 300
0- 3?C
5-1000
2- 500
0- 300
0- 300
5-1COO
0- 300
0- 300
5-1CCO
3- 500
0- 300
5-1000
5-1 COG
2- 500
0- 300
5-1000
2- 5CC
G- 3CG
0- 300
0- 3CO
FREC OF
INSTABILI
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
t-15
6-15
SOLAR
TY RADIAT
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40G
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40G
2-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CC
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
2-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
356
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOG 1CAL PROFILES Of COUNTIiS
PAGE 45
STATE AN 6 COUNTY
OH
ON
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
MADISON
MAMOhl NG
MAR 1C*
MEDINA
MEI6S
MERCE»
MIAMI
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
HOfiGAK
MORRCW
MUSKINGUM
NObLE
OTTAWA
PAULU NG
PESRY
PICKAWAY
PIKE
PORTAGE
PREbLE
PUTNAF
RICHLAND
ROSS
SANOUSKY
SC10TO
SENECA
SHELBY
STARK
SUMMIT
TRUMBULL
TUSCAR AUAS
UNION
VAN WERT
VINTON
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAVNE
WILLIAMS
WOOD
WYANDOT
OKLAHOMA
ADA1R
ALFALFA
ATOKA
BEAVER
BECKHAM
BLAINE
fcRYAN
CAODO
LAND AREA
1975
463
415
4C5
425
436
444
407
456
45"
420
403
651
39f
261
417
410
504
44?
495
427
486
496
6B7
4C9
606
551
408
576
408
608
569
434
409
411
408
641
561
421
619
406
68.762
57C
!6f
991
1,790
907
917
869
1.272
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-P TNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
H1LLS-KTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
H1LLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD1AT
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
5-1000
0- 300
0- 300
5-10CO
0- 3CO
5-1000
0- 300
5-1000
5-1000
0- 300
C- 300
5-1000
0- 300
5-1000
C- 300
0- 3CC
0- 300
3- 500
5-1000
0- 3CO
5-1000
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
3- 500
0- 3CO
5-1000
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
3- 50C
5-1000
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
C- 300
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-iS
16-tS
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
357
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND *ETEOOOLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 46
STATE AND COUNTY
XX
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
CMC
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
CANADIAN
CARTER
CHEROK EE
CHOCTA b
C IMARRON
CLEVELAND
COAL
COMANCHE
COTTON
CRAIG
CREEK
CUSTER
DELAyA RE
DEhEY
ELLIS
GARFIELD
GARVIN
GRADY
GRANT
GREEK
HARMON
HARPER
HASKELL
HUGHES
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JOHNSTON
KAY
KINGFI SHED
KIOVA
LATIME R
LE FLORE
LINCOLN
LOGAN
LOVE
MC CLA1N
MC CURTAIN
MC INT OS H
MAJOR
MARSHALL
MAVES
MURRAY
MUSKOGEE
NOBLE
NOWATA
CKfUSK EE
OKLAHOMA
OKMULGEE
OSAGE
LAND AREA
1975
897
83T
756
778
1,843
527
526
1 ,084
651
764
936
98C
707
1,018
1,242
1 ,054
814
1 ,D96
1 ,007
633
545
1,041
6C2
807
810
78C
63F
950
904
1,027
737
1 ,560
973
751
513
573
1 ,800
60P
963
366
64P
423
81?
743
537
637
700
700
2,272
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELAND?
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PL A 1 N S
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
3- SCO
3- 500
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 30C
1-3000
1-30CO
1-3000
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3DO
0- 3CO
5-1000
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
3- 500
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
FREC OF
INSTABILITY
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
SOLAR
RADI AT
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
358
-------
TAPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 47
STATE AND COUNTY
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
0*
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OTTAWA
PAWNEE
PATNE
PITTSBURG
PONTOTOC
POTTAWATOMIE
PUSMMATAHA
ROGER HILLS
ROGERS
SEMINOLE
SE6UOTAH
STEPHENS
TEXAS
TlLLMAN
TULSA
WAGONER
WASHINGTON
WASHITA
WOODS
WOODWARD
OREGON
EAKER
fcEMON
CLACKAMAS
CLATSOP
COLUMBIA
COOS
CROOK
CUBBY
DESCHUTES
POU&LAS
GILLIAN
GRANT
HARNEV
HOOD RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JOSEPHINE
KLAHATH
LAKE
LANE
LINCOLN
LINN
MALHEUR
MARION
MORROW
MULTNOMAH
POLK
SHERMAN
LAND AREA
1975
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
96
i
1
1
2
1
2
5
1
4
1C
2
1
1
5
t
4
2
9
1
2
t
t
t
t
t
•
i
t
•
•
t
r
f
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
t
t
t
t
l
f
l
•
464
561
694
2*1
7H
794
420
140
665
63C
696
891
062
901
57?
563
424
00«:
298
251
184
068
668
884
805
639
604
975
627
031
063
208
530
166
523
812
797
625
97C
231
552
986
28!
859
166
060
423
736
830
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-MILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-M1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-MILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
M1LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-M1LLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-MILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 3CC
0- 3CO
0- 3PO
3000*
1-3000
3000*
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
3000 +
3000 +
1-3000
1-300C
3000*
3000*
1-3000
3000*
3000*
3000*
3000«
1-3000
1-3000
3000+
1-30CO
3000*
3000*
3000*
3000 +
3- SCO
1-3000
3000 +
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
-500
-500
-500
-500
-500
-500
-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400-
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
359
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE 48
STATE ANO COUNTY
= = =
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
,I=SX, ================
TILLAMOOK
UMATIL LA
UNION
WALLOW*
WASCO
WASHINGTON
WHEELE R
YAMHIL L
PENNSY LVAN1A
ADAMS
ALLEGHENY
ARMSTR ONG
BEAVEP
BEDFORD
BERKS
BLAIR
BRADFORD
BUCKS
BUTLER
CAMBR 1 A
CAMERCN
CARBON
CENTRE
CHESTE R
CLARION
CLEARF IELD
CLINTON
COLUMB IA
CRAWFORD
CUMBER LAND
t AUPHI N
DELAWA RE
ELK
ERIE
FAYETT t
FOREST
FRANKL IN
FULTON
GREENE
HUNTINGDON
INDIANA
JEFFERSON
JUNIATA
LACKAW ANNA
LANCAS TEh
LAWRENCE
LEBANON
LEH1GH
LU2ERNE
LAND AREA
1975
===========
1,115
3,227
2,032
5.17F
2,381
716
1,707
711
44 ,966
526
728
652
440
1,018
862
530
1,148
614
794
692
401
404
1,115
761
597
1 ,139
899
484
1,012
555
51P
184
807
81!
8C2
419
754
435
576
895
825
652
386
454
946
367
363
348
886
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
= =- = = == = = = = x. = = = = ==i
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
OLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HI LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL
RELIEF
= = *= = = = ••
1-3000
3000*
3000*
3000*
3000*
3- 500
3000*
3- 500
0- 300
1-30CC
1-30CO
1-3CCO
1-3000
1-3COO
1-30CO
5-10CG
3- 500
5-1000
5-10CC
1-3000
5-1000
1-30CO
0- 200
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3COO
3- 500
0- 3CO
1-3000
0- 300
5-100C
0- 300
5-1000
5-10CO
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
5-1000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-300C
0- 300
1-3000
1-3000
FREfc OF
1NSTAB1LI
:rcixxrcrz
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
SOLAR
TY RADIAT
=========
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
360
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 49
STATE AND COUNTY
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Rl
RI
RI
RI
RI
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
sc
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
LYCOM1NG
HC REAM
MERCER
HIFFL1N
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MONTOUR
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
PERRY
PHILADELPHIA
PIKE
POTTER
SCHUYLKILL
SNYDER
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSOUEHANNA
TIOGA
UNION
VENANGO
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WESTMORELAND
WYOMING
YORK
RHODE ISLAND
BRISTOL
KENT
KEWPOR T
PROVIDENCE
WASHINGTON
SOUTH CAROLINA
ABBEVILLE
AIKEN
ALLENDALE
ANDERSON
BAMBERG
BARNbELL
BEAUFORT
BERKELEY
CALHOUN
CHARLESTON
CHEROKEE
CHESTER
CHESTERFIELD
CLARENDON
COLLETON
LAND AREA
1575
1,216
99?
670
431
611
496
13C
376
453
551
129
542
1,092
784
327
1,078
478
833
1 ,146
31F
678
905
857
741
1.C24
39?
90"
1,049
25
173
115
416
321
30,225
506
1,08'
418
749
395
553
579
1,110
377
939
394
584
790
599
1,049
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL FREb OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
1-3000
5-1000
3- 500
1-3000
5-1000
3- 500
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
0- 300
5-10CO
1-3000
1-30CO
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
5-1000
1-3000
1-3000
5-1000
5-1000
1-3000
5-1 OCC
1-3000
5-1000
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 3CO
3- 500
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 3CC
C- 300
6-15
16-25
-15
-15
-15
1 -25
-15
-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-40G
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-40C
3-400
4-500
4-500
361
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES or COUNTIES
PAGE 50
STATE AND COUNTY
=*
SC
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
= = *= = "*===*" =
DARLINGTON
DILLON
DORCHE STER
EDGE FI ELD
FAJRFI ELD
FLORENCE
GEORGE TOWN
GREENVILLE
GREENWOOD
HAMPTON
HORR Y
JASPER
KERSHAw
LANCAS TER
LAURENS
LEE
LEXINGTON
MC CORM1CK
MAKIGN
MARLBORO
NEWBtR fit
OCONEE
ORANGEBURG
PICKENS
R 1CHLA ND
S ALUDA
SPARTANBURG
SUMTER
UNION
WILLIAMS BURG
VOfcK
SOUTH DAKOTA
ARMSTRONG
AURORA
BEADLE
BENNETT
BON HOMME
BROOKI NGS
BROUN
BRULE
BUFFALO
BUTTE
CAMPBELL
CHARLE S MI X
CLARK
CLAY
CODING TON
CORSON
CUSTED
LAND AREA
1975
r====rr:c=r=;==r:=x
543
407
569
462
696
805
81?
792
446
56?
1,154
65?
781
50?
711
409
717
360
487
483
635
654
1 ,10t
49?
748
458
831
67?
514
935
684
75,955
C
709
1 ,259
1 ,181
560
800
1 ,674
818
48?
2,250
732
1 ,097
964
405
687
2,470
1,557
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
= rrr-^ — = -—" = =:-
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL
FREG OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD1AT
===r=£E===
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 3CC
C- 3CO
0- 300
C- 300
5-1000
C- 300
5-1000
0- 300
0- 3CC
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
C- 300
0- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
3- 500
0- 3CO
0- 300
3- 500
1-30CO
=ZX==E1
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
: srr = = = s= s cs
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-5CO
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
362
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METECROLOt1CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 51
STATE AND COUNTY
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
so
se
so
so
se
se
so
so
so
so
se
so
so
so
se
se
se
so
so
so
se
so
so
so
so
se
so
se
so
so
so
so
so
50
se
so
so
so
se
CAVISON
DAY
DEUEL
DEfcEY
DOUGLA S
EDMUNDS
FALL RIVER
FAULK
GRANT
GREGOR Y
HAAKON
HAMLIN
HANO
HANSON
HAfcOING
HUGHES
HUTCHI NSON
HYDE
JACKSON
JERAULD
JONES
KINGSBURY
LAKE
LAfcRENCE
LINCOLN
LYMAN
MC COOK
MC PMERSON
MARSHA LL
MEACE
HELLETTE
MINER
MINNEHAHA
MOODY
PENNINGTON
PERKINS
POTTER
ROBERTS
SANBORN
SHANNON
SP1NK.
STANLEY
SULLY
TODD
TRIPP
TURNER
UNION
bALWOR TH
HASHABAUGH
LAND AREA
1975
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
7
1
I
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
432
,C30
639
,351
435
,154
.74?
996
681
99'
,81t
511
,432
43^
, 6r t
74E
815
8t?
80F
52?
97?
81E
56'
80C
576
,6E?
575
,147
848
,465
,306
570
81?
521
,779
,86C
869
,10?
570
,10C
,505
,414
,004
,38£
,620
612
452
71P
,D61
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
TABLE LANDS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TAEiLELANDS
PLAINS
TABLELAND!.
PLAINS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-PTKS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL FREO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAOIAT
C-
*-
3-
3-
0-
0-
t _
6-
0-
0-
3-
C-
c-
0-
3-
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
3-
0-
c-
300
500
SCO
500
300
300
SCO
300
300
300
500
300
300
300
500
300
300
3CC
SCO
300
500
300
300
1-7000
C-
I-
0-
0-
3-
3-
3-
0-
C-
0-
300
50C
300
30C
SCO
SCO
5 CD
300
300
300
1-3000
T.
0-
c-
0-
T -
0-
3-
0-
3-
3-
0-
C-
0-
*-
500
300
3CC
300
50C
300
500
300
500
500
300
300
3CC
50C
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
363
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND f I TECROLOEIt AL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
52
STATE AND COUNTY
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
WASHINGTON
YANKTON
7UBACH
TENNESSEE
ANDERSON
BEDFORD
BENTON
BLEDSOE
BLOUNT
BRADLE Y
CAMPBELL
CANNON
CARROLL
CARTER
CHE ATH Ah
CHESTE R
CLA1BORNE
CLAY
COCKE
COFFEE
CROCKE TT
CUMBER LAND
DAVIDSON
DECATUR
DE KALb
DICKSON
DYER
FAYETT E
FENTRE SS
FRANKL IS
GlbSON
GILES
GRAINGER
GREENE
GRUNDY
HAMBLEN
HAMILTON
HANCOCK
HARDEMAN
HAR01N
HAWKIN S
HAYUOOD
HENDER SON
HENRY
H1CKMAN
HOUSTON
HUMPHR EVS
JACKSON
JEFFER SON
LAND AREA
1975
C
519
1 ,981
41,32?
335
482
39?
404
575
334
451
271
596
34F
305
265
444
233
424
434
269
67F
5 Of
337
27F
4£5
529
704
498
55?
607
61°
262
613
35?
155
550
23C
656
587
48C
519
515
567
61C
201
53T
323
274
LAND
SURFACE fORMS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAIN S-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-f TNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAlNS-hllLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-hlLLS-MTNS
LOCAL
RELIEF
0- 300
3- SCO
3- 500
3- SCO
3- 500
1-3000
3- 500
3- SCO
1-3000
3- 500
0- 3CO
1-3000
3- 500
0- 300
3- 500
5-1000
3- SCO
3- 5CC
C- 300
1-3COG
3- 5?0
3- SCO
3- SCO
!- 5^0
C- 300
0- 3CO
5-1GCO
1-30CO
0- 30C
3- SCO
3- SCO
3- SCO
5-1CCG
3- SCO
3- 50C
1-30CO
C- 30C
3- SCO
3- SCO
C- 300
C- 300
0- 3CC
3- SCO
3- SCO
3- SCO
5-1000
3- SCO
FREG Of SOLAR
INSTABILITY RADIAT
16-25 3-400
16-25 3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
364
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 53
STATE AND COUNTY
TN
TN
TN
IN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
11
It
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
JOHNSON
KNOI
LAKE
LAUDERDALE
LAURENCE
LEWIS
LINCOLN
LObDON
MC MINN
MC NA1RY
MACON
MADISON
HAS I OH
MARSHALL
MAURY
ME1GS
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
MOORE
MORGAN
OBION
CVERTCN
PERRY
PICKET!
POLK
PUTNAM
SHEA
ROANE
ROBERTSON
RUTHER FOOD
SCOTT
SEBUATCHIE
SEVIER
SHELBY
SMITH
STEWART
SULLIVAN
SUMNER
TIPTON
TROUSDALE
UN1COI
UNION
VAN BUSES
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WEAKLE Y
WHITE
WILLIAMSON
LAND AREA
1
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PPOF1LES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 54
STATE AND COUNTY
SS '
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
T»
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
WILSON
TEXAS
ANDERSON
ANDREW S
ANGELINA
ARANSA S
ARCHER
ARMSTR ONG
ATASCOSA
AUSTIN
BAILEY
BANDER A
BASTROP
BAYLOR
BEE
BELL
BEXAR
BLANCO
BORDEN
BOSOUE
BOWl E
ERAZOR 1*
E-RAZOS
BREWST If
BR1SCOE
BROOKS
BROWN
BURLES ON
BURNET
CALDWELL
CALHOUN
C ALLAHAN
CAMERON
CAMP
CARSON
CASS
CASTRO
CHAMBE HS
CHEROKEE
CHUDRESS
CLAY
COCHRA N
COKE
COLEMA S
COLL IS
COLLINGSWDRTH
COLORA DO
COMAL
COMANCHE
LAND APE A
U75
567
26? ,134
1,07?
1 ,504
738
275
913
907
1,206
66?
835
76?
890
845
842
1 ,047
1 ,246
719
907
99T
891
1,423
566
t ,204
874
904
93F
67C
996
544
527
856
89*
19?
90C
941
88C
616
1 ,049
699
1,102
783
911
1,260
836
894
949
567
944
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HI LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELAND:.
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLE LAND5
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
LOCAL
RELIEF
— S ~ ~ S S S '
3- SCO
3- SCO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CO
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
5-1000
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
5-1000
3- 500
3- 500
C- 300
C- 3CO
C- 3CC
1-3000
3- SCO
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
C- 3CU
0- 300
3- 500
C- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
3- 500
0- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
C- 300
C- 30G
3- SCO
0- 300
5-1CCC
3- 500
MEfa OF
INSTABILITY
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
RADI AT
3-400
4-50C
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
5CC-
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
366
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND *ETEOROLOG1CAL PROFILES 01 COUNTIES
PACE 55
STATE AND COUNTY
TX
11
TX
TI
Tl
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TX
TI
TI
TI
TX
TX
TX
TI
TI
TX
TI
TI
TX
TX
TX
TX
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TX
TX
TI
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CONCHO
COOKE
CORTELL
COTTLr
CRANE
CROCKETT
CROSBY
CULBERSON
OALLAM
DALLAS
DAMSON
DEAF SAITH
DELTA
CENTO*
DE WITT
DICKENS
DIHHIT
DONLET
DUVAL
EASTLA MD
ECTOR
EDWARD S
ELLIS
EL PASO
EftATH
FALLS
F ANNIN
FATETTE
FISHER
FLOYD
FOARD
FORT BEND
FRANKLIN
FREESTONE
FRJO
GA1NES
6ALVES TON
6ARZA
GILLESPIE
GLASSCOCK
60LIAD
GONZALES
GRAY
6RAYSON
tRE6&
GRIPES
CUADALUPE
HALE
HALL
LAND AREA
1975
1,001
90r
1,043
900
795
2,794
911
7,851
1 ,494
?s<;
902
1.51C
276
911
9ir
931
1,344
905
1 ,814
95:
907
2,076
94r
1,057
1,085
764
905
934
904
99?
676
869
293
865
1 ,1H
1,489
399
914
1,055
863
871
1,05<
934
94C
282
801
714
979
885
LANC
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-HILLS-NTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
HILLS-rTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
H1LLS-MTN5
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
BLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-KTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
LOCAL FRE6 Of SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD I AT
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
»- 500
0- 3CO
?- 500
3- 5CC
1-30CO
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
C- 3CO
0- 300
C- 3CC
C- 300
3- 500
C- 300
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
5-10CO
C- 3CC
7000*
C- 300
0- 3CO
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
D- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
5-1000
0- 350
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
C- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
C- 300
C- 300
?- SCO
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-r5
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
500-
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
5CO-
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
367
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 5ft
STATE AND COUNTY
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
T»
TX
TX
TX
Tl
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TI
TX
TX
TI
TI
TX
TX
TX
HAMILTON
HANSFORD
HARDE* AN
HARD1N
HARR IS
HARR IS ON
HARTLE Y
HASKELL
HAYS
HEMPhl LL
HENDER SON
HIDALGO
HILL
HOCKLE Y
HOOD
HOPK IN S
HOUSTON
HOhAfcC
HUOSPE TH
HUNT
HUTCHl NSON
IP10N
JACK
JACK SON
JASPEP
JEFF DAVIS
J EF F if SON
JIM hCGC
JIM WE LLS
JOHNSON
JONES
KARNES
KAUFMA N
KENDALL
KENEDY
KENT
KERR
KIMBLE
K ING
KINNEY
KLEBEPG
KNOX
LAMAR
LAMB
LAMPAS AS
LA SALLE
LAVAC*
LEE
LEON
LAND AREA
1975
844
907
6E7
897
1.72?
894
1 ,486
P77
65C
904
94?
1,54?
1,010
908
426
797
1,237
911
4,554
826
875
1,073
945
85C
907
c ,259
951
1,143
845
74C
95(
758
815
670
1 ,794
88C
1,101
1,274
944
1,393
851
851
894
1,022
726
1 ,500
97?
637
1,102
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HI LLS-KTNS
PLAINS
TfPLE LANDS
TAbLE LANDS
PLAINS-HULS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
H1LLS-FTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TAPLE LANDS
TABLELANDS
TABLE LANDS
TABLE LANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
5-1000
3- 500
3- 500
C- 300
0- 300
C- 300
7- 500
0- 300
0- 300
3- 500
1-7000
0- 300
3- 500
3- 500
7- SCO
C- 300
C- 300
1-70CO
C- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
n- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
5-1000
0- 300
3- 500
3- 500
3- 500
3- 500
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
5-10CO
C- 300
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 3CC
FREO OF
1NSTAB1L J
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
1«-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
TY RA01AT
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
500-
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
50C-
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
368
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOUtAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 57
STATE ANt COUNTY
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
LIBERTY
LIMESTONE
LIPSCOMB
LIVE OAK
LLANO
LOVING
LUbBOCK
LYNN
MC CULLOCH
MC L EN NAN
MC MULLEN
MADISON
MARION
MARTIN
MASON
MATAGORDA
MAVERICK
MEDINA
MENARD
MIDLAND
MILAM
MILLS
MITCHELL
MONTAGUE
MONTGOMERY
MOORE
MORRIS
MOTLEY
NACOGDOCHES
NAVARRO
NEhTON
NOLAN
fcUECES
OCHILTREE
OLDHAA
ORANGE
PALO PINTO
PANOLA
PARKER
FARMER
PECOS
POLK
POTTER
PRESIDIO
RAINS
RANDALL
REAGAN
REAL
RED RIVER
LAND AREA
1975
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
L
1
3
1
1
,180
931
934
.055
941
648
893
915
.366
,00:
.159
48C
3fcr
911
935
.157
,269
,352
914
939
,02F
734
92C
932
,C9C
9C9
260
ogO
902
,?7C
949
922
841
90'
,478
35°
94E
869
903
859
,740
,100
89;
,89?
210
914
,132
622
,033
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TACLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELAND!
PLAINS
PLAlNiS
TABLELANDS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TAFLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAlNS-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS-hlLLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
LOCAL FRE6 OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIA
0-
0-
3-
0-
300
300
500
300
5-1 OCO
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
300
300
3CO
300
300
300
300
300
300
5-1000
0-
0-
0-
;-
0-
0-
J _
3-
T .
0-
0-
0-
3-
3-
C-
0-
3-
0-
0-
3-
0-
3-
0-
3-
0-
300
300
300
500
3CC
300
SCO
500
SCO
3CO
300
300
500
500
3CC
300
SCO
300
300
500
300
500
300
500
300
5-10CO
0-
3-
300
500
1-3000
0-
0-
0-
300
300
30C
5-10CO
0-
300
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
J6-2S
16-iS
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-2S
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-50C
50C-
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
369
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND WETEOHOLOE 1 CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
''PAGE 58
STATE AND COUNTY
TX
TX
TX
T»
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
REEVES
REFUGI 0
ROBERT S
ROBERT SON
ROCKHALL
RUNNEL S
RUSK
SABINE
SAN AUGUSTINE
SAN JA CINTO
SAN PA TR 1C 10
SAN SABA
SCHLE1 CHER
SCURRY
SHACKE LFORC
SHELBY
SHERHA N
SMITH
SOHERVELL
STARR
STEPHE NS
STERLING
STONEWALL
SUTTON
SW1SHE *
TARRANT
TAYLOR
TERRELL
TERRY
THRCCK HO (.TON
TITUS
TOR GREEK
TRAVIS
TRINITY
TYLER
UPSHUR
UPTON
UVALDE
VAL VERDE
VAN 2ANDT
VICTOR 1A
WALKER
WALLER
WARD
WASHINGTON
WEfaP
WHARTON
WHEELS R
WICHITA
LAND AREA
1975
2.6C8
774
899
877
147
1.C5F
939
456
47?
624
685
1,120
1,331
904
887
77E
916
934
197
1,211
899
914
92f
1 ,493
896
861
912
2,391
899
92C
41E
1,500
1 ,012
707
919
5£4
1.712
1,588
?,?41
845
892
79G
509
P27
594
7,306
1,076
914
611
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS"
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
BLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-rTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
LOCAL FHEO OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0-
0-
7 _
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
7 .
0-
0-
3-
0-
c-
0-
7 _
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
0-
p-
3-
3CO
300
SCO
300
300
200
3CO
300
300
3CO
30C
500
300
300
500
3CO
300
300
50C
300
3CO
500
300
3CO
300
30C,
SCO
5-1000
r-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
0-
0-
c-
3-
300
3CO
30C
3CC
300
3CC
300
300
3CC
500
5-10CO
C-
C-
c-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
3-
c-
300
300
300
3CO
300
300
3Cu
300
src
300
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
.16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
96-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
500-
4-5CC
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
" 4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
*-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5CO
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-50C
370
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 59
STATE AND COUNTY
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
UT
OT
UT
UT
L-T
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
WILBARGER
W1LLACV
WILLIAMSON
WILSON
WINKLE R
WISE
WOOD
VOAKU*
YOUNG
2 APATA
ZAVALA
UTAH
BEAVEP
BOX ELDER
CACHE
CARBON
DAG6ETT
DAVIS
CUCHESNE
EMERY
GARFIELD
GRAND
IRON
JUAE
KANE
MILLARD
MORGAN
PIUTE
RICH
SALT LAKE
SAN JUAN
SANPETE
SEVIER
SUMMIT
TOOELE
UINTAH
UTAH
WASATCH
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
UEbER
VERMONT
ADDISON
GENN1NGTON
CALEDONIA
CH1TTENDEN
ESSEX
FRANK! IN
GRAND ISLE
LAND AREA
1975
1
1
62
2
5
1
1
T
i
C
T
1
1
t
t
1
7
1
1
1
6
4
2
1
2
2
f,
9
t
t
•
t
t
i
t
t
•
t
t
t
t
t
9
t
9
t
9
t
1
9
t
f
•
9
952
591
104
802
887
922
721
83C
86?
957
291
096
584
607
174
476
6E?
297
255
439
15F
682
3 DC
412
9C4
79?
60?
754
023
764
70'
597
929
849
92!
467
014
191
427
486
581
267
764
672
612
533
66?
66C
83
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
•LA1NS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-MILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TAFLE LANDS
TAFLELANDS
PLMNS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAlNi-HILLS-KTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-MILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLA1NS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-hlLLS-MTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL FREfc OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
0- 300
P- 300
C- 300
C- 300
0- 3PO
3- 5PO
0- 300
C- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
1-3000
3000*
3000*
1-3COO
3000 +
3000*
3COO*
5-100D
3000*
5-10CO
1-3COO
3000*
1-30CC
3000 +
3000 +
3000 +
1-3COO
3000 +
1-ICCC
3000 +
3000 +
3000*
3000 +
1-3000
3000*
1-30CO
3COO +
3000+
30CC +
5-10CO
1-3000
1-3000
5-1000
1-3000
5-1000
5-1000
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
16-25
26-35
26-35
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
26-35
26-35
16-25
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-40C
4-500
4-50C
3-400
4-50C
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-5-00
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-40C
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-40C
4-50C
4-500
3-400
-300
-300
-300
-300
-300
-300
-SCO
371
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND M ET tO ROLO C I C AL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 60
STATE AND COUNTY
zrs _
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
V*
VA
VA
VA
V«
VA
V«
v»
VA
VA
V«
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
LAMOILLE
ORANGE
ORLEANS
RUTLAND
WASHINGTON
WINDHAP
WINDSOR
VIRGINA
ACCOMA CK
ALBEMA RLE
ALLEGHANY
AMELIA
AMhERST
APPOHA TTCX
ARLINGTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
BEDFOG D
BLAND
EOTETOURT
BRUNSWICK
BUCHANAN
BUCKINGHAM
CAMPBELL
CAROLINE
CARROLL
CHARLES CITY
CHARLOTTE
CHESTERFIELD
CLARKE
CRAIG
CULPEPER
CUMBERLAND
DICKEMSOK
CINUIDDI E
ELIZABETH CITY
ESSEX
FA1RFA X
FAUOUIER
FLOYD
FLUVANNA
FRANKL IN
FREDER ICK
GILES
GLOUCE STER
GOOCHL AND
GRAYSON
GREENE
GREENSVULE
LAND AREA
1975
474
690
715
927
707
7f4
962
30,760
47<
740
444
366
470
345
26
986
540
727
369
54?
579
50£
5£2
529
545
494
181
470
442
174
336
389
291
332
507
o
250
399
660
38?
26E
716
405
367
228
289
452
153
299
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
HILLS-r.TNS
DPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-MTNS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-iHILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
HllLS-MTNS
PLAINS
"LA1KS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
"LAINS
PL A 1 N S
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
M1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
LOCAL
RELIEF
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-30CO
1-30CO
1-30CO
1-3000
C- 300
5-1uCO
1-3UCO
0- 300
5-1CCC
0- 30C
0- 3CO
1-3000
1-3000
5-1000
1-3000
5-1000
C- 3CC
1-BOOO
0- 300
0- 300
0- 30C
1-30CO
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
1-3000
C- 300
0- 3CO
1-3000
0- 300
0- 30C
0- 300
0- 300
1-3000
0- 300
5-1000
0- 300
1-3000
C- 300
0- 3CO
1-3000
5-1000
C- 300
fREO OF
INSTABILITY
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
36-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
RADI AT
— — — «j » — —
-300
-300
-300
-300
-300
-300
-300
3-400
3^400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
372
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AN* METEOROLOHCAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 61
STATE AN* CtUNTY
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
V*
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
HALIFAX
HANOVER
HENRICO
HENRY
HIGHLAND
ISLE OF bIGHT
JAMES CITY
KING AN* QUEEN
kING GEORGE
KING WILLIAM
LANCASTER
LEE
LOUDOUN
LOUISA
LUNENBERG
MADISON
P.ATHEWS
MECKLENBURG
PIDDLE SEX
MONTGOMERY
NANSEPOND
NELSON
NEW KENT
NORFOLK
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOUAV
ORANGE
PAGE
PATRICK
P1TTSYLVAN1A
POWHATAN
PRINCE EDWARD
PRINCE GEORGE
PRINCE WILLIAM
PRINCESS ANNE
PULASKI
RAPPAHANNOCK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
ROCKBRIDGE
SOCK1NGHAM
RUSSELL
SCOTT
SHENANDOAH
SMYTH
SOUTHAMPTON
SPOTSTLVANIA
STAf fORD
LAND AREA
1975
79*
465
229
381
416
317
152
31F
176
?7P
137
436
517
517
44?
327
89
612
13C
394
r
471
?ir
c
22:
19C
3CP
355
316
464
1,001
269
357
276
347
0
32E
267
19C
2tl
601
865
48?
530
507
435
602
409
27C
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
•LAINS-HILLS-MTNS
H1LLS-PTNS
PLAINS
•LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
3PEN-H1LLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL FRE6 OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTAI.ILITY RA»IAT
C- 3CO
0- 300
P- 300
5-1000
1-300C
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3PO
P- 300
0- 300
1-30CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
5-10^0
C- 300
C- 3PO
0- 3CC
5-1000
0- 3CO
0- 300
C- 3CO
C- 300
C- 3CO
0- 3CC
5-1COO
1-30PO
5-1C.CO
5-1000
C- 30C
C- 300
0- 300
0- ICC
5-1CTO
1-JOPC
0- 3PO
5-1000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
1-3000
0- 300
0- 300
C- 30C
U-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
U-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25 ,
16-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
16-25
16-25
U-25
16-25
U-25
U-25
U-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-4CU
3-430
3-4 PC
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CO
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-40C
-40C
-400
-400
-400
-400
-400
3-400
3-4CO
373
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AMD METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE fc2
STATE AND COUNTY
VA SURRY
V« SUSSEX
VA TA2EUELL
VA WARREN
WARWICK
VA WASHINGTON
VA WESTMORELAND
VA WISE
VA WTTHE
VA YORK
ALEXANDRIA CITY
BEDFORD CITY
E-R1STOL CITY
BUENA VISTA CITY
CHARLOTTESV1LLE CITY
CHESAPEAKE CITY
CLIfTON FOI.6E CITY
COLONIAL HEIGHTS CITY
COVIN6TCN CITY
DANVILLE CITY
EMPOSIA CITY
fAlRfA X CITY
FALLS CHLPCH CITY
FRANKLIN CITY
f REDER KKSfcURG CITY
GALAX CITY
HAMPTON CITY
HARRlSONbUfcG CITY
HOPEbELL CITY
LEXINGTON CITY
LYNCHBUPG CITY
MANASSES CITY
MANASSfcS PARK CITY
MART1NSV1LLE CITY
NEWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
NORTON CITY
PETERSBURG CITY
P08UOSON CITY
PORTSMOUTH CITY
RADFORD CITY
RICHMOND CITY
ROANOKE CITY
SALEM CITY
SOUTH BOSTON CITY
SOUTH NORFOLK CITY
STAUNTON CITY
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY
LAND AREA LAND LOCAL FRIG OF SOLAR
1975 SURFACE FORMS RELIEF INSTABILITY RADIAT
277
494
522
219
r
574
229
412
46C
129
15
7
4
T
1C
341
4
f
4
17
2
6
t
4
6
7
55
e
<;
3
25
2
1
11
69
53
4
e
17
29
5
6C
27
U
9
41C
259
PLAINS 0- 300 16-25
PLAINS C- 300 16-25
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS 1-3COO 16-25
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS 1-3000 16-25
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS 1-3000 16-25
PLAINS 0- 3CO 16-25
HILLS-PTNS 1-3000 16-25
OLAINS-HILLS-MTNS 5-1000 16-25
PLAINS 0- 300 16-25
3-400
2-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
374
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AN* HETEOROL06 1C At PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PACE 63
STATE AND COUNTY
LAND AREA
1975
WARWICK CITY
WAYNESBORO CITY
WILLIAMSBURG CITY
WINCHESTER CITY
WA
WA
MA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
bA
WA
WA
bA
bA
WA
WA
bA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
MA
WA
WA
WA
bV
WV
wv
wv
WASHINGTON
ADAMS
ASOT1N
WENTON
CMELAN
CLALLAM
CLARK
COLUMBIA
COWLIT2
•OOGLAS
FERRY
FRANKL IN
GARF1ELD
GRANT
GRAYS HAfcBGR
ISLAND
JEFFERSON
KING
KITSAP
K1TTITAS
KLICKITAT
LEWIS
LINCOLN
MASON
OKANOG AN
PACIFIC
PEND ORE1LLE
PIERCE
SAN JUAN
SKAGIT
SKAHANIA
SNOHOHISH
SPOKANE
STEVENS
THURSTON
WAHKIAKUH
WALLA WALLA
WHATCOH
WHITMAN
YAKIHA
WEST VIRGINIA
BARBOUR
BERKELEY
600NE
BRAXTON
6<
1
1
2
1
1
1
?
1
2
1
1
t
2
1
2
2
e
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
i
4
24
C
7
K
J
.570
.894
63T
.722
,918
.75?
627
85?
,U4
.831
.20?
.253
709
.67'
,9ir
21?
,8C5
.128
393
.31'
,908
.423
.306
962
,3Ci
9CE
.402
.676
179
.735
,672
,098
,758
,*£1
714
261
.262
.126
.15?
,26E
,070
341
316
5C1
511
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
TAPLELANDS
TABLELANDS
3PEN-HILLI-HTNS
NILLS-HTNS
MILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
3PEN-M1LLS-MTNS
OPEN-M1LLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
H1LLS-HTNS
PLAINS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
3PEN-HILLS-MTNS
TABLE LANDS
HILLS-rTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLE LANDS
H1LLS-HTNS
TAE-LELANDS
HILLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
H1LLS-PTNS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
PLAlNS-hlLLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
HILLS-HTNS
HJLLS-fTNS
TABLELAND:
HILLS-HTNS
TABLELANDS
HllLS-HTNS
PLAINS
HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
3PEN-HJLLS-HTNS
HILLS -HTNS
OPEN-H1LLS-HTNS
HILLS-PTNS
HILLS-HTNS
LOCAL FREtt OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAtlAT
3- SCO
1-3000
1-3000
3000 +
3000 +
3- 500
3- SCO
3- SCO
1-30CO
1-3000
0- 3CO
1-3000
0- 300
3- SCO
3- SCO
3000 +
3- 500
3- 5TO
3000 +
1-3CCO
3000 +
3- SCO
3- sno
3000 +
1-30CC
1-3 COG
300C +
1-3000
300C +
3000 +
3000 +
3- 500
1-3000
3- 500
1-3000
0- 300
3000 +
3- 500
1-3000
5-10CO
1-3000
1-30CO
5-1000
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
26-35
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
-30C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
-300
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
-300
3-40C
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
-300
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
375
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND KETE0ROLO61CAL PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 64
ST
wv
wv
WV
yV
yv
UV
yV
yv
yv
yv
WV
wv
yv
yv
yv
yv
• V
uv
• V
wv
uv
yv
yv
yv
yv
yv
yv
yv
yv
wv
wv
yv
yv
wv
yv
yv
wv
uv
wv
wv
WV
wv
wv
yv
yv
yv
wv
uv
wv
ATE AND COUNTY
BROOKE
CAbELL
CALHOUN
CLAY
DODDRI DOE
FAYETTE
GUME"
GRANT
GREENP Rl ib
HAMPSH IRE
HANCOCK
HASDY
HARR ISDN
JACKSON
JEFf ER SOS
k ANAyHA
LEWIS
LINCOLN
LOGAN
MC DOUELL
MARION
MARSHA LL
MASON
MERCER
H1NERA L
MINGO
HONONGAL1A
MONROE
MORGAN
NICHOLAS
OHIO
PENDLE TCN
PLEASANTS
POCAHONTAS
PRESTON
PUTNAM
RALE16H
RANDOLPH
RITCHI E
KOANE
SUMMER S
TAYLOR
TUCKER
TYLER
UPSHUR
y AYNE
UE6STE R
y ETZEL
blfiT
LAND APEA
1975
Sf
279
?fc1
343
31
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOb1CAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 65
STATE AND COUNTY
hV
bOO»
bVONING
blSCONSIN
MI
hi
hi
fal
hi
hi
hi
hi
bl
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
HI
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
bl
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
MI
hi
hi
hi
bl
bl
hi
ADAMS
ASHLAND
bARRON
bAYFlELD
MOWN
BUFFALO
bURNETT
CALUME T
CM1PPE UA
CLARK
COLUMB IA
CRAWFORD
• ANE
DODGE
DOOR
DOUGLA S
CUNN
EAU CLAI
FLORENCE
FOND DU
FOREST
GRANT
GREEN
RE
LAC
GREEN LAKE
lObA
IRON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JUNEAU
kENOSHA
KEbAUNEE
LA CROSS
E
LAFAYETTE
LANGLAOE
LINCOLN
MANITOWOC
MARATHON
MARINETTE
MARQUETTE
MENOMINEE
MILWAUKEE
MONROE
OCONTO
CNtlCA
CUTA6AMU
OZAUKE E
LAND AREA
1975
36P
504
54,4*4
64f
1,03?
8*4
1,4*0
524
711
84C
322
1,01?
1,221
776
568
1,19?,
889
49?
1,305
85?
6*7
4£7
725
1.DC7
1,147
585
354
762
747
999
564
774
272
330
451
64?
856
892
590
1,586
1,378
455
360
23'
915
1,001
1,112
634
23C
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
H1LLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLE-MTNS
PLAINS
•LAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
»LAINS
PLAINS
'LAINS
PLAINS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-MILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
LOCAL MEG OF SOLAR
RELIEF INSTABILITY RAD1AT
3- 500 16-25
1-3000 16-25
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
?-
b-
0-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
1 _
T _
0-
3-
3-
0-
0-
300
300
300
3CO
300
500
300
300
300
300
300
500
300
300
300
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
3CO 6-15
3CO 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
500 6-15
SCO 6-15
300 6-15
500 6-15
500 6-15
3CO 6-15
300 6-15
0- 3CO 6-15
0-
0-
3-
3-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
c-
0-
0-
3-
0-
0-
0-
c-
300 6-15
300 6-15
500 6-15
SCO 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
500 6-15
300 6-15
300 6-15
30C 6-15
300 6-15
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-403
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4DO
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
" "3-400
3-400
3-4CO
377
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOoICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 66
STATE AND COUNTT
"
Wl
Wl
WI
WI
WI
WI
Wl
WI
WI
wl
WI
WI
wl
wl
wl
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
b!
WI
WI
WI
WT
WY
WY
WT
WT
wr
WY
wv
wv
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WY
WT
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
rrrr = =r==r == = - = = - = =:: = =:
PEPIN
PIERCE
POLK
PORTAGE
PRICE
RACINE
RICHLAND
ROCK
RUSK
ST CR01X
SAUK
SAwTER
SHAWANO
SHEBOTGAN
TAYLOS
TREHPE ALEAU
VEHNON
VILAS
k'ALWORTH
WASHBURN
WASHINGTON
WAUKESHA
k AUPAC A
WAUSHA RA
WINNEB AGO
WOOD
WYOMING
ALBANY
BIG HORN
CAMPBELL
CARBON
CONVERSE
CROOK
FREMONT
GOSHEN
HOT SPRINGS
JOHNSON
LARAMIE
LINCOLN
NATRONA
NIOBRA RA
PARK
PLATTE
SHERIDAN
SUbLETTE
SWEETWATER
TETON
U1NTA
WASHAK IE
LAND
AREA
1975
========
1
1
97
4
3
4
7
4
=
t
t
t
t
t
*
*
t
« s =
235
59C
931
806
260
337
583
721
906
734
841
259
919
505
975
735
802
867
557
817
429
554
751
627
44F
807
20?
24?
157
756
905
281
?,882
9
2
c.
4
2
4
c
2
6
2
2
4
1C
4
2
2
t
t
t
,
•
,
,
•
t
>
•
ff
ff
*
•
•
196
228
022
175
703
C85
342
614
959
086
532
851
429
000
086
262
LAND
SURFACE FORMS
ir=m== = = = = = = = = = =:
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
DPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-HTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
PLAINS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS
PLA1NS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS
PLAINS-H1LLS-MTNS
TABLELANDS
TABLELANDS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
OPEN-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
HILLS-MTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-HTNS
PLAINS-HILLS-MTNS
LOCAL
RELIEF
======='
3- SCO
3- 500
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
0- 300
3- SCO
0- 300
0- 3CC
3- 500
3- 500
0- 30C
C- 300
0- 3CC
0- 300
3- SCO
3- 500
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 3CO
0- 300
0- 300
C- 300
0- 300
0- 300
C- 3CO
0- 3CO
300C*
3- SCO
5-1CCO
3- SCO
0- 300
1-3000
C- 300
5-1COO
3- 500
0- 300
3- 500
3- 5CC
3- 500
5-1000
3- 500
5-1000
3000«
1-3000
3000*
1-3000
3- 500
FREO OF
INSTABILITY
=============
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
6-15
16-25
6-15
6-15
16-25
6-15
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
16-25
SOLAR
RAD I AT
=======
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-40C
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CC
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-400
3-4CC
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-50C
3-400
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
3-400
3-400
4-500
4-500
4-500
4-500
3-400
4-500
4-500
378
-------
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL PROFILES OF COUNTIES PAGE 67
* LAND" AREA LAND LOCAL FREC'OF"SOLAR"
STATE AND COUNTY 1975 SURFACE FORMS RELIEF INSTABILITY RAO I AT
XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSXS£XXXX==X=SS£X£XX£==XXXXXXX£XXXXXXXXXXSE£XX£KXC'CSSXXXXXX£rx XB
HY HESTON 2.407 HILLS-NTNS 3000« 16-25 3-400
YELLOWSTONE NAT. PARK T
379
-------
00
o
Figure H-I. PFRCENT FREQUENCY - NEUTRAL CATEGORY - ANNUAL
-------
u>
00
\->
f^r^-^
* 3* i ' T --V
h3 i < 3i 1 3 r r— , r- i
/ f-J_lj j \3 3 ,'3 2 ! -3^.. r^'^ ; S.
/'<*'> \<* 3 '* ' i *. V^~^. i -77^) X*#
j ~~-r-. I ' « / >3 3 ' x\ *', 1 T ' /^-Z"23 1'-. K-v
^ r — — ' f ,3 2. *:•] / -2 ^fy ^rz 3 JN ,.^>/?
i ^ < / ./ 3 ;, - ^ 3 v-3-i .....f^x:11 3 \cr
V c , / * •-7----^.-..., 3 \ ,* 3"2 "3 }, \i>v
r \ '/• ,- « -.-.-.- _.\— •% i,,'1/'-'^^
( • \ / . s ' ^ '3 3"f 3 \- ; ,J^r / • ^ "
\v w — ^. L ; 2 3 3 \>-r s.J^. -X
Vv« <4 '. i | -l 3 H < . '—*• 34 4 '\
\ }'.'!' :• ' • ' ~';-,-V-^-^yx
-< . < !- "— s / 1 "\''\/
^-XT-J- / j; 'f;/; • '.!. /
c^^X ^ ^" ; ^•'•V:tei:^x\
\ ' X x/\ 3 sv>->->x^4 ^ »>
<» ^ X v J y^ X \
p ";\ \ "U V
^ x'^,2*"^^ °
'T^ ^W ~s> r7— ^--.,.v-'
-4tt£r* ' ALASKA * ' > HAWAII /^? . /~^S — . — ' "^
~-f^< o i «D V, °»"«> ^ J? * " — -^ "1 •" — •. .5---
«»^*^ ^«=»««=3 \^ -X* |" KKTO'llll.'O'AX:)
1 ! VIHC.IN ISJ.AN'.'S
Figure H-2. PERCENT FREQUENCY - STABLE CATEGORY - ANNUAL
-------
KEY
CODE VALUE
0
RANGE OF
PERCENT FREQUENCY
1 6-15
2 16-25
3 26-35
4 36 - A5
5 46-55
6 56 - 65
? 66-75
8 76 - 85
9 86-95
10 96 - 100
Reference: Doty, S.R. et al , PL C1 immatologi cal Analysis of
Pasqui11 Stabi1ity Categories Based on 'STAR'
Summaries, National Climatic Center, April 1976
382
-------
oo
U)
\
• *
!( H.
Figure 11-3. Percentage of all 1115 GMT soundings with a surface-based or elevated inversion below 3000 m AGL
-------
U)
00
Figure H-4. MEAN ANNUAL NUMBER OF DAYS MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE 90"F AND ABOVE
Except 70" and Above in AbsUa
-------
METROPOLITAN
BIRMINGHAM
INTRASTATE
ALABAMA
AND
TOMBIGBEE
RIVERS
INTRASTATE
TENNESSEE RIVER VALLEY (ALABAMA)
CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS (TENNESSEE)
INTERSTATE
EAST
ALABAMA
INTRASTATE
COLUMBUS (GEORGIA)
PHENIX CITY (ALABAMA)
INTERSTATE
MOBILE (ALABAMA) • PENSACOLA • PANAMA CITY
(FLORIDA) - SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI INTERSTATF
SOUTHEAST
ALABAMA
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Alabama.
Alabama
385
-------
oo
\*
NORTHERN
ALASKA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEASTERN
ALASKA
INTRASTATE
COOK INLET
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
ALASKA
INTRASTATE
(four non-
contiguous areas)
Air Quality Control Regions In Alaska.
-------
CLARK-
MOHAVE
INTERSTATE
(NEVADA,
ARIZONA)
PHOENIX
TUCSON
INTRASTATE
FOUR
CORNERS
INTERSTATE
(ARIZONA,
COLORADO,
NEW MEXICO,
UTAH)
: ARIZONA-
NEW MEXICO
SOUTHERN
BORDER
Air Quality Control Regions in Arizona.
Arizona
387
-------
METROPOLITAN
FORT SMITH
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
OKLAHOMA)
HORTHWEST
W! KANSAS
IM HASTATE
NORTHEAST
ARKANSAS
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN MEMPHIS
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
MISSISSIPPI-
TENNESSEE)
SHREVEPORT- ,
TtXARKANA-/!
TYLER
INTERSTATE
[ARKANSAS
LOUISIANNA-
OKLAHOMA-
TEXAS)
CENTRAL
ARKANSAS
INTRASTATE
MONROE- *
EL DORADO
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
LOUISIANNA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Arkansas.
Arkansas
388
-------
NORTH COAST
INTRASTATE
NORTHEAST
PLATEAU
INTRASTATE
SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA
INTRASTATE
GREAT BASIN
'ALLEYS
INTRASTATE
SACRAMENTO
VALLEY
INTRASTATE
NORTH CENTRA
COAST
INTRASTATE
SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
COAST
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
LOS ANGELES
INTRASTATE
SAN DIEGO
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEAST
DESERT
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in California.
California
389
-------
o
si
YAMPA
INTRASTATE
GRAND MESA
INTRASTATE
FOUR CORNERS
INTERSTATE
SAN LUIS /
INTRASTATE
SAN ISABEL
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
DENVER
INTRASTATE
PAWNEE INTRASTATE
COMANCHEE
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Colorado.
-------
NORTHWESTERN
CONNECTICUT
INTRASTATI
u>
vo
o
o
=1
=1
CD
O
o'
NEW JERSEY-
NEW YORK-
CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATI
HARTFORD-
NEW HAVEN-
SPRINGFIELD
INTERSTATE
(CONNECTICUT-
MASSACHUSETTS)
EASTERN
CONNECTICUT
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Connecticut,
-------
METROPOLITAN
PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE
(DELAWARE-
NEW JERSEY-
PENNSYLVANIA)
SOUTHERN
.DELAWARE
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Delaware.
Delaware
392
-------
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
INTERSTATE
(DISTRICT OF
COLUMB1A-
NIARYLAND-
VIRGINIA)
Air Quality Control Region in the District of Columbia.
District of Columbia
393
-------
JACKSONVILLE-
BRUNSWICK
INTERSTATE
(FLORIDA-
GEORGIA)
MOBILE-
PENSACOLA-
PANAMA CITY
SOUTHERN
MISSISSIPPI
INTERSTATE
(ALABAMA-
FLORIDA)
CENTRAL
FLORIDA
INTRASTATE
WEST CENTRAL
FLORIDA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHWEST"
FLORIDA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEAST
FLORIDA
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Florida.
Florida
394
-------
CHATTANOOGA
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
TENNESSEE)
NORTHEAST
GEORGIA
INTRASTATE
AUGUSTA-
AIKEN
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH. CAROLINA)
CENTRAL
GEORGIA
INTRASTATE
SAVANNAH-
BEAUFORT
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
1 SOUTH CAROLINA)
METROPOLITAN
ATLANTA
INTRASTATE
COLUMBUS-
PHENIX CITY
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
ALABAMA)
SOUTHWEST
GEORGIA
INTRASTATE
JACKSONVILLE-
BRUNSWICK
INTERSTATE
(FLORIDA-
GEORGIA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Georgia.
Georgia
395
-------
re
U) OJ
STATE OF HAWAII
Air Quality Control Region in Hawaii (principal islands).
-------
EASTERN
WASHINGTON-
NORTHERN
IDAHO
INTERSTATE
METROPOLITAN
BOISE
INTRASTATE
IDAHO
(INTRASTATE
EASTERN
IDAHO
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Idaho.
Idaho
397
-------
METROPOLITA
DUBUQUE
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
ILLINOIS-
WISCONSIN)
METROPOLITAN
QUAD
CITIES
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS'
IOWA)
BURLINGTON-
KEOKUK
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
ILLINOIS)
WEST CENTRAL-
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
ROCKFORD-
JAIYIESVILLE-
BELOIT
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
WISCONSIN)
METROPOLITAN
CHICAGO
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
INDIANA)
NORTH
CENTRAL
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
•EAST
CENTRAL
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
ST. LOUIS
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
MISSOURI)
SOUTHEAST
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
PADUCAH-
CAIRO
INTERSTATE
(KENTUCKY-
ILLINOIS)
Air Quality Control Regions in Illinois.
Illinois
398
-------
METROPOLITAN
CHICAGO
INTERSTATE
(INDIANA-
ILLINOIS)
WABASH
VALLEY
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
INDIANAPOLIS
INTRASTATE
EVANSVILLE-
OWENSBORO-
HENDERSON ,
INTERSTATE
flNDIANA-
KENTUCKY)
NORTHEAST
INDIANA
INTRASTATE
EAST CENTRAL
INDIANA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
INDIANA
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CINCINNATI
,.,,,....»o INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
KENTUCKY-
INDIANA)
LOUISVILLE
INTERSTATE
(KENTUCKY-
INDIANA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Indiana.
Indiana
399
-------
*» o
<=> s
O &>
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX FALLS
INTERSTATE
(SOUTH DAKOTA-
IOWA)
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX CITY
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
NEBRASKA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
METROPOLITAN
OMAHA-COUNCIL
BLUFFS
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
NEBRASKA)
NORTHWEST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
NORTH CENTRAL
IOWA
INTRASTATE
NORTHEAST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
DUBUQUE
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
ILLINOIS-
WISCONSIN)
SOUTHWEST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
IOWA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEAST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
QUAD CITIES
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
IOWA)
BURLINGTON-
KEOKUK
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
IOWA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Iowa.
-------
5!
NORTHWEST
KANSAS
INTRASTA
NORTH CENTRAL
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
NORTHEAST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
KANSAS CITY
INTERSTATE
IAS
MISSOURI)
SOUTHWEST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEAST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Kansas.
-------
PADUCAH-
CAIRO
INTERSTATE
(KENTUCKY-
ILLINOIS)
EVANSVILLE-
OWENSBORO-
HENDERSON
INTERSTATE
(INDIANA-
KENTUCKY)
NORTH CENTRAL
KENTUCKY
INTRASTATE
LOUISVILLE
INTERSTATE
(KENTUCKY
METROPOLITAN
CINCINNATI
INTERSTATES
(OHIO-
KENTUCKY-
INDIANA)
BLUEGRASS
INTRASTATE
HUNTINGTON -
ASHLAND-
PORTSMOUTH-
IRONTON-
^NTERSTATE
'(WESTVIRGINIA-
KENTUCKY-
OHIO)
APPALACHIAN
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
KENTUCKY
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In Kentucky.
-------
SHREVEPORT-
TEXARKANA-
TYLER
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
LOUISIANA-
OKLAHOMA-
TEXAS) \
MONROE-
EL DORADO
INTERSTATE
(LOUISIANA-
ARKANSAS)
SOUTHERN
LOUISIANA-
SOUTHEAST
TEXAS
INTERSTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Louisiana.
Louisiana
403
-------
NORTHWEST
MAINE
INTRASTATE
AROOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
DOWN EAST
INTRASTATE
ANOROSCOGGIN
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(MAINE-
NEW HAMPSHIRE)
METROPOLITAN
PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Maine.
Maine
404
-------
\ CUMBERLAND-
KEYSER
INTERSTATE
(MARYLAND-
WEST VIRGINIA)
METROPOLITAN
BALTIMORE
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL
MARYLAND
INTRASTATE
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
INTERSTATE
(WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARYLAND-
VIRGINIA)
SOUTHERN
MARYLAND
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In Maryland.
-------
(U
in
t/»
ca
BERKSHIRE
INTRASTATE,
CENTRAL
MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
MERRIMACK VALLEY-
OUTHERN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
(MASSACHUSETTS-
NEW HAMPSHIRE)
METROPOLITAN
BOSTON
INTRASTATE
HARTFORD-
NEW HAVEN-
SPRINGFIELD
INTERSTATE
(CONNECTICUT-
MASSACHUSETTS)
METROPOLITAN'
PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
(RHODE ISLAND-
MASSACHUSETTS)
Air Quality Control Regions In Massachusetts.
-------
UPPER MICHIGAN
INTRASTATE
(NORTHERN
PENINNSULA)
CENTRAL
MICHIGA
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
DETROIT-
PORT HURON
INTRASTATE
SOUTH BEND-
ELKHART-
BENTON HARBOI
INTERSTATE
(INDIANA-
MICHIGAN)
SOUTH CENTRAL
MICHIGAN
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
TOLEDO
INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
MICHIGAN)
Air Quality Qontrol Regions in Michigan.
Michigan
407
-------
NORTHWEST
MINNESOTA
INTRASTATE
DULUTH-
SOPERIOR
llfTERSTATE
(MNNESOTA-
ONSIN)
METROPOLITAN
FARGO-MOORHEAD
INTERSTATE
(NORTH DAKOTA-
MINNESOTA)
CENTRAL
INNESOTA
INTRASTATE
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
INTRASTATE
SOUTHWEST
MINNESOTA
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Minnesota.
Minnesota
408
-------
METROPOLITAN
MEMPHIS
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
MISSISSIPPI-
TENNESSEE)
MISSISSIPPI
DELTA
INTRASTATE
MOBILE-
PENS ACOLA-
PANAMA CITY
SOUTHERN
MISSISSIPPI
INTERSTATE
(ALABAMA-
FLORIDA-
MISSISSIPPI)
NORTHEAST
MISSISSIPPI
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Mississippi.
Mississippi
409
-------
H 8
o §
NORTHERN
MISSOURI
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
KANSAS CITY
INTERSTATE
(KANSAS-
MISSOURI)
METROPOLITAN
ST. LOUIS
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
MISSOURI)
SOUTHWEST
MISSOURI
INTRASTATE
.SOUTHEAST
MISSOURI
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In Missouri.
-------
GREAT FALLS
INTRASTATE
MILES CITY
INTRASTATE
MISSOULA
INTRASTATE
HELENA
INTRASTATE
BILLINGS
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Montana.
-------
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX CITY
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
NEBRASKA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
NEBRASKA
INTRASTATE
OMAHA-
COUNCIL BLUFFS
INTERSTATE
LINCOLN-
BEATRICE-
FAIRBURY
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Nebraska.
-------
NORTHWEST
NEVADA
INTRASTATE
NEVADA
INTRASTATE
(remaining area)
CLARK-MOHAVE
INTERSTATE
(ARIZONA- ^
NEVADA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Nevada.
Nevada
413
-------
ANDROSCOGGIN
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(MAINE -
NEW HAMPSHIRE)
CENTRAL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRASTATE
(REMAINING
AREA)
MERRIMACK
VALLEY-
SOUTHERN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
(MASSACHUSETTS-
NEW HAMPSHIRE)
Air Quality Control Regions in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire
414
-------
NORTHEAST
PENNSYLVANIA-
UPPER DELAWARE
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
METROPOLITAN
PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE
(PENNSYLVANIA-
NEW JERSEY ~
DELAWARE)
NEW JERSEY-
NEW YORK-
CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE
NEW JERSEY
NTRASTATE
(REMAINING
AREA)
Air Quality Control Regions in New Jersey.
New Jersey
415
-------
o
o
ALBUQUERQUE-
MID RIO GRANDE
INTRASTATE
FOUR CORNERS
INTERSTATE
(ARIZONA-
COLORADO-
NEW MEXICO-
UTAH)
SOUTHWESTERN
MOUNTAINS-
AUGUSTINE
PLAINS
INTRASTATE
ARIZONA-
NEW MEXICO
SOUTHERN
BORDER
INTERSTATE
UPPER
RIO GRANDE
VALLEY
INTRASTATE
NORTHEASTERN
PLAINS
INTRASTATE
PECOS-PERMIAN
BASIN
INTRASTATE
EL PASO-
LAS CRUCES-
ALAMOGORDO
INTERSTATE
(NEW MEXICO-
TEXAS)
Air Quality Control Regions in New Mexico.
-------
CENTRAL
NEW YORK
INTRASTATE
GENESEE-
FINGER
LAKES
INTRASTATE
CHANIPLAIN
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(VERMONT-
NEW YORK)
z
CD
NIAGARA
FRONTIER
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
TIER WEST
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
TIER EAST
INTRASTATE
HUDSON
VALLEY
INTRASTATE
NEW JERSEY-
NEW YORK-
CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In New York.
-------
00
O
tu
EASTERN
MOUNTAIN
INTRASTATE
NORTHERN
PIEDMONT
INTRASTATE
EASTERN
PIEDMONT
INTRASTATE
NORTHERN
COASTAL
PLAIN
INTRASTATE
WESTERN
MOUNTAIN
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE
(NORTH CAROLINA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
SANDHILLS
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
COASTAL
PLAIN
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In North Carolina.
-------
in a>
pr
o
sr
NORTH DAKOTA
INTRASTATE
(REMAINING AREA)
METROPOLITAN
FARGO-MOORHEAD
INTERSTATE
(NORTH DAKOTA-
MINNESOTA)
Air Quality Control Regions in North Dakota.
-------
NORTHWEST
OHIO
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
TOLEDO
INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
MICHIGAN)
GREATER
MANSFIELD- METROPOLITAN
MARION CLEVELAND
INTRASTATE INTRASTATE
NORTHWEST
PENNSYLVANIA-
YOUNGSTOWN
INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
PENNSYLVANIA)
DAYTON
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CINCINNATI
INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
INDIANA
KENTUCKY)
METROPOLITAN
COLUMBUS
INTRASTATE
HUNTINGTON-
ASULAND-
PORTSMOUTH-
IRONTON
INTERSTATE
(WEST VIRGINIA-
KENTUCKY-
OHIO)
WILHIINGTON-
CHILLICOTHE-
LOGAN
INTRASTATE
ZANESVILLE-
CAMBRIDGE-
INTRASTATE
P'ARKERSBURG-
MARIETTA
INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
WEST VIRGINIA)
STEUBENVILLE-
WEiRTON-
WHEELING
INTERSTATE
(OHIO-
WEST VIRGINIA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Ohio.
Ohio
420
-------
NORTHWESTERN
OKLAHOMA
INTRASTATE
*.
M =•
H o
o>
CENTRAL
OKLAHOMA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHWESTERN
OKLAHOMA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEASTERN
OKLAHOMA
INTRASTATE
NORTH CENTRAL
OKLAHOMA
INTRASTATE
NORTHEASTERN
OKLAHOMA
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
FORT SMITH
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
OKLAHOMA)
SHREVEPORT-
TEXARKANA-
L TYLER
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
LOUISIANA-
OKLAHOMA-
TEXAS)
Air Quality Control Regions in Oklahoma.
-------
o
NORTHWEST
OREGON
INTRASTATE
PORTLAND
INTERSTATE
(OREGON-
/WASHINGTON)
SOUTHWEST
OREGON
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL-
OREGON
INTRASTATE
EASTERN
OREGON
INTRASTATE v
Air Quality Control Regions in Oregon.
-------
NORTHWEST
PENNSYLVANIA
YOUNGSTOWN
INTERSTATE
(PENNSYLVANIA-
OHIO)
*>.
to
U)
TJ
(V
tu
a_
5'
NORTHEAST
PENNSYLVANIA-
UPPER
DELAWARE
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(NEW JERSEY-
PENNSYLVANIA)
SOUUI»'LS1
PENNSYLVANIA
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA
IKTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In Pennsylvania.
WETROPOUTAN
PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE
(DELAWARE-
NEW JERSEY-
PENNSYLVANIA)
-------
ATLANTIC OCEAN
o
o
3
*
CD
*> £i.
2.
-o
re
o"
o
o
O
MONA
VIEQUES
CARIBBEAN SEA
Air Quality Control Region in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
-------
METROPOLITAN
PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
(MASSACHUSETTS-
RHODE ISLAND)
Air Quality Control Region in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island
425
-------
GREENVILLE-
SPARTANBURG
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE
(NORTH CAROLINA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
CAMDEN-
SUIYITER
INTRASTATE
FLORENCE
INTRASTATE
COLUMBIA
INTRASTATE'
GREENWOOD
INTRASTATE
AUGUSTA
AIKEN-
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
GEORGETOWN
INTRASTATE
CHARLESTON
INTRASTATE
SAVANNAH-
BEAUFORT
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
Air Quality Control Regions in South Carolina.
South Carolina
426
-------
O
ST
BLACK HILLS-
RAPID CITY
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX FALLS
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
SOUTH DAKOTA
INTRASTATE
(REMAINING
AREA)
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX CITY
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
NEBRASKA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
Air Quality Control Regions in South Dakota.
-------
NJ ro
CD
CO
WESTERN
TENNESSEE
INTRASTATE
TENNESSEE RIVER VALLEY
CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS
INTERSTATE (ALABAMA-TENNESSEE)
METROPOLITAN MEMPHIS INTERSTATE MIDDLE TENNESSEE INTRASTATE
(ARKANSAS - MISSISSIPPI - TENNESSEE)
EASTERN TENNESSEE - SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
CHATTANOOGA INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA- TENNESSEE)
Air Quality Control Regions in Tennessee.
-------
AMARILIO-
LUBBOCK
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
DALLAS-
FORT WORTH
INTRASTATE
SHREVEPORT-
TEXARKANA-
TYLER
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
LOUISIANA-
OKLAHOMA-
TEXAS)
ro
vo
n>
x
BJ
10
ABILENE-
WICHITA FALLS
INTRASTATE
MIDLAND-
ODESSA-
SAN ANGELO
INTRASTATE
EL PASO-
LAS CRUCES
ALAMOGORDO
INTERSTATE
(TEXAS-
NEW MEXICO)
SOUTHERN
.LOUISIANA-
SOUTHEAST
TEXAS
INTERSTATE
AUSTIN-
WACO
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
SAN ANTONIO'
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
HOUSTON-
GALVESTON
INTRASTATE
BROWNSVILLE
LAREDO
INTRASTATE
CORPUS-CHRIST!-
VICTORIA
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In Texas.
-------
YiASATCH
FRONT
INTRASTATE
UTAH
INTRASTATE
(REMAINING
AREA)
FOUR CORNERS
INTERSTATE
(ARIZONA-
COLORADO-
NEW MEXICO-
UTAH)
Air Quality Control Regions in Utah.
Utah
430
-------
CHAMPLAIN
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(NEW YORK-
VERMONT)
VERMONT
INTRASTATE
(REMAINING
AREA)
Air Quality Control Regions in Vermont.
Vermont
431
-------
cu
EASTERN
TENNESSEE-
SOUTHWESTERN
VIRGINIA
INTERSTATE
(TENNESSEE
VIRGINIA)
VALLEY OF
VIRGINIA
INTRASTATE
NATIONAL
.CAPITAL
INTERSTATE
(Y/ASHINGTON, D.C.-
; MARYLAND-
VIRGINIA)
NORTHEASTERN
VIRGINIA
ASTATE
CENTRAL STATE HAMPTON
VIRGINIA CAPITOL ROADS
INTRASTATE INTRASTATE INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Virginia.
-------
(A)
s
PUGET SOUND
INTRASTATE
OLYMPIC-
NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON
IN
PORTLAND
INTERSTATE
(WASHINGTON
OREGON)
NORTHERN
WASHINGTON
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
WASHINGTON
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions In Washington.
EASTERN
WASHINGTON-
NORTHERN
IDAHO
INTERSTATE
-------
STEUBENVILLE-
WEIRTON-
WHEELING-
PARKERSBURG- INTERSTATE
MARIETTA (OHIO-
INTERSTATE
(WEST VIRGINIA^
OHIO)
I HANCOCK
CUMBERLAND-
KEYSER
'INTERSTATE
(WEST VIRGINIA-
MARYLAND)
HUNTINGTON
ASHLAND-
PORTSMOU
IRONTON
INTERSTATE
(Vi'EST VIRGINIA
KENTUCKY-
OHIO)
,BOOOUt
NORTH CENTRAL
OH,O WEST VIRGINIA
INTRASTATE
KANAWHA
VALLEY
INTRASTATE
ALLEGHENY
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL
•WEST VIRGINIA
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
WEST VIRGINIA
INTRASTATE
EASTERN
PANHANDLE
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in West Virginia.
West Virginia
434
-------
DULUTH-
SUPERIOR^
INTERSTATE
(MINNESOTA-
WISCONSIN)
NORTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN
INTRASTATE
LAKE MICHIGAN
RASTATE
SOUTHEAST-
LA CROSS
INTERSTATE
(MINNESOTA-
WISCONSIN)
METROPOLITAN
DUBUQUE
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
IOWA-
WISCONSIN)
SOUTHERN
WISCONSIN
INTRASTATE
JANESVILLE-
BELOIT
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
WISCONSIN)
SOUTHEASTERN
WISCONSIN
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
435
-------
w
WYOMING
INTRASTATE
(REMAINING
AREA)
CASPER
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CHEYENNE
INTRASTATE
Air Quality Control Regions in Wyoming.
-------
APPENDIX I
COUNTY EMISSION PROFILES
437
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E
STATE AND COUNTY
01 AUTAUGA CO
01 BALDWIN CO
01 BARBOUR CO
01 BIBB CO
01 BLOUNT CO
01 BULLOCK CO
01 BUTLER CO
01 CALHOUN CO
01 CHAMBERS CO
01 CHEROKEE CO
01 CHILTON CO
01 CHOCTAW co
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARF*
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
132.
2,921.
3,053.
10.
10,188.
10,198.
305.
3,278.
3,583.
C.
1,683.
1,683.
0.
3,333.
3,333.
0.
1,602.
1,602.
188.
3,055.
3,243.
38.
12,292.
12,330.
20.
5,215.
5,235.
0.
2,185.
2,185.
39.
3,202.
3,241.
224.
2,346.
2,570.
1,914.
1,577.
3,491 .
5.
5,590.
5,595.
145.
1 ,711 .
1 ,856.
0.
1 ,309.
1,309.
0.
2,141 .
2,141 .
0.
744 .
744.
941.
1 ,469.
2,410.
233.
6,219.
6,452.
452.
2,496.
2,948.
0.
1,411.
1,411.
195.
2,046.
2,241.
3 ,654.
1 ,382.
5,036.
6,840.
14,310.
21,150.
1.
45,064.
45,065.
29.
16,899.
16,928.
0.
8,343.
8,343.
C.
15,894.
15,894.
0.
7,813.
7,813.
188.
13,532.
13,720.
7,311.
59,244.
66,555.
5C.
22,140.
22,190.
0.
10,515.
10,515.
39.
15,063.
15,102.
8,967.
9,011.
17,978.
Tons/Year
438
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
01 CLARKE CO
01 CLAY CO
01 CLEBURNE CO
01 COFFEE CO
01 COLBERT CO
01 CONECUH CO
01 COOSA CO
01 COVIN6TON CO
C1 CRENSHAU CO
01 CULLMAN CO
01 DALE CO
01 DALLAS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
16.
3,576.
3,592.
0.
1,746.
1,746.
C.
1,595.
1,595.
0.
5,212.
5,212.
411.
7,920.
8,331.
0.
2.127.
2,127.
0.
1,884.
1,884.
3.
6,990.
6,993.
0.
1,696.
1,696.
22.
7,136.
7,158.
147.
4,056.
4,203.
3.
6,116.
6,116.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
982.
2,084.
3,066.
C.
1,109.
1,109.
0.
855.
855.
C.
2,246.
2,246.
29,163.
3,727.
32,890.
0.
1,286.
1,286.
0.
902.
902.
151.
3,531.
3,662.
0.
1,102.
1,102.
110.
4,679.
4,789.
32.
2,371.
2,403.
593.
3,314.
3,907.
IONS *
CO
3,579.
16,039.
19,618.
0.
6,919.
6,919.
0.
7,815.
7,815.
0.
21,014.
21,014.
1,802.
31,104.
32,906.
0.
12,712.
12,712.
0.
8,471.
8,471.
9.
34,909.
34,918.
0.
8,151.
8,151.
22.
33,299.
33,321.
1.
21,979.
21,980.
3,807.
26,391.
30,198.
439
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
01 OE KALB CO
01 ELMORE CO
01 ESCAMBIA CO
01 ETOWAH CO
01 FAYETTE CO
01 FRANKLIN CO
01 GENEVA CO
01 GREENE CO
01 HALE CO
01 HENRY CC
01 HOUSTON CO
01 JACKSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
6,495.
6,495.
C.
4,438.
4,438.
823.
4,552:
5,375.
1,756.
11,141.
12,897.
40.
2,698.
2,738.
H
U •
3,253.
3,253.
0.
3,020.
3,020.
192.
1 ,445.
1 ,637.
0.
1,719.
1 ,719.
88.
1,779.
1,867.
100.
1C, 347.
10,447.
1,304.
6,111.
7,415.
COMPUTED EMISSION
NOX
0.
4,414.
4,414.
0.
2,621 .
2,621.
2,469.
2,528.
4,997.
6,294.
6,007.
12,301.
200.
1,222.
1 ,422.
0 .
2,016.
2,016.
0.
1 ,670.
1 ,670.
19,248.
794.
20,042 .
C.
1 ,198.
1,198.
443.
1,057.
1 ,500.
1.
4,836.
4,837.
33,852.
3,489.
37,341 .
s *
CO
0.
33,161.
33,161.
0.
21,195.
21,195.
8,427.
22,986.
31,413.
8,009.
65,058.
73,067.
40.
9,955.
9,995.
0.
1-6,756.
16,756.
0.
14,754.
14,754.
642.
6,286.
6,928.
C.
8,681.
8,681.
88.
9,326.
9,414.
C.
42,002.
42,002.
2,074.
26,930.
•29,004.
440
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
01 JEFFERSON CO
01 LAMAR CO
01 LAUDERDALE CO
01 LAWRENCE CO
01 LEE CO
01 LIMESTONE CO
01 LOWNDES CO
01 MA CON CO
01 MADISON CO
01 MAREN60 CO
01 MARION CO
01 MARSHALL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
14,081.
60,474.
74,555.
48.
2,094.
2,142.
C.
7,920.
7,920.
102.
2,620.
2,722.
580.
6,193.
6,773.
1.
5,139.
5,140.
0.
1,327.
1,327.
0.
2,802.
2,802.
0.
19,901.
19,901.
43.
2,368.
2,411.
0.
3,845.
3,845.
1,062.
9,697.
10,759.
5,799.
31,817.
37,616.
240.
1,311.
1,551.
0.
4,544.
4,544.
1,219.
1,921.
3,140.
434.
3,359.
3,793.
92.
3,253.
3,345.
0.
804.
804.
0.
1,343.
1,343.
10.
9,455.
9,465.
1,304.
1,476.
2,780.
0.
1,888.
1 ,888.
318.
5,753.
6,071.
1«22,203.
290,076.
412,279.
48.
8,786.
8,834.
0.
38,946.
38,946.
4,187.
11,012.
15,199.
26.
28,701.
28,727.
8.
24, 107.
24,115.
0.
6,342.
6,342.
0.
15,696.
15,696.
2.
80,948.
80,950.
7,337.
11,771.
19,108.
0.
*3,701.
13,701.
62.
51,151.
51,213.
441
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
01 MOBILE CO
01 MONROE CO
01 MONTGOMERY CO
01 MORGAN CO
01 PERRY co
01 PICKENS CO
01 PIKE CO
01 RANDOLPH CO
01 RUSSELL CO
01 ST CLAIR CO
01 SHELBY CO
01 SUMTER CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
4,559.
32,039.
36,598.
12.
3, OU.
3,026.
0.
18,529.
18,529.
26,359.
11,168.
37,527.
0.
1,349.
1 ,349.
C.
2,151.
2,151.
0.
16,092.
16,092.
0.
2,628.
2,628.
1,754.
5,400.
7,154.
4,554.
4,554.
765.
6,361.
7,126.
64.
2,187.
2,251.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
28,832.
17,103.
45,935.
60.
1,509.
1 ,569.
114.
9,797.
9,911 .
11 ,756.
5,716.
17,472.
0.
817.
817.
0.
1 ,431 .
1,431.
0.
6,099-
6,099.
0.
1 ,400.
1 ,400.
2,169.
2,684.
4,853.
887.
2,792.
3,679.
47,750.
3,952.
51 ,702.
320.
1 ,288.
1 ,608.
*
CO
7,920.
147,636.
155,556.
12.
12,236.
12,248.
0.
87,685.
87,685.
1C, 600.
46,615.
57,215.
0.
6,576.
6,576.
0.
9,572.
9,572.
0.
39,464.
39,464.
0.
9,909.
9,909.
32,120.
28,698.
60,818.
0.
25,312.
25,312.
13,595.
(28,865.
42,460.
64.
9,516.
9.58C.
442
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 6
STATE AND COUNTY
01
01
01
01
$
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
TALLADEGA CO
TALLAPOCSA CO
TUSCALOCSA CO
WALKER CO
WASHINGTON CO
W1LCOX CO
WINSTON CO
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS ED
ANCHORAGE ED
ANGOON ED
BARROW ED
BETHEL ED
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
==========:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE*
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
:=========================================
245.
8,509.
8,754.
92.
5,899.
5,991.
22,836.
14,789.
37,625.
1,179.
8,035.
9,214.
382.
2,448.
2,830.
139.
1,646.
1,785.
0.
3,076.
3,076.
472.
817.
1,289.
3,066.
17,881.
20,947.
1.
144.
145.
145.
741.
886.
92.
1,579.
1,671.
3,689.
4,231.
7,920.
853.
2,485.
3,338.
8,063.
7,071.
15,134.
60,487.
5,046.
65,533.
2,299.
1,619.
3,918.
1,141.
1,142.
2,283.
0.
1,759.
1,759.
3,776.
2,289.
6,065.
4,129.
18,597.
22,726.
15.
55.
70.
1,357.
366.
1,723.
270.
567.
837.
8,625.
42,833.
51,458.
1,209.
23,878.
25,087.
3,779.
61,615.
65,394.
5,141.
39,142.
44,283.
619.
13,613.
14,232.
8,281.
7,955.
16,236.
0.
11,752.
11,752.
826.
2,333.
3,159.
512.
125,769.
1126,281.
3.
309.
312.
396.
2,225.
2,621.
60.
9,102.
9,162.
443
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
02 BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH
02 BRISTOL BAY ED
02 CORDOVA-MC CARTHY ED
02 FAIRBANKS ED
02 HAINES ED
C2 JUNEAU ED
0? KENAI-COOK INLET ED
02 KETCH1KAN ED
G2 KOBUK ED
02 KODIAK ED
02 KUSKOKWin
02 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA ED
TYPE OF
EMISSION
EPOINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
28.
78.
106.
31.
576.
607.
36.
248.
284.
527.
6,170.
6,697.
236.
203.
439.
117.
1,675.
1,792.
18,392.
1,585.
19,977.
300.
1,358.
1,658.
74.
1,910.
1 ,984.
102.
954.
1,056.
14.
3,598.
3,612.
C.
839.
839.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
133.
125.
258.
93.
364.
457.
221 .
444.
665 .
4,038.
4,932.
8,970.
395.
199.
594.
604.
1 ,586.
2,190.
6,304.
1 ,914.
8,218.
934.
1 ,574.
2,508.
308.
481.
789.
77.
1 ,283.
1 ,360.
175.
683.
858.
0.
954.
954.
*
CO
30.
432.
462.
2C.
2,374.
2,394.
48.
1,204.
1,252.
586.
36,747.
37,333.
196.
910.
1,106.
135.
9,654.
9,789.
1,741.
8,747.
10,488.
2,119.
7,502.
9,621.
67.
t1,148.
11,215.
35.
4,942.
4,977.
38.
21,330.
•21,368.
0.
5,213.
5,213.
444
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 8
ST
02
02
02
C2
02
C2
02
02
C2
02
02
C2
ATE AND COUNTY
NOME ED
OUTER KETCHIKAN ED
PRINCE OF WALES ED
SEUARD ED
SITKA ED
SKAGUAY-YAKUTAT ED
SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS E
UPPER YUKON ED
VALDEZ-CHITINA-WHI TTI
WADE HAMPTON ED
WRANGELL-PCTERSBURG E
YUKON-KOYUKUK ED
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUT
S HC
127.
1,468.
1,615.
0.
72.
72.
0.
141.
141.
38.
234.
272.
68.
1,058.
1,126.
66.
171.
237.
265.
497.
762.
35.
2,011.
2,046.
2,904.
505.
3,409.
27.
1,264.
1,291.
155.
957.
1,112.
162.
3,129.
3,291.
ED EMISS
NOX
418.
549.
967.
0.
107.
107.
0.
124.
124.
2.
298.
300.
467.
2,394.
2,861 .
0.
206.
206.
389.
408.
797.
332.
408.
740.
1,384.
638.
2,022.
254.
392.
646.
890.
1 ,671.
2,561.
2,966.
745.
3,711 .
IONS #
CO
SS SS SSSSSESSSSS H S
91.
8,463.
8,554.
C.
349.
349.
0.
650.
650.
304.
1,180.
1,484.
3,045.
3,140.
6,185.
0.
882.
882.
94.
2,504.
2,598.
74.
12,034.
12,108.
308.
2,191.
2,499.
55.
7,439.
7,494.
201.
2,382.
2,583.
403.
18,107.
18,510.
445
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
03 APACHE CO
03 COCHISE CO
03 COCONINO CO
03 G1LA CO
03 GRAHAM CO
03 GREENLEE CO
03 MARICOPA CO
03 MOHAVE CO
03 NAVAJO CO
03 PI MA CO
03 PINAL CO
03 SANTA CRUZ CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
58.
3,732.
3,790.
678.
7,850.
8,528.
1,152.
8,674.
9,826.
27.
4,925.
4,952.
16.
1,931.
1,947.
64.
1,287.
1 ,351.
5 ,896.
125,792.
131,688.
16.
6,581.
6,597.
164.
5,443.
5,607.
3,390.
40,796.
44,186.
62.
7,963.
8,025.
2,707.
?,022.
4,729.
199.
1 ,691 .
1 ,890.
3,051.
3,460.
6,511.
97,249.
3,472.
100,721 .
491 .
1,932.
2,423.
0.
1 ,179.
1 ,179-
1 ,747.
888.
2 ,635 .
19,462.
68,643.
88,105.
8.
2,981 .
2,989.
4,231.
2,737.
6,968.
9,160.
23,619.
32,779.
2,152.
5,612.
7,764 .
541 .
775.
1 ,316.
267.
23,868.
24,135.
55.
60,175.
60,230.
3,523.
59,256.
62,779.
19.
36,329.
36,348.
0.
9,606.
9,606.
173.
7,697.
7,870.
7,582.
665,297.
672,879.
1.
26,755.
26,756.
11,544.
31,462.
43,006.
898.
231,125.
232,023.
89.
43,419.
43,508.
7,651.
15 ,260.
22,911.
446
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 10
STATE AND COUNTY
assss =r = z= ssszszszs.
03 YAVAPAI CO
03 YUMA CO
04 ARKANSAS CO
04 ASHLEY CO
04 BAXTER CO
04 BENTON CO
04 BO ONE CO
04 BRADLEY CO
04 CALHOUN CO
04 CARROLL CO
04 CHICOT CO
04 CLARK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
=tszs=z==z=r=ss
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A1EA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
===========s=r====z==r===r==r============
36.
6,546.
6,582.
169.
8,945.
9,114.
93.
3,113.
3,206.
1,733.
3,055.
4,788.
0.
6,816.
6,816.
2.
8,507.
8,509.
230.
2,878.
3,108.
248.
1,372.
1,620.
8.
687.
695.
0.
1,715.
1,715.
198.
1,910.
2,108.
450.
2,577.
3,027.
446.
3,013.
3,459-
1,005.
5,016.
6,021.
21.
1,937.
1,958.
7,464.
1,751.
9,215.
0.
1,571.
1 ,571.
3.
4,472.
4,475.
1.
1 ,864.
1,865.
775.
742.
1,517.
0.
415.
415.
0.
1,211.
1,211 .
53.
1 ,146.
1 ,199.
109.
1,528.
1,637.
117.
49,775.
49,892.
92.
47,485.
47,577.
635.
15,623.
16,258.
13,160.
12,776.
25,936.
0.
13,007.
13,007.
54.
31,022.
31,076.
656.
13,403.
14,059.
425.
6,485.
6,910.
98.
2,530.
2,628.
C.
8,032.
8,032.
637.
9,010.
9,647.
1,222.
12,009.
13,231.
447
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 11
STATE AND COUNTY
04 CLAY CO
04 CLEBURNE CO
04 CLEVELAND CO
04 COLUMBIA CO
04 CONWAY CO
04 CRAIGHEAD CO
04 CRAWFORD CO
04 CRITTENDEN CO
04 CROSS CO
04 DALLAS CO
04 DESHA CO
04 OREta CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
S HC NOX CO
53.
2,211.
2,264.
C.
1,746.
1,746.
0.
659.
659.
1,327.
3,302.
4,629.
3.
2,519.
2,522.
0.
6,314.
6,314.
126.
3,156.
3,282.
47.
5,207.
5,254.
101.
1,829.
1,930.
136.
1,202.
1,338.
64.
2,402.
2,466.
24.
1 ,906.
1,930.
9.
1,522.
1 ,531 .
0.
1,122.
1,122.
0.
493.
493.
879-
1 ,826.
2,705.
310.
1 ,214.
1,524.
64.
3,615.
3,679.
25.
2,034.
2,059.
9.
2,977.
2,986.
20.
1,462.
1 ,482.
345.
736.
1,081 .
94.
1,281 .
1 ,375.
46.
1 ,086.
1,132.
214.
11,024.
11,238.
0.
7,410.
7,410.
0.
3,157.
3,157.
861.
12,862.
13,723.
2,271.
9,600.
11,871.
3.
26,101.
26,104.
357.
13,821.
14,178.
1,185.
22,682.
27,867.
286.
8,715.
9,001.
345.
5,420.
5,765.
1,002.
9,557.
10,559.
187.
7,182.
7,369.
448
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 12
ST
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
ATE AND COUNTY
FAULKNER CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
GARLAND CO
GRANT CO
GREENE CO
HEMPSTEAD CO
HOT SPRING CO
HOWARD CO
INDEPENDENCE CO
IZARD CO
JACKSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA-
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
100.
4,820.
4,920.
209.
1,423.
1,632.
C.
1,258.
1,253.
111.
6,881.
6,992.
205.
1,744.
1,949.
103.
4,448.
4,551.
174.
2,481.
2,655.
271.
2,701.
2,972.
930.
1,507.
2,437.
120.
3,728.
3,848.
0.
1,175.
1,175.
2,737.
2,006.
4,742.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
2,486.
2,486.
987.
961.
1,948.
0.
717.
717.
486.
3,610.
4,096.
529.
894.
1,423.
20.
1 ,939.
1,959.
264.
1,722.
1,986.
10,757.
1 ,946.
12,703.
719.
1,112.
1,831.
741.
2,147.
2,888.
0.
719.
719.
27.
1 ,482.
1 ,509.
*
CO
S. £ * S S £ £ £
0.
17,290.
17,290.
686.
6,966.
7,652.
0.
6,792.
6,792.
453.
32,991.
33,444.
1,300.
7,416.
8,716.
294.
14,757.
15,051.
1.291.
12,769.
14,060.
935.
12,073.
13,008.
2,461.
7,426.
9,887.
346.
14,712.
15,058.
C.
6,318.
6,318.
495.
9,635.
10,130.
449
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 13
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
JEFFERSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
JOHNSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LAFAYETTE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LAWRENCE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LEE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LINCOLN CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LITTLE RIVER CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LOGAN CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LONOKE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MADISON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MARION CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MILLER CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
455.
9,870.
10,325.
14.
1,949.
1,963.
83.
1,354.
1,437.
67.
1 ,868.
1,935.
64.
1,524.
1 ,588.
0.
971.
971.
230.
1,542.
1 ,772.
475.
2,199.
2,674.
152.
3,146.
3,298.
273.
1 ,281.
1,554.
100.
1 ,461.
1 ,561.
20.
8,362.
F,082.
4,392.
5,259.
9,651 .
11 .
1 ,180.
1 ,191 .
2,089-
710.
2,799-
12.
1 ,448.
1 ,460.
12.
1,023.
1 ,035.
6.
793.
799-
1 ,160.
1,051.
2,211 .
23.
1 ,154.
1,182.
30.
2,099.
2,129.
r\
L.' •
881 .
881 .
0.
687.
687.
1 .
3,430.
3,431 .
126,272.
42,155.
68,427.
165.
8,100.
8,265.
509.
5,110.
5,619.
286.
9,776.
10,062.
181.
7,448.
7,629.
0.
4,525.
4,525.
4,620.
8,865.
13,485.
1,650.
10,154.
11 ,804.
430.
13,740.
14,170.
873.
7,211.
8,084.
320.
6,475.
6,795.
243.
36,622.
36,865.
450
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 14
STATE AND COUNTY
04 MISSISSIPPI CO
04 MONROE CO
04 MONTGOMERY CO
04 NEVADA CO
04 NEWTON CO
04 OUACHITA CO
04 PERRY CO
04 PHILLIPS co
04 PIKE CO
04 POINSETT CO
04 POLK co
C4 POPE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
69.
7,145.
7,214.
117.
1,422.
1,539.
0.
1,016.
1,016.
105.
1,129.
1,234.
273.
774.
1,047.
2,660.
3,693.
6,353.
0.
674.
674.
153.
4,217.
4,370.
21.
1,129.
1,150.
138.
2,405.
2,543.
C.
1,788.
1,788.
23.
4,16C.
4,183.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
74.
4,110.
4,184.
10.
892.
902.
0.
487.
487.
254.
702.
956.
0.
481.
481 .
1 ,884.
2,476.
4,360.
0.
514.
514.
15,161.
2,634.
17,795.
109.
762.
871.
31.
1,862.
1.893.
C.
1,152.
1,152.
53.
2,476.
2,529.
*
CO
183.
25,130.
25,313.
1,388.
6,724.
8,112.
0.
4,136.
4,136.
214.
5,544.
5,758.
873.
4,721.
5,594.
6,145.
15,814.
21,959.
0.
3,437.
3,437.
19,008.
15,675.
34,68?.
21.
4,611.
4,632.
391.
12,679.
13,070.
0.
8,465.
8,465.
10C.
16,242.
18,342.
451
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 15
STATE AND COUNTY
04 PRAIRIE CO
04 PULASKI CO
04 RANDOLPH CO
04 ST FRANCIS CO
04 SALINE CO
04 SCOTT CO
04 SEARCY CO
04 SEBASTIAN CO
04 SEV1ER CO
04 SHARP CO
04 STONE CO
C4 UNION CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
10.
1,157.
1 ,167.
1 ,614.
33,118.
34,732.
57.
2,237.
2,294.
242.
3,640.
3,882.
50.
3,812.
3,862.
202.
1 ,144.
1 ,346.
0.
944.
944.
508.
13,751.
14,259.
71.
1,840.
1,911.
G.
1,325.
1 ,325.
p
842.
842.
2,372.
5,453.
7,825.
COMPUTED EM1SS
NOX
0.
885.
885.
1,010.
19,532.
20,542.
12.
1,078.
1,090.
1 ,839.
1 ,884.
3,723.
1,153.
3,608.
4,761 .
0.
751 .
751 .
C.
635.
635.
94.
5,790.
5,884.
104.
1,021 .
1,125.
0.
908.
908.
0.
557.
557.
839.
3,643.
4,452.
IONS #
CO
118.
5,459.
5,577.
372.
143,516.
143,888.
161.
9,891.
10,052.
1,322.
14,081.
15,403.
269.
16,019.
16,288.
648.
5,076.
5,724.
0.
4,960.
4,960.
14.
42,258.
42,272.
167.
7,526.
7,693.
C.
7,346.
7,346.
0.
4,304.
4,304.
552.
26,580.
27,132.
452
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 16
STATE AND COUNTY
04 VAN BUREN CO
04 WASHINGTON CO
04 WHITE CC
04 WOODRUFF CO
04 YELL CO
05 ALAMEDA co
05 ALPINE CO
05 AMADOR CO
05 BUTTE CO
C5 CALAVERAS CO
05 COLUSA CO
05 CONTRA COSTA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
1,154.
1,154.
227.
10,198.
10,425.
48.
4,414.
4V462.
18.
1,185.
1,203.
3.
1,657.
1,660.
7,914.
118,141.
126,055.
0.
72.
72.
388.
3,243.
3,631.
1,326.
16,871.
18,197.
0.
4,078.
4,078.
0.
5,175.
5,175.
39.C34.
56,268.
95,302.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
733.
733.
0.
6,731.
6,731.
85.
3,116.
3,201.
1,975.
859.
2,834.
4.
1,189.
1 ,193.
3,756.
41,286.
45,042.
0.
32.
32.
315.
1,161.
1,476.
204.
5,878.
6,082.
3,042.
1,332.
4,374.
0.
1,234.
1,234.
62,323.
23,476.
85,799.
*
CO
0.
5,419.
5,419.
0.
55,870.
55,870.
16.
21,905.
21,921.
134.
5,786.
5,920.
36.
8,446.
8,482.
880.
615,300.
616,180.
0.
445.
445.
61.
17,034.
17,095.
319.
97,067.
97,386.
1.
22,125.
22,126.
0.
27,010.
27,010.
13,549.
326,000.
339,549.
453
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 17
STATE AND COUNTY
05 DEL NORTE CO
05 EL DORADO CO
05 FRESNO CO
05 GLENN CO
05 HUMBOLDT CO
05 IMPERIAL CO
05 INYO CO
05 KERN CO
05 KINGS CO
05 LAKE CO
05 LASSEN CO
05 LOS ANGELES CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
866.
2,899.
3,765.
2,538.
8,860.
11,398.
11,651.
45,204.
56,855.
86.
4,954.
5,040.
2,857.
14,220.
17,077.
73.
8,403.
8,476.
8.
2,135.
2,143.
22,606.
33,659.
56,265.
1,491.
7,696.
9,187.
17.
23,366.
23,383.
362.
3,237.
3,599.
276,394.
8C2,266.
1,078,660.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
63.
1,129.
1,192.
511.
3,096.
3,607.
4,000.
17,881.
21 ,881 .
223.
1,571.
1,794.
4,035.
6,334.
10,369.
4,047.
3,771 .
7,818.
202.
1 ,076.
1 ,278.
66,529.
13,735.
80,264.
5,218.
3,479.
8,697.
2.
4,697.
4,699.
1 ,085.
1 ,022.
2,107.
125,267.
281,251. 4
406,518. 4
*
CO
1,606.
U.800.
16,406.
2,570.
45,426.
47,996.
2,485.
242,027.
244,512.
195.
26,334.
26,529.
13,179.
77,294.
90,473.
160.
49,033.
49,193.
20.
9,821.
9,841.
134,929.
192,269.
327,198.
4,129.
38,587.
42,716.
3.
130,198.
130,201.
1,898.
15,708.
17,606.
717,701.
,046,609.
,764,310.
454
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 18
STATE AND COUNTY
05 MADERA CO
05 MAR1N CO
05 MAR1POSA CO
05 MENDOCINO co
05 MERCED CO
05 MODOC CO
05 MONO CO
05 MONTEREY CO
05 NAPA CO
05 NEVADA CO
05 ORANGE CO
05 PLACER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS HC
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A9EA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
»_****«wM**~*v*«
8,318.
5,245.
13,563.
68.
21,574.
21,642.
23.
1,344.
1 ,36'.
1,048.
21,355.
22,403.
26.
12,712.
12,738.
261.
2,403.
2,664.
0.
3,049.
3,049.
1,502.
27,195.
28,697.
20.
8,933.
8,953.
171.
4,425.
4,596.
19,711.
165,780.
155,491.
2,728.
11 ,072.
13,800.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
4,695.
2,574.
7,269.
17.
7,483.
7,500.
4.
521.
525.
881.
5,500.
6,381.
621.
5,650.
6,271 .
411.
623.
1.C34.
0.
648.
648.
29,291.
9.6C1 .
38,892.
4.
3,925.
3,929.
365.
1,985.
2,350.
8,300.
58,164.
66,464.
421.
4,749.
5,170.
*
CO
696.
28,138.
28,834.
2.
120,579.
120,581.
46.
6,755.
6,801.
4,550.
121,716.
126,266.
59.
64,926.
64,985.
2,031.
11,052.
13,083.
0.
14,655.
14,655.
2,005.
149,271.
151,276.
18.
47,493.
47,511.
61.
21,349.
21.410.
998.
852,576.
853,574.
1,083.
58,958.
60,041 .
455
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 19
STATE AND COUNTY
05 PLUMAS CO
05 RIVERSIDE CO
05 SACRAMENTO CO
05 SAN BENITO CO
05 SAN BERNARDINO CO
05 SAN DIEGO CO
05 SAN FRANCISCO CO
35 SAN JOAOU1N CO
05 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO
05 SAN MATEO CO
05 SANTA BARBARA CO
05 SANTA CLARA CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
1,723.
6,815.
8,538.
2,137.
45,345.
47,482.
1,975.
65,994.
67,969.
1.
2,652.
2,653.
7,117.
67,141.
74,258.
23,000.
144,478.
167,478.
176.
70,122.
70,298.
2,507.
29,226.
31 ,733.
4,337.
12,982.
17,319.
1 ,434.
65,335.
66,769.
6,356.
37,868.
44,224.
6,466.
143,372.
149, 54C.
547.
1 ,534.
2,081 .
3,030.
18,289.
21 ,319.
356.
25,996.
26,352.
18.
1,250.
1 ,268.
21,125.
25,870.
46,995 .
16,024.
53,002.
69,026.
8,266.
27,611 .
35,877.
3,394.
12,221 .
15,615.
18,349.
4,638.
22,987.
138.
22,006.
22,144.
2,534.
11,857.
14,391 .
4,762.
43,875.
45,637.
4,230.
37,469.
41,699.
66.
237,844.
237,910.
141.
391,428.
391,569.
1.
14,425.
14,426.
63,032.
368,302.
431,334.
1,925.
782,598.
784,523.
418.
357,328.
357,746.
377.
160,110.
160,487.
509.
64,228.
64,737.
117.
341,042.
341,159.
101.
208,057.
208,158.
444.
641,265.
641,709.
456
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 20
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
===== ============================:
05 SANTA CRUZ CO
05 SHASTA CO
05 SIERRA CO
05 SISKIYOU CO
05 SOLANO CO
05 SONOMA CO
05 STANISLAUS CO
05 SUTTER CO
05 TEHAMA CO
05 TRINITY CO
05 TULARE CO
05 TUOLUMNE CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA.
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
:=========================================
0.
14,583.
14,583.
1,048.
21,998.
23,046.
72.
265.
337.
1,617.
13,687.
15,304.
2,970.
17,088.
20,058.
668.
26,902.
27,570.
101.
25,458.
25,559.
C.
8,349.
8,349.
462.
5,906.
6,368.
2,037.
5,626.
7,663.
268.
22,031.
22,299.
927.
5,638.
6,565.
511.
5,758.
6,269.
3,437.
10,638.
14,075.
144.
154.
298.
67C.
3,648.
4,318.
5,951.
7,241.
13,192.
102.
11 ,408.
11,510.
1,238.
10,688.
11,926.
0.
2,678.
2,678.
1,000.
2,124.
3,124.
152.
1,291.
1,443.
110.
9,561.
9,671 .
601 .
1 ,908.
2,509.
1.
78,113.
78,114.
5,228.
94,538.
99,766.
72.
1,359.
1,431.
17,446.
75,338.
92,784.
2,255.
99,210.
101,465.
3,794.
142,495.
146,289.
129.
145,736.
145,865.
0.
45,455.
45,455.
2,502.
29,856.
32,358.
8,071.
32,495.
40,566.
1,848.
120,391.
122,239.
1.551.
30,292.
31,843.
457
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 21
STATE AND COUNTY
05 VENTURA CO
05 VOLO CO
05 YUBA CO
06 ADAMS CO
06 ALAMOSA CO
06 ARAPAHOE CO
06 ARCHULETA CO
06 BACA CO
06 BENT CO
06 BOULDER CO
06 CHAFFEE CO
06 CHEYENNE co
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
13,127.
39,083.
52,210.
872.
9,466.
10,338.
2,821.
6,535.
9,356.
3,342.
22,238.
25,580.
22.
1 ,527.
1,549-
7.
18,122.
18,129.
0.
486.
486.
G.
946.
946.
0.
817.
817.
220.
23,244.
20,464.
0.
1,597.
1 ,597.
C.
355.
355.
COMPUTED EMIS
NOX
16,679.
15,027.
31 ,706.
879.
4,094.
4,973.
417.
2,274.
2,691 .
19,613.
8,218.
27,831 .
451 .
686.
1 ,137.
23.
7,393.
7,416.
0.
214.
214.
0.
607.
607.
o.
371.
371 .
4,918.
6,858.
11 ,776.
C.
670.
670.
0 .
241 .
241 .
SIONS *
CO
2,648.
216,761.
219,409.
81.
51,799.
51,880.
4,201.
36,390.
40,591.
19,791.
153, 29P.
173,089.
45.
12,181.
12,226.
63.
120,982.
121,045.
0.
3,054.
3,054.
0.
7,413.
7,413.
2.
6,184.
6,186.
304.
121,322.
121,626.
C.
12,455.
12,455.
n a
2,868.
2,868.
458
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 22
STATE AND COUNTY
06 CLEAR CREEK CO
06 CONEJOS CO
06 COSTILLA CO
06 CROULEY CO
06 CUSTER CO
06 DELTA CO
06 DENVER CO
06 DOLORES CO
06 DOUGLAS CO
06 EAGLE CO
06 ELBERT CO
06 EL PASO CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POIN T
AREA
TOTAL
HC
2.
668.
670.
C.
999.
999.
0.
433.
433.
0.
457.
457.
0.
275.
275.
^
v •
2,373.
2,373.
636.
103,464.
104,100.
0.
319.
319.
0.
1,549.
1,549.
0.
1,379.
1,379.
C.
607.
607.
18C.
33,082.
30,262.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
347.
347.
0.
519.
519.
0.
197.
197.
3.
259.
262.
0.
142.
142.
C.
1,227.
1,227.
13,005.
32,146.
45,151 .
0.
160.
160.
71 .
991.
1 ,062.
0.
787.
787.
0.
433.
433.
7,598.
11 ,168.
18,766.
IONS #
CO
126.
4,681.
4,807.
1.
6,780.
6,781.
0.
3,063.
3,063.
0.
3,402.
3,402.
0.
2,118.
2,118.
0.
18,209.
18,209.
608.
755,776.
756,384.
0.
2,366.
2,366.
1.
11,220.
11,221.
C.
9,203.
9,203.
0.
4,935.
4,935.
415.
206,072.
206,487.
459
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 23
STATE AND COUNTY
06 FREMONT CO
06 6ARFIELO CO
06 GILPIN CO
06 GRAND CO
06 GUNNISON CO
06 HINSDALE CO
06 HUERFANC CO
06 JACKSON CO
06 JEFFERSON CO
06 KIOtaA CO
06 KIT CARSON CO
36 LAKE CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
U.
7,313.
3,327.
1.
2,468.
2,469.
0.
183.
183.
1 ,412.
1,077.
2,489.
0.
1,322.
1,322.
0.
185.
185.
7.
998.
1,005.
92.
478.
570.
51C.
22,950.
23,460.
r
„ •
484.
484.
C.
1 ,227.
1,227.
15.
903.
918.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
2,862.
1,320.
4,182 .
9.
1 ,175.
1 ,184.
0.
102.
102.
196.
531 .
729.
C.
493.
493.
0.
55.
55.
112.
335 .
447.
23.
216.
239.
122.
9,713.
9,835.
0.
253.
253.
0.
694.
694.
4 .
395.
399.
*
CO
67.
25,794.
25,861.
7.
18,005.
18,012.
0.
1,314.
1,314.
722.
7,405.
8,127.
0.
9,326.
9,326.
0.
1,225.
1,225.
15.
7,029.
7,044.
276.
3,187.
3,463.
142.
146,439.
146,581.
r.
3,287.
3,287.
0.
9,778.
9,778.
1 .
6,894.
6,895.
460
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 24
STATE AND COUNTY
===== === = = ==== = = = = =
06 LA PLATA CO
06 LARIMER CO
06 LAS AN I MAS CO
06 LINCOLN CO
06 LOGAN CO
06 MESA CO
06 MINERAL CO
06 MOFFAT CO
06 MONTEZUMA CO
06 MONTROSE CO
06 MORGAN CO
06 OTERO CC
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA-
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
408.
2,597.
3,005.
118.
14,411.
14,529.
2.
1,980.
1,982.
C.
771.
771.
10.
3,248.
3,258.
89.
8,588.
8,677.
0.
18C.
18C.
795.
1,702.
2,497.
363.
2,097.
2,460.
96.
2,648.
2,744.
38.
3,405.
3,443.
153.
3,119.
3,272.
COMPUTED EMISSION
NOX
1,682.
1,179.
2,861 .
1,294.
5,547.
6,841.
129.
770.
899-
C.
445.
445.
63.
1,440.
1 ,503.
2,482.
3,782,
6,264.
0.
70.
70.
0.
638.
636.
35.
952.
987.
1,127.
1,294.
2,421.
378.
1,524.
1 ,902.
1,050.
1 ,293.
2,343.
S *
CO
===========
1,525.
19,753.
21,278.
126.
100,857.
100,983.
12.
14,990.
15,002.
0.
5,592.
5,592.
0.
•25,567.
25,567.
105.
62,869.
62,974.
0.
1,258.
1,258.
0.
12,384.
12,384.
4,29C.
16,457.
20,747.
607.
19,915.
20,522.
64.
•27,649.
27,713.
17.
23.63C.
23,647.
461
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 25
STATE AND COUNTY
06 OURAY CO
06 PARK CO
06 PHILLIPS CO
06 PITKIN CO
06 PROWERS CO
06 PUEBLO CO
06 RIO BLANCO CO
06 RIO GRANDE CO
06 ROUTT CO
06 SAGUACHE CO
06 SAN JUAN CO
C6 SAN MIGUEL CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
c.
242.
242.
0.
589.
589.
0.
643.
643.
0.
1,474.
1,474.
1.
1,955.
1,956.
2,432.
13,067.
15,499.
55.
939.
994.
166.
1,498.
1,664.
237.
1,432.
1 ,669.
0.
757.
757.
G.
130.
130.
1.
376.
379.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
C.
140.
140.
0.
258.
258.
C.
438.
438.
G.
945.
945.
217.
840.
1 ,057.
17,654.
5,C01 .
22,655.
0.
436.
436.
3.
7C2.
705.
14,283.
809.
15,092.
C.
359.
359.
0.
52.
52 .
0.
175.
175.
*
CO
0.
1,798.
1,798.
0.
3,763.
3,763.
0.
5,435.
5,435.
0.
10,059.
10,059.
1C.
14,566.
14,576.
32,763.
99,860.
132,623.
17.
6,336.
6,353.
1,966.
11,056.
13,022.
793.
9,818.
10,611.
0.
5,457.
5,457.
C.
811.
811 .
4.
2,665.
2,669.
462
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 26
STATE AND COUNTY
06 SEDGWICK CO
06 SUMMIT CO
06 TELLER CO
06 WASHINGTON CO
06 WELD CO
06 YUMA CO
07 FAIRFIELD CO
07 HARTFORD CO
07 LITCHFIELD CO
07 MIDDLESEX CO
07 NEW HAVEN CO
07 NEW LONDON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT 1
AREA
TOTAL 1
HC
2 •
581.
583.
0.
749.
749.
9.
653.
653.
0.
850.
850.
378.
13,957.
14,335.
9.
1,379.
1,388.
3,799.
85,796.
89,595.
5,402.
80,082.
85,484.
262.
17,740.
18,002.
143.
14,647.
14,790.
5,904.
73,795.
79,699.
,657,036.
26,522.
,663,558.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
59.
335.
394.
0.
517.
517.
0.
354.
354.
0.
599.
599.
2,442.
6,738.
9,180.
3,456.
903.
4,359.
19,769.
36,259.
56,028.
2,223.
33,725.
35,948.
183.
9,233.
9,416.
8,753.
7,539.
16,292.
15,338.
30,106.
45,444.
4,320.
11,941.
16,261 .
IONS #
CO
9.
4,201.
4,210.
0.
5,125.
5,125.
0.
4,753.
4,753.
0.
7,013.
7,013.
345.
109,753.
110,099.
72.
11,246.
549,095.
333,321.
882,416.
7,695.
340.356.
348,051.
1,174.
71,301.
72,475.
435.
56,645.
57,080.
1,016.
313,788.
314,804.
336.
94,333.
94,669.
463
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 27
STATE AND COUNTY
07 TOLLAND CO
07 WINOHAM CO
08 KENT CO
08 NEW CASTLE CO
08 SUSSEX CO
09 WASHINGTON
10 ALACHUA CO
10 BAKER CO
10 BAY CO
10 BRADFORD CO
10 BREVARD CO
10 BROWARD CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
87.
9,048.
9,135.
187,019.
10,917.
197,936.
257.
9,2U.
9,471.
22,506.
43,012.
65,518.
654.
10,213.
10,367.
567.
40,995.
41,562.
55.
11,615.
11,670.
1.
1 ,242.
1 ,243.
392.
10,986.
11,378.
180.
1,798.
1 ,978.
182.
25,761.
25,943.
6 ,066.
79,304.
£5,370.
69.
5,291.
5,360.
337.
5,266.
5,603.
2,576.
5,675.
8,251 .
27,387.
19,849.
47,236.
7,192.
7,039.
14,231.
11 ,304.
24,601 .
35,905.
1,028.
5,630.
6,658.
87.
633.
720.
10,863.
4,523.
15,386.
688.
894.
1,582.
11 ,728.
9,768.
21 ,496.
11 ,757.
37,530.
49,287.
6.
45,482.
45,488.
30.
36,226.
36,256.
886.
42,436.
43,322.
8,606.
215,316.
223,922.
422.
47,379.
47,801.
7,393.
220,673.
228,066.
197.
64,474.
64,671.
7.
6,899-
6,906.
10,276.
48,825-
59,101.
66.
9,161.
9,227.
658.
133,272.
133,930.
4,274.
438,401.
442,675.
464
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 28
STATE AND COUNTY
10 CALHOUN CO
10 CHARLOTTE CO
10 CITRUS CO
10 CLAY CO
10 COLLIER CO
10 COLUMBIA CO
10 CADE CO
10 DE SOTO CO
10 DIXIE CO
10 DUVAL CO
10 ESCAMBIA CO
10 FLAGLE* CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
1,320.
908.
2,228.
0.
4,875.
4,875.
7C.
3,809.
3,879.
211.
4,262.
4,473.
2.
10,783.
10,785.
56.
3,44C.
3,496.
669.
138,311.
138,980.
38.
1,625.
1,663.
93.
789.
882.
2,993.
74,487.
77,48C.
3,615.
1«,372.
n,987.
13.
1,031.
1,044.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
37.
597.
634.
0.
2,129.
2,129.
7,351.
1,785.
9,136.
202.
2,110.
2,312.
5.
3,587.
3,592.
30.
1,557.
1,587.
13,707.
53,156.
66,863.
207.
1,002.
1,209.
453.
512.
965.
35,662.
32,566.
68.228.
30,584.
8,197.
38,781.
65.
564.
629.
*
CO
121.
3,745.
3,866.
0.
25,083.
25,083.
351.
17,247.
17,598.
4.
23,041.
<23,045.
53.
61,333.
61,386.
552.
1P.113.
18,665.
4,346.
735,243.
739,589.
39.
9,628.
9,667.
137.
4,173.
4,310.
4,327.
467,318.
471,645.
9,687.
102,571.
112,258.
13.
4,856.
4,869.
465
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 29
STATE AND COUNTY
10 FRANKLIN CO
10 GADSDEN CO
10 GILCHRIST CO
10 GLADES CO
10 GULF CO
10 HAMILTON CO
10 HARDEE CO
10 HENDRY CO
10 HERNANDO CO
10 HIGHLANDS CO
10 HILLSBOROUGH CO
10 HOLMES CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
99.
1,135.
1 ,234.
29.
2,967.
2,996.
0.
429.
429.
414.
3,336.
3,750.
426.
1 ,829.
2,255.
C.
1 ,242.
1 ,242.
2.
1,559.
1,561.
46C.
7,695.
8,155.
0.
3,126.
3,126.
3.
6,291.
6,294.
2,246.
62,766.
65,012.
C .
1 ,03£.
1,038.
COMPUTED EMIS
NOX
9.
481 .
490.
965.
1,678.
2,643.
9.
300.
309.
45C.
588.
1 ,038.
4,548.
8U.
5,360-
3,716.
564.
4,280.
77.
1 ,096.
1,173.
705.
1,574.
2,279.
15.
2,008.
2,023.
656.
2,468.
3,124.
46,098.
29,728.
75,826.
0.
711 .
711 .
SIGNS *
CO
1,176.
5,944.
7,120.
57.
17,066.
17,123.
C.
2,339.
2,339.
425.
15,315.
15,740.
25,120.
7,310.
32,430.
C.
5,404.
5,404.
11.
9,139.
9,150.
472.
39,564.
40,036.
1.
17,024.
17,025.
16.
34,615.
34,631.
6,719.
337,820.
344,539.
n
_.' •
4,942.
4,942.
466
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 30
STATE AND COUNTY
SS £ E S ZS £• St S SSvSSSS SS £ S SZ
10 INDIAN RIVER CO
10 JACKSON CO
10 JEFFERSON CO
10 LAFAYETTE CO
10 LAKE CO
10 LEE CO
10 LEON CO
10 LEVY CO
10 LIBERTY CO
10 MADISON CO
10 MANATEE CO
10 MARION CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
<
HC
8.
6,092.
6,100.
136.
3,362.
3,498.
0.
998.
998.
0.
372.
372.
17.
10,399.
10,416.
175.
15,942.
16,117.
46.
13,652.
13,698.
15.
1,760.
1,775.
539.
372.
911.
0.
1,440.
1,440.
125.
11,859.
11,984.
3.
9,521.
9,524.
IMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
411.
2,581.
2,992.
1,882.
1,975.
3,857.
0.
587.
587.
C.
217.
217.
175.
5,375.
5,550.
13,671.
7,406.
21,077.
3,244.
8,354.
11,598.
1,124.
1,007.
2,131.
361.
317.
678.
50.
778.
828.
14,107.
5,646.
19,753.
14.
5,249.
5,263.
*
CO
ES'SSS-SSSw
40.
32,168.
32,208.
241.
.16,644.
16.885.
0.
4,042.
4,042.
0.
1,670.
1,670.
17.
56,934.
56,951.
756.
95,251.
96,007.
173.
94,985.
95,158.
29.
8,972.
9,001.
396.
1,885.
2,281.
4.
6,521.
6,525.
629.
70,059.
70,688.
10.
51,645.
51,655.
467
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 31
STATE AND COUNTY
10 MARTIN CO
10 MONROE CO
10 NASSAU CO
10 OKALOOSA CO
10 OKEECHOBEE CO
10 ORANGE CO
10 OSCEOLA CO
10 PALM BEACH CO
10 PASCO CO
10 PINELLAS CO
10 POLK CO
10 PUTNAM CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
c.
4,491.
4,491.
21.
8,252.
8,273.
633.
3,997.
4,630.
138.
9,394.
9,532.
f\
C *
2,873.
2,873.
1,374.
43,703.
45,077.
76.
9,210.
9,286.
860.
51,942.
52,802.
113.
8,885.
8,998.
144.
55,5£4.
55,728.
212.
33,077.
33,289.
1,224.
5,644.
6,868.
468
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
2,737.
2,737.
2,032.
2,581.
4,613.
4,719.
1,551.
6,270.
61 .
4,409.
4,47C.
C.
1,178.
1 ,178.
1 ,546.
19,624.
21 ,170.
4,588.
2,614.
7,202.
12,286.
18,413.
30,699.
11 ,863.
5,336.
17,199.
2,536.
23,854.
26,390.
4,541 .
15,677.
20,218.
1 ,806.
2,202.
4,008.
IONS *
CO
0.
20,166.
20,166.
100.
39,195.
39,295.
835.
13,389.
14,224.
837.
51,223.
52,060.
0.
17,089.
17,089.
2,443.
254, 32*.
256,771.
208.
47,455.
47,663.
1,179.
284,143.
285,322.
567.
47,868.
48,435.
581.
332,471.
333,052.
238.
195,555.
195,793.
13,298.
19,637.
32,935.
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 32
ST
ts
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ATE AND COUNTY
ST JOHNS CO
ST LUCIE CO
SANTA RCSA CO
SARASOTA CO
SEMINOLE CO
SUMTER CO
SUUANNEE CO
TAYLOR CO
UNION CO
VOLUSIA CO
WAKULLA CO
WALTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
= ssss = srr=s = = r:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA-
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
0.
4,197.
4,197.
43.
6,948.
6,991.
4,191.
11,300.
15,491.
0.
14,308.
14,308.
2.
10,245.
10,247.
9.
1,892.
1,901.
28.
2,231.
2,259.
271.
2,853.
3,124.
9.
713.
722.
250.
22,025.
22,275.
14.
824.
838.
r
2,138!
2,138.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
2,152.
2,152.
3,572.
3,568.
7,140.
9,021.
4,175.
13,196.
0.
6,970.
6,970.
6.
4,612.
4,618.
12.
1 ,116.
1 ,128.
3,835-
1,204.
5,039.
2,682.
1,078.
3,760.
187.
446.
633.
14,094.
10,047.
24,141.
430.
474.
904.
0.
903.
903.
*
CO
0.
•21,578.
21,578.
193.
42,447.
42,640.
144.
40,040.
40,184.
1.
82,492.
82,493.
7.
51,196.
51,203.
13.
8,521.
8,534.
153.
12,503.
*2,656.
1,378.
14,149.
15,527.
45.
4,098.
4,143.
957.
127,006.
127,963.
70.
3,434.
3,504.
0.
10,396.
10,396.
469
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 33
STATE AND COUNTY
10 WASHINGTON CO
11 APPLING CO
11 ATKINSON CO
11 BACON CC
11 BAKER CO
11 BALDWIN CO
11 BANKS CO
11 BARROW CO
11 BARTOW CO
11 BEN HILL CO
11 BERRIEN CO
11 BIBB CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POIN T
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
c.
1 ,294.
1,294.
0.
1,942.
1,942.
24.
896.
920.
C.
1,330.
1,330.
n
u •
702.
702.
0.
2,446.
2,446.
0.
716.
716.
C.
2,589.
2,589.
386.
5.549.
5,935.
C.
2,120.
2,120.
0.
1 ,951.
1,951.
478.
16,405.
16,883.
0.
656.
656.
0.
1 ,014.
1 ,014.
124.
502.
626.
0.
790.
79C.
0.
270.
270.
16.
1 ,175.
1 ,191 .
0.
450.
450.
10.
1 ,351.
1 ,361 .
23,130.
2,650.
25,780.
0.
1 ,045.
1 ,045.
0.
1,015.
1,015.
6,269.
7,253.
13,522 .
0.
6,784.
6,784.
0.
9,312.
9,312.
24.
4,509.
4,533.
D.
7,050.
7,050.
0.
3,530.
7,530.
0.
11,459.
11,459.
0.
2,807.
2,807.
15.
10,611.
10,626.
1,286.
20,109.
"21,395.
C.
10,135.
10,135.
0.
9,637.
9,637.
5,020.
71,632.
76,652.
470
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 34
STATE AND COUNTY
11 BLECKLEY CO
11 BRANTLEY CO
11 BROOKS CO
11 BRYAN CO
11 BULLOCH CO
11 BURKE CO
11 BUTTS CO
11 CALHOUN CO
11 CAMDEN CO
11 CANDLER CO
11 CARROLL CO
11 CATOOSA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A Re A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
==============
0.
1,273.
1,273.
0.
1,006.
1,006.
0.
1,861.
1,861.
0.
1,584.
1,584.
0.
3,909.
3,939.
0.
3,009.
3,009.
0.
1 ,349.
1,349.
3.
893.
893.
129.
3,445.
3,574.
C .
933.
933.
0.
5,909.
5,909.
0.
2,245.
2,245.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
761.
761.
0.
517.
517.
0.
896.
896.
0.
695.
695.
0.
2,013.
2,013.
0.
1,200.
1,200.
0.
722 ^
722.
0.
494.
494.
2,302.
1,029.
3,331.
0.
629.
629.
34.
3,315.
3,349.
0.
1,196.
1,196.
*
CO
0.
6.76C.
6,760.
0.
5,254.
5,254.
0.
9,338.
9,338.
0.
6,890.
6,890.
0.
19,950.
19,950.
0.
13,572.
13,572.
0.
5,917.
5,917.
0.
4,302.
4,302.
8,386.
10,959.
19,345.
0.
4,946.
4,946.
7,201.
24,684.
31,885.
0.
8,991.
8,991.
471
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 35
STATE AND COUNTY
11 CHARLTON CO
11 CHATHAM CO
11 CHATTAHOOCHEE CO
11 CHATTOOGA CO
11 CHEROKEE CO
11 CLARKE CO
11 CLAY CO
11 CLAYTON CO
11 CLINCH CO
11 COBB CO
11 COFFEE CO
11 COLQUIT7 CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
18.
1,476.
1 ,494.
1,740.
17,626.
19,366.
0.
2,227.
2,227.
23.
3,023.
3,051.
2.
3,399.
3,401.
12.
7,516.
7,528.
0.
479.
479.
43.
10,914.
10,957.
0.
2,683.
2,683.
204.
27,473.
27,677.
0.
3,452.
3,452.
C.
6,298.
6,298.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
96.
621.
717.
20,406.
8,420.
28,826.
0.
1,057.
1,057.
788.
1 ,457.
2,245.
105.
2,406.
2,511 .
142.
4,036.
4,178.
0.
232.
232.
2.
5,824.
5,826.
C-
570.
570.
13,109.
13,243.
26,352.
0.
1,755.
1,755.
0.
2,320.
2,320.
IONS *
CO
18.
7,608.
7,626.
33,600.
83,665.
117,265.
0.
11,771.
11,771.
68.
11,010.
11,078.
10.
15,150.
15,160.
17.
29,530.
29,547.
0.
2,408.
2,408.
0.
57,683.
57,683.
0.
8,274.
8,274.
608.
133,871.
134,479.
0.
16,818.
16,818.
C.
•22,006.
22,006.
472
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 36
STATE AND COUNTY
11 COLUMBIA CO
11 COOK CO
11 COWETA CO
11 CRAWFORD CO
11 CRISP CO
11 DADE CO
11 DAWSON CO
11 DECATUR CO
11 DE KALB CO
11 DODGE CC
11 DOOLY CO
11 DOUGHERTY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL v
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
0.
15,926.
15,926.
90.
1,933.
2,023.
403.
4,550.
4,953.
C.
546.
546.
0.
2,670.
2.67C.
0.
1,034.
1,034.
0.
578.
578.
20.
4,016.
4,036.
1,754.
32,082.
33,836.
0.
2,093.
2,093.
11.
1,390.
1,401.
392.
11,656.
12,048.
0.
1,150.
1,150.
2,
957.
959.
24,561.
2,339.
26,900.
0.
337.
337.
0.
1,113.
1,113.
0.
714.
714.
0.
539.
539.
811.
1 ,491.
2,302.
38.
13,590.
13,628.
0.
1,058.
1,058.
7.
844.
851.
5,563.
5,767.
11 ,330.
CO
0.
7,207.
7,207.
6.
8,485.
8,491.
1,351.
18,188.
19,539.
0.
2,350.
2,350.
0.
10,550.
10,550-
0.
4,065.
4,065.
0.
2,807.
2,807.
26.
16,193.
16,219.
4.
1.11,815.
111,819.
0.
10,573.
10,573.
12.
6,311.
6,323.
307.
46,102.
46,409.
473
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 37
STATE AND COUNTY
11 DOUGLAS CO
11 EARLY CC
11 ECHOLS CO
11 EFF1NGHAM CO
11 ELBERT CO
11 EMANUEL CO
11 EVANS CO
11 FANMN CO
11 FAYETTE CO
11 FLOYD CO
11 FORSYTH CO
11 FRANKLI M CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
0.
4,214.
4,214.
430.
2,224.
2,654.
0.
602.
602.
2.
1 ,665.
1,667.
n,
u •
2,559.
2,559.
C.
3,064.
3,C64.
17.
1 ,087.
1,104.
0.
1 ,448.
1 ,448.
2.
1,560.
1,562.
903.
8,07C.
8,973.
C.
2,161.
2,161.
0.
1 ,872.
1 ,372.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
2,606.
2 ,606.
5,003.
992.
5,995.
0.
196.
196.
49.
1,021 .
1 ,070.
o.
1,381 .
1 ,331 .
6.
1 ,322 .
1 ,328.
87.
529.
616.
0.
947.
947.
36.
1,259.
1 ,295 .
15,439.
4,375.
19,814.
0.
1 ,884.
1 ,884.
0.
1 ,276.
1 ,276.
*
CO
0.
19,780.
19,780.
13, 2H.
8,983.
22,197.
0.
3,514.
3,514.
3.
8,253.
8,256.
0.
11,218.
11,218.
0.
14,337.
14,337.
17.
4,826.
4,843.
0.
5,719.
5,719.
2.
6,702.
6,704.
881.
34,005.
34,886.
0.
10,591.
10,591.
0.
7,599.
7,599.
474
-------
EMISSION PROFILES; an
STATE AND COUNTY
S« «»^ •• «»^ *•• • » • • s ^ * y j 3r **
s * » •» ^»> •• » ^ *»••*•••» ^
11 FULTON CO
11 GILMER CO
11 GLASCOCK CO
11 GLYNN CO
11 GORDON CO
11 GRADY CO
11 GREENE CO
11 GtalNNETT CO
11 HABERSMAM CO
11 HALL CO
11 HANCOCK CO
11 HARALSOK CO
TYPE OP
EM1SSLONJSS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTA4.
POINT
AREA
TOTAL.
POIH.T
AREA
TOTAL
POIIHT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CK
HC
2., U &4.»
1 , ,jct6 r
1,3' Oft.
Q*
32T.
7,959.
3,784.
Q.
2,407.
2,407.
92.
1,393.
1,485.
0.
9,607.
9,607.
1.
3,105.
3,106.
1.
8,256.
8,257.
0.
823.
823.
0.
2,929.
2,929.
NOW
£g:
Q.
TWtt*
III:
Jii:
m.
1.367.
1.367.
462.
720.
1.182.
3.
6.127.
6.130.
4.
1.685.
1.689.
30.
4.496.
4,526.
0.
463.
463.
0.
1,207.
1,207.
IS *•
(t®
«:
••» i^3pflb*fc %
ft ^A JU
n ft$3w%
•5 V %^K^ %
Q).
14.934.
ID*
92.
4,997.
5.089.
0.
34,821.
34.821.
1.
11.315.
11.316.
4.
31.982.
31.986.
0.
3,342.
3,342.
0.
10,433.
10.433.
475
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 39
STATE AND COUNTY
11 HARRIS CO
11 HART CO
11 HEARD CO
11 HENRY CO
11 HOUSTON CO
11 IRWIN CO
11 JACKSON CO
11 JASPER CO
11 JEFF DAVIS CO
11 JEFFERSON CO
11 JENKINS CO
11 JOHNSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
1,232.
1,232.
0.
2,377.
2,377.
17.
572.
589.
1.
3,145.
3,146.
0.
6,206.
6,206.
0.
1 ,084.
1 ,084.
0.
2,899.
2,899.
3.
993.
996.
U •
1,976.
1,976.
1.
2,260.
2,261.
0.
1,309.
1 ,309.
j.
1,079.
1,079.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS ...
NOX I .,1
0.
777.
777.
0.
963.
963.
1,097.
442.
1,539.
16.
1 ,988.
2,004.
473.
3,427.
3,900.
0.
592.
592.
0.
1,780.
1,780.
21.
487.
508.
0.
799.
799.
39.
1,207.
1,246.
0.
575.
575.
0.
587.
587.
„. , *; ,
_-!-__„
.,.,.< Or
5,129!
5,129.
0.
7,782.
7,782.
59.
2,394.
2,453.
1.
12,979.
12,980.
0.
33,928.
33,928.
' 0.
6,082.
6,082.
0.
11,999.
t1,999.
3.
3,142.
3,145.
0.
8,196.
8,196.
7.
10,295.
10,302.
C.
6,629.
6,629.
0.
4,884.
4,884.
476
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E 40
STATE AND COUNTY
11 JONES CO
11 LAMAR CO
11 LANIER CO
11 LAURENS CO
11 LEE CO
11 LIBERTY CO
11 LINCOLN CO
11 LONG CO
11 LOUNDES CO
11 LUWPK1N CO
11 «C OUFFIE CO
11 MC INTOSH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
*AW*WW_W^W*. BflBMklV
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
55ZSCSSSS SS vSTS
0.
864.
864.
0.
1,314.
1,314.
0.
729.
729.
50.
5,417.
5,467.
C.
1,254.
1,254.
1.
3,104.
3,105.
0.
1,492.
1,492.
0.
834.
834.
179.
7,356.
7,535.
0.
915.
915.
41.
3,506.
3,547.
0.
1,933.
1,933.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
779.
779.
0.
690.
690.
0.
341.
341.
454.
2,316.
2,770.
0.
776.
776.
785.
1,219.
2,004.
0.
624.
624.
0.
418.
418.
2,049.
3,539.
5,588.
0.
686.
686.
44.
1,049.
1.093.
0.
621.
621.
•*
CO
0.
4,547.
4,547.
0.
5*630.
5,630.
0.
3,751.
3,751.
68.
<23,364.
23,432.
0.
5,567.
5,567.
3,400.
11,820.
15,220.
0.
5,836.
5,836.
0.
4,947.
4,947.
5,883.
31.268.
37,151.
0.
5,317.
5,317.
199.
6,404.
6,603.
0.
7,775.
7,775.
477
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 41
STATE AND COUNTY
11 MACON CO
11 MADISON CO
11 MARION CO
11 MERIWETHER CO
11 MILLER CO
11 MITCHELL CO
11 MONROE CO
11 MONTGOMERY CO
11 MORGAN CO
11 MURRAY CO
11 MUSCOGEE CO
11 NEWTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APEA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUT
HC
0.
1,550.
1,550.
0.
1,840.
1,840.
0.
708.
708.
172.
2,304.
2,476.
0.
836.
836.
7.
2,621.
2,626.
1.
1,509.
1,510.
178.
903.
1,081.
0.
1,221.
1,221.
C.
2,170.
2,170.
291.
16,289.
16,580.
C.
3,961.
3,961.
ED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
770.
770.
0.
1 ,128.
1,128.
0.
397.
397.
866.
1,060.
1,926.
0.
659.
659.
92.
1 ,264.
1,356.
3.
710.
713.
111.
528.
639.
0.
685.
685.
0.
1,111 .
1,111.
320.
8,733.
9,053.
0.
2,145.
2,145.
*
CO
0.
7,875.
7,875.
0.
6,911.
6,911.
C.
3,236.
3,236.
172.
7,493.
7,665.
0.
4,517.
4,517.
18.
13,286.
13,304.
1.
5,824.
5,825.
145.
4,289.
4,434.
0.
4,853.
4,853.
0.
7,943.
7,943.
48.
78,868.
78,916.
0.
14,809.
14,809.
478
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 42
ST
£•£
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
ATE AND COUNTY
=== ================
OCONEE CO
OGLETHORPE CO
PAULDING CO
PEACH CO
PICKENS CO
PIERCE CO
PIKE CO
POLK CO
PULASKI CO
PUTNAM CO
QUITMAN CO
RABUN CC
TYPE OF
EMISSION
SSS8SSXSSSS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
=============
0.
832.
832.
0.
601.
601.
1.
1,578.
1,579.
0.
2,512.
2,512.
4.
1,587.
1,591.
2.
1,334.
1,336.
0.
708.
708.
C.
4,412.
4,412.
0.
1,139.
1,139.
473.
1,264.
1,737.
0.
315.
315.
4.
1,063.
1,067*
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
= === = = = = == = = === =
0.
675.
675.
0.
452.
452.
12.
1,389.
1,401.
0.
989.
989.
75.
880.
955.
39.
847.
886.
G.
555.
555.
325.
1,932.
2,257.
0.
702.
702.
27,659.
681.
28,340.
0.
183.
183.
242.
674.
916.
IONS *
CO
== ============
0.
3,727.
3,727.
0.
2,824.
2,824.
1.
6,903.
6,904.
0.
8,448.
8,448.
9.
4,211.
4,220.
3.
6,914.
6,917.
0.
3,495.
3,495.
0.
>7,341.
17,341.
0.
6,536.
6,536.
1,547.
5,713.
7,260.
0.
1,650.
1,650.
20.
4,191.
4,211.
479
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 43
STATE AND COUNTY
11 RANDOLPH CO
11 RICHMOND CO
11 ROCKDALE CO
11 SCHLEY CO
11 SCREVEN CO
11 SEMINOLE CO
11 SPALDING CO
11 STEPHENS CO
11 STEWART CO
11 SUMTER CO
11 TALBOT CO
11 TALIAFERRO CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APEA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
1.
1,338.
1,339.
264.
14,665.
14,929.
0.
3,042.
3,042.
0.
594.
594.
0.
2,163.
2,163.
C.
1,515.
1,515.
1.
4,562.
4,563.
6.
3,444.
3,450.
19.
944.
963.
C.
3,505.
3,505.
2.
561.
563.
C.
240.
240.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
16.
575.
591 .
7,909.
8,843.
16,752*
0.
1 ,839.
1,839.
0.
303.
303.
0.
991.
991 .
0.
661 .
661 .
105.
2,211 .
2,316.
99.
1,512.
1,611.
97.
427.
524.
0.
1,850.
1 ,850.
18.
297.
315.
C.
182.
182.
*
CO
1.
6,852.
6,853.
6,813.
71,493.
78,306.
0.
11,079.
11,079.
0.
2,216.
2,216.
0.
10,616.
10,616.
0.
6,974.
6,974.
4.
20,052.
20,056.
12.
12,093.
12,105.
19.
4,654.
4,673.
0.
16,465.
16,465.
2.
2,018.
2,020.
0.
1,042.
1,042.
480
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 44
STATE AND COUNTY
sssss ===z==========r=
11 TATTNALL CO
11 TAYLOR CO
11 TELFAIR CO
11 TERRELL CO
11 THOMAS CO
11 TIFT CO
11 TO OMB S CO
11 TOWNS CO
11 TREUTLEN CO
11 TROUP CO
11 TURNER CO
11 TUI6GS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
^
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
========
0.
2,108.
2,108.
0.
797.
797.
0.
1,740.
1,740.
0.
8,924.
8,924.
0.
4,711.
4,711.
0.
4,045.
4,045.
0.
2,723.
2,723.
0.
538.
538.
0.
754.
754.
0.
6,320.
6,320.
0.
1,383.
1,383.
7.
764.
771.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
======================
0.
1,190.
1,190.
0.
557.
557.
0.
879-
879.
0.
651.
651 .
0.
2,272.
2,272.
0.
2,464.
2,464.
0.
1,339.
1,339.
0.
424.
424.
0.
442.
442.
0.
2,448.
2,448.
0.
737.
737.
135.
550.
685.
__
CO
=========
0.
10,181.
10,181.
0.
3,534.
3,534.
0.
8,477.
8,477.
0.
6,685.
6,685.
0.
21,673.
21,673.
0.
21,081.
21,081.
0.
13,036.
13,036.
0.
2,510.
2,510.
0.
4,363.
4,363.
0.
23,928.
23,928.
0.
6,446.
6,446.
8.
3,784.
3,792.
481
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 45
STATE AND COUNTY
11 UNION CC
11 UPSON CO
11 WALKER CO
11 WALTON CO
11 WARE CO
11 WARREN CO
11 WASHINGTON CO
11 WAYNE CO
11 WEBSTER CO
11 WHEELER CO
11 WHITE CO
11 WHITFIELD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
1.
962.
963.
69.
3,013.
3,082.
33.
7,405.
7,438.
0.
3,482.
3,482.
105.
4,508.
4,613.
17.
719.
736.
35.
1,931.
1,966.
12.
3,525.
3,537.
0.
391.
391.
0.
794.
794.
0.
1,037.
1,037.
11.
9,307.
9,318.
6.
696.
702.
148.
1 ,542.
1,690.
1 ,067.
3,953.
5,020.
0.
1,744.
1 ,744.
148.
1 ,993.
2,141 .
86.
367.
453.
214.
1,130.
1 ,344.
1,990.
1 ,588.
3,578.
0.
213.
213.
0.
405.
405.
0.
808.
808.
546.
4,822.
5,36fc.
*
CO
1.
3,699.
3,700.
2.
13,770.
13,772.
80.
35,684.
35,764.
0.
13,267.
13,267.
29.
23,566.
23,595.
17.
2,438.
2,455.
35.
9,487.
9,522.
13,127.
14,274.
27,401.
0.
2,027.
2,027.
0.
3,867.
3,867.
0.
3,878.
3,878.
30.
35,945.
35,975.
482
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 46
STATE AND COUNTY
11 WILCOX CO
11 WILKES CO
11 WILKINSON CO
11 WORTH CO
12 HAWAII CO
12 HONOLULU CO
12 KAUAI CO
12 MAUI CO
13 ADA CO
13 ADAMS CC
13 BANNOCK CO
13 BEAR LAKE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
1,101.
1,101.
0.
1,496.
1,496.
5.
972.
977.
1.
1,944.
1,945.
777.
10,399.
11,176.
3,247.
48,652.
51,899.
213.
6,225.
6,438.
382.
8,494.
8,876.
338.
15,521.
15,859.
527.
2,520.
3,047.
211.
8,693.
8,904.
0.
2,346.
2,346.
0.
608.
608.
0.
721.
721.
137.
574.
711.
164.
1,076.
1,240.
3,045.
4,451.
7,496.
22,919.
20,802.
43,721.
881.
2,543.
3,424.
3,816.
3,148.
6,964.
0.
9,970.
9,970.
352.
687.
1 ,039.
149.
3,690.
3,839.
0.
746.
746.
0.
5,430.
5,430.
r.
6,644.
6,644.
10.
4,785.
4,795.
7.
9,902.
9,909.
217.
53,954.
54,171.
3,110.
248,416.
251,526.
265.
27,870.
28,135.
505.
39,844.
40,349.
0.
84,255.
84,255.
5,567.
14,319.
19,886.
0.
57,654.
57,654.
C.
14,837.
14,837.
483
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 47
STATE AND COUNTY
13 BENEWAH CO
13 B1NGHAM CO
13 BLAINE CO
13 BOISE CO
13 BONNER CO
13 BONNEVILLE CO
13 BOUNDARY CO
13 BUTTE CC
13 CAMAS CO
13 CANYON CO
13 CARIBOU CO
13 CASSIA CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
248.
2,183.
2,431.
0.
6,871.
6,871.
0.
5,359.
5,359.
12.
5,554.
5,566.
356.
5,401.
5,757.
16.
9,760.
9,776.
175.
3,194.
3,369.
2.
4,096.
4,098.
3.
1,885.
1,888.
11.
9,289.
9,300.
0.
3,758.
3,758.
2.
6,410.
6,412.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
425.
840.
1,265.
C.
2,944.
2,944.
0.
1,515.
1,515.
61.
1 ,066.
1 ,127.
252.
2,048.
2,300.
1 ,132.
4,351.
5,483.
349.
1,016.
1 ,365.
131 .
912.
1 ,043.
0.
387.
387.
1 .332.
6,428.
7,760.
12.
1 ,119.
1 ,131.
C.
2,145.
2,145.
IONS *
CO
2,044.
11,583.
13,627.
0.
45,593.
45,593.
C.
31,699,
31,699.
12.
32,788.
32,800.
3,858.
29,139.
32,997.
47.
68,263.
68,310.
1 ,334.
19,061.
20,395.
11.
24,303.
(24,314.
41.
11,247.
11,288.
53.
46,926.
46,979.
1.
22,792.
22,793.
0.
41,201.
41,201.
484
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 48
STATE AND COUNTY
= £====£= = == = = ===== =
13 CLARK CO
13 CLEARUA7ER CO
13 CUSTER CO
13 ELMORE CO
13 FRANKLIN CO
13 FREMONT CO
13 6EM CO
13 600DING CO
13 IDAHO CO
13 JEFFERSON CO
13 JEROME CO
13 KOOTENAI CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
- = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = s= = = = = z = =z z = = = = = =• = = = = =.
c.
4,146.
4,146.
149.
5,657.
5,806.
0.
9,404.
9,404.
34.
6,943.
6,977.
0.
1,969.
1,969.
450.
6,201.
6,651.
109.
1,881.
1,990.
0.
2,386.
2,386.
360.
14,467.
14,827.
0.
3,322.
3,322.
0.
3,519.
3,519.
461.
5,808.
6,269.
0.
769.
769.
296.
1,591.
1,887.
0.
1,780.
1,780.
517.
2,254.
2,771.
0.
818.
£18.
207.
1,615.
1,822.
545.
1,097.
1 ,642.
0.
1,038.
1,038.
582.
3,352.
3,934.
0.
1,435.
1,435.
0.
1,273.
1,273.
1,441.
3,989.
5,43C.
0.
24,350.
24,350.
1,170.
31,507.
32,677.
0.
55,375.
55,375.
69.
38,966.
39,035.
0.
13,668.
13,668.
4,951.
38,223.
43,174.
109.
11,054.
11,163.
0.
16,748.
16,748.
3,053.
84,238.
87,291.
0.
21*084.
21,084.
0.
18,732.
18,732.
2,365.
28,029.
30,394.
485
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 49
STATE AND COUNTY
13 LATAH CO
13 LEMHI CO
13 LEWIS CO
13 LINCOLN CO
13 MADISON CO
13 MIN1DOKA CO
13 NE2 PERCE CO
13 ONE1DA CO
13 OWYHEE CO
13 PAYETTE CO
13 POWER CO
13 SHOSHONE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
295.
3,947.
4,242.
91.
9,981.
10,072.
212.
1,226.
1,438.
C.
2,249.
2,249.
61.
2,274.
2,335.
9.
3,508.
3,517.
717.
5,269.
5,986.
0.
2,191.
2,191.
0.
12,447.
12,447.
0.
2,163.
2,163.
2,251.
3,078.
5,329.
73.
6,574.
6,647.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
493.
2,230.
2,723 .
50.
2,005.
2,055.
348.
616.
964.
0.
627.
627.
5 .
1 ,147.
1,152.
502.
1 ,717.
2,219.
4,716.
2,533.
7,249.
0.
608.
608.
0.
2,733.
2,733.
C.
1,326.
1,326.
49.
884.
933.
37.
2,446.
2,483.
IONS •*
CO
2,461.
23,530.
25,991.
991.
60,206.
61,197.
1,785.
6,803.
8,588.
0.
13,835.
13,835.
728.
15,142.
15,870.
38.
25,036.
25,07*.
8,847.
26,607.
35,454.
0.
13,340.
13,340.
0.
72,689.
72,689.
0.
11,882.
11,882.
6.
18,565.
18,571.
89C.
35,514.
36,404.
486
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 50
STATE AND COUNTY
13 TETON CO
13 TWIN FALLS CO
13 VALLEY CO
13 WASHINGTON CO
U ADAMS CO
U ALEXANDER CO
14 BOND CO
14 BOONE CO
14 BROWN CO
U BUREAU CO
14 CALHOUN CO
14 CARROLL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUT
HC
0.
1,229.
1,229.
16.
9,132.
9,148.
173.
12,595.
12,768.
0.
3,206.
3,206.
359.
8,444.
8,803.
120.
2,664.
2,784.
0.
2,144.
2,144.
191.
4,217.
4,408.
0.
471.
471.
120.
4,599.
4,719.
0.
1,234.
1,234.
0.
2,007.
2,007.
ED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
423.
423.
655.
3,990.
4,645.
272.
2,415.
2,687.
0.
1,124.
1,124.
365.
3,154.
3,519.
3.
757.
760.
0.
1,568.
1,568.
93.
1,847.
1,940.
0.
375.
375.
20.
2,921.
2,941.
0.
475.
475.
0.
1,216.
1,216.
CO
0.
7,770.
7,770.
43.
63,209.
63,252.
1,482.
72,699.
74,181.
0.
19,047.
19,047.
9.
26,683.
26,692.
0.
8,431.
8,431.
0.
12,935.
12,935.
12.
16,021.
,16,033.
0.
2,676.
2,676.
1.
23,771.
23,772.
0.
4,920.
4,920.
C.
9,620.
9,620.
487
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 51
STATE AND COUNTY
14 CASS CO
14 CHAMPAIGN CO
14 CHRISTIAN CO
14 CLARK CO
14 CLAY CO
14 CLINTON CO
14 COLES CO
14 COOK CO
14 CRAWFORD CO
14 CUMBERLAND CO
14 DE KALB CO
14 DE WITT CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
3.
1,705.
1,708.
562.
13,124.
13,686.
127.
3,175.
3,302.
0.
2,435.
2,435.
67.
1,512.
1 ,579.
18.
2,262.
2,280.
6,558.
5,674.
12,232.
72,831.
516,182.
589,013.
1,692.
1,872.
3,564.
0.
1,348.
1,348.
308.
6,493.
6,801.
219.
1,731.
1,950.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
83.
1,042.
1 ,125.
1 ,446.
7,477.
8,923.
106.
1,917.
2,023.
0.
1 ,486.
1,486.
0.
915.
915.
203.
1 ,675.
1 ,878.
193.
2,401.
2,594.
43,025 .
188,531. 1
231,556. 2
1,347.
1,143.
2,490.
0.
1,153.
1,153.
90.
3,196.
3,286.
0.
1,106.
1 ,106.
#
CO
19.
8,247.
8,266.
35.
71,212.
71,247.
1.
15,740.
15,741.
2,394.
13,250.
15,644.
0.
7,132.
7,132.
57.
12,102.
12,159.
8.
22,735.
22,743.
90,376.
,941,964.
,032,340.
81.
8,237.
8,318.
C.
7,282.
7,282.
0.
27,641.
27,641.
0.
8,451.
8,451.
488
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 52
STATE AND COUNTY
U DOUGLAS CO
14 DU PAGE CO
U EDGAR CO
U EDWARDS CO
U EFF1NGHAM CO
14 FAYETTE CO
14 FORD CO
14 FRANKLIN CO
U FULTON CO
14 GALLATIN CO
14 GREENE CO
14 GRUNDY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE ,
TO' L
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
32.
1,968.
2,000.
1,293.
53,879.
55.172.
96.
2,442.
2,538.
135.
1,161.
1,296.
1,934.
4,252.
6,186.
24.
2,717.
2,741.
0.
1,669.
1,669.
0.
3,164.
3,164.
367.
3,429.
3,796.
0.
604.
604.
0.
1,572.
1,572.
1,565.
3,956.
5,521.
2,002.
1,459.
3,461 .
1,068.
21,193.
22,261.
264.
1,410.
1,674.
0.
581.
581.
26.
2,366.
2,392.
51.
1,805.
1,856.
40.
1,129.
1,169.
77.
1,887.
1,964.
9,017.
2.497.
11,514.
0.
463.
463.
0.
1 ,140.
1,140.
2,909.
2,220.
5,129.
109.
11,164.
11,273.
21.
217,272.
217,293.
26.
12,064.
12,090.
0.
3,252.
3,252.
0.
19,006.
19,006.
116.
14,510.
14,626.
5.
9,629.
9,634.
10.
16,427.
16,437.
626.
19,693.
20,319.
0.
2,690.
2,690.
Q.
8,785.
8,785.
14,767.
17,267.
32,034.
489
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 53
STATE AND COUNTY
14 HAMILTON CO
U HANCOCK CO
14 HARDIN CO
14 HENDERSON CO
14 HENRY CO
U IROQUOIS CO
U JACKSON CO
14 J, PER CO
14 JEFFERSON CO
14 JERSEY CO
14 JO DAVIESS CO
14 JOHNSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
A-REA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
852.
852.
0.
2,312.
2,312.
3.
289.
289.
0.
1,212.
1,212.
12.
6,151.
6,163.
6.
4,161.
4,167.
2,314.
4,452.
6,766.
227.
1 ,203.
1,430.
85.
4,522.
4,607.
0.
1,829.
1,829.
86.
2,567.
2,653.
•i
J m
697.
697.
0.
588.
588.
0.
1,588.
1,588.
C.
295.
295.
C.
693.
693.
1 ,891 .
3,594.
5,485 .
0.
2,966.
2,966.
3,951 .
2,449.
6,400.
4,759.
748.
5,507.
224.
1,994.
2,218.
0.
1,093.
1,093.
33.
1,375.
1,408.
21 .
563.
584.
0.
5,096.
5,096.
0.
12,391.
12,391.
0.
1,421.
1,421.
C.
5,663.
5,663.
386.
32,268.
32,654.
0.
•20,429.
20,429.
266.
22,394.
22,660.
758.
6,190.
6,948.
5.
17,785.
17,790.
0.
9,221.
9,221.
?49.
11,197.
11,446.
3.
3,322.
3,325.
490
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 54
STATE AND COUNTY
====================
H KANE CO
H KANKAKEE CO
U KENDALL CO
U KNOX CO
14 LAKE CO
14 LA SALLE CO
14 LAWRENCE CO
14 LEE CO
14 LIVINGSTON CO
14 LOGAN CO
14 MC DONOUGH CO
14 MC HENRV CO
TYPE OF C
EMISSIONS HC
============================
POINT 3,082.
AREA 3C.675.
TOTAL 33,757.
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A SEA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
3,867.
9,79C.
13,657.
829.
4,376.
5,205.
2,296.
7,993.
10,289.
593.
36,764.
37,357.
2,974.
11,441.
14,415.
0.
1,630.
1,630.
361.
3,942.
4,303.
6,254.
4,835.
11,089.
3.
3,742.
3,745.
0.
3,321.
3,321.
553.
13,071.
13,624.
OMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
285.
12,357.
12,642.
1,076.
4,892.
5,968.
1,756.
1,549.
3,305.
519.
3,250.
3,769.
9,852.
15,645.
25,497.
3,183.
5,876.
9,059.
0.
1,402.
1,402.
292.
2,184.
2,476.
201.
2,834.
3,035.
120.
2,220.
2,340.
19.
1,858.
1,877.
386.
5,718.
6,104.
16.
102,448.
102,464.
68.
38,382.
38,450.
220.
11,351.
11,571.
C.
29,339.
€9,339.
307.
150,379.
150,686.
99.
54,083.
54,182.
0.
8,294.
8,294.
5.
18,092.
18,097.
30.
23,003.
•23,033.
17.
19,279.
19,296.
0.
15,832.
15,832.
45.
39,404.
39,449.
491
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 55
STATE AND COUNTY
14 MC LEAN CO
U MACON CO
14 HACOUPIN CO
U MADISON CO
U MARION CO
14 MARSHALL CO
14 MASON CO
14 MASSAC CO
14 MENARD CO
14 MERCER CO
14 MONROE CO
14 MONTGOMERY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
1,083.
11,817.
12,900.
4,438.
10,358.
14,796.
0.
3,591.
3,591.
47,781.
24,172.
71,953.
49,344.
4,604.
53,948.
4.
1,390.
1,394.
101.
2,092.
2,193.
616.
1,305.
1,921.
0.
729.
729.
C.
1,441.
1,441.
10.
1,855.
1,865.
244.
4,226.
4,470.
150.
6,544.
6,694.
875.
5,658.
6,533.
0.
2,415.
2,415.
17,569.
11 ,969.
29,538.
84.
2,488.
2,572.
6.
909.
915.
6,072.
1 ,193.
7,265.
25,831 .
750.
26,581 .
u .
621 .
621 .
0.
1,164.
1,164.
15.
1,178.
1,193.
41,226.
2,282.
43,508.
0.
59,165.
59.165.
23.
51,438.
51,461.
0.
18,268.
18,268.
107,093.
122,821.
229,914.
104.
•20,760.
<20,864.
0.
6,794.
6,794.
364.
10,346.
1C, 710.
1,368.
6,365.
7,733.
0.
3,947.
3,947.
0.
8,265.
8,265.
2.
10,899.
10,901.
748.
2C.477.
21,225.
492
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 56
STATE AND COUNTY
sssss ssssssssssss:
U MORGAN CO
H NOULTRIE CO
U OGLE CO
U PEORIA CO
U PERRY CO
14 PIATT CO
U PIKE CO
U POPE CO
U PULASKI CO
U PUTNAM CO
U RANDOLPH CO
U RICHLAND CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
159.
4,305.
4,464.
C.
1,357.
1,357.
2,068.
5,010.
7,078.
5,756.
17,840.
23,596.
361.
2,448.
2,809.
0.
1,358.
1,358.
0.
2,403.
2,403.
0.
311.
311.
0.
645.
645.
462.
803.
1,265.
180.
3,642.
3,822.
204.
1,912.
2,116.
I»W v««d»^W«V«M
761.
2,019.
2,780.
0.
897.
897.
60.
2,680.
2,740.
19,829.
8,825.
28,654.
0.
1,256.
1,256.
0.
1,112.
1,112.
2.
1,545.
1,547.
0.
291.
291.
0.
567.
567.
9,164.
467.
9,631.
1,535.
1,931.
3,466.
4.
1,051.
1,055.
77.
18,310.
18,387.
0.
6,272.
6,272.
11.
20,980.
20,991.
1,194.
71,974.
73,168.
0.
10,697.
10,697.
0.
7,919.
7,919.
0.
12,689.
12,689.
0.
1,617.
1,617.
2.
3,003.
3,005.
60,280.
2,967.
63,247.
39.
15,067.
15,106.
0.
9,337.
9,337.
493
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 57
STATE AND COUNTY
H ROCK ISLAND CO
14 ST CLAIR CO
U SALINE CO
14 SANGAMON CO
14 SCHUYLER CO
14 SCOTT CO
14 SHELBY CO
14 STARK CO
14 STEPHENSON CO
14 TAZEWELL CO
U UNION CO
14 VERMILION CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
4,101.
19,326.
23,427.
8,620.
21,541.
30,161.
0.
1,979.
1,979.
1 ,969.
15,022.
16,991.
c.
1,003.
1,003.
C.
779.
779.
0.
1,620.
1 ,620.
0.
550.
550.
121.
7,188.
7,309.
1,245.
13.158.
14,403.
31.
1,748.
1,779.
507.
12,028.
12,535.
662.
7,543.
8,205.
665.
11,598.
12,263.
14.
1,277.
1 ,291 .
2,287.
7,993.
10,280.
0.
728.
728.
0.
679.
679.
0.
1,293.
1 ,293.
0.
517.
517.
0.
2,228.
2,228.
66,496.
5,679.
72,175.
0.
1 ,074.
1 ,074.
1 ,660.
5,061 .
6,721.
1,544.
74,179.
75,723.
214.
1C5.068.
125,282.
0.
11,112.
11,112.
82.
73,979.
74,061.
0.
6,454.
6,454.
0.
3,943.
3,943.
0.
9,559.
9,559.
0.
2,931.
2,931.
0.
18,438.
18,438.
1,315.
53,521.
54,836.
0.
8,617.
8,617.
92.
41,149.
41,241.
494
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 58
STATE AND COUNTY
SS£SSESS£S===S=SSZ==
H UABASH CO
H WARREN CO
14 WASHINGTON CO
H WAYNE CO
14 WHITE CO
14 WHITESIOE CO
U WILL CO
U WILLIAMSON CO
U WINNEBAGO CO
U WOODFORD CO
15 ADAMS CO
15 ALLEN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
0.
1,530.
1,530.
0.
2,069.
2,069.
58.
1,407.
1,465.
7.
1,809.
1,816.
2.
1,732.
1,734.
98.
6,411.
6,509.
23,697.
27,712.
51,409.
300.
5,411.
5,711.
3,281.
30,417.
33,698.
102.
4,365.
4,467.
238.
3,686.
3,924.
7,305.
31,587.
38,892.
2.
683.
685.
0.
1,406.
1,406.
7.
1,075.
1,082.
95.
995.
1,090.
27.
1,176.
1 ,203.
35.
3,162.
3,197.
53,387.
13,704.
67,091.
3,869.
2,568.
6,437.
649.
10,336.
1C, 985.
0.
3,620.
3,620.
149.
1.91C.
2,059.
2,032.
15,639.
17,671.
*
CO
0.
6,194.
6,194.
0.
11,774.
11,774.
0.
8,409.
8,409.
28.
8,409.
8,437.
6.
9,315.
9,321.
6,208.
25,945.
32,153.
5,361.
120,274.
125,635.
166.
25,691.
25,857.
443.
96,789.
97,232.
0.
£1,006.
21,006.
92.
12,448.
12,540.
815.
115,177.
115,992.
495
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 59
STATE AND COUNTY
15 BARTHOLOMEW CO
15 BENTON CO
15 BLACKFORD CO
15 BOONE CO
15 BROWN CO
15 CARROLL CO
15 CASS CO
15 CLARK CC
15 CLAY CO
15 CLINTON CO
15 CRAWFORD CO
15 OAV1ESS CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
351.
10,927.
11 ,278.
244.
1,170.
1,414.
6,567.
1,892.
8,459.
1,072.
3,024.
4,096.
0.
502.
502.
114.
2,317.
2,431.
180.
4,900.
5,080.
4,461.
8,627.
13,088.
9.
2,582.
2,591.
800.
3,604.
4,404.
0.
739.
739.
414.
2,973.
3,387.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
957.
4,026.
4,983.
142.
1,101.
1 ,243.
32.
1,277.
1,309.
2,204.
2,258.
4,462 .
0.
485.
485.
0.
1 ,483.
1 ,483.
911 .
3,245 .
4,156.
747.
4,355.
5,102.
110.
2,000.
2,110.
145.
2,678.
2,823.
0.
648.
648.
11 .
1 ,808.
1,819-
*
CO
481.
28,239.
28,720.
18.
6,115.
6,133.
3.
8,113.
8,116.
278.
14,576.
14,854.
0.
2,304.
2,304.
0.
8,953.
8,953.
79.
21,381.
21,460.
99.
36,285.
36,384.
0.
12,873.
12,873.
6.
16,900.
16,906.
0.
3,754.
3,754.
1.
14,344.
14,345.
496
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 60
STATE AND COUNTY
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
DEARBORN CO
DECATUR CO
DE KALB CO
DELAWARE CO
DUBOIS CO
ELKHART CO
FAYETTE CO
FLOYD CO
FOUNTAIN CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
GIBSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ABEA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
hC
7,169.
2,710.
9,879.
1,033.
3,212.
4,245.
0.
4,979.
4,979.
626.
14,567.
15,193.
3,785.
4,541.
8,326.
3,513.
23,327.
26,840.
2,389.
4,200.
6,589.
555.
5,432.
5,987.
0.
2,537.
2,537.
25.
1,657.
1,682.
22.
2,627.
2,649.
918.
4,174.
5,092.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
37,632.
2,051.
39,683.
8.
1*649.
1,657.
21.
2,580.
2,601.
544.
7,321.
7,865.
2,487.
2,383.
4,870.
132.
9,534.
9,666.
52.
1,718.
1,770.
13,882.
2,938.
16,820.
2.
1,739.
1,741.
6.
1,175.
1,181.
44.
1,683.
1,727.
13,091.
2,223.
15,314.
1,540.
14,792.
16,332.
1.
10,965.
10,966.
230.
15,713.
15,943.
2,028.
62,940.
64,968.
589.
15,890.
16,479.
47.
66,975.
67,022.
28.
13,585.
13,613.
886.
25,592.
26,478.
79.
10,639.
10,718.
0.
6,668.
6,668.
81.
9,844.
9,925.
732.
17,953.
18,685.
497
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 61
STATE AND COUNTY
15 GRANT CO
15 GREENE CO
15 HAMILTON CO
15 HANCOCK CO
15 HARRISON CO
15 HENDRICKS CO
15 HENRY CO
15 HOWARD CO
15 HUNTINGTON CO
15 JACKSON CO
15 JASPER CO
15 JAY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
1,072.
9,704.
10,776.
259.
2,580.
2,839.
4,926.
S.562.
10,488.
747.
7,098.
3,845.
429.
2,381.
2,810.
774.
4,572.
5,346.
58.
6,085.
6,143.
3,567.
12,582.
16,149.
954.
5,710.
6,664.
874.
4,500.
5,374.
135.
2,952.
3,087.
649.
3,677.
4,326.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
1 ,924.
5,064.
6,988.
0.
2 , 04 9 .
2,049.
1,313.
3,922.
5,235.
112.
2,585.
2,697.
62.
1 ,916.
1 ,978.
94.
3,676.
3,770.
297.
3,516.
3,813.
584.
6,017.
6,601 .
42.
2,981 .
3,023.
56.
2,669.
2,725.
24,192.
1,942.
26,134.
3,429.
2,323.
5,752.
#
CO
744.
37,023.
37,767.
35.
12,714.
12,749.
1,015.
25,909.
26,924.
85.
15,173.
15,258.
58.
10,954.
11,012.
13.
23,460.
23,473.
288.
•25,314.
25,602.
4,496.
37,945.
42,441.
3.
19,087.
19,090.
52.
19,330.
19,382.
448.
10,011.
10,459.
1,313.
14,272.
15,585.
498
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 62
STATE AND COUNTY
srs=srsss==x=rsss=s;
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
JEFFERSON CO
JENNINGS CO
JOHNSON CO
KNOX CO
KOSCIUSKO CO
LAGRANGE CO
LAKE CO
LA PORTE CO
LAWRENCE CO
MADISON CO
MARION CO
MARSHALL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
:= = = = = = = === = ==:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
811.
2,299.
3,110.
2.
2,249.
2,251.
2,862.
6,346.
9,208.
107.
4,272.
4,379.
22,254.
9,037.
31,291.
106.
2,734.
2,840.
33,637.
39,938.
73,575.
2,868.
13,207.
16,075.
154.
4,299.
4,453.
1,486.
17,271.
18,757.
5,443.
75,551.
EC, 994.
757.
5,304.
6,061.
60,828.
1,531.
62,359.
176.
1,375.
1,551.
85.
3,736.
3,821.
2,453.
2,888.
5,341.
88.
4,518.
4,606.
155.
1,649-
1,804.
168,562.
21,968.
190,530.
46,007.
6,156.
52,163.
438.
3,151.
3,589.
1,928.
7,829.
9,757.
20,800.
37,139.
57,939.
52.
3,132.
3,184.
2,071.
11,468.
13,539.
12.
8,558.
8,570.
27.
28,549.
28,576.
144.
21,083.
21,227.
615.
30,424.
31,039.
0.
8,820.
8,820.
325,699.
195,955.
501,654.
4,429.
44,404.
48,833.
0.
•20,200.
20,200.
331.
67,972.
68,303.
53,352.
310,967.
364,319.
311.
19,653.
19,964.
499
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF.COUNTIES
PAGE* 63
STATE AND COUNTY
15 MARTIN CO
15 MIAMI CO
15 MONROE CO
15 MONTGOMERY CO
15 MORGAN CO
15 NEWTON CO
1T NOBLE CC
15 OHIO CO
15 ORANGE CO
15 OUEN CO
15 PARKE CO
15 PERRY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
5.
961.
966.
15.
5,215.
5,230.
731.
8,615.
9,346.
590.
3,977.
4,567.
149.
3,861.
4.C1C.
160.
1,393.
1,553.
151.
4,120.
4,271.
0.
31C.
310.
150.
1,722.
1,872.
0.
1,428.
1,428.
556.
1,392.
1,948.
714.
1,809.
2,523.
156.
742.
898.
1,482,
2,738.
4,220.
749.
5,224.
5,973.
612.
2,631.
3,243.
6,522.
2,936.
9,458.
0.
1 ,162.
1,162.
8.
2,745.
2,753.
0.
310.
310.
2.
1,282.
1 ,284.
0.
1 ,026.
1 ,026.
1,435.
1 ,231.
2,666.
117.
1,295.
1 ,412.
32.
4,512.
4,544.
786.
18,893.
19,679.
96.
34,361.
34,457.
77.
17,71?.
17,789.
386.
19,880.
•20,266.
0.
5,142.
5,142.
5,198.
17,218.
22,416.
0.
1,564.
1,564.
1.
7,331.
7,332.
0.
5,901.
5,901.
209.
7,119.
7,328.
251.
9,286.
9,537.
500
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 64
STATE AND COUNTY
15 PIKE CO
15 PORTER CO
15 POSEY CO
15 PULASKI CO
15 PUTNAM CO
15 RANDOLPH CO
15 RIPLEY CO
15 RUSH CO
15 ST JOSEPH CO
15 SCOTT CO
15 SHELBY CO
15 SPENCER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
879.
1,077.
1,956.
6,543.
7,397.
13,940.
1,502.
3,750.
5,252.
0.
1,335.
1,335.
, , 159.
3,077.
3,236.
1,884.
3,854.
5,738.
2,975.
2,963.
5,938.
0.
2,051.
2,051.
3,368.
28,275.
31,643.
400.
1,789.
2,189.
273.
4,147.
4,420.
804.
1,610.
2,414.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
23,318.
897.
24,215.
70,716.
5,056.
75,772.
1,116.
1,703.
2,819.
G.
1,194.
1,194.
1,562.
1,919.
3,481.
1,281.
2,886.
4,167.
14.
1,919.
1,933.
14.
1,580.
1,594.
2,687.
12,176.
14,863.
32.
1,280.
1,312.
2,974.
2,936.
5,910.
31.
1,457.
1,488.
#
CO
1,366.
5,876.
7,242.
5,434.
38,784.
44,218.
1,898.
14,024.
15,922.
0.
5,861.
5,861.
8.
11,513.
11,521.
15.
17,586.
17,601.
19.
10,962.
10,981.
951.
10,092.
11,043.
1,617.
93,172.
94,789.
1.
9,249.
9,250.
183.
17,135.
17,318.
177.
7,782.
7,959.
501
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 65
STATE AND COUNTY
15 STARKE CO
15 STEUBEN CO
15 SULLIVAN CO
15 SWITZERLAND co
15 TIPPECANOE CO
15 TIPTON CO
15 UNION CO
15 VANDERBURGH CO
15 VERMILLION CO
15 VIGO CO
15 WABASH CO
15 WARREN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
S HC NOX CO
0.
2,188.
2,188.
8.
4,434.
4,442.
150.
2,008.
2,158.
0.
669.
669.
1,173.
10,612.
11,785.
11.
1,568.
1,579.
1C.
575.
585.
1 ,284.
16,560.
17,844.
891.
1,725.
2,616.
3,083.
12,769.
15,852.
975.
4,567.
5.542.
32.
575.
607.
0.
1,437.
1,437.
0.
1,839.
1,839-
27,617.
1,600.
29,217.
0.
510.
510.
2,659.
6,355.
9,014.
3.
1 ,237.
1,240.
0.
658.
658.
3,765.
10,088.
13,853.
25,954.
1,305.
27,259.
19,870.
6,524.
26,394.
859.
2,477.
3,336.
334.
611 .
945.
0.
8,868.
8,868.
0.
14,907.
14,907.
502.
10,256.
10,758.
0.
2,887.
2,887.
285.
48,393.
48,678.
0.
P.114.
8,114.
0.
3,245.
3,245.
198.
67,871.
68,069.
1,568.
7,963.
9,531.
2,249.
51,976.
54,225.
92.
16,951.
17,043.
44.
3,268.
3,312.
502
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 66
STATE AND COUNTY
15 WARRICK CO
15 WASHINGTON CO
15 WAYNE CO
15 WELLS CO
15 WHITE CO
15 WHITLEY CO
16 ADA1R CO
16 ADAMS CO
16 ALLAMAKEE CO
16 APPANOOSE CO
16 AUDUBON CO
16 BENTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
1,980.
3,016.
4,996.
452.
2,659.
3,111.
2,136.
8,580.
10,716.
44.
2,634.
2,678.
1,099.
3,022.
4,121.
118.
3,559.
3,677.
0.
1,451.
1,451.
0.
704.
704.
20.
1,998.
2,018.
22.
1,815.
1,837.
0.
729.
729.
0.
2,160.
2,160.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
29,143.
2,950.
32,093.
17.
1,610.
1,627.
3,626.
4,547.
8,173.
0.
2,305.
2,305.
46.
1,992.
2,038.
0.
2,290.
2,290.
0.
1 ,094.
1,094.
0.
516.
516.
2,152.
825.
2,977.
45.
962.
1,007.
2.
645.
647.
16.
1,564.
1,580.
#
CO
1,732.
13,799.
15,531.
7.
9,588.
9,595.
1,399.
34,409.
35,808.
1,196.
12,330.
13,526.
16.
>2,742.
12,758.
0.
14,238.
14,238.
0.
8,328.
8,328.
0.
4,425.
4,425.
70.
7,465.
7,535.
373.
6,694.
7,067.
0.
4,691.
4,691.
1.
12,415.
12,416.
503
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 67
STATE AND COUNTY
16 BLACK HAWK CO
16 BOONE CO
16 BREMER CO
16 BUCHANAN CO
16 BUENA VISTA CO
16 BUTLER CO
16 CALHOUN CO
16 CARROLL CO
16 CASS CO
16 CEDAR CO
16 CERRO 6GRDO CO
16 CHEROKEE CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
149.
14,725.
14,874.
21.
2,276.
2,297.
9.
2,065.
2,074.
7.
1 ,846.
1,853.
1.
2,010.
2,011.
0.
1,259.
1,259.
0.
1,141.
1,141.
1.
1 ,996.
1,997.
^
U •
2,196.
2,196.
0.
2,140.
2,140.
2.
4,735.
4,737.
1.
1,489.
1,490.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
2,723.
6,945.
9,668.
324.
1,463.
1,787.
91.
1,383.
1,474.
74.
1,370.
1 ,444.
88.
1 ,298.
1 ,386.
0.
1,143.
1 ,143.
0.
963.
963.
54.
1,400.
1 ,454.
28.
1,485.
1,513.
27.
1,733.
1,760.
1,651.
2,703.
4,354.
126.
1,057.
1,183.
#
CO
18,114.
68,227.
86,341.
276.
12,669.
12,945.
24.
10,240.
10,264.
19.
10,098.
10,117.
4.
10,403.
10,407.
0.
7,148.
7,148.
0.
6,392.
6,392.
2.
10,211.
10,213.
1.
12,998.
12,999.
169.
12,074.
12,243.
7.
26,190.
26,197.
10.
8,251.
8,261.
504
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 68
STATE AND COUNTY
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
CHICKASAW CO
CLARKE CO
CLAY CO
CLAYTON CO
CLINTON CO
CRAWFORD CO
DALLAS CO
DAVIS CO
DECATUR CO
DELAWARE CO
DES MOINES CO
DICKINSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
E= = ssszs:sz = = ==sr = z
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
6. 91.
1,413. 1,024.
1,419. 1,115.
0.
1,099.
1,099.
39.
2,124.
2,163.
1.
2,062.
2,063.
652.
7,842.
3,494.
0.
1,718.
1,718.
4.
2,873.
2,877.
0.
1,008.
1,008.
0.
919.
919.
0.
1,680.
1,680.
102.
6,117.
6,219.
1.
2,187.
2.188.
0.
716.
716.
740.
1,172.
1,912.
13.
1,389.
1,402.
25,639.
2,816.
28,455.
4.
1,207.
1,211.
84.
2,088.
2,172.
C.
769.
769.
0.
737.
737.
0.
1,177.
1,177.
5,333.
2,488.
7,821.
4.
977.
981.
CO
==========
18.
7,422.
7,440.
0.
6,428.
6,428.
22.
10,178.
10,200.
3.
9,972.
9,975.
746.
27,242.
27,985.
4.
9,508.
9,512.
222.
14,604.
14,826.
243.
6,026.
6,269.
0.
5,410.
5,410.
0.
9,270.
9,270.
506.
22,046.
22,552.
0.
8,702.
8,702.
505
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 69
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS HC NOX
16 DUBUQUE CO
16 EMMET CO
16 FAYETTE CO
16 FLOYD CC
16 FRANKLIN CO
16 FREMONT CO
16 GREENE CO
16 GRUNDY CO
16 GUTHRIE CO
16 HAMILTON CO
16 HANCOCK CO
16 HASDIN CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
315.
9,661.
9,976.
10.
1,513.
1,523.
0.
2,196.
2,196.
7.
2,725.
2,732.
2.
1,691.
1,693.
0.
1,229.
1,229.
0.
1,216.
1 ,216.
G.
1,418.
1,418.
0.
854.
854.
3.
2,358.
2,361.
0.
1,300.
1,300.
7.
1,943.
1 ,950.
2,494.
4,619.
7,113.
123.
823.
946.
12.
1,540.
1,552.
96.
1,240.
1,336.
13.
1 ,087.
1 ,100.
0.
812.
812.
0.
864.
864.
0.
1,004.
1,004.
0.
808.
808.
60.
1 ,485.
1,545.
0.
1 ,065.
1,065.
119.
1,336.
1,455.
*
CO
4,162.
40,434.
44,596.
29.
6,940.
6,969.
2.
11,259.
11,261.
5,188.
9,457.
14,645.
0.
8,832.
8,832.
0.
5,475.
5,475.
0.
7,029.
7,029.
0.
6,766.
6,766.
0.
5,112.
5,112.
7.
12,821.
12,828.
0.
6,824.
6,824.
6.
9,364.
9,370.
506
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 70
STATE AND COUNTY
16 HARRISON CO
16 HENRY CO
16 HOWARD CO
16 HUMBOLDT CO
16 IDA CO
16 IOWA CO
16 JACKSON CO
16 JASPER CO
16 JEFFERSON CO
16 JOHNSON CO
16 JONES CO
16 KEOKUK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
1,613.
1,613.
0.
1,708.
1,708.
0.
980.
980.
16.
1,160.
1,176.
0.
861.
861.
1.
2,964.
2,965.
21.
1,901.
1,922.
4.
4,197.
4,201.
0.
1,826.
1,826.
74.
8,034.
8,108.
0.
1,740.
1,740.
C.
1,035.
1,035.
3.
1.268.
1,268.
0.
1,059.
1,059.
C.
733.
733.
397.
898.
1,295.
0.
655.
655.
15.
1,601.
1,616.
25.
1,280.
1,305.
87.
2,519.
2,606.
8.
852.
860.
1,005.
4,141.
5,146.
0.
1,184.
1 ,184.
0.
991.
991.
0.
9,625.
9,625.
0.
7,576.
7,576.
0.
5,740.
5,740.
34.
6,834.
6,868.
0.
4,213.
4,213.
11.
9,600.
9,611.
983.
9,616.
10,599.
117.
22,218.
22,335.
956.
7,096.
8,052.
66.
43,298.
43,364.
0.
9,033.
9,033.
0.
5,939.
5,939.
507
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 71
STATE AND COUNTY
16 KOSSUTH CO
16 LEE CO
16 LINN CO
16 LOUISA CO
16 LUCAS CO
16 LYON CO
16 MADISON CO
16 MAHASKA CO
16 MARION CO
16 MARSHALL CO
16 MILLS CO
16 MITCHELL co
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
1,833.
2,182.
4,015.
1,526.
A, 942.
6,468.
242.
20,718.
20,960.
0.
1,241.
1,241.
0.
950.
95°.
0.
1,024.
1,024.
0.
996.
996.
0.
2,184.
2,184.
66.
3,200.
3,266.
58.
5,041.
5,099.
0.
1,258.
1,258.
0 •
951.
951.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
366.
1 ,652.
2,018.
1,642.
2,025.
3,667.
9,526.
8,444.
17,970.
0.
771 .
771 .
0.
739.
739.
0.
836.
836.
0.
799.
799.
0.
1,337.
1,337.
1,000.
1 ,477.
2,477.
2,040.
2,213.
4,253.
10.
879-
889.
62.
810.
872.
#
CO
5,879.
11,648.
17,527.
74.
19,227.
19,301.
1,690.
85,426.
87,116.
0.
5,677.
5,677.
0.
5,390.
5,390.
0.
5,982.
5,982.
C.
6,204.
6,204.
2,054.
11,443.
13,497.
133.
12,268.
12,401.
1,423.
19,028.
20,451.
0.
7,025.
7,025.
C.
5,834.
5,834.
508
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 72
STATE AND COUNTY
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
MONONA CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MUSCATINE CO
O'BRIEN CO
OSCEOLA CO
PAGE CO
PALO ALTO CO
PLYMOUTH CO
POCAHONTAS CO
POLK CO
POTTAyATTAHIE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
39
43
10
10
HC
0
,320
,320
t
t
,
,
t
,
,
,
,
•
,
*
,
,
,
t
•
i
t
,
,
0
103
103
0
517
517
107
127
234
0
370
37C
0
877
877
0
530
530
0
194
194
0
039
039
0
080
080
034
167
201
159
011
170
ss
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
*
•
•
•
•
•
COMPUTED
1
1
8
2
10
1
1
1
1
10
16
27
3
5
8
EMI
NOX
C
,038
,038
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
t
t
t
*
*
»
0
675
675
0
769
769
522
029
551
36
063
099
0
625
625
0
950
950
4
878
882
C
577
577
0
930
930
680
557
237
292
265
557
SSIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CO
0.
8,275.
8,275.
0.
5,582.
5,582.
0.
6,452.
6,452.
860.
16,689.
17,549.
4.
7,583.
7,584.
0.
4,815.
4,815.
0.
8,037.
8,037.
0.
7,064.
7,064.
C.
12,290.
12,290.
0.
5,915.
5,915.
5,327.
184,937.
190,264.
10,419.
58,269.
68,688.
509
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 73
STATE AND COUNTY
16 POWESHIEK CO
16 RINGGOLD CO
16 SAC CO
16 SCOTT CO
16 SHELBY CO
16 SIOUX CO
16 STORY CO
16 TAMA CO
16 TAYLOR CO
16 UNION CO
16 VAN BUPEN CO
16 WAPELLO CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
1.
2,538.
2,539.
0.
651.
651.
0.
1,566.
1,566.
449.
15,268.
15,717.
0.
1,225.
1,225.
189.
2,486.
2,675.
108.
6,063.
6,171.
n
— •
1,636.
1,636.
C.
660.
66D.
5.
1,367.
1,372.
0.
832.
832.
13.
3,745.
3,758.
19.
1,471.
1 ,490.
0.
535.
535.
2.
1,107.
1,109.
6,232.
7,758.
13,990.
5.
931.
936.
0.
1 ,694.
1 ,694.
1,462.
3,886.
5,348.
3.
1 ,394.
1,397.
0.
548.
548.
107.
822.
929.
0.
641 .
641.
498.
1,902.
2,400.
4.
11.656.
11,660.
0.
4,126.
4,126.
0.
7,941.
7,941.
2,186.
79,962.
82,148.
1.
7,581.
7,582.
0.
12,319.
12,319.
156.
33,397.
33,553.
C.
9,086.
9,086.
C.
3,657.
3,657.
12.
8,023.
8,035.
0.
4,268.
4,268.
33.
17,764.
17,797.
510
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 74
STATE AND COUNTY
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
WARREN CO
WASHINGTON CO
WAYNE CO
WEBSTER CO
WINNEBA60 CO
WINNESHIEK CO
WOODBURV CO
WORTH CO
WRIGHT CO
ALLEN CO
ANDERSON CO
ATCHISON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
19.
2,361.
2,380.
0.
1,735.
1,735.
0.
862.
862.
9,868.
4,328.
14,196.
56.
2,948.
3,004.
0.
1,671.
1,671.
493.
10,875.
11,368.
C.
905.
905.
1.
1,612.
1,613.
5.
1,735.
1,740.
47.
900.
947.
52.
1,756.
1,808.
511
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
240.
1,830.
2,070.
1.
1,261.
1,262.
0.
662.
662.
1,615.
2,559.
4,174.
157.
874.
1,031.
0.
1 ,279.
1,279.
24,528.
5,457.
29,985.
5.
755.
760.
87.
1,215.
1,302.
3,105.
1,133.
4,238.
159.
754.
913.
151.
1,389.
1,540.
CO
54.
13,020.
13,074.
0.
9,208.
9,208.
0.
3,925.
3,925.
58.
22,606.
22,664.
13.
5,567.
5,580.
0.
10,033.
10,033.
1,378.
55,756.
57,134.
0.
5,364.
5,364.
6.
9,150.
9,156.
299.
8,210.
8,509.
26.
4,929.
4,955.
1.
8,159.
8,160.
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 75
STATE AND COUNTY
17 BARBER CO
17 BARTON CO
17 BOURBON CO
17 BROWN CO
17 BUTLER CO
17 CHASE CO
17 CHAUTAUQUA CO
17 CHEROKEE CO
17 CHEYENNE CO
17 CLARK CO
17 CLAY CO
17 CLOUD CC
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
631.
631.
729.
3,256.
3,985.
0.
2,058.
2,058.
61.
1,346.
1,407.
13,655.
5,197.
18,852.
0.
1 ,043.
1,043.
0.
530.
530.
34.
2,074.
2,108.
3.
417.
420.
1.
391.
392.
0.
1 ,407.
1,407.
1.
1,393.
1,394.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
22.
575.
597.
4,337.
2,147.
6,484.
0.
1,409.
1 ,409.
186.
1 ,063.
1 ,249.
8,488.
3,160.
11 ,648.
0.
591 .
591 .
0.
434.
434.
3,482.
1 ,452.
<.,934.
40.
442.
482.
24.
353.
377.
174.
903.
1,077.
33.
1,028.
1,061 .
#
CO
1.
3,569.
3,570.
291.
16,175.
16,466.
0.
12,541.
12,541.
27.
6,590.
6,617.
1,399.
26,781.
28,180.
0.
5,305.
5,305.
0.
2,758.
2,758.
134.
11,590.
11,724.
8.
2,467.
2,475.
5.
1,977.
1,982.
0.
6,921.
6,921.
4.
8,214.
8,218.
512
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 76
STATE AND COUNTY
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
COFFEY CO
COHANCHE CO
COWLEY CO
CRAWFORD CO
DECATUR CO
DICKINSON CO
DONIPHAN CO
DOUGLAS CO
EDWARDS CO
ELK CO
ELLIS CO
ELLSWORTH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
SSS*SSZ«ESSS»
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED
S HC
G.
854.
854.
35.
251.
286.
1,594. 1
3,780. 2
5,374. 3
0.
3,565. 2
3,565. 2
2.
479.
481.
130. 1
2,721. 1
2,851. 2
0.
985.
985.
251. 19
6,077. 3
6,328. 23
14.
532.
546.
0.
497.
497.
26.
2,569. 1
2,595. 2
37.
1,274.
1,311.
EMISSIONS
NOX
9.
823.
832.
173.
271.
444.
,380.
,169.
,549.
1.
,263.
,264.
28.
482.
510.
,051.
,821.
,872.
0.
771.
771.
,849.
,577.
,426.
191.
447.
638.
0.
368.
368.
548.
,672.
,220.
101.
854.
955.
4
4
1
1
18
18
16
16
2
2
14
14
4
4
30
31
2
2
2
2
13
13
5
5
#
CO
1.
,522.
,523.
48.
.368.
,416.
76.
,523.
,599.
0.
,417.
,417.
6.
,769.
,775.
114.
,828.
,942.
0.
,709.
,709.
602 =
,809.
,411.
76.
.411.
,487.
0.
,675.
,675.
4.
,754.
,758.
14.
,247.
,261.
513
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 77
~~
ST
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
TYPE OF
ATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
FINNEV CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
FORD CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
FRANKLIN CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GEARY CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GOVE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GRAHAM CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GRANT CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GRAY CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GREELEY CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
GREENWOOD CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HAMILTON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HARPER CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
85.
2,403.
2,488.
45.
2,740.
2,785.
160.
2,397.
2,557.
0.
3,129.
3,129.
0.
785.
785.
1.
396.
397.
468.
1,204.
1,672.
0.
595.
595.
C.
302.
302.
0.
1,861.
1,861.
0.
346.
346.
6.
822.
82&.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
1 ,264.
1 ,652.
2,916.
1,306.
1 ,845.
3,151.
1 ,719.
1 ,663.
3,382.
0.
1,684.
1 ,684.
0.
679.
679.
1 ,972.
408.
2,380.
3,191 .
707.
3,898.
0.
665.
665.
C.
290.
290.
0.
1,017.
1 ,017.
0.
360.
360.
88.
757.
845.
#
CO
» •* »• -w • v w w v w
••••» ••»•••» ^
564.
14,207.
14,771.
72.
15,596.
15,668.
105.
13,535.
13,640.
0.
16,291.
16,291.
0.
3,911.
3,911.
8.
2,290.
2,298.
224.
5,372.
5,596.
0.
3,536.
3,536.
0.
1,628.
1,628.
0.
9,749.
9,749.
0.
1,954.
1,954.
15.
4,814.
4,829.
514
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 78
STATE AND COUNTY
ssssz == = « = ==== = = =
17 HARVEY CO
17 HASKELL CO
17 HOD6EMAN CO
17 JACKSON CO
17 JEFFERSON CO
17 JEWELL CO
17 JOHNSON CO
17 KEARNEY CO
17 KINGMAN CO
17 KIOUA CO
17 LABETTE CO
17 LANE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
===================:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA' '
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EM1SS
HC
:================
0.
3,979.
3,979.
0.
461.
461.
16.
345.
361.
7.
1,024.
1,031.
0.
1,135.
1,135.
0.
757.
757.
6.
26,690.
26,698.
77.
487.
564.
2.
1,226.
1,228.
240.
498.
738.
40.
2,869.
2,909.
0.
330.
330.
NOX
========
0.
2,185.
2,185.
0.
522.
522.
54.
355.
409.
154.
955.
1,109.
0.
1,108.
1,108.
0.
689.
689.
422.
14,175.
14,597.
243.
386.
629.
36.
924.
960.
829.
469.
1,298.
521.
1,630.
2,151.
u •
307.
307.
IONS *
CO
==============
0.
17,732.
17,732.
0.
2,771.
2,771.
8.
2,074.
2,082.
45.
5,763.
5,808.
0.
5,687.
5,687.
0.
4,265.
4,265.
5.
145,869.
145,874.
41.
2,428.
2,469.
7.
7,003.
7,010.
18C.
2,580.
2,760.
30.
11,910.
11,940.
0.
1,789.
1,789.
515
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 79
STATE AND COUNTY
17 LEAVENWORTH CO
17 LINCOLN CO
17 LINN CO
17 LOGAN CO
17 LYON CO
17 MC PHERSOM CO
17 MARION CO
17 MARSHALL CO
17 MEADE CC
17 MIAMI CO
17 MITCHELL co
17 MONTGOMERY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
30.
A, 093.
4,123.
17C.
564.
734.
423.
833.
1,256.
96.
397.
493.
0.
3,524.
1,524.
2,755.
2,687.
5,442.
6.
1,765.
1,771.
0.
2,826.
2,826.
123.
540.
663.
0.
1,870.
1,870.
7.
918.
925.
3, COO.
4.60C.
7.60C.
121 .
2,649.
2,770.
431.
569.
1 ,000.
77,444.
800.
78,244.
252.
396.
648.
66.
2,214.
2,280.
3,693.
1 ,726.
5,419.
82.
1,205.
1,287.
0.
1,768.
1,768.
396.
541.
937.
0.
1,519.
1,519.
21.
688.
709.
2,031.
2,357.
4,388.
71.
19,092.
19,163.
56.
3,312.
3,368.
1,416.
4,181.
5,597.
33.
2,274.
2,307.
2.
19,422.
19,424.
615.
11,501.
12,116.
17.
8,816.
8,833.
0.
*5,045.
15,045.
79.
2,816.
2,895.
0.
10,123.
10,123.
2.
5,099.
5,101.
1,586.
19,380.
•20,966.
516
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 80
STATE AND COUNTY
17 MORRIS CO
17 MORTON CO
17 NEMAHA CO
17 NEOSHO CO
17 NESS CO
17 NORTON CO
17 OSAGE CO
17 OSBORNE CO
17 OTTAUA CO
17 PAWNEE CO
17 PHILLIPS CO
17 POTTAWATOMIE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
===========
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
0.
1,047.
1,047.
0.
335.
335.
172.
1,084.
1,356.
692.
2,495.
3,187.
0.
527.
527.
143.
673.
816.
137.
1,616.
1,753.
6.
6GO.
606.
166.
809.
975.
41.
941.
982.
1,129.
984.
2,113.
107.
2,511.
2,618.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
635.
635.
41.
490.
441.
544.
982.
1,526.
531.
1,466.
1,997.
0.
526.
526.
369.
659.
1,028.
402.
1,272.
1 ,674.
79.
596.
675.
420.
700.
1,120.
414.
710.
1,124.
1,603.
769.
2,372.
287.
1,177.
1 ,464.
*
CO
0.
4,996.
4,996.
3.
1.813.
1,816.
79.
5,527.
5,606.
40.
,10,048.
10,088.
0.
2,979.
2,979.
49.
3,638.
3,687.
58.
8,200.
8,258.
17.
3,276.
3,293.
54.
3,873.
3,927.
138.
5,599.
5,737.
298.
5,941.
6,239.
39.
10,615.
10,654.
517
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 81
STATE AND COUNTY
17 PRATT CO
17 RAWLINS CO
17 RENO CO
17 REPUBLIC CO
17 RICE CO
17 RILEY CO
17 ROOKS CO
17 RUSH CO
17 RUSSELL CO
17 SALINE CO
17 SCOTT CO
17 SEDGWICK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
1,338.
1,338.
0.
435.
435.
32.
6,862.
6,894.
152.
1,080.
1,232.
56.
1,182.
1,238.
73.
4,443.
4,516.
1.
974.
975.
57.
671.
728.
14.
1,460.
1,474.
3.
5,839.
5,842.
141.
719.
860.
66,904.
47,285.
114,189.
COMPUTED EMIS
NOX
191.
885.
1 ,076.
4.
467.
471.
3,946.
4,045.
7,991.
399.
866.
1,265.
179.
1 ,021.
1,20C.
368.
2,663.
3,031.
23.
673.
696.
164.
556.
720.
183.
1,023.
1,206.
2,382.
3,337.
5,719.
327.
588.
915.
16,560.
20,069.
?6,629.
SIONS *
CO
1.
7,692.
7,693.
0.
2,676.
2,676.
466.
'29,528.
29,994.
53.
5,993.
6,046.
27.
6,458.
6,485.
12.
•22,067.
22,079.
5.
5,188.
5,193.
23.
3,251.
3,274.
39.
8,839.
8,878.
57.
32,435.
32,492.
3,693.
4,986.
8,679.
381.
205,163.
205,544.
518
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 82
STATE AND COUNTY
== =
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
======.= ==== === == =
SEUARD CO
SHAUNEE CO
SHERIDAN CO
SHERMAN CO
SMITH CO
STAFFORD CO
STANTON CO
STEVENS CO
SUMNER CO
THOMAS CO
TRE60 CO
UABAUNSEE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
===========:
87.
2,070.
2,157.
84.
13,053.
13,137.
0.
427.
427.
220.
1,375.
1,595.
0.
729.
729.
87.
666.
753.
50.
267.
317.
122.
662.
784.
85.
2,958.
3,043.
5.
1,388.
1,393.
0.
762.
762.
C.
1,481.
1,481.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
1,947.
1,227.
3,174.
5,624.
8,053.
13,677.
0.
424.
424.
868.
921.
1,789.
0.
699.
699.
239.
676.
915.
133.
327.
460.
320.
616.
936.
458.
2,031.
2,489.
1,137.
954.
2,091.
1.
652.
653.
0.
962.
962.
*
CO
== = ""===
48.
12,036.
12,084.
301.
68,801.
69,102.
0.
2,291.
2,291.
85.
9,143.
9,228.
0.
3,971.
3,971.
32.
3,694.
3,726.
18.
1,822.
1,840.
43.
4,718.
4,761.
30.
14,868.
14,898.
19.
8,764.
8,783.
0.
4,082.
4,082.
0.
7,514.
7,514.
519
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 83
STATE AND COUNTY
17 WALLACE CO
17 WASHINGTON CO
17 WICHITA CO
17 WILSON CO
17 WOODSON CO
17 WVANDOTTE CO
1? ADAIR CO
18 ALLEN CO
18 ANDERSON CO
18 BALLARD CO
18 BARREN CO
18 BATH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
1.
274.
275.
68.
1,016.
1,384.
0.
355.
355.
BOA.
1,378.
2,182.
0.
511.
511.
18,852.
21,457.
40,309.
21.
1,176.
1,197.
37.
1,406.
1,443.
603.
990.
1,593.
111.
1,000.
1,111.
30*5.
3,479.
3,788.
C.
690.
690.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
17.
309.
326.
177.
976.
1,153.
0.
460.
460.
533.
871 .
1 ,404.
0.
482.
482.
14,322.
10,553.
24,875.
0.
880.
880.
9.
892.
901 .
73.
851.
924.
333.
837.
1,170.
58.
2,080.
2,138.
0.
61£.
618.
IONS *
CO
3.
1,817.
1,820.
23.
5,554.
5,577.
0.
2,399.
2,399.
8.
6,381.
6,389.
0.
2,728.
2,728.
2,651.
102,309.
104,960.
0.
6,850.
6,850.
509.
6,504.
7,013.
11.
5,356.
5,367.
10,152.
4,728.
14,880.
78.
16,160.
16,238.
0.
3,633.
3,633.
520
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 84
STATE AND COUNTY
==== = = = = = = ===========
18 BELL CO
18 BOONE CO
18 BOURBON CO
18 BOYD CO
18 BOYLE CO
18 BRACKEN CO
18 BREATHITT CO
18 BRECKINRIDGE CO
18 BULLITT CO
18 BUTLER CO
18 CALDWELL CO
18 CALLOWAY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
=============
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
KJ COMPUTED EMISSIONS "*
HC tf*. NOX CO
:== = = = = = == = z = = = xss:!S ======================
60.
2,794.
2,854.
794.
4,850.
5,644.
39.
1,750.
1,789.
9,690.
5,103.
14,793.
543.
2,564.
3,107.
393.
740.
1,133.
43.
1,156.
1,199.
0.
1,396.
1,396.
4,123.
2,164.
6,287.
0.
937.
937.
24.
1,392.
1,416.
643.
2,648.
3,291.
640.
1,540.
2,180.
87.
2,967.
3,054.
3.
1,162.
1,165.
4,091 .
3,013.
7,104.
39.
1,439.
1 ,478.
0.
640.
640.
5.
745.
750.
4.
1,205.
1,209.
24.
1,606.
1,630.
0.
693.
693.
2;
899.
901 .
59.
1,748.
1,807.
248.
13,093.
13,341.
11.
16,871.
16,882.
0.
9,200.
9,200.
55,803.
€6,768.
82,571.
46.
10,426.
10,472.
0.
3,674.
3,674.
0.
5,682.
5,682.
0.
7,174.
7,174.
1.
9,814.
9,815.
0.
4,192.
4,192.
109.
7,390.
7,499.
4.
13.741.
13,745.
521
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 85
STATE AND COUNTY
18 CAMPBELL CO
18 CARLISLE CO
18 CARROLL CO
18 CARTER CO
18 CASEY CO
18 CHRISTIAN CO
13 CLARK CO
18 CLAY CO
18 CLINTON CO
18 CRITTENOEN CO
18 CUMBERLAND CO
18 OAVJESS CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
225.
5,521.
5,746.
C.
579.
579.
802.
1,056.
1,858.
38.
2,120.
2,158.
0.
1,192.
1,192.
2,594.
6,359.
8,953.
469.
2,767.
3,236.
35.
1,478.
1,513.
2,421.
924.
3,345.
4.
923.
927.
C.
724.
724.
5,421.
7,364.
12,785.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
30.
3,306.
3,336.
0.
459.
459.
19,758.
663.
20,421 .
10.
1,388.
1,398.
0.
945.
945.
13.
3,618.
3,631.
4,763.
1,454.
6,217.
0.
1,003.
1,003.
13.
579.
592.
2.
615.
617.
0.
460.
460-
16,540.
4,551.
21,091.
*
CO
2.
32,354.
32,356.
0.
2,681.
2,681.
1,097.
4,937.
6,034.
2.
9,860.
9,862.
0.
6,351.
6,351.
19.
30,971.
30,990.
281.
11,322.
11,603.
0.
6,766.
6,766.
1,424.
3,829.
5,253.
0.
4,709.
4,709.
0.
3,622.
3,622.
2,073.
42,058.
44,131.
522
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 86
ST
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
ATE AND COUNTY
===============
EDMONSON CO
ELLIOTT CO
E STILL CO
FAYETTE CO
FLEMING CO
FLOYD CO
FRANKLIN CO
FULTON CO
6ALLATIN CO
6ARRARD CO
GRANT CO
GRAVES CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S
1
1
1
17
18
1
1
3
3
6
4
11
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
H
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
•
*
,
,
C
0
685
685
0
448
448
34
156
190
490
067
557
16
125
141
131
161
292
720
771
491
39
374
413
4
437
441
230
915
145
76
177
253
286
097
382
£
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
COMPUTED EMI
NOX
==============
0
507
507
0
307
307
24
749
773
609
9,603
10,212
0
969
969
74
2,153
2,227
234
3,262
3,496
1
813
814
0
377
377
3
583
586
2,029
962
2,991
315
2,231
2,546
SSIONS
S SSSSSS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
S.SSS
3
3
2
2
5
5
92
92
5
5
14
14
>26
•26
7
7
1
1
4
4
5
5
16
16
C
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
»
•
•
,
,
,
,
,
,
t
,
»
*
0
=== =
0.
539.
539.
0.
359.
359.
3.
656.
659.
57.
501.
558.
0.
441.
441.
25.
080.
105.
31.
937.
968.
69.
811.
880.
0.
858.
858.
0.
577.
577.
104.
214.
318.
26.
493.
519.
523
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 87
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSION
18 GRAYSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
18 GREEN CO
18 GREENUP CO
18 HANCOCK CO
18 HARDIN CO
18 HARLAN CO
18 HARRISON CO
18 HART CO
18 HENDERSON CO
18 HENRY CO
18 H1CKMAN CO
18 HOPKINS CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
S HC NOX CO
118.
2,035.
2,153.
A3.
880.
923.
757.
2,844.
3,601.
1,077.
789.
1,866.
374.
7,219.
7,593.
323.
2,524.
2,847.
452.
1,709.
2,161-
302.
1,336.
1,640.
1,356.
4,530.
5,886.
55.
1,023.
1,078.
C.
506.
506.
1,102.
4,588.
5,690.
22.
1,360.
1,382.
306.
834.
1,140.
456.
1,855.
2,311 .
13,795.
657.
14,452.
31 .
3,904.
3,935.
69.
1 ,915 .
1 ,984.
44.
1,177.
1,221.
3.
1,019.
1,022.
1,202.
2,369.
3,571.
7.
946.
953.
0.
463.
463 .
79.
2,583.
2,667.
1.224.
9,501.
10,725.
13.
4,952.
4,965.
39.
t6,060.
16,099.
5,065.
3,693.
8,758.
2.
32,066.
32,068.
2,264.
11,047.
13,311.
4.
8,683.
8,687.
0.
6,778.
6,778.
3,926.
19,209.
23,135.
17.
5,114.
5,131.
0.
2,228.
2,228.
706.
19,431.
20,137.
524
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 88
STATE AND COUNTY
18 JACKSON CO
18 JEFFERSON CO
18 JESSAMINE CO
18 JOHNSON CO
18 KENTON CO
18 KNOTT CO
18 KNOX CO
18 LARUE CO
18 LAUREL CO
18 LAURENCE CO
18 LEE CO
18 LESLIE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
==========================================
0.
744.
744.
31,879.
64,245.
96,124.
0.
1,754.
1,754.
158.
1,733.
1,891.
1,146.
9,264.
10,410.
0.
1,005.
1,005.
2,461.
1,767.
4,228.
152.
1,174.
1,326.
118.
2,630.
2,748.
880.
1,222.
2,102.
384.
529.
913.
C.
761.
761.
0.
588.
588.
42,691.
31,689.
74,380.
1.
1,075.
1,076.
7.
1,126.
1,133.
50.
5,486.
5,536.
0.
701.
701.
65.
1,119.
1.184.
84.
828.
912.
98.
1,871.
1,969.
23,949.
717.
24,666.
0.
397.
397.
0.
535.
535.
0.
3,537.
3,537.
10,659.
314,597.
3-25,256.
6.
8,508.
8,514.
0.
8,506.
8,506.
527.
47,418.
47,945.
0.
4,743.
4,743.
1,438.
8,659.
10,097.
5.
6,435.
6,440.
117.
10,494.
10,611.
1,330.
6,060.
7,390.
0.
2,570.
2,570.
0.
3,692.
3,692.
525
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 89
STATE AND COUNTY
18 LETCHER CO
18 LEWIS CO
18 LINCOLN CO
18 LIVINGSTON CO
18 LOGAN CO
18 LYON CO
18 MC CRACKEN CO
18 MC CREARY CO
18 MC LEAN CO
18 MADISON CO
18 MAGOFFIN CO
18 MARION CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
119.
1,799.
1,918.
0.
1,350.
1,350.
1.
1,581.
1,582.
35.
1,112.
1,147.
252.
2,201.
2,453.
33.
529.
562.
2,711.
6,000.
8,711.
0.
934.
934.
30.
874.
904.
415.
4,078.
4,493.
0.
1,302.
1,302.
264.
1,447.
1,711.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
97.
1,387.
1 ,484.
0.
903.
903.
0.
1,250.
1,250.
3.
805.
808.
92.
1 ,523.
1 ,615.
23.
372.
395.
43,114.
3,401 .
46,515.
C.
636.
636.
15.
873.
888.
188.
2,254.
2,442.
0.
623.
623.
97.
1,002.
1 ,099.
IONS *
CO
474.
8,941.
9,415.
0.
6,275.
6,275.
0.
7,655.
7,655.
411.
4,651.
5,062.
4.
10,349.
10,353.
3.
2,328.
2,331.
2,395.
30,614.
33,009.
0.
3,873.
3,873.
12.
4,218.
4,230.
20.
17,598.
17,618.
0.
6,560.
6,560.
20.
7,897.
7,917.
526
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 90
STATE AND COUNTY
SSS==SZ=Z SSSSSZSSSBS
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
MARSHALL CO
MARTIN CO
MASON CO
MEADE CO
MENIFEE co
MERCER CO
METCALFE CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MORGAN CO
MUHLENPERG CO
NELSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
szsssssszssss:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
:S=S=S==SSZ=X=SS=SSSSSSS==S£=ZSSS=S=SSSSSS
9,774.
2,566.
12,340.
0.
739.
739.
29.
2,282.
2,311.
9,130.
1,255.
10,385.
0.
356.
356.
733.
2,009.
2,742.
U.
772.
786.
C.
1,091.
1,091.
536.
1,871.
2,407.
4.
1,211.
1,215.
1,017.
2,362.
3,379.
6,000.
2,608.
8,608.
2,652.
1,809.
4,461.
0.
528.
528.
27.
1,185.
1,212.
1,848.
1,016.
2,864.
0.
286.
286.
13,498.
1,196.
14,694.
19.
649.
668.
0.
757.
757.
38.
1,138.
1,176.
1.
726.
727.
159,762.
1,779.
161,541.
329.
1,784.
2,113.
1,320.
11,065.
12,385.
0.
3,493.
3.493.
3.
8,757.
8,76C.
187.
6,213.
6,400.
0.
1,874.
1,874.
762.
9,625.
10,387.
163.
4,500.
4,663.
0.
5,319.
5,319.
3.
8,436.
8,439.
49.
6,233.
6,282.
3,297.
11,520.
14,817.
37.
10,864.
10,901.
527
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 91
STATE AND COUNTY
18 NICHOLAS CO
18 OHIO CO
18 OLDHAM CO
18 OWEN CO
18 OySLEY CO
18 PENDLETON CO
13 PERRY CO
18 PIKE CO
18 POWELL CO
18 PULASKI CO
18 ROBERTSON CO
18 ROCKCASTLE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
D.
737.
737.
243.
2,043.
2,286.
223.
1,225.
1,448.
25.
612.
637.
0.
454.
454.
28.
997.
1,025.
83.
2,391.
2,474.
194.
5,105.
5,299.
0.
646.
646.
686.
4,106.
4,792.
0.
171.
171.
11.
1,265.
1.276.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
677.
677.
45.
1,444.
1,489.
24.
1,058.
1,082.
0.
519.
519.
0.
289.
289.
0.
748.
748.
6.
1 ,617.
1,623.
79-
3,726.
3,805.
10.
512.
522.
7,471.
2,727.
10,198.
0.
180.
180.
0 .
754.
754.
*
CO
0.
3,003.
3,003.
521.
8,643.
9,164.
2.
4,918.
4,920.
0.
3,043.
3,043.
0.
2,402.
2,402.
0.
4,840.
4,840.
C.
12,501.
12.501.
13.
24,331.
24,344.
2.
3,009.
3,011.
424.
18,849.
19,273.
D.
973.
973.
C.
4,854.
4,854.
528
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 92
STATE AND COUNTY
=srsz ============
18 ROWAN CO
18 RUSSELL CO
18 SCOTT CO
18 SHELBY CO
18 SIMPSON CO
18 SPENCER CO
18 TAYLOR CO
18 TODD CO
18 TRIG6 CO
18 TRIMBLE CO
18 UNION CO
18 WARREN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
= == = ===========
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
==============
100.
1,369.
1,469.
0.
1,509.
1,509.
275.
2,145.
2,420.
103.
1,971.
2,074.
18,092.
2,271.
20,363.
C.
474.
474.
45.
2,486.
2,531.
18.
1,106.
1,124.
195.
913.
1,108.
0.
534.
534.
144.
1,622.
1,766.
1,582.
6,112.
7,694.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
=== = === == === =======
66.
849.
915.
0.
906.
906.
1.
1,345.
1,346.
18.
1,530.
1,548.
6.
1,262.
1 ,268.
4.
471.
475.
53.
1,512.
1,565.
54.
808.
862.
1.
778.
779.
0.
469.
469.
0.
1,215.
1,215.
62.
3,576.
3,638.
*
CO
==========
995.
6,603.
7,598.
0.
6,590.
6,590.
0.
9,277.
9,277.
0.
9,669.
9,669.
55.
7,973.
8,028.
0.
2,700.
2,700.
2.
10,498.
10,500.
6.
4,572.
4,578.
0.
3,781.
3,781.
0.
2.594.
2,594.
0.
7,402.
7,402.
174.
32,252.
32,426.
529
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 93
STATE AND COUNTY
18 WASHINGTON CO
18 WAYNE CO
18 WEBSTER CO
18 WHITLEY CO
18 WOLFE CO
18 WOODFORD CO
19 ACAOIA PAR
19 ALLEN PAR
19 ASCENSION PAR
19 ASSUMPTION PAR
19 AVOYELLES PAR
19 8EAUREGARO PAR
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
73.
916.
989.
7.
1,525.
1,532.
238.
1,306.
1,544.
89.
4,458.
4,547.
55.
476.
531.
2,205.
1 ,7*3.
3,948.
1,202.
4,075.
5,277.
572.
3,066.
3,638.
4,167.
3,144.
7,311.
270.
3,914.
4,184.
150.
3,225.
3,375.
46.
4,642.
4,688.
1. 0.
723. 5.150.
724. 5,150.
20.
799-
819.
10,866.
966.
11 ,832.
1.
2,034.
2,035.
0.
358.
358.
1,594.
1,167.
2,761 .
26,792.
2,783.
29,575.
2,839.
1,460.
4,299.
27,935.
2,661 .
30,596.
999.
1,752.
2,751.
233.
2,373.
2,606.
442.
2,188.
2,630.
41.
6,759.
6,800.
606.
6,840.
7,446.
130.
14,831.
14,961.
0.
2,041.
2,041.
53.
7,180.
7,233.
2,121.
22,577.
24,698.
829.
16,819.
17,648.
3,174.
15,027.
18,201.
406.
18,404.
18,810.
33.
16,595.
16,628.
327.
26,089.
26,416.
530
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 94
ST/
==:
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
tTE AND COUNTY
BIENVILLE PAR
BOSSIER PAR
CADDO PAR
CALCASIEU PAR
CALDWELL PAR
CAMERON PAR
CATAHOULA PAR
CLAIBORNE PAR
CONCORDIA PAR
DE SOTO PAR
EAST BATON ROUGE PAR
EAST CARROLL PAR
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS HC
POINT 643.
AREA 1,472.
TOTAL 2,115.
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
3,577.
6,201.
9,778.
1,912.
22,687.
24,599.
40,616.
12,064.
52,680.
9.
775.
784.
189.
2,036.
2,225.
0.
973.
973.
87.
1,730.
1,817.
0.
2,174.
2,174.
79.
2,074.
2,153.
26,887.
24,610.
51,497.
10.
1,078.
1,088.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
1,144. 197.
1,051. 7,069.
2,195. 7,266.
579.
3,575.
4,154.
9,368.
11,804.
21,172.
61 ,509.
7,751.
69,260.
127.
636.
763.
1,576.
1,286.
2,862,
0.
803.
803.
281.
998.
1,279.
0.
1,593.
1,593.
392.
1 ,346.
1,738.
37,940.
15,895.
53,835.
606.
1,055.
1,661.
2,282.
33,092.
35,374.
224.
110,300.
110,524.
20,751.
64,304.
85,055.
65.
3,906.
3,971.
1,729.
6,739-
8,468.
0.
5,233.
5,233.
524.
8,089.
8,613.
0.
10,942.
10,942.
78.
9,335.
9,413.
14,339.
130,821.
145,160.
29.
5,901.
5,930.
531
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 95
STATE AND COUNTY
19 EAST FELICIANA PAR
19 EVANGELINE PAR
19 FRANKLIN PAR
19 GRANT PAR
19 IBERIA PAR
19 IBERV1LLE PAR
19 JACKSON PAR
19 JEFFERSON PAR
19 JEFFERSON DAVIS PA
19 LAFAYETTE PAR
19 LAFOURCHE PAR
19 LA SALLE PAR
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
R POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
3,204.
1,137.
A, 341.
6.
2,781.
2,787.
78.
1,816.
1,894.
55.
1,099.
1,154.
16,013.
8,218.
24,231.
8,044.
3,879.
11,923.
643.
2,167.
2,810.
19,432.
16,193.
35,625.
2,252.
20,207.
22,459.
258.
10,427.
10,685.
159.
8,600.
8,759.
149.
1,539.
1,688.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
942.
942.
12,525.
1,847.
14,372.
407.
1 ,546.
1,953.
1 ,368.
935.
2,303.
2,087.
3,874.
5,961 .
35,280.
2,395.
37,675.
26,746.
1,050.
27,796.
45,838.
8,569.
54,407.
949.
13,378.
14,327.
5,500.
6,896.
12,396.
2,324.
4,317.
6,641 .
476.
1,080.
1,556.
*
CO
0.
6,188.
6,188.
114.
16,390.
16,504.
262.
9,876.
.10,138.
48,109.
5,198.
53,307.
153,849.
39,915.
193,764.
3,217.
18,884.
22,101.
3,322.
8,733.
12,055.
70,004.
30,840.
100,844.
166.
143,715.
143,881.
349.
58,886.
59,235.
222.
37,976.
38,198.
285.
6,693.
6,978.
532
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 96
STATE AND COUNTY
sszss ==== = = = = = = = = = === =
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
LINCOLN PAR
LIVINGSTON PAR
MADISON PAR
nOREHOUSE PAR
NATCHITOCHES PAR
ORLEANS PAR
OUACHITA PAR
PLAQUEMINES PAR
POINTE COUPEE PAR
RAPIDES PAR
RED RIVER PAR
RICHLAND PAR
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
=====================================================
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
1,486.
3,252.
4,738.
62.
4,977.
5,039.
11.
1,223.
1.234.
142.
2,625.
2,767.
271.
2,933.
3,204.
6.825.
46,962.
53,787.
2,486.
11,573.
14,059.
3,525.
4,534.
8,059.
21.
2,324.
2,345.
504.
11,412.
11,916.
55.
878.
933.
652.
1,792.
2,444.
1,247.
1,925.
3,172.
0.
2,863.
2,863.
55.
983.
1,038.
2,789.
2,069.
4,858.
1,872.
1,920.
3,792.
17,485.
31,741.
49,226.
12,910.
6,105.
19.015.
5,980.
3,930.
9,910.
3,475.
1,586.
5,061.
7,765.
7,046.
14,811.
276.
875.
1,151.
3,156.
1,274.
4,430.
89.
16,541.
16,630.
1,381.
24,164.
*5,545.
11.
6,439.
6,450.
9,380.
15,457.
24,837.
1,934.
15,592.
17,526.
3,959.
251,075.
255.034.
8,652.
53,803.
62,455.
580.
17,152.
17,732.
38.
11,085.
11.123.
10,368.
56,680.
67,048.
55.
4,130.
4,185.
193.
9,170.
9,363.
533
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 97
STATE AND COUNTY
19 ST BERNARD PAR
19 ST CHARLES PAR
19 ST HELENA PAR
19 ST JAMES PAR
19 ST JOHN THE BAPTIST
19 ST LANDRY PAR
19 ST MARTIN PAR
19 ST MARY PAR
19 ST TAMMANY PAR
19 SABINE PAR
19 TAN6IPAHOA PAR
19 TENSAS PAR
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
PPOINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
19,475.
4,409.
23,884.
19,957.
4,284.
24,241.
420.
1,982.
2,402.
2,021.
2,964.
4,985.
771.
2,402.
3,173.
6.
5,?29.
5,835.
2,323.
4,471.
6,794.
13,108.
8,914.
22,022.
30.
8,093.
8,123.
156.
3,932.
4,088.
50.
7,342.
7,392.
24.
758.
782.
42,728.
4,072.
46,800.
93,352.
2,505.
95,857.
944.
850.
1,794.
15,929.
1,623.
17,552.
643.
1,569.
2,212.
603.
3,961 .
4,564.
439.
2,498.
2,937.
15,370.
3,614.
18,984.
59.
4,407.
4,466.
745.
1,959.
2,704.
43.
4,464.
4,507.
204.
856.
1,060.
3,103.
27,124.
30,227.
5,572.
15,806.
«1,378.
227.
7,798.
8,025.
500.
14,702.
15,202.
112.
11,426.
11,538.
25.
32,113.
32,138.
232.
18,611.
18,843.
121,705.
40,061.
161,766.
2,687.
41,845.
44,532.
586.
12,512.
13,098.
259.
36,883.
37,142.
76.
3,560.
3,636.
534
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 98
STATE AND COUNTY
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
TERREBONNE PAR
UNION PAR
VERMILION PAR
VERNON PAR
WASHINGTON PAR
WEBSTER PAR
WEST BATON ROUGE PAR
WEST CARROLL PAR
WEST FELICIANA PAR
WINN PAR
ANDROSCOGGIft CO
AROOSTOOK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
z = = rrzzrss;
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
201.
10,556.
10,757.
7,238.
1,992.
9,230.
1,155.
A, 202.
5,357.
1.
3,328.
3,329.
264.
4,675.
4,939.
4,340.
4,043.
8,383.
87,792.
2,441.
90,233.
0.
1,129.
1,129.
15.
1,200.
1,215.
31,373.
1,579.
32,952.
5,451.
8,542.
13,993.
1,534.
8,680.
10,214.
4,785.
4,975.
9,760.
7,981 .
1,373.
9,354.
6,987.
3,179.
10,166.
184.
1,965.
2,149.
5,363.
2,516.
7,879.
9,113.
2,319.
11,432.
587.
1,767.
2,354.
0.
1,098.
1 ,098.
1,910.
720.
2,630.
1 ,644.
929.
2,573.
519.
4,261.
4,78C.
2,164.
5,079.
7,243.
944.
45,886.
46,830.
1,625.
9,596.
11,221.
1,379.
20,881.
22,260.
65.
19,794.
19,859.
8,934.
•24,207.
33,141.
21,689.
•20,944.
42,633.
258,238.
11,832.
270,070.
0.
5,907.
5,907.
3,484.
2,673.
6,157.
1,953.
8,258.
10,211.
2,211.
41,316.
43,527.
10,139.
43,551.
S3, 690.
535
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 99
STATE AND COUNTY
20 CUMBERLAND CO
20 FRANKLIN CO
20 HANCOCK CO
20 KENNEBEC CO
20 KNOX CO
20 LINCOLN CO
20 OXFORD CO
20 PENOBSCOT CO
20 PISCATAQUIS CO
20 SAGADAHOC CO
20 SOMERSET CO
20 WALDO CC
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
21,793.
21,029.
42,822.
878.
1,964.
2,842.
2,484.
3,951.
6,435.
1,985.
9,906.
11,891.
196.
2,395.
2,591.
1,095.
1,862.
2,957.
675.
3,510.
4,185.
8,070.
12,456.
20,526.
186.
2,115.
2,301.
212.
2,980.
3,192.
604.
4,439.
5,043.
1 ,441.
2,299.
3,740.
5,501.
11,399.
16,900.
4,841.
1,392.
6,233.
630.
2,392.
3,022.
5,243.
5,113.
10,356.
301.
1 ,433.
1 ,734.
213.
1 ,432.
1 ,645 .
1,580.
2,307.
3,887.
6,738.
7,115.
13,853.
130.
926.
1,056.
217.
1,282.
1,499.
564.
2,570.
3,134.
107.
1,600.
1,707.
6,506.
106,218.
112,724.
11,595.
8,822.
20,417.
865.
17,172.
18,037.
3,034.
48,813.
51,847.
510.
11,674.
12,184.
627.
8,509.
9,136.
5,468.
16,432.
21,900.
9,861.
66,443.
76,304.
408.
8,325.
8,733.
424.
11,403.
11,827.
8,229.
23,536.
31,765.
647.
11,675.
12,322.
536
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE100
STATE AND COUNTY
==== = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = =
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
WASHINGTON CO
YORK CO
ALLE6ANY CO
ANNE ARUNDEL CO
BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE CO
CALVERT CO
CAROLINE CO
CARROLL CO
CECIL CC
CHARLES CO
DORCHESTER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
============
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
725.
3,582.
4,307.
1,560.
13,734.
15,294.
74.
7,091.
7,165.
5,910.
32,893.
38,803.
6,243.
102,483.
108,726.
10,959.
34,243.
45,207.
0.
2,204.
2,204.
C.
2,262.
2,262.
C.
10,645.
10,645.
574.
5,526.
6,100.
340.
5,438.
5,778.
28.
5,451.
5,479.
2,997.
1,884.
4,881 .
736.
6,262.
6,998.
7,579.
4,142.
11,721.
12,998.
16,947.
29,945.
8,769.
48,287.
57,056.
26,117.
13,531.
39,648.
0.
1,496.
1,496.
0.
1,801 .
1,801.
6,239.
6,267.
12,506.
68.
3,367.
3,435.
22,674.
3,588.
26,262.
2.578.
2,053.
4,631.
7,937.
17,301.
25,238.
2,679.
58,257.
60,936.
276.
37,777.
38,053.
663.
149,935.
150,598.
5,307.
573,444.
578,751.
100,578.
80,504.
181,082.
0.
8,889.
8,889.
0.
10,830.
10,830.
0.
38,524.
38,524.
5.
21,459.
21,464.
1,258.
23,344.
24,602.
132.
20,030.
20,162.
537
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE101
STATE AND COUNTY
21 FREDERICK CO
21 GARRETT CO
21 HARFORD CO
21 HOWARD CO
21 KENT CO
21 MONTGOMERY CO
21 PRINCE GEORGES
21 QUEEN ANNES CO
21 ST MARYS CO
21 SOMERSET CO
21 TALBOT CO
21 WASHINGTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
6.
8,609.
8,615.
0.
1,869.
1,869.
190.
11,442.
11,632.
2.
7,539.
7,541.
0.
2,507.
2,507.
309.
34,761.
35,070.
176.
36,664.
36,840.
0.
2,050.
2,050.
2 .
3,915.
3,917.
26.
2,328.
2,354.
74.
3,607.
3,681.
187.
13,359.
13,546.
COMPUTED EMISSION:
NOX
1,646.
5,922.
7,568.
0.
1,554.
1,554.
613.
6,449.
7,062.
298.
4,592.
4,890.
0.
1 ,396.
1,396.
13,572.
20,758.
34,330.
12,157.
22,179.
34,336.
0.
1 ,323.
1,323.
175.
2,769.
2,944.
130.
1,265.
1,395.
729.
1,834.
2,563.
3,897.
6,749.
10,646.
s *
CO
295.
43,905.
44,200.
0.
8,775.
8,775.
71.
56,951.
57,022.
8.
29,442.
29,450.
0.
11,935.
11,935.
830.
203,846.
204,676.
692.
223,429.
224,121.
0.
8,779.
8,779.
14.
18,839.
18,853.
26.
9,766.
9,792.
154.
15,684.
15,838.
286.
58,647.
58,933.
538
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE102
STATE AND COUNTY
sssssszszs =zzs = =ra:sss
21 UICOMICO CO
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
WORCESTER CO
BERKSHIRE APCD
CENTRAL MASSACHUSE
MERR1MACK VALLEY A
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
TTSPOINT
AREA
TOTAL
PCOPOINT
AREA
TOTAL
METROPOLITAN BOSTON APOINT
AREA
TOTAL
PIONEER VALLEY APC
SOUTHEASTERN MASS.
ALCONA CO
AL6ER CO
ALLE6AN CO
ALPENA CO
D POINT
AREA
TOTAL
APPOINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
929.
-5,798.
6,727.
0.
4,793.
4,793.
1,113.
15,660.
16,773.
5,577.
74,196.
79,773.
5,602.
51,437.
57,039.
42,727.
235,470.
278,197.
15,459.
6-5,668.
81,127.
14,346.
85,951.
100,297.
0.
1,160.
1,160.
43.
1,394.
1,437.
159.
8,287.
8,446.
744.
3,600.
4,344.
0.
3,843.
3,843.
0.
2,176.
2,176.
1,907.
6,893.
8,800.
4,599.
27,800.
32,399.
2,441.
20,369.
22,810.
55,399.
99,629.
155,028.
4,233.
24,607.
28,840.
40,605.
35,166.
75,771.
0.
596.
596.
415.
472.
887.
1,152.
4,587.
5,739.
5,002.
2,154.
7,156.
0.
25,788.
25,788.
0.
18,710.
18,710.
2,692.
68,705.
71,397.
16,665.
303,147.
319,812.
3,752.
225,407.
229,159.
12,680.
1,220,005.
1,232,685.
8,810.
264,528.
273,338.
11,685.
361,467.
373,152.
0.
4,924.
4,924.
64.
6,150.
6,214.
96.
33,184.
33.28C.
101.
20.414.
20,515.
539
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E103
STATE AND COUNTY
23 ANTRIM CO
23 ARENAC CO
23 BARA6A CO
23 BARRY CO
23 BAY CO
23 BEN2IE CO
23 BERRIEN CO
23 BRANCH CO
23 CALHOUN CO
23 CASS CO
23 CHARLEVOIX CO
23 CHEBOYGAN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
2,450.
2,450.
0.
1,563.
1,563.
Q.
1,518.
1,518.
646.
4,225.
4,871.
3,035.
11 ,769.
14,804.
0.
1,324.
1,324.
2,063.
23,127.
Z5.190.
50.
4,816.
4,866.
3,261.
15,694.
18,955.
787.
5,099.
5,386.
118.
3,070.
3,188.
153.
3,291.
3,444.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
987.
987.
0.
958.
958.
0.
552.
552.
3.
2,396.
2,399.
44,413.
5,784.
50,197.
0.
690.
690.
264.
10,687.
10,951 .
344.
2,712.
3,056.
1,356.
7,167.
8,523.
0.
2,829.
2,829.
2,019.
1,161.
3,180.
425.
1,084.
1,509.
*
CO
2.
8,731.
8,733.
0.
5,744.
5,744.
0.
7,790.
7,790.
64.
16,079.
16,143.
22,498.
59,979.
82,477.
0.
5,729.
5,729.
891.
96,236.
97,127.
3,804.
21,279.
25,083.
356.
66,599.
66,955.
0.
20,964.
•20,964.
290.
11,885.
12,175.
5.
12,963.
12,968.
540
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE104
STATE AND COUNTY
ZZBSS SS.SSS SSSX = = = =SSSS
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
CHIPPEWA CO
CLARE CO
CLINTON CO
CRAWFORD CO
DELTA CO
DICKINSON CO
EATON CO
EMMET CO
6ENESEE CO
GLADWIN CO
GOGEBIC CO
GRAND TRAVERSE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
ss=s===ss=s:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A«€A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
:sssr=s = ssszz = r = z:Bs = s==xz = = zrsz = = = rzr ss.xxx.
0.
3,579.
3,579.
0.
2,671.
2,671.
319.
3,794.
4,113.
0.
1,210.
1,210.
248.
5,051.
5,299.
422.
3,227.
3,649.
101.
6,109.
6,210.
4.
2,447.
2,451.
22,687.
50,125.
72,812.
C.
1,980.
1,980.
113.
2,328.
2,441.
121.
6,900.
7,021.
0.
1,522.
1,522.
0.
1,438.
1,438.
0.
2,851.
2,851.
0.
547.
547.
3,175.
2,024.
5,199.
0.
1 ,366.
1,366.
4,229.
3,860.
8,089.
483.
1,324.
1,807.
3,948.
17,667.
21,615.
0.
1,136.
1,136.
37.
969.
1,006.
442.
3,242.
3,684.
0.
18,575.
18,575.
0.
12,041.
12,041.
0.
19,154.
19,154.
0.
6,207.
6,207.
4,764.
€2,654.
27,418.
229.
17,245.
17,474.
1,539.
30,839.
32,378.
49.
11,600.
11,649.
21,390.
182,418.
203,808.
0.
8,970.
8,970.
175.
12,516.
12,691.
57.
29,837.
29,894.
541
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 105
STATE AND COUNTY
23 GRATIOT CO
23 HILLSDALE CO
23 HOU6HTON CO
23 HURON CO
23 INGHAM CO
23 IONIA CO
23 10SCO CO
23 IRON CO
23 ISABELLA CO
23 JACKSON CO
23 KALAMAZOO CO
23 KALKASKA CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
3,610.
4,070.
7,680.
1,274.
4,995.
6,269.
28.
3,072.
3,100.
318.
3,719.
4,037.
13,055.
27,962.
41,017.
1,045.
5,480.
6,525.
74.
2,747.
2,821.
0.
2,205.
2,205.
24.
3,652.
3,676.
2,831.
14,799.
17,630.
2,933.
21,838.
24,771.
G .
820.
820.
COMPUTED EMISSION
NOX
613.
2,736.
3,349.
320.
2,774.
3,094.
685.
1,628.
2,313.
2,774.
2,945.
5,719.
6,577.
10,895.
17,472.
40.
2,884.
2,924.
41.
1,430.
1,471 .
0.
907.
907.
480.
2,304.
2,784.
254.
7,292.
7,546.
7,080.
8,218.
15,298.
187.
544.
731 .
S *
CO
56,943.
24,201.
81,144.
0.
20,389.
20,389.
227.
15,678.
15,905.
187.
18,196.
18,383.
1,998.
121,662.
1C3,660.
56.
•21,979.
22,035.
3.
13,347.
13,350.
0.
9,409.
9,409.
32.
19,787.
19,819.
195.
68,425.
68,620.
359.
86,783.
87,142.
0.
4,006.
4,006.
542
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE106
STATE AND COUNTY
scsss ===============
23 KENT CO
23 KEWEENAb CO
23 LAKE CO
23 LAPEER CO
23 LEELANAU CO
23 LENAWEE CO
23 LIVINGSTON CO
23 LUCE CO
23 MACKINAC CO
23 HA COMB CO
23 MAN1STEE CO
23 MARQUETTE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
= ===- = ==z= = S==:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
=== = = = === = = = === = = === ===== ========= = =======
14,092.
50,777.
64,869.
0.
1,212.
1,212.
0.
587.
587.
216.
4,813.
5,029.
0.
1,414.
1,414.
1,858.
9,528.
11,386.
641.
5,969.
6,610.
0.
988.
988.
30.
2,037.
2,067.
11,435.
71,948.
83,383.
549.
2,383.
2,932.
296.
5,579.
5,875.
1,015.
18,987.
20,002.
0.
154.
154.
0.
393.
393.
0.
3,568.
3,568.
0.
774.
774.
63.
5,346.
5,409.
258.
4,060.
4,318.
32.
440.
472.
0.
566.
566.
6,868.
24,467.
31,335.
1,711.
1,247.
2,958.
10,060.
2,781.
12,841.
517.
2-23,206.
223,723.
0.
4,140.
4,140.
0.
2,992.
2,992.
1,273.
21,502.
22,775.
0.
6,241.
6,241.
81.
46,315.
46,396.
36.
24,010.
24,046.
1.
4,847.
4,848.
91.
7,746.
7,837.
9,613.
304,069.
313,682.
440.
10,926.
11,366.
730.
30,355.
31,085.
543
-------
EMISSION PROFItES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 107
STATE AND COUNTY
23 MASON CO
23 MECOSTA CO
23 MENOM1NEE CO
23 MIDLAND CO
23 MISSAUKEE CO
23 MONROE CO
23 MONTCALM CO
23 MONTMORENCV CO
23 MUSKEGON CO
23 NEUAYGO CO
23 OAKLAND CO
23 OCEANA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APE A
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
46.
2,748.
2,794.
G.
3,052.
3,052.
260.
3,052.
3,312.
2,893.
8,337.
11,230.
20.
868.
E88.
2,125.
11,639.
13,764.
492.
4,906.
5,398.
0.
1,139.
1,139.
2,276.
17,468.
19,744.
1.
3,219.
3,220.
17,739.
93,383.
111,122.
C.
1,790.
1,790.
964.
1 ,556.
2,520.
0.
1,574.
1,574.
431.
1,518.
1,949.
16,127.
3,427.
19,554.
C.
611 .
611 .
63,499.
6,613.
70,112.
8.
3,075.
3,083.
0.
551 .
551 .
14,270.
7,565.
21,835.
97.
1 ,959.
2,056.
2,413.
32,959.
35,372.
0.
1,472.
1,472.
144.
13.A85.
13,629.
0.
15,468.
15,468.
247.
15,520.
15,767.
881.
34,386.
35,267.
60.
4,661.
4,721.
3,673.
53,628.
57,301.
43.
20,264.
20,307.
0.
4,396.
4,396.
16,367.
82,629.
08,996.
3.
>5,560.
15,563.
1,097.
405,415.
406,512.
35.
9,401.
9,43*.
544
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 108
STATE AND COUNTY
rrzz= ================
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
OGEMAW CO
ON TON AGON CO
*
OSCEOLA CO
OSCOOA CO
OTSE60 CO
OTTAWA CO
PRESQUE ISLE CO
ROSCOMWON CO
ST CLAIR CO
ST JOSEPH CO
SAGINAW CO
SANILAC CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
===========
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
559.
1,874.
2,433.
88.
1,093.
1,181.
366.
1,779.
2,145.
0.
549.
549.
219.
1,786.
2,005.
8,151.
18,479.
26,630.
3.
1,911.
1,914.
0.
2,185.
2,185.
18,857.
14,509.
33,366.
1,380.
8,554.
9,934.
2,778.
22,111.
24,889.
324.
4,375.
4,699.
COMPUTED EMISSION
NOX
0.
1,035.
1,035.
1,015.
670.
1,685.
0.
1,270.
1,270.
0.
338.
338.
864.
889.
1,753.
13,077.
8,521.
21,598.
45.
883.
928.
0.
960.
960.
42,494.
8,191.
50,685.
257.
4,151.
4,408.
1,006.
10,814.
11,820.
124.
3,080.
3,204.
S *
CO
0.
8,592.
8,592.
75.
4,951.
5,026.
0.
7,695.
7,695.
0.
2,471.
2,471.
10.
8,677.
8,687.
791.
78,906.
79,697.
6.
9,638.
9,644.
0.
8,397.
8,397.
2,265.
64,987.
67,252.
622.
29,384.
30,006.
66,363.
111,873.
178,236.
754.
18,479.
19,233.
545
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 109
STATE AND COUNTY
23 SCHOOLCRAFT CO
23 SHIAUASSEE CO
23 TUSCOLA CO
23 VAN BUREN CO
23 WASHTENAW CO
23 WAYNE CO
23 WEXFORD CO
24 AITKIN CO
24 ANOKA CO
24 BECKER CO
24 BELTRAM1 CO
24 BENTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
22.
1,663.
1,685.
79.
7,152.
7,231.
51.
5,356.
5,407.
150.
6,280.
6,430.
10,868.
26,734.
37,602.
65,587.
248,818.
314,405.
92.
2,957.
3,049.
0.
3,229.
3,229.
387.
22,863.
23,250.
2.
3,069.
3,071.
36.
6,127.
6,163.
30.
3,100.
3,130.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
236.
461.
697.
19.
4,074.
4,093.
327.
3,825.
4,152.
0.
4,113.
4,113.
1,506.
9,484.
10,990.
70,208.
89,345. 1
159,553. 1
0.
1,188.
1 ,188.
C.
1 ,244.
1 ,244.
165.
10,398.
10,563.
43.
1,784.
1 ,827.
194.
2,182.
2,376.
297.
1,538.
1,835.
CO
34.
7,481.
7,515.
231.
3J.217.
31,448.
3,776.
26,146.
•29,922.
4,111.
30,564.
34,675.
140.
96,167.
96,337.
88,808.
,169,865.
,258,673.
141.
12,179.
12,320.
0.
16,507.
16,507.
17.
130,192.
130,209.
6.
16,780.
16,786.
37.
32.334.
32,371.
39.
16,159.
16,198.
546
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE110
STATE AND COUNTY
rr==s==zzz=======z
24 BIG STONE CO
24 BLUE EARTH CO
24 BROWN CO
24 CARLTON CO
24 CARVER CO
24 CASS CO
24 CHIPPEWA CO
24 CHISAGO CO
24 CLAY CO
24 CLEARWATER CO
24 COOK CO
24 COTTONWOOD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
55.
869.
924.
1,037.
5,392.
6,429.
35.
3,143.
3,178.
68,091.
3,529.
71,620.
0.
3,034.
3,034.
22.
4,550.
4,572.
28.
1,613.
1,641.
0.
2,882.
2.882.
1,211.
4,486.
5,697.
513.
1,639.
2,152.
36.
2,294.
2,330.
92.
1,520.
1.612.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
332. 110.
554. 5,447.
886. 5,557.
774.
2,967.
3,741.
525.
1,691.
2,216.
1,590.
1,958.
3,548.
46.
1,946.
1 ,992.
23.
1 ,629.
1,652.
224.
1,050.
1,274.
0.
1,742.
1,742.
694.
2,609.
3,303.
578.
794.
1 ,372.
2,218.
691.
2,909.
3.
959.
959.
1,233.
"27,218.
28,451.
72.
16,587.
16,659.
123,682.
17,526.
41,208.
4.
15,498.
15,502.
244.
21,380.
21,624.
57.
10,494.
10,551.
0.
12,280.
12,280.
165.
28,785.
28,950.
125.
9,612.
9,737.
123.
10,691.
10,814.
0.
7,931.
7,931-
547
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE111
STATE AND COUNTY
24 CROW WING CO
24 DAKOTA CO
24 DODGE CO
24 DOUGLAS CO
24 FARIBAULT CO
24 F1LLMORE CO
24 FREEBORN CO
24 GOODHUE CO
24 GRANT CO
24 HENNEPIN CO
24 HOUSTON CO
24 HUB6ARD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
20.
5,055.
5,075.
13,815.
14,651.
28,466.
0.
961.
961.
1,403.
3,003.
4,406.
2.
2,093.
2,095.
662.
1,868.
2,530.
335.
4,056.
4,391.
77.
4,180.
4,257.
0.
886.
886.
2,GS8.
101,125.
103,213.
0.
1 ,448.
1 ,448.
0.
2,025.
2,025.
534.
2,615.
3,149.
10,038.
7,504.
17,542.
0.
826.
826.
32.
1 ,850.
1,882.
37.
1,532.
1 ,569.
0.
1 ,396.
1,396.
162.
2,470.
2,632.
200.
2,412.
2,612.
0.
627.
627.
9,504.
42,610.
52,114.
0.
988.
988.
0.
895.
895.
48.
23,231.
23,279.
560.
&1,099.
81,659.
0.
5,793.
5,793.
2.
16,913.
16,915.
5.
12,401.
12,406.
0.
10,446.
10,446.
9.
24,013.
24,022.
36.
19,850.
19,886.
0.
4,953.
4,953.
1,343.
444,237.
445,580.
0.
9,032.
9,032.
0.
10,937.
10,937.
548
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E112
STATE AND COUNTY
24 ISANTI CO
24 ITASCA CO
24 JACKSON CO
24 KANABEC CO
24 KANDIYOHI CO
24 KITTSON CO
24 KOOCH1CHING CO
24 LAC GUI PARLE CO
24 LAKE CO
24 LAKE OF THE WOODS
24 LE SUEUR CO
24 LINCOLN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
:s=ss==s==rz==
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
ssssszsszzssszsssss sssssssassssxszssssss =
c.
1.906.
1.906.
482.
5,718.
6,200.
C.
1,946.
1,946.
0.
1,685.
1,685.
30.
3,661.
3,691.
C.
732.
732.
238.
4,435.
4,673.
1.
1,023.
1,024.
69.
3,490.
3,559.
0.
2,763.
2,763.
2.
2,240.
2,242.
0.
765.
765.
17.
1,094.
1,111.
15,213.
2,569.
17,782.
0.
1,297.
1,297.
0.
731.
731.
233.
2,162.
2,395.
0.
571.
571.
1 ,740.
1,488.
3,228.
78.
832.
910.
2,237.
1,013.
3,250.
0.
463.
463.
24.
1,372.
1,396.
0.
557.
557.
1.
9,337.
9,338.
2,728.
28,791.
31,519.
0.
11,768.
11,768.
0.
7,623.
7,623.
61.
20,440.
20,501.
0.
4,805.
4,805.
3,911.
20,413.
24,324.
6.
6,513.
6,519.
673.
17,791.
18,464.
0.
12,001.
12,001.
5.
11,190.
11,195.
0.
4,715.
4,715.
549
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 11-3
STATE AND COUNTY
24 LVON CO
24 MC LEOD CO
24 MAHNOMEN CO
24 MARSHALL CO
24 MARTIN CO
24 MEEKER CO
24 M1LLE LACS CO
24 MORRISON CO
24 MOWER CO
24 MURRAY CO
24 N1COLLE7 CO
24 NOBLES CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
220.
2,465.
2,685.
10,764.
4,400.
15,164.
0.
669.
669.
14.
2,003.
2,017.
597.
2,803.
3,400.
1.
1,839.
1,840.
D.
2,597.
2,597.
0.
3,685.
3,685.
15.
7,445.
3,460.
0.
1,007.
1,007.
n
vJ •
2,959.
2,959.
3.
2,638.
2,641.
0.
1,517.
1,517.
721.
2,101.
2,822.
0.
439.
439.
171 .
1 ,225.
1 ,396.
1 ,469.
1 ,708.
3,177.
68.
1 ,297.
1 ,365.
2.
1,227.
1,229.
43.
1,832.
1,875.
1,207.
2,261.
3,468.
0.
792.
792.
29.
1 ,395.
1 ,424.
275.
1 ,754.
2,029.
*
CO
0.
14,130.
14,130.
131.
15,725.
:15,856.
0.
3,783.
3,783.
37.
13,081.
13,118.
104.
15,665.
15,769.
5.
10,941.
10,946.
0.
12,030.
,12,030.
3.
19,389.
19,392.
70.
21,198.
21,268.
0.
6,259.
6,259.
2.
15,994.
15,996.
15.
16,023.
16,038.
550
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E114
STATE AND COUNTY
= r sx.s =s=a r= = = r = = =is
24 NORMAN CO
24 OLMSTED CO
24 OTTER TAIL CO
24 PENNINGTON CO
24 PINE CO
24 P1PESTONE CO
24 POLK CO
24 POPE CO
24 RAMSEY CO
24 RED LAKE CO
24 REDWOOD CO
24 RENVILLE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
r = z= = =zr=.= =rr= = z = = =
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
938.
938.
329.
9,412.
9,741.
120.
6,018.
6,138.
0.
2,181.
2,181.
0.
3,049.
3,349.
0.
1,205.
1,205.
122.
3,851.
3,973.
0.
1,273.
1,273.
20,017.
60,587.
80,604.
0.
915.
915.
0.
1,803.
1,803.
21.
2,046.
2,067.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
ESSSSXS SE£S = = £S=£ =?SSS£SSSSZ =
0. 0.
758. 6,414.
758. 6,414.
2,506.
4,499.
7,005.
4,637.
3,320.
7,957.
0.
887.
687.
10.
1,779.
1,789.
0.
776.
776.
743.
2,485.
3,228.
0.
732.
732.
11,004.
25,124.
36,128.
0.
454.
454.
0.
1,353.
1,353.
951.
1 ,621.
2,572.
135.
46,123.
46,258.
380.
32,356.
32,736.
0.
11,475.
11,475.
0.
16,428.
16,428.
0.
7,341.
7,341.
245.
25,729.
25,974.
0.
7,408.
7,408.
910.
299,458.
330,368.
0.
5,061.
5,061.
C.
11,140.
11.140.
74.
13,210.
13,284.
551
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAG E 115
STATE AND COUNTY
24 RICE CO
24 ROCK CO
24 ROSEAU CO
24 ST LOUIS CO
24 SCOTT CO
24 SHERBURNE CO
24 SIBLEV CO
24 STEARNS CO
24 STEELE CO
24 STEVENS CO
24 SWIFT CO
24 TODD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
1,658.
4,292.
5,950.
C.
1,436.
1,436.
130.
2,386.
2,516.
1,242.
23,342.
24,584.
93.
4,244.
4,337.
687.
2,520.
3,207.
0.
1,430.
1 ,430.
276.
9,545.
9,821.
313.
3,014.
3,327.
C.
1 ,073.
1,073.
0.
1,321.
1,321.
r>,
2,261.
2,261.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
199.
2,159.
2,358.
0.
883.
883.
8.
1 ,000.
1 ,008.
6,626.
10,836.
17,462;
216.
2,873.
3,089.
29,795.
1 ,607.
31 ,402.
0.
1,124.
1 ,124.
648.
5,609.
6,257.
582.
1,703.
2,285.
5.
660.
665 .
6.
875.
£81.
26.
1 ,433.
1 ,461 .
*
CO
130.
•22,580.
22,710.
0.
8,931.
8,931.
1.
13,955.
13,956.
1,604.
124,788.
126,392.
33.
20,486.
20,519.
2,291.
13,899.
16,190.
0.
8,524.
8,524.
964.
50,314.
51,278.
27.
16,106.
16,133.
0.
6,733.
6,733.
0.
7,428.
7,428.
2.
12,676.
12,678.
552
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE116
STATE AND COUNTY
SSSSS ==.= = = ==== = =i = S
24 TRAVERSE CO
24 UABASHA CO
24 UADENA CO
24 UASECA CO
24 WASHINGTON CO
24 UATONVAN CO
24 UILKIN CO
24 U I NONA CO
24 WRIGHT CO
24 YELLOW MEDICINE
25 ADAMS CO
25 ALCORN CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
0.
552.
552.
0.
1,657.
1,657.
2.
1,431.
1,433.
C.
2,846.
2,846.
10,027.
8,907.
18,934.
0.
1,45?.
1,450.
0.
1,143.
1,143.
550.
4,904.
5,454.
120.
4,104.
4,224.
10.
1.343.
1,353.
305.
3,712.
4,017.
1 ,434.
3,427.
4,861.
*•«—•—=*«••
0.
431.
431.
8.
1,107.
1,115.
40.
779.
819.
8.
1,040.
1,048.
1,440.
5,105.
6,545.
0.
997.
997.
0.
775.
775.
36.
2,750.
2,786.
0.
3,038.
3,038.
882.
1,012.
1,894.
3,393.
2,166.
5,559.
17.
1,880.
1 ,897.
£••••»• — — — •••——• —
0.
3,652.
3,652.
0.
8,422.
8,422.
5.
7,222.
7,227.
0.
9,083.
9,083.
627.
51,062.
51,689.
0.
8,585.
8,585.
0.
8,111.
8,111.
864.
25,472.
26,336.
0.
18,872.
18,872.
39.
8,311.
8,350.
37,092.
15,947.
53,039.
83.
14,806.
14,889.
553
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 117
STATE AND COUNTY
25 AM1TE CO
25 ATTALA CO
25 BENTON CO
25 BOLIVAR CO
25 CALHOUN CO
25 CARROLL CO
25 CH1CKASAW CO
25 CHOCTAW CO
25 CLA1BORNE CO
25 CLARKE CO
25 CLAV CO
25 CGAHOMA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
389.
1 ,600.
1,989.
36.
2,071.
2,109.
17.
751.
768.
524.
4,309.
4,833.
121.
1,319.
1,440.
98.
•584.
1,082.
25.
3,985.
4,010.
0.
94£.
948.
176.
1 ,011.
1,187.
1 ,766.
1,538.
3,304.
65.
2,141.
2,206.
2,637.
3,873.
6,510.
COMPUTEO EMISS
NOX
170.
803.
933.
8.
1,154.
1 ,162.
2.
583.
585.
800.
2,473.
3,273.
171 .
850.
1 ,021 .
3.
735.
738.
1.
1,029.
1,030.
1 .
545.
546.
222.
873.
1 ,095.
42.
1,004.
1 ,046.
40.
97C.
1,010.
17.
1 ,936.
1,953.
IONS *
CO
1,794.
7,387.
9,181.
2,10.
9,873.
10,083.
88.
3,635.
3,723.
646.
21,245.
21,891.
900.
5,140.
6,040.
2.
4,937.
4,939.
186.
7,381.
7,567.
c>.
3,259.
3,259.
434.
4,674.
5,108.
2,971.
6,829.
9,800.
55.
8,191.
8,246.
238.
18,152.
18,390.
554
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E118
STATE AND COUNTY
=r ==================
25 COPIAH CO
25 COVIN6TON CO
25 DE SOTO CO
25 FORREST CO
25 FRANKLIN CO
25 GEORGE CO
25 GREENE CO
25 GRENADA CO
25 HANCOCK CO
25 HARRISON CO
25 HINDS CO
25 HOLMES CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
==== = = ===== = = === = = = = ==== = ===== = ==== ====== =
580.
2,601.
3,181.
753.
1,678.
2,431.
178.
3,962.
A, 140.
568.
7,776.
8,344.
992.
718.
1,710.
4.
1,356.
1,360.
0.
1,140.
1 ,140.
225.
2,552.
2,777.
0.
3,663.
3,663.
377.
15,078.
15,455.
1,322.
22,612.
23,934.
19.
2,092.
2,111.
143.
1,469.
1,612.
2.
1,362.
1 ,364.
3.
2,735.
2,738.
1 ,056.
3,67b.
4,734.
27.
503.
530.
38.
868.
906.
0.
608.
608.
622.
1,220.
1,842.
0.
1,522.
1,522.
14,076.
7,267.
21,343.
3,764.
11 ,254.
15,018.
5.
1,281.
1,286.
1,716.
12,677.
14,393.
10.
7,882.
7,892.
405.
17,184.
17,589.
208.
39,454.
39,662.
2,259.
3,319.
5,578.
11.
6,667.
6,678.
3.
5,977.
5,980.
578.
11,704.
12,282.
1.
21,071.
€1,072.
856.
85,795.
86,651.
462.
109,049.
109,511.
55.
11,310.
11,365.
555
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE119
STATE AND COUNTY
25 HUMPHREYS CO
25 ISSAQUENA CO
25 I7AWAMBA CO
25 JACKSON CO
25 JASPER CO
25 JEFFERSON CO
25 JEFFERSON DAVIS CO
25 JONES CO
25 KEMPER CO
25 LAFAYETTE CO
25 LAMAR CC
25 LAUDERDALE CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
88.
1,202.
1,290.
3.
786.
789.
98.
1 ,878.
1,976.
8,754.
16,521.
25,275.
979-
1,363.
2,342.
2.
864.
866.
1.
849.
850.
229.
5,832.
6,061.
19.
838.
857.
14.
2,221.
2,235.
8,222.
2,316.
10,538.
103.
8,611.
8,714.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
17.
764.
781 .
0.
492.
492.
7.
1,098.
1 ,105.
6,234.
6,753.
12,987.
321 .
1,021.
1 ,342.
14.
816.
830.
2.
615.
617.
3,566.
3.30C.
6,866 .
0.
614.
614.
2.
1,127.
1 ,129.
29.
1 ,264.
1,293.
511.
4,200.
4,711.
IONS *
CO
178.
6,254.
6,432.
5.
3,103.
3,108.
946.
6,681.
7,627.
6,240.
55,017.
61,257.
69.
6,597.
6,666.
2.
3,637.
3,639.
3.
4,009.
4,012.
211.
31,480.
31,691.
0.
4,178.
4,178.
5.
10,696.
10,701.
P.540.
10,605.
•20,145.
171.
39,414.
39,585.
556
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE120
STATE AND COUNTY
— » »™ — ™ — SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
25 LAURENCE CO
25 LEAKE CO
25 LEE CO
25 LEFLORE CO
25 LINCOLN CO
25 LOWNDES CO
25 MADISON CO
25 MARION CO
25 MARSHALL CO
25 MONROE CO
25 MONTGOMERY co
25 NESHOBA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS — •• *
HC NOX CO
346.
1,041.
1,387.
1,452.
1,529.
2,981.
2,833.
6,824.
9,657.
54.
3,856.
3,910.
24.
3,142.
3,166.
978.
5,505.
6,483.
63.
3,021.
3,084.
5,392.
2,265.
7,657.
0.
2,372.
2,372.
10,191.
3,981.
14,172.
8.
1,435.
1,443.
100.
2,262.
2,362.
3,851.
682.
4,533.
132,
1,224.
1,356.
69.
3,218.
3,287.
712.
2,312.
3,024.
28.
1,725.
1,753.
513.
2,723.
3,236.
4.
1,842.
1,846.
39.
1,578.
1,617.
0.
1,451.
1,451.
6.
2,041.
2,047.
2.
836.
838.
19.
1,196.
1,215.
»• « « V V V * •• W V ••
13,068.
4,854.
17,922.
17,060.
8,226.
25,286.
75.
24,159.
24,234.
92.
20,678.
20,770.
23.
17,409.
17,432.
66.
23,822.
23,888.
54.
15,332.
15,386.
3,071.
12,577.
15,648.
0.
10,808.
10,808.
28.
15,746.
15,774.
74.
7,239.
7,313.
1,183.
9,675.
>0,858.
557
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE
STATE AND COUNTY
25 NEWTON CO
25 NOXUBEE CO
25 OKTIBBEHA CO
25 PANOLA CO
25 PEARL RIVER CO
25 PERRY CO
25 PIKE CO
25 PONTOTOC CO
25 PRENTISS CO
25 OUITMAN CO
25 RANKIN CO
25 SCOTT CC
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE/1
T3TAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
85.
1,847.
1,932.
4.
1,010.
1,014.
160.
2,454.
2,614.
6.
3,269.
3,275.
191.
3,251.
3,442.
679.
1 ,78F.
2,467.
266.
3,734.
4,000.
98.
1,897.
1,995.
6.
2,286.
2,292.
154.
929.
1,083.
42.
5,002.
5 ,044.
19.
2,864.
?,883.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
18.
1,216.
1 ,234.
47.
741.
788.
86.
1 ,246.
1 ,332.
4.
1,733.
1,737.
59.
1 ,767.
1,826.
30.
778.
808.
31 .
1,942.
1,973.
4 .
1,034.
1 ,038.
0.
1,210.
1,210.
2.
666.
668.
270.
3,349.
3,619.
0.
1 ,643.
1 ,643.
*
CO
435.
8,342.
8,777.
11.
5,248.
5,259.
426.
11,380.
11,806.
7.
11,953.
11,960.
1,079.
16,984.
18,063.
2,991.
9,405.
12,396.
2,802.
t6,148.
18,950.
239.
6,802.
7,041.
6.
8,211.
8,217.
29.
4,346.
4,375.
647.
22,456.
23,103.
3.
14,239.
14,242.
558
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE122
STATE AND COUNTY
25 SHARKEY CO
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
SIMPSON CO
SMITH CO
STONE CO
SUNFLOWER CO
TALLAHATCHIE CO
TATE CO
TIPPAH CO
TISHOHIN60 CO
TUNICA CO
UNION CO
WALTHALL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
119.
753.
872.
249.
2,435.
2,684.
348.
1,688.
2.036.
311.
1,444.
1,755.
625.
3,335.
3,960.
72.
1,516.
1,588.
83.
1,554.
1,637.
39.
2,357.
2,396.
2,091.
1,930.
4,021.
13.
1,408.
1,421.
93.
2,387.
2,480.
1.
1,123.
1,124.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
15.
486.
501.
47.
1,380.
1,427.
120.
923.
1,043.
1,281.
722.
2.003.
136.
1,574.
1,710.
9.
846.
855.
38.
980.
1,018.
6.
961.
967.
0.
954.
954.
2.
976.
978.
12.
1 ,322.
1,334.
98.
936.
1,034.
IONS *
CO
1,075.
3,775.
4,850.
1,447.
9,065.
10,512.
605.
6,447.
7,052.
973.
7,373.
8,346.
1,594.
16,086.
17,680.
728.
7,878.
8,606.
29.
7,071.
7,100.
225.
6,746.
6,971.
1.
6,302.
6,303.
30.
6,154.
6,184.
312.
10,662.
10,974.
9.
5,443.
5,452.
559
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PACE 123
STATE AND COUNTY
25 WARREN CO
25 WASHINGTON CO
25 WAYNE CC
25 WEBSTER CO
25 WILKINSON CO
25 WINSTON CO
25 YALOBUSHA CO
25 YAZOO CO
26 ADA1R CO
26 ANDREW CO
26 ATCHISON CO
26 AUDRAIN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
635.
A, 637.
5,272.
569.
6,750.
7,319.
2,492.
2,006.
4,498.
11.
893.
904.
5.
1,022.
1,027.
214.
1,995.
2,209.
0.
1,608.
1,608.
354.
2,673.
3,027.
0.
3,093.
3,093.
C .
1,110.
1,110.
0.
1,091.
1,091.
43.
2,588.
2,631.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
19,751.
2,988.
22,739.
14,532.
3,540.
18,072.
54.
989.
1 ,043.
59.
623.
682.
0.
879-
879.
15.
1 ,381 .
1 ,396.
0.
765.
765.
6,192.
1,639.
7,831.
0.
1,260.
1,260.
0.
982.
982.
0.
887.
887.
92.
1 ,876.
1 ,968.
IONS *
CO
12,286.
20,972.
33,258.
1,231.
30,339.
31,570.
1,957.
9,220.
11,177.
11.
3,540.
3,551.
59.
4,144.
4,203.
432.
9,491.
9,923.
0.
6,535.
6,535.
196.
13,707.
13,903.
0.
10,856.
10,856.
0.
6,360.
6,360.
0.
5,672.
5,672.
23.
13,938.
13,961.
560
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE124
STATE AND COUNTY
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
BARRY CO
BARTON CO
BATES CO
BENTON CO
BOLLINGER CO
BOONE CO
BUCHANAN CO
BUTLER CO
CALDUELL CO
CALLAyAY CO
CAMDEN CO
CAPE GIRARDEAU CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
3,195.
3,195.
C.
1,420.
1,420.
0.
1,598.
1,598.
0.
1,755.
1,755.
0.
930.
93C.
71.
6,474.
6,545.
324.
10,073.
10,397.
0.
3,340.
3,340.
0.
1,023.
1,023.
10.
2,642.
2,652.
0.
3,205.
3,205.
3.
5,721.
5,724.
1.
1,822.
1,823.
0.
982.
982.
0.
1,472.
1,472.
0.
1,038.
1,038.
0.
742.
742.
1,427.
3,698.
5,125.
3,698.
4,385.
8,083.
0.
2,086.
2,086.
0.
990.
990.
123.
1,892.
2,015.
0.
1,280.
1,280.
728.
2,858.
3,586.
0.
14,901.
14,901.
0.
7,125.
7,125.
0.
9,447.
9,447.
0.
7,969.
7,969.
0.
4,823.
4,823.
165.
33,052.
33,217.
400.
42,882.
43,282.
0.
16,062.
16,062.
0.
5,566.
5,566.
37.
13,793.
13,830.
0.
12,738.
12,738.
7.
24,343.
24,350.
561
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE125
STATE AND COUNTY
26 CARROLL CO
26 CARTER CO
26 CASS CO
26 CEDAR CO
26 CHARITON CO
26 CHRISTIAN CO
26 CLARK CO
26 CLAY CO
26 CLINTON CO
26 COLE CO
26 COOPER CO
26 CRAyFORO CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
D.
1,566.
1,566.
0.
462.
462.
10.
4,714.
4,724.
0.
1,22?.
1,228.
C.
1,254.
1,254.
123.
1,748.
1 ,871.
0.
892;
892.
21,698.
11,127.
32,825.
0.
1,383.
1,383.
1,377.
4,789.
6,166.
0.
1 ,825.
1,825.
0.
1,995.
1,995.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
a.
1 ,257.
1,257.
0.
365.
365.
329.
3,162.
3,491 .
0.
886.
886.
0.
1,107.
1,107.
1.
1 ,488.
1,489-
0.
768.
768.
152.
3,504.
3,656.
0.
1,270.
1,270.
12.
2,807.
2,819.
Q.
1,065.
1 ,065.
0.
1 ,136.
1 ,1?6.
*
CO
0.
8,929.
8,929.
0.
2,163.
2,163.
0.
25,741.
25.741.
0.
6,616.
6,616.
0.
6,657.
6,657.
1.
8,668.
8,669.
0.
4,544.
4,544.
16.
27,188.
C7.204.
0.
7,946.
7,946.
1.
26,153.
>26,154.
0.
8,588.
8,588.
0.
12,369.
12,369.
562
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE126
STATE AND COUNTY
26 DADE CO
26 DALLAS CO
26 DAVIESS CO
26 DE KALB CO
26 DENT CO
26 DOUGLAS CO
26 DUNKL1N CO
26 FRANKLIN CO
26 GASCONADE CO
26 GENTRY CO
26 GREENE CO
26 GRUNDY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
C.
747.
747.
C.
947.
947.
C.
889.
889.
0.
1,016.
1,016.
1,967.
1,427.
3,394.
0.
981.
981.
155.
3,475.
3,630.
13,359.
8,129.
21,488.
0.
1,756.
1,756.
0.
991.
991.
2,974.
25,124.
28,098.
306.
1,491.
1,797.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
SS£SZ3S«S5S5SSESw£SS
0.
637.
687.
C.
911.
911.
0.
867.
867.
0.
806.
806.
0.
948.
948.
0.
854.
854.
274.
2,237.
2,511.
51,223.
4,376.
55,599.
0.
1,178.
1,178.
0.
891.
891 .
8,260.
8,764.
17,024.
41.
995.
1,036.
*
CO
SSTSS IE Z S IE S •
0.
4,293.
4,293.
0.
5,397.
5,397.
0.
5,074.
5,074.
0.
7,325.
7,325.
6,294.
7,300.
13,594.
C.
6,08?.
6,08?.
13.
17,642.
17,655.
2,849.
35,214.
38,063.
0.
8,503.
8,503.
0.
4,826.
4,826.
613.
90,532.
91,145.
1.
8,157.
8,158.
563
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE127
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
HARRISON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HENRY CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HICKORY CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HOLT CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HOWARD CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HOWELL CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
IRON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
JACKSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
JASPER CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
JEFFERSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
JOHNSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
KNOX CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
1,212.
1,212.
268.
2,191.
2,459.
0.
726.
726.
0.
930.
930.
0.
1,210.
1,210.
0.
2,994.
2,994.
0.
1,231.
1,231.
42,026.
80,622.
122,648.
564.
10,733.
11,297.
4,649.
9,108.
13,757.
C.
2,663.
2,663.
C .
631.
631.
0.
1,127.
1,127.
49,488.
1,465.
50,953.
0.
449.
449.
C.
826.
826.
0.
850.
850.
0.
1,909.
1 ,909.
C.
705.
705.
26,114.
33,699.
59,813.
7,591.
5,755.
13,346.
12,580.
7,203.
19,783.
0.
1,942.
1,942.
0.
675.
675.
0.
7,101,
7,101.
894.
12,086.
12,980.
0.
3,566.
3,566.
C.
4,815.
4,815.
0.
6,569.
6,569.
0.
14,877.
14,877.
0.
4,123.
4,123.
2,056.
363,831.
365,887.
364.
53,225.
53,589.
630.
41,513.
42,143.
0.
15,574.
15,574.
0,.
3,880.
3,880.
564
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE128
STATE AND COUNTY
SSSSS S£ZX=:SS = SZS£fS = S
26 LACLEDE CO
26 LAFAYETTE CO
26 LAURENCE CO
26 LEWIS CO
26 LINCOLN CO
26 LINN CO
26 LIVINGSTON CO
26 MC DONALD CO
26 MACON CO
26 MADISON CO
26 MARIES CO
26 MARION CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
6.
2,926.
2,932.
C.
3,277.
3,277.
75.
2,826.
2,901.
0.
1,180.
1,180.
0.
2,133.
2,133.
0.
2,148.
2,148.
5.
1,742.
1,747.
0.
1,330.
1,330.
0.
1,914.
1,914.
0.
1,080.
1,080.
3.
656.
659.
5.
2,641.
2,646.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
34. 6.
1,718. 14,235.
1,752. 14,241.
0.
2,315.
2,315.
91.
1,883.
1,974.
3.
1,112.
1,115.
C.
1,625.
1 ,625.
0.
1,324.
1,324.
254.
1,219.
1,473.
0.
1,054.
1,054.
0.
1,325.
1,325.
0.
761.
761.
31.
558.
589.
2,994.
1,664.
4,658.
0.
18,573.
18,573.
79.
14,585.
14,664.
155.
7,435.
7,590.
0.
10,546.
10,546.
C.
* -M,150.
11,150.
16.
9,901.
9,917.
0.
6,503.
6,503.
0.
9,792.
9,792.
0.
5,956.
5,956.
4.
3,634.
3,638.
8.
13,179.
13,187.
565
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA«E1?9
STATE AND COUNTY
26 MERCER CO
26 MILLER CO
26 MISSISSIPPI CO
26 MONITEAU CO
26 MONROE . CO
26 MONTGOMERY CO
26 MORGAN co
26 NEW MADRID CO
26 NEWTON CO
26 NOOAWAY CO
26 OREGON CO
26 OSAGE CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POIf»»
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISS:
HC NOX
0.
449.
449.
1.
2,254.
2,255.
0.
1,868.
1,868.
0.
1,246.
1 ,246.
0.
993.
993.
1.
1,346.
1,347.
0.
1,531.
1,531.
35C.
2,277.
2,627.
1.
4,118.
4,119.
0.
2,490.
2,490.
0.
930.
930.
11.
1 ,186.
1,197.
0.
487.
487.
12.
1,383.
1,395.
0.
1,095.
1,095.
0.
947.
947.
0.
988.
988.
1 .
1 ,175.
1 ,176.
0.
1,010.
1 ,010.
20,966.
1,516.
22,482.
2.
2,182.
2,184.
0.
1,691.
1,691.
0.
754.
754.
1,162.
952.
2,114.
IONS *
-CO
SS = z = sfOVfst ssffsf-
"0.
2,891.
2,891.
1.
11,349.
11,350.
0.
9,763.
9,763.
0.
6,142.
6,142.
0.
5,507.
5,507.
1.
6,34?.
6,343.
0.
6,986.
6,986.
1,168.
10,328.
11,496.
186.
16,691.
16,877.
0.
12,504.
12,504.
0.
5,265.
5,265.
21.
5,879.
5,^'OC.
566
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE130
STATE AND COUNTY
_B »^ V • •• » V * •».«. V • *»•»*•* •
26 02 ARK CO
26 PEM1SCOT CO
26 PERRY CO
26 PETTIS CO
26 PHELPS CO
26 PIKE CO
26 PLATTE CO
26 POLK CO
26 PULASKI CO
26 PUTNAM CO
26 BALLS CC
26 RANDOLPH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
c.
1,233.
1,233.
0.
2,453.
2,453.
0.
1.812.
1,812.
0.
4,176.
4,176.
6.
2,949.
2,955.
5.
2,271.
2,276.
240.
3,619.
3,859.
C.
1,894.
1,894.
0.
2,804.
2,804.
0.
552.
552.
0.
788.
788.
802.
2,211.
3,013.
0.
597.
597.
0.
1,466.
1,466.
0.
1,170.
1,170.
0.
2.382.
2,382.
91.
1,697.
1 ,788.
850.
1,427.
2,277.
22,519.
2,231.
24,750.
0.
1,410.
1,410.
0.
1,774.
1 ,774.
0.
623.
623.
3,120.
668.
3,788.
36,002.
1,530.
37,532.
0.
5,823.
5,823.
0.
11,874.
11,874.
0.
9,037.
9,037.
0.
20,582.
20,582.
11.
15,025.
15,036.
24.
11,341.
11,365.
754.
11,929.
12,683.
0.
11,060.
11,060.
0.
15,478.
15,478.
0.
3,542.
3,542.
0.
4,434.
4,434.
655.
11,593.
12,248.
567
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE1J1
SJATE AND COUNTY
26 RAY CO
26 REYNOLDS CO
26 RIPLEY CO
26 ST CHARLES CO
26 ST CLAIR CO
26 ST FRANCOIS CO
26 ST LOUIS
26 ST LOUIS CO
26 STE GENEVIEVE CO
26 SALINE CO
26 SCHUYLER CO
26 SCOTLAND CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS HC
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
21.
2,270.
2,291.
1.
664.
665.
0.
900.
900.
7,303.
11,959.
19,262.
0.
804.
804.
0.
3,718.
3,718.
8,432.
101 ,823.
110,255.
2,435.
65,350.
67,785.
0.
1,674.
1,674.
5.
2,998.
7,003.
^\
o.
535.
535.
C.
618.
618.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
4.
1 ,448.
1 ,452.
1.
493.
494.
0.
771.
771.
53,726.
6,865.
60,591 .
0.
775.
775.
0.
2,398.
2,398.
5,297.
48,061.
53,358.
32,205.
19,151 .
51,356.
0.
953.
953.
163.
1 ,821 .
1 ,984.
0.
550.
550.
0.
629.
629.
3..
10,589.
10,589.
1.
3,145.
3,146.
0.
4,491.
4,491.
1,271.
55,328.
56,599.
0.
4,761.
4,761.
102.
20,136.
20,238.
39,769.
560,099.
599,868.
1,203.
142,830.
144,033.
0.
7,189.
7,189.
18.
15,036.
15,054.
0.
3,167.
3,167.
C".
3,677.
3,677.
568
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE132
STATE AND COUNTY
26 SCOTT CO
26 SHANNON CO
26 SHELBY CO
26 STODDARD CO
26 STONE CO
26 SULLIVAN CO
26 TANEY CO
26 TEXAS CO
26 VERNON CO
26 WARREN CO
26 WASHINGTON CO
26 WAYNE CC
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
£ ~ SCSSSSS
248.
3.477.
3.725.
u .
690.
690.
0.
998.
998.
0.
3,480.
3,480.
0.
2,142.
2,142.
0.
807.
807.
0.
2,247.
2,247.
0.
2,113.
2,113.
14,468.
1,761.
16,229.
124.
1,503.
1,627.
11.
1,341.
1,352.
0.
1,558.
1,558.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
12.
2,172.
2,184.
0.
489.
489.
0.
889.
889.
0.
2,183.
2,183.
0.
929.
929.
0.
826.
826.
0.
1,262.
1,262.
0.
1,536.
1,536.
4.
1,337.
1,341.
0.
981.
981.
249.
985.
1,234.
C.
741.
741.
*
CO
3.
16,937.
16,940.
0.
3,347.
3,347.
0.
4,855.
4,855.
0.
14,899.
14,899.
0.
8,656.
8,656.
0.
4,731.
4,731.
0.
9,581.
9,581.
0.
9,126.
9,126.
21.
10,789.
10,810.
0.
5,759.
5,759.
14.
6,738.
6,752.
0.
5,255.
5.255.
569
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 133
STATE AND COUNTY
26 WEBSTER CO
26 WORTH CO
26 WRIGHT CO
27 BEAVERHEAD CO
27 BIG HORN CO
27 BLAINE CO
27 BROADWATER CO
27 CARBON CO
27 CARTER CO
27 CASCADE CO
27 CHOUTEAU CO
27 CUSTER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
2,135.
2,135.
0.
370.
370.
0.
1,964.
1,964.
56.
4,632.
4,688.
0.
1,166.
1 ,166.
0.
725.
725.
110.
1,210.
1,320.
0.
1,088.
1,088.
C.
373.
373.
1,396.
6,803.
a, 199.
r
u •
938.
938.
u .
1 ,338.
1,338.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
1 ,653.
1,653.
0.
379.
379.
0.
1 ,283.
1,283.
21 .
1,258.
1,279.
0.
825.
825.
0.
804.
804.
10.
436.
446.
0.
806.
806.
0.
281.
281.
115.
5,596.
5,711.
0.
1,039.
1 ,039.
C.
1 ,093.
1,093.
IONS *
CO
0.
11,425.
11,425.
0.
2,197.
2,197.
0.
10,453.
10,453.
665.
28,918.
29,583.
0.
8,139.
8,139.
0.
4,040.
4,040.
1,300.
7,258.
8,558.
0.
8,067.
8,067.
0.
2,924.
2,924.
10,608.
41,183.
51,791.
0.
5,860.
5,860.
0.
8,670.
8,670.
570
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE134
STATE AND COUNTY
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
17
DANIELS CO
DAUSON CO
DEER LODGE CO
FALLON CO
FERGUS CO
FLAT HEAD CO
GALLATIN CO
GARFIELD CO
GLACIER CO
GOLDEN VALLEY CO
GRANITE CO
MILL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
=============
0.
461.
461.
0.
1,222.
1,222.
0.
2,185.
2,185.
0.
592.
592.
15.
1,750.
1,765.
572.
8,850.
9,422.
183.
5,356.
5,536.
0.
592.
592.
662.
1,123.
1,785.
0.
188.
188.
277.
1,480.
1,757.
0.
1,905.
1,905.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
====================
0.
391.
391.
0.
1,098.
1,098.
0.
1,744.
1,744.
0.
393.
393.
14.
1,116.
1,130.
882.
4,159.
5,041 .
645.
2,849.
3,494.
0.
262.
262.
137.
754.
891 .
0.
131.
131.
25.
456.
481 .
0.
1,568.
1,568.
*
CO
==========
0.
3,605.
3,605.
0.
7,628.
7,628.
0.
13,900.
13,900.
0.
4,528.
4,528.
176.
13,823.
13,999.
3,914.
59,571.
63,485.
2,082.
37,228.
39,310.
0.
3,275.
3,275.
12.
8,229.
8,241.
0.
1,387.
1,387.
3,277.
9,132.
12,409.
0.
11,206.
11,206.
571
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 135
ST
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
TYPE OF
ATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
JEFFERSON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
JUDITH BASIN CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LAKE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LEWIS AND CLARK CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LIBERTY CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
LINCOLN CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MC CONE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MADISON CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MEAGHER CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MINERAL CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HISSOULA CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MUSSELSHELL CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
1,701.
1,701.
0.
486.
486.
207.
2,626.
2,833.
337.
6,545.
6,882.
C.
344.
344.
815.
4,271.
5,086.
0.
394.
394.
0.
3,016.
3,016.
53.
1,799.
1,852.
90.
1,137.
1,227.
418.
8,016.
8,434.
0.
499.
499.
COMPUTED EM1S
NOX
415.
837.
1 ,252.
0.
380.
380.
123.
1 ,855.
1,978.
22.
2,969.
2,991 .
0.
406.
406.
2,282.
1 ,989.
4,271 .
C.
464.
464.
0.
* 922.
922,
4.
527.
531 .
176.
446.
622.
2,789.
4,792.
7,581 .
0.
504.
504.
SIGNS *
CO
0.
10,397.
10,397.
0.
3,745.
3,745.
2,222.
14,032.
16,254.
2,925.
46,095.
49,020.
0.
2,202.
2,202.
3,891.
22,543.
26,434.
0.
2,490.
2,490.
0.
18,726.
18,726.
637.
10,426.
11,063.
697.
6,127.
6,824.
8,728.
39,268.
47,996.
0.
2,559.
2,559.
572
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE136
STATE AND COUNTY
=s =====================!
27 PARK CO
27 PETROLEUM CO
27 PHILLIPS CO
27 PONDERA CO
27 POWDER RIVER CO
27 POWELL CO
27 PRAIRIE CO
27 RAVALLI CO
27 RICHLAND CO
27 ROOSEVELT CO
27 ROSEBUD CO
27 SANDERS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
: = == = = = = = = :
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC
:==============
148.
3,312.
3,460.
0.
98.
98.
0.
817.
817.
0.
924.
924.
0.
388.
388.
53.
2,330.
2,383.
0.
268.
268.
16.
3,557.
3,573.
48.
1,134.
1,182.
0.
1,313.
1,313.
338.
819.
1,157.
212.
2,605.
2,817.
NOX
r================:
13.
1,158.
1,171.
0.
99.
99.
0.
767.
767.
0.
873.
873.
0.
376.
376.
55.
729.
784.
0.
268.
268.
25.
1,731 .
1,756.
2,213.
1,086.
3,299.
24.
1,082.
1,106.
20,328.
816.
21 ,144.
186.
1 ,193.
1,289.
*
CO
==========
1,751.
122,107.
23,858.
0.
581.
581.
0.
4,724.
4,724.
0.
5,946.
5,946.
0.
2,446.
2,446.
622.
15,040.
15,662.
0.
1,482.
1,482.
140.
24,111.
•24,251.
162.
6,314.
6,476.
2.
9,347.
9,349.
1,129.
4,173.
5,302.
2.143.
14,654.
16,797.
573
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 137
STATE AND COUNTY
27 SHERIDAN CO
27 SILVER BOW CO
27 STILLWATER CO
27 SWEET GRASS CO
27 TETON CC
27 TOOLE CC
27 TREASURE CO
27 VALLEY CO
27 WHEATLAND CO
27 WIBAUX CO
27 YELLOWSTONE CO
28 ADAMS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
818.
818.
296.
4,336.
A, 632.
0.
645.
645.
0.
497.
497.
C.
926.
926.
4,499.
691.
5,190.
0.
178.
178.
C.
1,435.
1,435.
0.
349.
349.
0.
184.
184.
9.C16.
8,646.
17,662.
7,114.
3,081.
10,195.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
654.
654 .
3,803.
2,558.
6,361 .
0.
657.
657.
0.
374.
374.
0.
720.
720.
151 .
614.
765.
0.
182.
182.
45.
1 ,232.
1 ,277.
0.
246.
246.
0.
210.
210.
13,516.
7,235.
23,751 .
876.
2,161 .
3,037.
*
CO
0.
6,316.
6,316.
824.
31,981.
32,805.
0.
3,681.
3,681.
0.
3,602.
3,602.
0.
7,093.
7,093.
16,863.
4,266.
21,129.
0.
1,154.
1,154.
3.
8,613.
8,616.
0.
2,533.
2,533.
0.
1,177.
1,177.
59,337.
49,543.
108,880.
515,
16,239.
16,754.
574
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E138
STATE AND COUNTY
28 ANTELOPE CO
28 ARTHUR CO
28 BANNER CO
28 BLAINE CO
28 BOONE CO
28 BOX BUTTE CO
28 BOVD CO
28 BROWN CO
28 BUFFALO CO
28 BURT CO
28 BUTLER CO
28 CASS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISS
HC
0.
831.
831.
0.
97.
97.
0.
201.
201.
C.
125.
125.
0.
66C.
660.
0.
1,539.
1,539.
0.
359.
359.
0.
420.
420.
1.
4,828.
4,829.
0.
796.
796.
0.
873.
873.
0.
1,977.
1,977.
NOX
0.
966.
966.
0.
94.
94.
0.
168.
168.
0.
141.
141.
0.
879.
879.
81.
850.
931 .
0.
401.
401.
0.
494.
494.
13.
2,969.
2,982.
0.
918.
918.
C.
1,013.
1,013.
775.
1,902.
2,677.
IONS *
CO
0.
4,781.
4,781.
0.
-f^^688.
688.
0.
1,709.
1.709.
0.
802.
802.
0.
4,129.
4,129.
6.
8,926.
8.932.
0.
2,317.
2,317.
0.
2,590.
2,590.
2.
>24,836.
(24,838.
0.
4,563.
4,563.
0.
5,111.
5,111.
0.
11,208.
11,208.
575
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E139
STATE AND COUNTY
28 CEDAR CO
28 CHASE CO
28 CHERRY CO
28 CHEYENNE CO
28 CLAY CO
28 COLFAX CO
28 CUMING CO
28 CUSTER CO
28 DAKOTA CO
28 OAWES CO
28 DAWSON CO
28 DEUEL CC
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISJ
EMISSIONS HC NOX
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
40.
951.
991.
0.
410.
410.
0.
1,039.
1,039.
72.
1,526.
1,598.
0.
715.
715.
1.
93C.
931.
0.
1,203.
1 ,203.
52.
1,485.
1,537.
13.
1,579.
1,592.
37.
935.
972.
6.
3,916.
3,922.
C.
656.
656.
113.
1,100.
1 ,213.
0.
503.
503.
0.
842.
842.
204.
874.
1,078.
0.
859.
859.
95.
1 ,003.
1.C98.
36.
1,322.
1 ,358.
139.
1 ,549.
1 ,688.
15£.
1,273.
1 ,431 .
5.
619.
624.
1,863.
2,452.
4,315.
0.
416.
416.
ilONS *
CO
14.
5,450.
5,464.
0.
2,438.
2,438.
0.
6,258.
6,258.
29.
>2,022.
12,051.
0.
4,670.
4,670.
5.
5,604.
5,609.
2.
8,168.
8,170.
18.
9,289.
9,307.
22.
10,259.
10,281.
50.
7,597.
7,647.
28.
•20,983.
21,011.
C.
5,150.
5,150.
576
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGEUO
"
STATE AND COUNTY
=s ===================
28 DIXON CO
28 DODGE CO
28 DOUGLAS CO
28 DUNDY CO
28 FILLMORE CO
28 FRANKLIN CO
28 FRONTIER CO
28 FURNAS CO
28 GAGE CO
28 GARDEN CO
28 GARFIELD CO
28 GOSPER CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
===========
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
S HC
==============
89.
573.
662.
163.
3,447.
3,610.
6,708.
39,998.
46,706.
0.
303.
303.
14,279.
750.
15,029.
0.
388.
388.
0.
430.
430.
122.
608.
730.
44.
2,152.
2,196.
0.
558.
558.
0.
272.
272.
C.
271.
271.
NOX
===============
217.
658.
875.
2,843.
2,804.
5,647.
16,544.
27,569.
44,113.
0.
383.
383.
0.
955.
955.
0.
469.
469.
0.
458.
458.
321.
717.
1 ,038.
376.
1,982.
2,358.
0.
378.
378.
35.
367.
402.
0.
340.
340.
CO
==============
27.
3,200.
3,227.
365.
eo,040.
20,405.
903.
222,979.
223,882.
0.
1,871.
1,871.
0.
5,075.
5,075.
0.
2,328.
2,328.
0.
2,253.
2,253.
43.
3,283.
3,326.
216.
11,199.
11,415.
0.
2,529.
2,529.
4.
2,257.
2,261.
0.
1,811.
1,811.
577
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGEU1
STATE AND COUNTY
28 GRANT CO
28 GREELEY CO
28 HALL CO
28 HAMILTON CO
28 HARLAN CO
28 HAYES CO
2S HITCHCOCK CO
28 HOLT CO
28 HOOKER CO
28 HOWARD CO
28 JEFFERSON CO
28 JOHNSON CC
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
190.
190.
0.
311.
311.
21,787.
6,254.
28,041.
0.
1,541.
1,541.
0.
523.
523.
0.
208.
208.
0.
464.
464.
0.
1,367.
1 ,367.
C.
148.
148.
0.
666.
666.
0.
1,014.
1,014.
116.
443.
559.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
123.
123.
0.
380.
380.
630.
4,120.
4,750.
0.
1,363.
1,363.
6.
500.
506.
0.
186.
186.
C.
484.
484.
0.
1 ,467.
1 ,467.
0.
206.
206.
0.
749.
749.
90.
1,044.
1 ,134.
295.
525.
820.
*
CO
0.
1i369.
1,369.
0.
2,124.
2,124.
23.
34,124.
34,147.
0.
9,945.
9,945.
0.
2,670.
2,670.
0.
1,641.
1,641.
D.
2,431.
2,431.
0.
9,303.
9,303.
?.
1,459.
1,459.
C.
3,982.
3,982.
1.
6,048.
6,049.
38.
2,507.
2,545.
578
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGEU2
STATE AND COUNTY
28 KEARNEY CO
28 KEITH CO
28 KEYA PAHA CO
28 KIMBALL CO
28 KNOX CO
28 LANCASTER CO
28 LINCOLN CO
28 LOGAN CO
28 LOUP CO
28 MC PHERSON CO
28 MADISON CO
28 MERRICK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A9EA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
800.
800.
c.
2,285.
2,285.
0.
178.
178.
116.
1,084.
1,200.
0.
1,003.
1,003.
283.
18,417.
18,700.
0.
4,601.
4,601.
0.
134.
134.
0.
119.
119.
0.
101.
101.
54.
2,983.
3,037.
j .
1,048.
1,048.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
767.
767.
223.
1,242.
1,465.
0.
192.
192.
292.
521.
813.
0.
1,148.
1,148.
12,413.
12,711.
25,124.
0.
3,182.
3,182.
0.
153.
153.
0.
132.
132.
0.
111.
111.
74.
2,449.
2,523.
0 .
944.
944.
*
CO
0.
4,799.
4,799.
2.
12,270.
12,272.
0.
1,264.
1,264.
38.
8,919.
8,957.
0.
6,094.
6,094.
609.
103,423.
104,032.
0.
28,051.
€8,051.
C.
841.
841.
0.
813.
813.
0.
657.
657.
116.
17,369.
17,485.
r.
6,314.
6,314.
579
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 143
STATE AND COUNTY
28 MORRILl CO
28 NANCE CC
28 NEMAHA CO
28 NUCKOLLS CO
28 OTOE CO
28 PAWNEE CO
28 PERKINS CO
28 PHELPS CO
28 PIERCE CO
28 PLATTE CO
28 POLK CO
28 PED WILLOW CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARFA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
17.
887.
904.
0.
452.
452.
215.
853.
1 ,068.
51.
692.
743.
432.
1,620.
2,052.
0.
388.
388.
0.
349.
349.
0.
1,112.
1,112.
C.
774.
774.
63.
3,076.
3,136.
C.
566.
566.
r,
<-* •
1,510.
1,510.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
262.
649.
911 .
0.
534.
534.
420.
791.
1,211 .
310.
779.
1,089.
1 ,681 .
1,421 .
3,102.
0.
459.
459.
0.
414.
414.
0.
883.
883.
8.
898.
906.
18.
2,497.
2,515.
a.
734.
734.
10.
987.
997.
•*
CO
35.
6,682.
6,717.
0.
2,946.
2,946.
59.
5,192.
5,251.
1.
3,849.
3,850.
289.
8,963.
9,252.
2.
2,415.
2,417.
0.
2,096.
2,096.
0.
5,785.
5,785.
0.
4,694.
4,694.
2.
16,743.
16,745.
0.
3,695.
3,695.
2.
6,482.
6,484.
580
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGEU4
STATE AND COUNTY
— •»"•«£ E SSSC~ZS5SSSS*— ™S
28 RICHARDSON CO
28 ROCK CO
28 SALINE CO
28 SARPY CO
28 SAUNOERS CO
28 SCOTTS BLUFF CO
28 SEUARD CO
28 SHERIDAN CO
28 SHERMAN CO
28 SIOUX CO
28 STANTON CO
28 THAVER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
117.
1,011.
1,128.
0.
304.
304.
167.
1,753.
1,920.
6,948.
5,579.
12,527.
0.
1,665.
1 ,665.
148.
4,244.
4,392.
1.
1,956.
1,957.
-S
w •
964.
964.
0.
465.
465.
3.
310.
310.
0.
614.
6U.
2.
807.
809.
335.
981.
1,316.
0.
345.
345.
481.
1,782.
2,263.
3,602.
4,389.
7,991.
0.
1,721.
1 ,721 .
1,463.
2,560.
4,023.
7.
1 ,599.
1,606.
0.
774.
774.
0.
517.
517.
0.
275.
275.
24.
740.
764.
35.
853.
888.
49.
5,875.
5,924.
0.
1,856.
1,856.
89.
14,104.
14,193.
691.
33,995.
34,686.
0.
9,643.
9,643.
4,967.
30,225.
35,192.
1.
10,920.
10,921.
0.
6,963.
6,963.
0.
2,768.
2,768.
0.
2,739.
2,739.
0.
3,684.
3,684.
8.
4,285.
4,293.
581
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGEU5
STATE AND COUNTY
28 THOMAS CO
28 THURSTON CO
28 VALLEY CO
28 WASHINGTON CO
28 WAYNE CO
28 WEBSTER CO
28 WHEELER CO
28 YORK CO
29 CARSON CITY
29 CHURCHILL CO
29 CLARK CO
29 DOUGLAS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
I
HC
0.
141.
141.
0.
601.
601.
0.
526.
526.
112.
1,330.
1,442.
235.
806.
1 ,C41.
69.
437.
506.
0.
132.
132.
0.
2,062.
2,062.
2,341.
3,031.
5,372.
82.
2,385.
2,467.
1,414.
36,916.
38,330.
6.
1,973.
1 ,979.
IMPUTED EMISSIOI
NOX
0.
148.
148.
0.
594.
594.
0.
584.
584.
329.
1,235.
1 ,564.
788.
760.
1 ,548.
190.
520.
710.
0.
171 .
171 .
0.
1 ,696.
1 ,696.
2,356.
1 ,501 .
3,857.
10.
1 ,352.
1,362.
?2,430.
21 ,948.
104,378.
95.
1 ,084.
1 ,179.
VS *
CO
0.
916.
916.
C.
2,810.
2,810.
0.
2,960.
2,960.
48.
7,809.
7,857.
124.
5,168.
5,292.
26.
2,649.
2,675.
C.
884.
884.
C.
12,695.
12,695.
7,802.
18,856.
26,658.
2.
15,691.
15,693.
5,809.
225,794.
231,603.
16.
14,058.
14,074.
582
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E146
STATE AND COUNTY
===== ===============1
29 ELKO CO
29 ESMERALDA CO
29 EUREKA CO
29 HUMBOLDT CO
29 LANDER CO
29 LINCOLN CO
29 LVON CO
29 MINERAL CO
29 NVE CO
29 PERSH1N6 CO
29 STOREY CO
29 WASHOE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
:===========
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
S HC
==================
0.
2,758.
2,758.
0.
114.
114.
C.
151.
151.
G.
1,100.
1,100.
0.
452.
452.
0.
366.
366.
18.
1,425.
1,443.
10.
1 ,148.
1,158.
1,165.
872.
2,037.
0.
607.
607.
12.
156.
166.
95.
2C.563.
20,658.
NOX
===========
3.
1,148.
1,151 .
13.
62.
75.
3.
110.
113.
21.
495.
516.
0.
271.
271 .
C.
205.
205.
7,836.
843.
8,679.
26.
416.
442.
14.
484.
498.
0.
264.
264.
2,644.
75.
2,719.
5.
8,047.
8,052.
CO
==============
0.
19,823.
19,823.
1.
706.
707.
0.
1,226.
1,226.
2.
8,040.
8,042.
0.
3,071.
3,071.
0.
2,556.
2,556.
135.
>0,951.
11,086.
6.
8.858.
8,864.
1.
6,537.
6,538.
0.
3,505.
3,505.
66.
1,142.
1,208.
0.
153,499.
153,499.
583
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 147
STATE AND COUNTY
29 WHITE PINE CO
30 BELKNAP CO
30 CARROLL CO
30 CHESHIRE CO
30 COOS CO
30 GRAFTON CO
30 HILLSBOROUGH CO
30 MERRIMACK CO
30 ROCKINGHAM CO
30 STRAFFORD CO
30 SULLIVAN CO
31 ATLANTIC CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISS:
HC NOX
50.
1 ,563.
1 ,613.
556.
3,842.
4,398.
264.
2,325.
2,589.
1,501.
5,351.
6,852.
679.
3,515.
4,194.
473.
6,919.
7,392.
7,676.
30,866.
38,542.
6,302.
8,008.
14,310.
4,838.
14,737.
19,575.
1,322.
8,436.
9,758.
284.
3,151.
3,435.
1.
13,971.
13,972.
750.
681.
1 ,431 .
110.
1,985.
2,095.
81.
1 ,457.
1 ,536.
338.
2,798.
3,136.
2,617.
1,786.
4,403.
446.
3,080.
3,526.
1,115.
11 ,220.
12,335.
27,476.
3,670.
31,146.
8,198.
7,684.
15,882.
499.
2,418.
2,917.
192,
1,353.
1,545.
93.
7,186.
7,279.
IONS *
CO
100.
12,456.
12,556.
528.
19,574.
20,102.
588.
9,310.
9,898.
1.528.
24,242.
25.77C.
6,849.
16,669.
23,518.
1,130.
28,376.
129,506.
3,707.
136,386.
140,093.
1,174.
36,985.
38,159.
3,089.
71,571.
74,660.
2,094.
'28,868.
30,962.
809.
13,850.
14,659.
6.
68,932.
68,938.
584
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGEU8
STATE AND COUNTY
===== ========a=s====
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
BERGEN CO
BURLINGTON CO
CAMDEN CO
CAPE MAY CO
CUMBERLAND CO
ESSEX CO '
GLOUCESTER CO
HUDSON CO
HUNTERDON CO
MERCER CO
MIDDLESEX CO
MONMOUTH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
16,572.
95,454.
112,026.
1,582.
26,132.
27,714.
1,222.
38,281.
39,503.
121.
5,959.
6,080.
55.
15,172.
15,227.
4,745.
78,925.
£3,670.
136,282.
16,153.
152,435.
27,232.
55,515.
82,747.
20.
7,695.
7,715.
2,856.
32,745.
36,601.
23,281.
61,381.
64,662.
73.
37,431.
37,504.
9,631.
36,064.
45,695.
8,362.
12,538.
20,900.
3,883.
17,513.
21,396.
8,257.
4,061.
12,318.
1,474.
7,854.
9,328.
7,748.
34,286.
42,034.
9,982.
8,414.
18,396.
29,302.
22,732.
52,034.
1,232.
5,056.
6,288.
17,877.
13,194.
31,071.
20,090.
24,231.
44,321.
305.
18,037.
13,342.
2,485.
398,761.
401,246.
23,707.
126,256.
149,963.
1,695.
186,939.
188,634.
443.
31,771.
32,214.
5,063.
79,162.
64,225.
2,187.
342.980.
345,167.
97,759.
80,888.
178,647.
3,059.
274,448.
277,507.
70.
29,223.
29,293.
1,031.
131,810.
132,841.
68,968.
271,599.
340,567.
68.
178,691.
178,759.
585
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 149
STATE AND COUNTY
31 MORRIS CO
31 OCEAN CO
31 PASSAIC CO
31 SALEM CO
31 SOMERSET CO
31 SUSSEX CO
31 UNION CO
31 WARREN CO
32 BERMALILLO CO
32 CATRON CO
32 CHAVES CO
32 COLFAX CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
107.
38,864.
38,971.
17.
24,678.
24,695.
819.
50,355.
51,174.
5,404.
5,894.
11,298.
147.
18,334.
18,481.
0.
7,967.
7,967.
60,384.
68,118.
128,502.
801.
1C!, 171.
10,972.
232.
44,937.
45,169.
66.
894.
960.
1,244.
5,740.
6,984.
95.
2,281.
2,376.
2,932.
15,958.
18,890.
228.
15,056.
15,284.
1 ,677.
17,923.
19,600.
5,897.
3,844.
9,741.
993.
7,418.
8,411 .
0.
5,166.
5,166.
15,864.
24,804.
40,668.
1 ,056.
4,314.
5,370.
10,925.
19,753.
30,678.
6.
350.
356.
1 ,039.
2,665.
3,704.
149.
941.
1,090.
123.
160,198.
160,321.
31.
125,379.
125,410.
317.
194,650.
194,967.
985.
30,692.
31,677.
66.
64,809.
64,875.
0.
38,228.
38,228.
16,998.
290,613.
307,611.
7,270.
35,333.
42,603.
30.
327,093.
3C7.123.
78C.
6,153.
6,933.
95.
39,467.
39,562.
1,032.
16,487.
17,519.
586
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE150
STATE AND COUNTY
zsasr szss ======== = = =:
32 CURRY CO
32 DE BACA CO
32 DONA ANA CO
32 EDDY CO
32 GRANT CO
32 GUADALUPE CO
32 HARDING CO
32 HIDALGO CO
32 LEA CO
32 LINCOLN CO
32 LOS ALAMOS CO
32 LUNA CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS HC NOX
• ^^» •»••—•— ••••*»^»«. ASSSSSSwwS
POINT 0.
AREA 4,517.
TOTAL 4,517.
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
0.
645.
645.
43.
8,623.
8,666.
4,039.
4,454.
8,493.
70.
2,934.
3,004.
16.
1,993.
2,009.
0.
267.
267.
36.
1,571.
1.6C7.
15,632.
5,651.
21,283.
907.
1 ,644.
2,551.
1.
1,399.
1,40C.
790.
2,903.
3.693.
0.
2,275.
2,275.
0.
392.
392.
2,588.
4,417.
7,005.
3,328.
3,260.
6,588.
2,235.
1,526.
3,761 .
3.
960.
963.
0.
128.
128.
1,394.
593.
1,987.
8,274.
4,226.
12,500.
84.
935.
1,019.
946.
737.
1,683.
393.
1,184.
1 ,577.
#
CO
========
0.
31,248.
31,248.
0.
5,174.
5,174.
96.
66,640.
66,736.
4,938.
€6,147.
31,085.
205.
22,897.
23,102.
48.
15,185.
15,233.
0.
1,729.
1,729.
29.
12,271.
12,300.
505.
35,576.
36,081.
22.
11,932.
11,954.
25.
11,089.
11,114.
36.
24,895.
24,931.
587
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE151
STATE AND COUNTY
32 MC KINLEY CO
32 MORA CO
32 OTERO CO
32 QUAY CO
32 RIO ARRIBA CO
32 ROOSEVELT CO
32 SANDOVAL CO
32 SAN JUAN CO
32 SAN MIGUEL CO
32 SANTA FE CO
32 SIERRA CO
32 SOCORRO CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
6,271.
9,988.
16,259.
0.
595.
595.
194.
7,132.
7,326.
243.
2,923.
3,166.
587.
2,408.
2,995.
471.
2,086.
2,557.
157.
4,241.
4,398.
7,593.
4,648.
12,241.
88.
3,862.
3,950.
r
7,907.
7,907.
0.
1 ,790.
1,790.
0.
2,503.
2,503.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
769.
6,332.
7,101 .
c-
367.
367.
17.
3,067.
3,084.
1,477.
1,179.
2,656.
199.
1,708.
1 ,907.
137.
1 ,097.
1 ,234.
905.
2,523.
3,428.
103,066.
3,295.
106,361 .
68.
1,545.
1,613.
0.
3,618.
3,618.
0.
606.
606.
0.
976.
976.
#
CO
84.
60,288.
60,372.
0.
4,867.
4,867.
2,303.
51,264.
53,567.
20.
(25,096.
25,116.
2,728.
17,477.
20,205.
14.
16,880.
16,894.
1,560.
34,032.
35,592.
4,978.
€9,766.
34,744.
990.
32,123.
33,113.
0.
61,772.
61,772.
0.
12,358.
12,358.
r.
19,689.
19,689.
588
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E152
STATE AND COUNTY
32 TAOS CO
32 TORRANCE CO
32 UNION CO
32 VALENCIA CO
33 ALBANY CO
33 ALLEGANY CO
33 BRONX CO
33 BROOME CO
33 CATTARAUGUS CO
33 CAYUGA CO
33 CHAUTAUQUA co
33 CHEMUNG CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
546.
1,803.
2,349.
440.
1,992.
2,432.
107.
987.
1,094.
923.
6,247.
7,170.
3,948.
18,811.
22,759.
133.
4,207.
4,340.
120.
53,556.
53,676.
1,600.
24,275.
25,875.
490.
6,879.
7,369.
203.
7,607.
7,810.
2,235.
13,864.
15,899.
279.
10,695.
589
956.
1,178.
2,134.
C.
1 ,008.
1,008.
729.
478.
1,207.
234.
3,571.
3,805.
11,280.
9,979.
21,259.
26.
2,390.
2,416.
1,070.
21,484.
22.554.
4,663.
8,974.
13,637.
618.
3,970.
4,588.
133.
3,804.
3,937.
13,118.
6,580.
19,698.
124.
4,083.
4,207.
»WWWV«»MW^V»^
1,369.
12,865.
14,234.
7.
15,710.
15,717.
2.
8,482.
8,484.
591.
50,559.
51,150.
548.
100,652.
101, 20C.
8.
17,191.
17,199.
928.
240,569.
241,497.
300.
95,150.
95,450.
37.
29,922.
C9.959.
15.
34,279.
34,294.
758.
58,112.
58,870.
435.
41,937.
42,372.
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 153
STATE AND COUNTY
33 CHENANGO CO
33 CLINTON CO
33 COLUMBIA CO
33 CORTLAND CO
33 DELAWARE CO
33 OUTCHESS CO
33 ERIE CO
33 ESSEX CO
33 FRANKLIN CO
33 FULTON CO
33 GENESEE CO
33 GREENE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
302.
3,807.
A, 109.
604.
6,565.
7,169.
264.
4,596.
4,860.
350.
5,088.
5,438.
205.
3,921.
4,126.
4,036.
21,848.
25,884.
6,486.
79,288.
85,774.
19.
3,475.
3,494.
12.
3,485.
3,497.
36.
4,703.
4,739.
118.
5,173.
5,291.
S.
3,194.
3,202.
2,664.
2,691 .
5,355.
1,112.
3,097.
4,209.
58.
3,075.
3,133.
34.
2,041.
2,075.
173.
2,362.
2,535.
3,718.
10,458.
14,176.
27,689.
33,425.
61 ,114.
1 ,040.
1,832.
2,872.
164.
1,971.
2,135.
184.
2,050.
2,234.
255.
3,147.
3,402.
1 ,751 .
2,259.
4,010.
349.
17,044..
17,393.
96.
27,083.
27,179.
6.
20,993.
20,999.
7.
17,841.
17,848.
24.
17,101.
17,125.
406.
90,240.
90,646.
3,232.
346,301.
349,533.
87.
15,625.
15,712.
21.
17,325.
17,346.
16.
19,646.
19,662.
30.
23,719.
€3,749.
3.
15,142.
15,145.
590
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE154
STATE AND COUNTY
s= = =-=z=s=,s=st = =. = =, = = = = = =
33 HAMILTON CO
33 HERKIMER CO
33 JEFFERSON CO
33 KINGS CO
33 LEWIS CO
33 LIVINGSTON CO
33 MADISON CO
33 MONROE CO
33 MONTGOMERY CO
33 NASSAU CO
33 NEW YORK CO
33 NIAGARA CO
TYPE Ol
EMISSK
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
F
)NS HC
11.
1,076.
1,087.
169.
7,404.
7,573.
183.
7,863.
8,046.
1,659.
124,680.
126,339.
1,170.
2,124.
1,294.
252.
4,768.
5,020.
145.
5,239.
5,384.
35,813.
54,161.
89,974.
200.
5,230.
5,430.
12,600.
117,364.
129,964.
590.
127,537.
128,127.
5,066.
21,942.
2", 008.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
307.
307.
234.
2,896.
3,130.
1,025.
4,337.
5,362.
1,883.
45,970.
47,853.
475.
1,376.
1,851 .
176.
2,781 .
2,957.
21.
3,035.
3,056.
26,134.
22,467.
48,601 .
289.
2,599.
2,888.
14,484.
47,957.
62,441 .
16,945.
38,207.
55,152.
4,418.
9,704.
14,122.
*
CO
==========
0.
4,283.
A, 283.
32.
27,354.
27,386.
155.
38,22*.
38,379.
9,514.
488,708.
498,222.
44.
9,394.
9,438.
19.
"21,676.
21,695.
3.
26,998.
27,001.
1,261.
232,029.
233,290.
26.
23,525.
23,551.
€0,855.
597,812.
618,667.
10,205.
229,258.
239,463.
7,060.
99,297.
106,357.
591
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE155
STATE AND COUNTY
33 ONEIDA CO
33 ONONOAGA CO
33 ONTARIO CO
33 ORANGE CO
33 ORLEANS CO
33 OSWEGO CO
33 OTSEGO CO
33 PUTNAM CO
33 QUEENS CO
33 RENSSELAER CO
33 RICHMOND CO
33 ROCKLAND CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
684.
21,594.
22,278.
2,958.
38,118.
41,076.
757.
7,277.
8,034.
1,109.
18,587.
19,696.
251.
2,868.
3,119.
614.
8,726.
9,340.
18.
4,275.
4,293.
123.
4,753.
4,876.
1 ,558.
112,168.
113,726.
1,613.
11,051.
12,664.
1,064.
16,911.
17,975.
2,530.
17,049.
19,579.
1 ,354.
13,441.
11 ,795.
8,211 .
16,415.
24,626.
82.
4,114.
4,196.
28,647.
9,686.
38,333.
64.
2,070.
2,134.
17,826.
4,597.
22,423.
387.
2,845.
3,232.
27.
3,014.
3,041 .
51 ,524.
43,180.
94,704.
684.
5,598.
6,282.
10,173.
9,3C2.
19,475.
28,347.
7,3~£.
35,355.
180.
130,968.
101,148.
2,661.
165,472.
168,133.
10.
32,119.
32,129.
1,854.
92,671.
94,525.
7.
14,606.
14,613.
945.
41,641.
42,586.
39.
20,950.
20,989.
4.
24,417.
24,421.
7,554.
496,000.
503,554.
65.
56,500.
56,565.
614.
99,675.
100,289.
1,345.
89,926.
91,271.
592
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE156
STATE AND COUNTY
33 ST. LAWRENCE CO
33 SARATOGA CO
33 SCHENECTADY CO
33 SCHOHARIE CO
33 SCHUYLER CO
33 SENECA CO
33 STEUBEN CO
33 SUFFOLK CO
33 SULLIVAN CO
33 TIOGA CO
33 TCMPKINS CO
33 ULSTER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
204.
8,184.
8,388.
948.
9,402.
10,350.
617.
9,857.
10,474.
2.
1,994.
1,996.
34.
1,323.
1,357.
139.
3,176.
3,315.
588.
8,213.
8,801.
4,160.
88,045.
92,205.
10.
4,345.
4,355.
251.
3,378.
3,629.
235.
7,107.
7,342.
102.
11,199.
11,301.
1 ,650.
4,870.
6,520.
1,683.
5,407.
7,090.
699.
5,647.
6,346.
523.
1,539.
2,062.
634.
973.
1 ,607.
172.
1,532.
1,704.
3,220.
4,847.
8,067.
45,334.
37,986.
83,320.
109.
3,187.
3,296.
164.
2,245.
2,409.
7,716.
3,354.
11,070.
157.
7,056.
7,215.
150.
44,639.
44,789.
166.
46,451.
46,617.
64.
61,477.
61,541.
4.
10,299.
10,303.
92.
7,133.
7,225.
38.
15,49?.
15,531.
428.
37,129.
37,557.
4,684.
458,439.
463,123.
21.
20,840.
20,861.
17.
17,935.
17,952.
439.
29,448.
29,887.
35.
58,319.
58,354.
593
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 157
STATE AND COUNTY
33 WARREN CO
33 WASHINGTON CO
33 WAYNE CO
33 WESTCHESTER CO
33 WYOMING CO
33 YATES CO
34 ALAMANCE CO
34 ALEXANDER CO
34 ALLEGHANY CO
34 ANSON CO
34 ASHE CO
34 AVERY CC
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
555.
5,925.
6,480.
20,013.
5,912.
25,925.
574.
7,160.
7,734.
7,813.
55,817.
63,630.
198.
3,489.
3,687.
168.
1 ,894.
2,062.
40.
12,673.
12,713.
535.
1,732.
2,267.
0.
894.
894.
91.
2,694.
2,785.
252.
1,364.
1,616.
8.
856.
864.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
244.
2,727.
2,971.
2,725.
2,555.
5,280.
643.
4,363.
5,006.
2,288.
28,670.
30,958.
594.
2,144.
2,738.
4,474.
1,261.
5,735.
334.
4,692.
5,026.
32.
1 ,019.
1 ,051 .
0.
576.
576.
15.
1,399.
1 ,414.
131.
982.
1,113.
51 .
710.
761 .
CO
39.
•24,224.
24,263.
240.
19,900.
20,140.
55.
"29,728.
29,783.
312.
211,7*9.
212,061.
31.
14,765.
14,796.
248.
9,972.
10,220.
37.
47,025.
47,062.
3.
6,446.
6,449.
0.
3.527.
3,527.
3.
10,571.
10,574.
20.
6,268.
6,288.
7.
3,829.
3,836.
594
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE158
STATE AND COUNTY
34 BEAUFORT CO
34 BERTIE CO
34 BLADEN CO
34 BRUNSWICK CO
34 BUNCOMBE CO
34 BURKE CO
34 CABARRUS CO
34 CALDWELL CO
34 CAMOEN CO
34 CARTERET CO
34 CASWELL CO
34 CATAUBA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION!
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
> HC
37.
4,275.
4,312.
198.
2,220.
2,418.
41.
2,798.
2,839.
29,358.
3,549.
32,907.
156.
15,961.
16,117.
1,578.
9,766.
11,344.
31.
9,931.
9,962.
6,165.
8,459.
14,624.
0.
826.
826.
0.
5,151.
5,151.
C.
1,805.
1,805.
2,93C.
17,729.
20,659.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
1,135.
2,196.
3,331.
140.
1,400.
1,540.
85.
1,708.
1,793.
3,542.
2,336.
5,878.
13,267.
6,699.
19,966.
636.
3,766.
4,402.
1,069.
4,388.
5,457.
440.
2,567.
3,007.
0.
42C.
420.
18.
1,761.
1,779.
C.
1,079.
1,079.
73,809.
5,712.
39,521.
*
CO
5£S£Z5*S'«£.
136.
19,033.
19,169.
1,024.
>0,646.
11,670.
7.
>3,192.
13,199.
10,844.
.17,137.
27,981.
478.
64,407.
64,885.
106.
28 ,998.
29.104.
93.
48,099.
48,192.
103.
21,783.
21,886.
0.
3,668.
3,668.
1.
20,352.
20,353.
0.
8,338.
8,338.
1,937.
50,775.
52,712.
595
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 159
STATE AND COUNTY
34 CHATHAM CO
34 CHEROKEE CO
34 CHOWAN CO
34 CLAY CO
34 CLEVELAND CO
34 COLUMBUS CO
34 CRAVEN CO
34 CUMBERLAND CO
34 CURRITUCK CO
34 DARE CO
34 DAVIDSON CO
34 DAV1E CC
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
hC
843.
3,892.
4,735.
16.
1,785.
1,801.
227.
1,480.
1,707.
0.
471.
471.
3.
7,993.
7,996.
136.
5,679.
5,815.
79C.
6,348.
7,138.
838.
18,914.
19,752.
r>
1,262!
1 ,262.
2.
3,643.
3,645.
503.
11,927.
12,430.
146.
2,370.
2,516.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
5,457.
2,143.
7,600.
74.
980.
1,054.
56.
764.
820.
0.
287.
287.
955.
3,848.
4,803.
407.
2,834.
3,241.
1 ,700.
2,905.
4,605 .
781.
8,221.
9,002.
0.
618.
618.
249.
759.
1 ,006.
688.
5,580.
6,268.
163.
1 ,351 .
1 ,514.
*
CO
™ ~ " ~ "» •> — JB. ST.5
1,806.
16,189.
17,995.
14.
6,632.
6,646.
4.
6,882.
6,886.
0.
2,112.
2,112.
53.
30,360.
30,413.
8C.
20,489.
20,569.
5,989.
30,078.
36,067.
72.
88,100.
88,172.
0.
5,191.
5,191.
11.
12,915.
12,926.
114.
49,120.
49,234.
8.
9,787.
9,795.
596
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE160
STATE AND COUNTY
34 DUPLIN CO
34 DURHAM CO
34 EDGECOMBE CO
34 FORSYTH CO
34 FRANKLIN CO
34 GASTON CO
34 GATES CO
34 GRAHAM CO
34 GRANVILLE CO
34 GREENE CO
34 GUILFORD CO
34 HALIFAX CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
42.
4,161.
4,203.
4,708.
12,540.
17,248.
531.
4,912.
5,443.
21,063.
25,915.
46,978.
122.
2,947.
3,?69.
493.
19,330.
19,823.
0.
803.
803.
11.
433.
444.
281.
4,340.
4,621.
0.
1,469.
1,469.
14,565.
38,545.
53,110.
331.
5,597.
5.92E.
158.
2,606.
2,764.
677.
5,348.
6,025.
87.
2,605.
2,692.
1,710.
11,469.
13,179.
43.
1,568.
1 ,611 .
24,162.
6,897.
31,059.
0.
605.
605.
60.
316.
376.
69.
1,920.
1,989.
0.
924.
924.
485.
14,518.
15,003.
2,608.
2,661 .
5,269.
CO
14.
19,843.
19,857.
65.
58,170.
58,235.
17.
23,566.
23,583.
166.
1*5,239.
125,405.
459.
12,955.
13,414.
1,489.
69,758.
71,247.
0.
4,376.
4,376.
12.
2,025.
2,037.
6.
18,688.
18,694.
0.
6,915.
6,915.
493.
159,009.
159,502.
10,413.
24,214.
34,627.
597
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 161
STATE AND COUNTY
3* HARNETT CO
34 HAYWOOD CO
34 HENDERSON CO
3A HERTFORD CO
34 HOKE CO
34 HYDE CO
34 IREDELL CO
34 JACKSON CO
34 JOHNSTON CO
34 JONES CO
34 LEE CO
34 LENOIR CO
TYPE OF
EKI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
16.
4,960.
4,976.
48.
3,774.
3,822.
482.
5,177.
5,659.
18.
2,316.
2,334.
0.
1,826.
1,826.
0.
3,04C.
3,040.
1,356.
10,319.
11,675.
6.
2,153.
2,159.
717.
7,819.
8,536.
C.
1 ,085.
1,085.
328.
4,211.
4,539.
1C.
6,199.
6,209.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
177.
2,895.
3,072.
4,702.
2,325.
7,027.
201 .
2,715.
2,916.
1 ,336.
1 ,258.
2,594.
45.
877.
922.
0.
516.
516.
618.
4,130.
4,748.
30.
1 ,304.
1 ,334.
46.
4,347.
4,393.
0.
761 .
761 .
115.
2,029.
2,144.
62 .
2 ,767.
2,829.
*
CO
16.
"24,129.
24,145.
43,963.
17,215.
61,178.
25.
20,035.
20,060.
89.
10,798.
10,887.
4.
6,698.
6,702.
0.
10,938.
10,938.
202.
39,436.
39,638.
6.
8,327.
8,333.
3.
36,350.
36,353.
0.
5,892.
5,892.
24.
17,259.
17,283.
4.
>24,465.
24,469.
598
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 162
STATE AND COUNTY
34 LINCOLN CO
34 *C DO y ELL CO
34 MACON CO
34 MADISON CO
34 MARTIN CO
34 MECKLENBURG CO
34 MITCHELL CO
34 MONTGOMERY CO
34 MOORE CO
34 NASH CO
34 NEW HANOVER CO
34 NORTHAMPTON CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
176.
3,255.
3,433.
230.
3,734.
3,964.
15.
1,405.
1,420.
2.
1,062.
1,064.
421.
2,731.
3,152.
381.
46,589.
46,970.
521.
895.
1,416.
0.
2,811.
2,811.
153.
4,273.
4,426.
283.
8,481.
8,764.
8,423.
10,149.
18,572.
149.
2,270.
2,419.
16. 5.
1,793. 12,207.
1,809. 12,212.
409.
1,790.
2,199.
0.
971.
971.
7.
807.
814.
3,624.
1,450.
5,074.
54.
23,521.
23,575.
13.
695.
708.
20.
1,297.
1,317.
67.
2,299.
2,366.
569.
3,730.
4,299.
13,167.
4,047.
17,214.
281.
1 ,491.
1,772.
49.
15,907.
15,956.
0.
6,220.
6,220.
1.
5,165.
5,166.
11,064.
12,066.
23,13P.
5,707.
233,350.
239,057.
4.
4,029.
4,033.
1.
8,933.
8,934.
12.
17,898.
17,910.
59.
34,932.
34,991.
870.
40,589.
41,459.
43.
10,303.
13,346.
599
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE163
STATE AND COUNTY
34 ON SLOW CO
34 ORANGE CO
34 PAMLICO CO
34 PASQUOTANK. CO
34 PENDER CO
34 PERQUIMANS CO
34 PERSON CO
34 PITT CO
34 POLK CO
34 RANDOLPH CO
34 RICHMOND CO
34 POBESON CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
n
7,67o!
7,670.
1,049.
5,050.
6,099.
0.
1,568.
1 ,568.
326.
2,443.
2,769.
0.
2,396.
2,396.
6.
1 ,088.
1,094.
593.
3,027.
3,620.
172.
7,111.
7,283.
C.
1,135.
1,135.
846.
11 ,132.
11 ,978.
0.
4,423.
4,423.
15:.
9,004.
9,154.
20.
3,478.
3,498.
188.
2,587.
2,775.
0.
552.
552.
230.
1,377.
1,607.
4.
1 ,441 .
1 ,445.
0.
639.
639.
34,578.
1 ,281.
35,859.
299.
3,453.
3,752.
C.
670.
670.
145.
4,556.
4,701 .
13.
2,037.
2,050.
2,706.
4,768 .
7,474.
2.
34,177.
34,179.
12.
26,780.
26,792.
0.
6,314.
6,314.
44.
12,566.
12,610.
0.
12,099.
12,099.
0.
4,988.
4,988.
1,921.
11,069.
12,990.
23.
34,626.
34,649.
0.
4,207.
4,207.
19.
35,004.
35,023.
73.
18,927.
19,000.
170.
40,176.
40,346.
600
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 164
STATE AND COUNTY
=== = = = = = = ===== = ====. = !
34 ROCKINGHAM CO
34 ROWAN CO
34 RUTHERFORD CO
34 SAMPSON CO
34 SCOTLAND CO
34 STANLY CO
34 STOKES CO
34 SURRY CO
34 SWAIN co
34 TRANSYLVANIA CO
34 TYRRELL CO
>
34 UNION CC
TYPE OF COMP
EMISSIONS HC
POINT 809.
AREA 9,026.
TOTAL 9,835.
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
• AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
137.
9,338.
9,475.
385.
5,693.
6,078.
95.
5,200.
5,295.
2,446.
3,418.
5,864.
160.
4,932.
5,092.
742.
2,273.
3,015.
146.
7,039.
7,185.
471.
836.
1,307.
u.
3,126.
3,126.
3.
1,211.
1,214.
728.
6,008.
6,736.
UTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
5,129.
4,014.
9,143.
4,673.
4,310.
8,983.
14,138.
2,421 .
16,559.
26.
2,993.
3,019.
195.
1,457.
1,652.
386.
2,653.
3,039.
44,554.
1,448.
46,002.
77.
3,096.
3,173.
13.
475.
488.
55.
862.
917.
10.
455.
465.
53.
3,298.
3,351 .
288.
39,667.
39,955.
263.
40,623.
40.886.
794.
21,118.
21,912.
11.
S3, 070.
23,081.
83.
12,661.
12,744.
11,437.
20,152.
31,589.
2,475.
9,909.
12.384.
58.
€4,071.
24,129.
3.
2,876.
2,879.
2.
6,019.
6,021-
15.
5,673.
5,688.
7.
25,642.
•25,649.
601
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 165
STATE AND COUNTY
34 VANCE CO
34 WAKE CO
34 WARREN CO
34 WASHINGTON CO
34 WATAU6A CO
34 WAYNE CO
34 WILKES CO
34 WILSON CO
34 YADKIN CO
34 YANCEY CO
35 ADAMS CO
35 BARNES CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
4,304.
4,304.
941.
26,500.
27,441.
0.
1,753.
1,753.
35.
2,643.
2,678.
61.
2,260.
2,321.
131.
9,244.
9,375.
313.
4,464.
4,777.
65.
8,643.
8,708.
0.
2,432.
2,432.
0.
1,022.
1,022.
C.
349.
349.
10.
1 ,665.
1,675.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
208.
2,306.
2,514.
338.
13,064.
13,402.
0.
1,114.
1,114.
172.
894.
1 ,066.
140.
1 ,313.
1 ,453 .
6,814.
4,226.
11 ,040.
189.
3,015.
3,204.
39.
3,237.
3,276.
4.
1,623.
1 ,627.
30.
867.
897.
0.
427.
427.
150.
1 ,470.
1,620.
#
CO
4.
22,123.
22,127.
54.
135,744.
135,798.
0.
8,392.
8,392.
34.
8,006.
8,040.
8.
9,813.
9,821.
1,616.
36,845.
38,461.
84.
19,818.
19,902.
6.
34,184.
34,190.
0.
10,801.
10,801-
2.
4,923.
4,925.
0.
2,218.
2,218.
22.
10,942.
10,964.
602
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 166
STATE AND COUNTY
35 BENSON CO
35 BILLINGS CO
35 BOTTINEAU CO
35 BOWMAN CO
35 BURKE CC
35 BURLEIGH CO
35 CASS CO
35 CAVALIER CO
.
35 DICKEY CO
35 DIVIDE CO
35 DUNN CO
35 EDDY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
0.
779.
779.
0.
233.
233.
0.
951.
951.
4.
409.
A13.
Q.
451.
451.
G.
4,205.
4,205.
17.
7,671.
7,688.
0.
770.
77C.
0.
624.
624.
0.
415.
415.
0.
538.
538.
0.
35E.
358.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
• SSSSvS SXSESSTSwES'SCSSS —
0.
910.
910.
0.
244.
244.
4.
1,024.
1 ,028.
53.
558.
611.
0.
54C.
540.
26.
3,230.
3,256.
216.
5,656.
5,872.
0.
1 ,206.
1 ,206.
0.
763.
763.
0.
505.
505.
0.
576.
576.
0 .
388.
388.
#
CO
0.
4,897.
4,897.
0.
1,576.
1,576.
0.
6,266.
6,266.
9.
2,709.
2,718.
0.
2,980.
2,980.
2.
•23,307.
23,309.
193.
41,310.
41,503.
0.
4,888.
4,888.
0.
4,002.
4,002.
0.
2,812.
2,812.
0.
3,593.
3,593.
0.
2,161.
2,161.
603
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE167
STATE AND COUNTY
35 EKMONS CO
35 FOSTER CO
35 GOLDEN VALLEY CO
35 GRAND FORKS CO
35 GRANT CO
35 GR1GGS CO
35 HETTINGER CO
35 K1DDER CO
35 LA MOURE CO
35 LOGAN CC
35 HC HENRY CO
35 MC INTOSH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
613.
613.
0.
438.
438.
0.
277.
277.
27.
4,806.
4,833.
0.
461.
461.
0.
429.
429.
0.
418.
418.
0.
664.
664.
0.
738.
738.
0.
391.
391.
30.
892.
922.
0.
522.
522.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
734.
734.
0.
505.
505.
0.
368.
368.
244.
3,850.
4,094.
0.
597.
597.
r>
U *
478.
478.
0.
540.
540.
0.
667.
667.
0.
862.
862.
0.
469.
469.
1 ,836.
1 ,034.
2.87C.
0.
664.
664.
#
CO
0.
4,207.
4,207.
0.
2,511.
2,511.
0.
1,897.
1,897.
57.
27,613.
27,670.
0.
3,384.
3,384.
0.
2,690.
2,690.
0.
2,895.
2,895.
n
L< •
4,172.
4,172.
0.
4,754.
4,754.
0.
2,750.
2,75C.
102.
5,850.
5,952.
0.
3.307.
3,307.
604
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 168
STATE AND COUNTY
35 MC KENZIE CO
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
MC LEAN CO
MERCER CO
MORTON CO
MOUNTRAIL CO
NELSON CO
OLIVER CO
PEMBINA CO
PIERCE CO
RAMSEY CO
RANSOM CO
RENVILLE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
P^INT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
18.
842.
860.
0.
1,180.
1,180.
760.
597.
1,357.
1,609.
2,306.
3,915.
0.
819.
819.
0.
612.
612.
221.
840.
1,061.
31.
1,106.
1,137.
0.
675.
675.
C.
1,344.
1,344.
C.
592.
592.
0.
363.
363.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
55.
965.
1,020.
0.
1,188.
1,188.
32,620.
651.
33,271.
1 ,325.
1 ,980.
3,305.
C.
879.
879.
0.
703.
703.
12,583.
364.
12,947.
133.
1,139.
1,272.
0.
639.
639.
4.
1,198.
1,202.
0.
693.
693.
C.
443.
443.
IONS *
CO
6.
5,743.
5,749.
0.
6,658.
6,658.
2,520.
3.502.
6,022.
145.
13,353.
13,498.
0.
4,927.
4,927.
0.
3,850.
3,850.
739.
3,832.
4,571.
78.
5,515.
5,593.
0.
4,396.
4,396.
C.
8,387.
8,387.
0.
3,655.
3,655.
0.
2,400.
2.AOC.
605
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE169
STATE AND COUNTY
35 RICHLAND CO
35 ROLETTE CO
35 SARGENT CO
35 SHERIDAN CO
35 SIOUX CO
35 SLOPE CO
35 STARK CO
35 STEELE CO
35 STUTSMAN CO
35 TOWNER CO
35 TRAILL CO
35 WALSH CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
18.
1,708.
1,726.
2.
902.
904.
0.
1,033.
1,033.
0.
390.
390.
0.
302.
30?.
0.
205.
205.
169.
1,517.
1 ,686.
0.
350.
350.
31.
2,757.
2,788.
0.
408.
408.
4.
935.
939.
C.
1,485.
1 ,485.
COMPUTED EMIS
NOX
316.
1 ,841.
2,157.
16.
792.
808.
0.
697.
697.
0.
415.
415.
C.
295.
295.
0.
228.
228.
342.
1,532.
1,874.
0.
448.
448.
269.
2,015.
2,284.
28.
539.
567.
248.
1,061 .
1 ,309.
0.
1 ,492.
1 ,492 .
SIONS *
CO
36.
8,801.
8,837.
5.
5,424.
5,429.
0.
3,464.
3,464.
0.
2,381.
2,381.
0.
1,770.
1,770.
0.
1,467.
1,467.
42.
6,937.
6,979.
0.
2,466.
2,466.
71.
15,893.
15,964.
2.
2,821.
2,823.
20.
5,315.
5,335.
0.
9,417.
9,417.
606
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE170
STATE AND COUNTY
35 WARD CO
35 WELLS CO
35 WILLIAMS CO
36 ADAMS CO
36 ALLEN CO
36 ASHLAND CO
36 ASHTABULA CO
36 ATHENS CO
36 AUGLAIZE CO
36 BELMONT CO
36 BROWN CO
36 BUTLER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
• •••••™™ «•*«•»
2.
4,456.
4,458.
0.
694.
694.
394.
1,897.
2,291.
837.
2,154.
2,991.
409.
14,527.
14,936.
0.
P.C8C.
E.08C.
1,121.
13,245.
14,366.
105.
3,745.
3,850.
393.
4,924.
5,317.
250.
6,941.
7,191.
C.
2,594.
2,594.
1,669.
20,312.
21,981.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
37.
3,686.
3,723.
0.
848.
848.
479.
1 , 73 8 .
2,217.
50,091.
1,693.
51 ,784.
2,122.
6,427.
8,549.
0.
2,811 .
2,811.
9,374.
5,438.
14,812.
5,766.
2,232.
7,998.
291.
2,568.
2,859-
13,085.
3,648.
16,733.
0.
1,987.
1 ,937.
8,078.
9,389.
17,467.
IONS *
CO
6.
•24,178.
24,184.
0.
4.513.
4,513.
55.
11,590.
11,645.
2,785.
10,451.
13,236.
58.
63,682.
63,74C.
189.
20,980.
£1,169.
541.
42,078.
42,619.
337.
19,928.
£0,265.
594.
20,947.
21,541.
1,416.
33,239.
34,655.
0.
13,838.
13,838.
3,877.
92,753.
96,630.
607
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PA6E171
STATE AND COUNTY
36 CARROLL CO
36 CHAMPAIGN CO
36 CLARK CO
36 CLERMON7 CO
36 CLINTON CO
36 COLUMBIANA CO
36 COSHOCTON CO
36 CRAWFORD CO
36 CUYAHOGA CO
36 DARKE CO
36 DEFIANCE CO
36 DELAWARE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
HC
0.
2,455.
2,455.
17.
3,842.
?,859.
1,103.
17,736.
18,839.
424.
6,595.
7,019.
6.
4,878.
4,884.
434.
12,587.
13,021.
4,647.
4,679.
9,326.
5.
7,721.
7,726.
136,648.
167,712.
274,360.
47C.
5,116.
5,586.
1.
4,409.
4,410.
1.
5,410.
5,411.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
1,290.
1,290.
108.
2,008.
2,116.
1,424.
8,388.
9,812.
24,157.
4,468.
28,625.
0.
2,391 .
2,391 .
200.
6,271 .
6,431 .
45,780.
2,195.
47,975.
51.
3,072.
3,123.
30,243.
59,793.
90,036.
27.
3,445.
3,472.
57.
2,754.
2,811 .
22.
2,686.
2,908.
IONS *
CO
0.
9,329.
9,329.
u.
14,174.
14,188.
233.
71,994.
72,227.
1,400.
31,270.
32,670.
277.
18,293.
18,570.
6,881.
53,763.
60,644.
8,516.
18,462.
26,978.
1.
'26,571.
"26,572.
49,418.
654,847.
704,265.
16.
•22,213.
22,229.
5.68C.
41,571.
27,251.
3.
22,707.
22,710.
608
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 172
STATE AND COUNTY
£= SSS SSSSS SSSSSSSS
36 ERIE CO
36 FAIRFIELD CO
36 FAYETTE CO
36 FRANKLIN CO
36 FULTON CO
36 6ALLIA CO
36 GEAUGA CO
36 GREENE CO
36 GUERNSEY CO
36 HAMILTON CO
36 HANCOCK CO
36 HARDIN CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
S HC NOX CO
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = st = = = = = s = = = = == = = = = = = = r = = = =
5,640. 764. 1,173.
11,932. 4,254. 44,523.
17,572. 5,018. 45,696.
124.
9,482.
9,606.
0.
2,901.
2,901.
793.
74,928.
75,721.
0.
6,067.
6,067.
1.608.
2,247.
3,355.
4.
7,371.
7,375.
144.
10,196.
10,340.
859.
4,916.
5,775.
20,903.
95,515.
116,418.
99.
9,018.
9,117.
0.
4,033.
4,033.
405.
5,032.
5,437.
0.
1,604.
1 ,604.
2,684.
33,385.
36,069.
0.
3,044.
3,044.
115,867.
1 ,671.
117,538.
64.
3,239.
3,303.
2,590.
5,105.
7,695.
309.
2,341.
2,650.
29,113.
35,096.
64,209.
280.
3,654.
3,934.
0.
2,051.
2,051.
457.
38,649.
39,106.
0.
12,189.
12,189.
1,789.
368,298.
370,087.
427.
£2,020.
22,447.
5,364.
11,387.
16,751.
8.
17,079.
17,087.
121.
54,531.
54,652.
46.
16,808.
16,854.
8,950.
400,663.
409,613.
26.
35,524.
35,550.
0.
15,742.
15,742.
609
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E173
STATE AND COUNTY
36 HARRISON CO
36 HENRY CO
36 HIGHLAND CO
36 HOCKING CO
36 HOLMES CO
36 HURON CO
3b JACKSON CO
36 JEFFERSON CO
36 KNOX CO
36 LAKE CO
36 LAWRENCE CO
36 LICKING CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
2.
2,317.
2,319.
224.
3,529.
3,753.
0.
4,044.
4,044.
0.
2,963.
2,963.
1.
3,044.
3,045.
343.
8,637.
8,98C.
146.
3,692.
3,838.
1 ,055.
7,257.
8,312.
1.528.
4,410.
5,938.
7,978.
21 ,053.
29,031.
1,777.
4,788.
6,565.
347.
11 ,763.
12,110.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
4.
1 ,413.
1 ,417.
688.
2,117.
2,805.
0.
2,179.
2,179.
0.
1,262.
1,262.
18.
1 ,443.
1 ,461 .
159.
4,025.
4,184.
502.
1 ,574.
2,076.
63,702.
4,522.
68,224.
44.
2,655.
2,699.
4,414.
7,858.
12,272,
23,817.
2,813.
26,630.
292 .
5,577.
5,869-
CO
6.
9,721.
9,727.
149.
14,693.
14,842.
0.
16,634.
16,634.
0.
9,268.
9,268.
2.
8,675.
8,677.
42.
30,672.
30,714.
1,239.
>3,445.
14,684.
26,383.
39,858.
66,241.
192.
"20,041.
20,233.
333.
78,928.
79,261.
12,115.
26,755.
38,870.
515.
48,103.
48,618.
610
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE174
STATE AND COUNTY
=s=zzrszss: ==========
36 LOGAN CO
36 LORAIN CO
36 LUCAS CO
36 MADISON CO
36 MAHONING CO
36 MARION CO
36 MEDINA CO
36 MEI6S CO
36 MERCER CO
36 MIAMI CO
36 MONROE CO
36 MONTGOMERY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
==============
17.
5,447.
5,464.
474.
27,470.
27,944.
21,842.
51,088.
72,930.
12.
3,444.
3,456.
4,638.
26,081.
30,719.
619.
7,496.
8,115.
691.
7,816.
8,507.
25.
1,622.
1,647.
478.
4,822.
5,300.
1,045.
11,400.
12,445.
26.
1,156.
1,182.
19,638.
71,892.
91,530.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
0.
2,680.
2,680.
25,646.
10,469.
36,115.
28,260.
19,980.
48,240.
201.
2,238.
2,439.
7,298.
12,232.
19,530.
367.
3,426.
3,793.
49.
4,779.
4,828.
3.
1,225.
1,228.
49.
2,660.
2,709.
893.
4,890.
5,783.
158.
1,024.
1,182.
13,767.
24,158.
37,925.
4,240.
€1,265.
25,505.
1,557.
104,657.
106,214.
20,674.
223,963.
244,637.
25.
15,040.
15,065.
26,698.
131,068.
157,766.
940.
=28,701.
29,641.
541.
33,804.
34,345.
112.
8,255.
8,367.
779.
21,505.
22,284.
457.
41,795.
42,252.
24.
6,694.
6,718.
7,370.
274,882.
282,252.
611
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE175
STATE AND COUNTY
36 MORGAN CO
36 MORROW CO
36 MUSKINGUM CO
36 NOBLE CC
36 OTTAWA CO
36 PAULDING CO
36 PERRY CO
36 PICKAWAY CO
36 PIKE CO
36 PORTAGE CO
36 PREBLE CO
36 PUTNAM CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EM1SS
HC NOX
0.
1,485.
1,485.
C.
2,175.
2,175.
101.
9,021.
9,122.
0.
1,415.
1,415.
3.
4,426.
4,434.
98.
2,121.
2,219.
109.
2,480.
2,589.
153.
5,509.
5,662,
66.
1,722.
1,788.
1,744.
14,736.
16,480.
1.
4,281.
4,282.
12.
3,596.
3,608.
0.
811 .
811 .
0.
1,421.
1,421.
1,924.
4,995.
6,919.
0.
663.
663.
258.
2,592.
2,850.
572.
1 ,431 .
2,003.
1.
1 ,735.
1,736.
3,851 .
2,416.
6,267.
1,029.
1,133.
2,162.
15.
5,854.
5,869.
6.
2,615.
2,621.
191 .
2,535.
2,726.
IONS *
CO
0.
4,606.
4,606.
0.
8,282.
8,282.
3,972.
40,397.
44,369.
0.
4,672.
4,672.
28.
18,822.
18,850.
C.
9,031.
9,031.
2.
11,621.
11,623.
256.
15,119.
15,375.
135.
8,678.
8,813.
1,814.
50,276.
52,090.
1.
15,641.
15,642.
25.
16,173.
16,19?.
612
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE176
STATE AND COUNTY
36 RICHLANO CO
36 ROSS CO
36 SANDUSKY CO
36 SCIOTO CO
36 SENECA CO
36 SHELBY CO
36 STARK CO
36 SUMMIT CO
36 TRUMBULL CO
36 TUSCARAhAS CO
36 UNION CO
36 VAN WERT CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT 1,047. 1,002. 6,384.
AREA 14,314. 7,077. 66,785.
TOTAL 15,361. 8,079. 73,169-
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
282.
5,958.
6,240.
3,869.
7,779.
11,648.
1,056.
6,436.
7,492.
742.
7,097.
7,839.
395.
5,991.
6,386.
5,750.
42,260.
48,010.
25,145.
60,046.
85,191.
4,260.
21,804.
36,064.
1,616.
9,294.
10,910.
3.
3,308.
3,311.
0.
3,732.
3,732.
6,657.
3,328.
9,985.
2,102.
3,491.
5,593.
5,565.
3,929.
9,494.
1,327.
3,808.
5,135.
3,006.
2,623.
5.629.
24/723.
19,217.
43,940.
21,904.
23,838.
45,742.
15,241.
12,299.
27,540.
693.
4,914.
5,607.
26.
1,802.
1 ,828.
C.
1,812.
1,812.
6,870.
*9,627.
36,497.
163.
31,529.
31,692.
1,480.
35,170.
36,650.
1,330.
32,928.
34,258.
3,894.
20,724.
•24,618.
38,851.
198,602.
237,453.
1,146.
258,315.
259,461.
15,638.
118,286.
133,924.
117.
43,811.
43,928.
3.
11,390.
11,393.
C.
14,205.
14,205.
613
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PA6E177*
STATE AND COUNTY
36 VINTON CO
36 WARREN CO
36 WASHINGTON CO
36 WAYNE CO
36 WILLIAMS CO
36 WOOD CO
36 WYANDOT CO
37 ADAIR CO
37 ALFALFA CO
37 ATOKA CO
37 BEAVER CO
37 BECKHA* CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
243.
934.
1 ,177.
1,036.
8,052.
9,088.
32,840.
6,586.
39,426.
356.
12,686.
13,042.
2.
6,099.
6,101.
72.
11,941.
12,013.
0.
3,921.
3,921.
0.
1 ,579.
1,579.
n
u .
1 ,176.
1,176.
P.
1,054.
1,?54.
1,051.
1,051.
1.
1,997.
1,998.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
163.
656.
819.
235.
4,395.
4,630.
79,808.
3,552.
83,360.
2,738.
5,824.
8,562.
54.
2,475.
2,529.
476.
4,806.
5,282.
1.
1 ,714.
1 ,715.
0.
1 ,247.
1 ,247.
C.
847.
847.
0.
700.
700.
6.
720.
726.
72.
1,186.
1 ,258.
*
CO
725.
4,257.
4,982.
16.
36,187.
36,203.
92,838.
C7.502.
120,340.
335.
42,665.
43,000.
3.
17,815.
17,818.
38.
37,844.
37,882.
2.
12,966.
12,968.
0.
8,339.
8,339.
0.
6,055.
6,055.
0.
5,806.
5,806.
1.
5,881.
5,882.
6.
11,970.
11,976.
614
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE178
ST
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
ATE AND COUNTY
BLAINE CO
BRYAN CO
CADDO CO
CANADIAN CO
CARTER CO
CHEROKEE CO
CHOCTAU CO
CIMARRON CO
CLEVELAND co
COAL CO
COMANCME CO
COTTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
1
1
3
3
2
3
5
5
5
16
6
c2
2
2
1
1
8
8
9
9
1
1
H
f
«
t
f
t
,
,
•
»
t
t
t
,
t
*
,
,
t
t
,
i
•
C
0
685
685
0
468
468
440
277
717
38
109
147
070
293
363
0
155
155
0
327
327
0
723
723
C
280
280
0
584
584
5
672
677
0
009
009
ft
•
*
*
*
*
•
•
•
ft
•
ft
*
•
ft
•
•
•
ft
•
•
•
•
*
ft
•>
•
•
•
•
•
•
ft
•
•
•
COMPUTED
1
1
2
2
9
2
12
8
2
11
1
3
4
1
1
5
5
2
5
7
N
t
t
t
t
•
,
t
*
t
•
t
,
t
,
,
*
»
t
•
t
EMI
OX
2
176
178
0
001
001
936
588
524
682
935
617
346
423
769
0
517
517
0
886
886
0
456
456
18
278
296
0
504
504
015
903
918
0
667
667
SSIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ft
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
CO
""" ™ £ • ? " S S
0.
9,653.
9,653.
0.
17,695.
17,695.
13,108.
18,758.
31,866.
277.
31,807.
32,084.
141.
25,028.
•25,169.
0.
12,830.
12,830.
C.
7,745.
7,745.
0.
4,136.
4,136.
1.
51,025.
51,026.
0.
3,213.
3,213.
96.
52,976.
53,072.
0.
5,725.
5,725.
615
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 179
STATE AND COUNTY
37 CRAIG CO
37 CREEK CO
37 CUSTER CO
37 DELAyARE CO
37 DEWEY CC
37 ELLIS CC
37 GARFIELD CO
37 GARVIN CO
37 GRADY CO
37 GRANT CO
37 GREER CC
37 HARMON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
0.
1,798.
1,798.
3.
5, ASA.
5,A87.
A.
2,801.
2,805.
0.
2,647.
2.6A7.
C.
872.
872.
0.
767.
767.
10,020.
6,630.
16,650.
A, 035.
3,003.
7,038.
0.
A.A09.
A,A09.
C.
1,032.
1,032.
r
1,039*1
1,039.
r
1 ,140.
1 ,140.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
1 ,194.
1 ,194.
47.
4,104.
4,151.
4.
1 ,619.
1,623.
0.
1 ,799.
1,799.
7.
703.
710.
0.
568.
568.
2,599.
4,642 .
7,241 .
1,412.
2,077.
3,489.
12.
2,648.
2,660.
0.
905.
905.
0.
6<>5.
695.
G.
666.
666.
*
CO
0.
9,585.
9,585.
15.
29,588.
29,603.
1.
16,324.
16,325.
0.
12,872.
12,872.
0.
4,807.
4,807.
0.
4,316.
4,316.
41,210.
36,668.
77,878.
103.
16,592.
16,695.
1.
•21,971.
21,972.
0.
6,076.
6,076.
0.
7,497.
7,497.
o..
9,392..
9,392.
616
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE180
STATE AND COUNTY
37 HARPER CO
37 HASKELL CO
37 HUGHES CO
37 JACKSON CO
37 JEFFERSON CO
37 JOHNSTON CO
37 KAY CO
37 KINGFISHER CO
37 KIOyA CO
37 LAT1MER CO
37 LE FLORE CO
37 LINCOLN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
SSSSSJESSSSSSE
1.
778.
779.
0.
898.
898.
0.
1,507.
1,507.
0.
2,665.
2,665.
0.
915.
915.
13.
948.
961.
16,066.
5,752.
21,818.
29.
1,662.
1,691.
0.
1,664.
1,664.
C.
1,325.
1,325.
476.
3,741.
4,217.
1,906.
2,402.
4,308.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
115.
588.
703.
0.
696.
696.
0.
1,018.
1,018.
0.
1,739.
1 ,739.
C.
734.
734.
6.
550.
556.
2,197.
3,143.
5,340.
2,060.
1,262.
3,322.
0.
1,123.
1,123.
0.
722.
722.
C.
2,541.
2,541.
120.
1 ,749.
1,869.
*
CO
10.
4,259.
4,269.
0.
4,527.
4,527.
0.
8,430.
8,430.
0.
16,819.
16,819.
0.
4,554.
4,554.
C.
5,011.
5,011.
101,230.
30,019.
131,249.
193.
10,302.
10,495.
0.
9,509.
9,509.
0.
7,011.
7,011.
1,524.
21,213.
22,737.
2.
12,888.
12,890.
617
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 18.1
STATE AND COUNTY
37 LOGAN CO
37 LOVE CO
37 MC CLAIN CO
37 MC CURTAIN CO
37 MC INTOSH CO
37 MAJOR CO
37 MARSHALL CO
37 MAVES CO
37 MURRAY CO
37 MUSKOGEE CO
37 NOBLE CC
37 NOWATA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
r
2,830.
2,830.
0.
954.
954.
0.
1,765.
1,765.
0.
3,892.
3,892.
0.
2,429.
2,429.
0.
1,213.
1,213.
0.
1r634.
1 ,634.
1.
2,990.
2,991.
2.
1 ,240.
1,242.
83.
6,835.
6,918.
0.
1,486.
1,486.
C.
1 ,252.
1.252.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
15.
1 ,650.
1 ,665.
0.
594.
594.
23.
1 ,357.
1,380.
0.
2,338.
2,338.
0.
1 ,035.
1 ,035.
41.
796.
837.
45.
706.
751 .
839.
2,212.
3,051 .
1 ,434.
793.
2,227.
3,121 .
4,393.
12,514.
0.
864.
864.
0-
915.
915.
*
CO
0.
13,843.
13,843.
0.
4,045.
4,045.
2.
9,733.
9,735.
0.
17,840.
17,840.
0.
10,651.
10,651.
3.
6,853.
6,856.
4.
7,315.
7,319.
15.
15,671.
15,686.
34.
6,983.
7,017.
316.
37,867.
38,183.
0.
8,159.
8,159.
0-
7,582.
7,582.
618
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE182
STATE AND COUNTY
SSSr S S=ZSr===ZZSS==SS
37 OKFUSKEE CO
37 OKLAHOMA CO
37 OKMULGEE CO
37 OSAGE CC
37 OTTAWA CO
37 PAWNEE CO
37 PAYNE CO
37 PITTSBURG CO
37 PONTOTOC CO
37 POTTAWATOMIE CO
37 PUSMMATAHA CO
37 ROGER WILLS CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
1,155.
1,155.
A, 379.
60,100.
64,479.
7,300.
3,453.
10,753.
5f .
6,321.
6,379.
1.
3,667.
3,668.
0.
1,772.
1,772.
6,330.
4,616.
10,946.
12.
4,874.
4,886.
3,174.
3,320.
6,494.
0.
5,584.
5,584.
0.
1,700.
1,700.
3.
595.
595.
115.
790.
905.
11,268.
32,029.
43,297.
212.
2,306.
2,518.
463.
3,577.
4,040.
141.
2,340.
2,481.
0.
1 ,107.
1,107.
870.
2,761.
3,631 .
39.
2,232.
2,271.
54.
2,308.
2,362.
0.
3,424.
3,424.
0.
768.
768.
0.
465.
465.
3.
5,881.
5,884.
305.
338,916.
339,221.
28,729.
CO, 167.
48,896.
13.
27,327.
•27,340.
5.
19,436.
19,441.
0.
9,179.
9,179.
28,211.
24,409.
5.2,620.
35.
22,787.
22,822.
0.
17,901.
17,901.
0.
32,453.
32,453.
0.
9,875.
9,875.
0.
3,673.
3,673.
619
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE183
STATE AND COUNTY
37 ROGERS CO
37 SEMINOLE CO
37 SEQUOYAH CO
37 STEPHENS CO
37 TEXAS CC
37 T1LLMAN CO
37 TULSA CO
37 WAGONER CO
37 WASHINGTON CO
37 WASHITA CO
37 WOODS CO
37 WOODWARD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
15.
3,977.
3,992.
41.
Z,943.
2,984.
0.
2,950.
2,950.
18,151.
5,358.
23,209.
2.
2,484.
2,486.
1 ,528.
1,52fc.
3,846.
52,885.
56,731.
0.
2,598.
2,598.
0.
5,244.
5,244.
0.
1,582.
1 ,582.
0.
1,434.
1,434.
£.
2,118.
2,126.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
6,919-
2,815.
9,734.
28,543.
1,815.
30,358.
165.
1 ,915.
2,080.
1 ,601 .
2,885.
4,486.
177.
1 ,602.
1 ,779.
0.
942.
94 1.
19,924.
27,215.
47,139.
0.
1 ,696.
1 ,696.
0.
2,609.
2,609.
0.
1 ,196.
1,196.
0.
894.
894.
5,953.
1 ,315.
7,268.
*
CO
256.
21,922.
22,178.
694.
16,141.
16,835.
4.
14,444.
>4,448.
<24,260.
28,557.
52,817.
15.
15,045.
15, 06?.
0.
7,915.
7,915.
66,321.
261,481.
327,802.
C.
13,400.
13,400.
0.
25.091.
25,091.
0.
9,225.
9,225.
0.
9,175.
9,175.
144.
12,191.
12,335.
620
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE184
STATE AND COUNTY
38 BAKER CO
38 BENTON CO
38 CLACKAMAS CO
38 CLATSOP CO
38 COLUMBIA CO
38 COOS CO
38 CROOK CO
38 CURRY CO
38 DESCHUTES CO
38 DOUGLAS CO
38 GILLIAM CO
38 GRANT CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUT
S HC
101.
2,103.
2,204.
133.
5,713.
5,846.
371.
19,514.
19,885.
98.
3,400.
3,498.
82.
4,472.
4,554.
670.
7,517.
8,187.
155.
1,771.
1,926.
279.
3,063.
3,342.
224.
4,721.
4,945.
1,649.
16,625.
18,274.
0.
292.
292.
62.
1,620.
1,682.
ED EMISS
NOX
1,490.
1,223.
2,713.
198.
3,123.
3,321.
1,462.
9,704.
11 ,166.
743.
1 ,970.
2,713.
1,057.
2,782.
3,839.
1,620.
4,358.
5,97fc.
777.
971.
1 ,748.
390.
1 ,411.
1,801.
1,078.
3,034.
4,112.
6,095.
7,207.
13,302.
0.
244.
244.
223.
834.
1,057.
IONS *
CO
121.
13,162.
13,283.
59.
31,767.
31,826.
397.
86,042.
86,439.
3,915.
17,301.
21,216.
5,657.
18,904.
24,561 .
973.
43,669.
44,642.
154.
8,644.
8,798.
1,235.
17,039.
18,274.
312.
•23,620.
23,932.
1,689.
87,290.
88,979.
0.
1,390.
1,390.
351.
9,000.
9,351.
621
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE185
STATE AND COUNTY
38 HARNEY CO
38 HOOD RIVER CO
38 JACKSON CO
38 JEFFERSON CO
38 JOSEPHINE CO
38 KLAMATH CO
38 LAKE CO
38 LANE CO
38 LINCOLN CO
38 LINN CO
38 MALHEUR CO
38 MARION CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
144.
892.
1,036.
354.
1 ,979.
2,333.
2,901.
12,637.
15,538.
159.
1,167.
1 ,326.
186.
5,723.
5,909.
640.
7,513.
8,153.
28.
2,404.
2,432.
3,114.
30,875.
33,989.
427.
3,920.
4,347.
1,475.
10,574.
12,049.
1.
3,769.
3,77C.
121.
19,245.
19,366.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
565.
737.
1 ,302.
778.
1,252.
2,030.
3,135.
7,357.
10,492.
769.
844.
1 ,613.
623.
3,038.
3,661 .
1 ,869-
3,747.
5,616.
130.
615.
745.
7,692.
15,699.
23,391 .
2,081 .
2,091 .
4,172.
2,174.
6,466.
8.64C.
906.
1,799.
2,705.
2,143.
11,432.
13,575.
*
CO
128.
5,661.
5,789.
202.
10,686.
10,888.
2,492.
70,899.
73,391.
283.
5,837.
6,120.
1,402.
30,711.
32,113.
833.
40,607.
41,440.
404.
14,200.
14,604.
2,773.
167,793.
170,566.
713.
•22,029.
•22,742.
1,273.
51,013.
52,286.
5.
•29,122.
29,127.
25P.
112,863.
113,121.
622
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE186
STATE AND COUNTY
38 MORROW CO
38 MULTNOMAH CO
38 POLK CO
38 SHERMAN CO
38 TILLAMOOK CO
38 UMATILLA CO
*
38 UNION CO
38 WALLOWA CO
38 WASCO CO
38 WASHINGTON CO
38 WHEELER CO
38 YAMHILL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
29.
709.
738.
11,024.
76,383.
67,407.
206.
4,980.
5,186.
0.
294.
294.
108.
2,942.
3,050.
2,057.
6,370.
8,427.
1,151.
2,64C.
3,791.
30.
1,222.
1,252.
32.
2,549.
2,581.
484.
20,544.
21 ,028.
17.
475.
492.
283.
5,606.
5,889.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
73.
620.
693.
2,654.
37,073.
39,727.
782.
2,163.
2,945.
0.
238.
238.
230.
1,633.
1 ,863.
473.
3,820.
4,29u.
1,022.
1,596.
2,618.
90.
790.
880.
72.
1 ,704.
1 ,776.
571.
8,267.
8,838.
70.
231.
301.
1 ,966.
3,352.
5,319.
IONS *
CO
13.
3,447.
3,460.
312.
410,145.
410,457.
148.
24,014.
64,162.
0.
1,308.
1,308.
1,284.
15,913.
17,197.
153.
35,562.
35,715.
570.
14,613.
15,183.
681.
7,063.
7,744.
1 , 1 09 .
16,074.
17,183.
312.
75,104.
75,416.
14.
2,801.
2,815.
205.
30,648.
30,853.
623
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 187
STATE AND COUNTY
39 ADAMS CO
39 ALLEGHENY CO
39 ARMSTRONG CO
39 BEAVER CO
39 BEDFORD CO
39 BERKS CO
39 BLAIR CO
39 BRADFORD CO
39 BUCKS CO
39 BUTLER CO
39 CAWbRIA CO
39 CAMERON CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
126.
6,698.
6,824.
30,103.
104,391.
134,494.
635.
5,436.
6,071.
6,929.
13,683.
20,612.
0 .
4,048.
4,048.
6,233.
34,223.
4C.456.
658.
12,152.
12,810.
2,473.
5,354.
7,827.
22,303.
39,059.
fc1 ,362.
602.
11 ,436.
12.D3P.
2 ,996.
13,443.
16,439.
23.
837.
860.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
158.
3,907.
4,065 .
57,789.
46,679.
104,468.
37,856.
4,267.
42,123.
24,402.
7,830.
32,232.
3.
2,964.
2,967.
10,253.
15,253.
25,506.
2,543.
6,194.
8,737.
492.
3,354.
3,846.
6,094.
18,118.
24,212.
2,862.
7,236.
10,098.
2,706.
8,032.
10,738.
115.
341 .
456.
IONS *
CO
42.
27,672.
27,714.
144,946.
438,664.
583,610.
2,105.
25,079.
27,184.
51,853.
61,007.
112,860.
0.
16,893.
16,893.
6,808.
140, ?08.
147,616.
887.
5L4,962.
55,849.
1,979.
20,271.
22,250.
66,452.
157,057.
223,509.
105,228.
45,216.
150,444.
96,916.
56,098.
153,014.
23.
2,698.
2,721.
624
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 188
STATE AND COUNTY
39 CARBON CO
39 CENTRE CO
39 CHESTER CO
39 CLARION CO
39 CLEARFIELD CO
39 CLINTON CO
39 COLUMBIA CO
39 CRAWFORD CO
39 CUMBERLAND CO
39 DAUPHIN CO
39 DELAWARE CO
39 ELK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
0.
5,300.
5,300.
71.
7,726.
7,797.
5,507.
28,560.
34,067.
64.
3,449.
3,513.
268.
6,436.
6,704.
285.
3,100.
3,385.
6.
7,204.
7,210.
1,215.
8,279.
9,494.
1,782.
16,723.
18,505.
1.481.
18,931.
20,412.
29,983.
44,199.
74,182.
6E.
4,325.
4,393.
COMPUTED EMISi
NOX
67.
2,418.
2,485.
823.
4,918.
5,741.
5,644.
15,434.
21,078.
611 .
2,479.
3,090.
15,447.
4,211.
19,658.
1,603.
1,902,
3,505.
334.
3,629.
3,963.
10,531.
4,573.
15,104.
375.
9,089.
9,464.
2,477.
10,009.
12,486.
25,203.
19,194.
44,397.
1,193.
1 ,757.
2,950.
SIGNS *
CO
3,756.
23,627.
(27.383.
102.
35,520.
35,622.
438.
112,985.
113,423.
18.
13,711.
13,729.
865.
£6,253.
•27,118.
223.
13,598.
13,821.
70.
29,688.
29,758.
1,723.
27,571.
29,294.
39.
81,765.
81,804.
1,571.
86,574.
88,145.
8,658.
215,907.
224,565.
3,441.
12,957.
16,398.
625
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE189
STATE AND COUNTY
39 ERIE CO
39 FAVETTE CO
39 FOREST CO
39 FRANKLIN CO
39 FULTON CO
39 GREENE CO
39 HUNTINGDON CO
39 INDIANA CO
39 JEFFERSON CO
39 JUNIATA CO
39 LACKAUANNA CO
39 LANCASTER CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
690.
27,730.
28,420.
90.
11 ,911.
12,001.
8.
646.
654.
242.
10,911.
11,153.
0.
938.
938.
530.
2,335.
2,865.
36.
4,382.
4,418.
1,367.
6,424.
7,791.
133.
4,393.
4,526.
n t
1,683!
1,683.
1,878.
20,521.
22,399.
12,258.
37,080.
50,338.
COMPUTED EM1S
NOX
6,066.
10,987.
17,053.
122.
7,348.
7,470.
43.
334.
377.
272.
5,855.
6,127.
1 .
735.
736.
31,886.
1 ,918.
33,804.
177.
2,293.
2,470.
52,973.
4,275.
57,243.
57.
2,520.
2,577.
1 .
1 ,265.
1 ,266.
772.
7,819.
£,591 .
4,615 .
17,627.
22,242.
SIONS *
CO
1,648.
87,693.
89,341.
90.
54,497.
54,587.
9.
1,830.
1,839.
204.
44,337.
44,541.
1.
4,452.
4,45?.
1,770.
11,153.
12,923.
13.
15,455.
15,468.
2,995.
•25,301.
28,296.
311.
17,069.
17,380.
0.
7,310.
7,310.
217.
82,254.
82,471.
785.
149,625.
150,410.
626
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE190
STATE AND COUNTY
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
LAWRENCE CO
LEBANON CO
LEHIGH CO
LUZERNE CO
LYCOMING CO
MC KEAN CO
MERCER CO
MIFFLIN CO
MONROE CO
MONTGOMERY CO
MONTOUR CO
NORTHAMPTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
137.
9,478.
9,615.
2,114.
11,151.
13,265.
1,428.
27,730.
29,158.
154.
30,857.
31,011.
929.
13,342.
14,271.
36.
5,?39.
5,075.
392.
9,698.
10,090.
180.
4,020.
4,200.
58.
5,210.
5,268.
14,228.
62,935.
77,163.
699.
1,558.
2,257.
1,581.
22,675.
24,256.
14,822.
4,896.
19,718.
1,148.
5,882.
7,030.
1,881.
11,354.
13,235.
7,213.
12,160.
19,373.
83.
5,812.
5,895.
794.
2,574.
3,368.
1,150.
5,873.
7,023.
365.
2,397.
2,762.
943.
3,255.
4,198.
3,007.
25,357.
28,364.
35,315.
992.
36,307.
45,925.
10,882.
56,807.
2,864.
38,968.
41,832.
102.
47,163.
47,265.
510.
134,346.
1.04,856.
1,665.
117,314.
118,979.
566.
44,327.
44,893.
66.
15,805.
15,871.
13,921.
41,499.
55,420.
2,231.
18,507.
20,738.
173.
19,407.
19,580.
26,250.
242,437.
268,687.
2,030.
5,779.
7,809.
83,225.
113,560.
196,785.
627
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E191
STATE AND COUNTY
39 NORTHUMBERLAND CO
39 PERRY CO
39 PHILADELPHIA CO
39 PIKE CO
39 POTTER CO
39 SCHUYLKILL CO
3? SNYDER CO
39 SOMERSET CO
39 SULLIVAN CO
39 SUSQUEHANNA co
39 T10GA CO
39 UNION CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
1 ,451.
11 ,144.
12,595.
0.
2,365.
2,365.
18,983.
110,070.
129,053.
0.
1 ,266.
1,266.
0.
1,164.
1 ,164.
272.
16,221.
16,493.
387.
2,975.
3,362.
0.
6,200.
6,200.
C.
511.
511.
C .
2,311.
2,811.
5.
3,241.
3,246.
25o.
2,978.
3,234.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
859.
4,855.
5,714.
C.
2,025.
2,025.
25,535.
54,142.
79,677.
21.
865.
886.
0.
901 .
901 .
952.
7,285.
d,237.
15,253.
2,008.
17,261 .
9.
4,594.
4,603.
C.
418.
418.
0.
2,250.
2,250.
149.
2,387.
2,536.
378.
1 ,596.
1 ,974.
IONS *
CO
3,416.
44,016.
47,43?.
0.
10,830.
10,830.
9,091.
563,377.
572,468.
1.
5,036.
5,037.
0.
5,184.
5,184.
233.
68,129.
68,362.
856.
12,069.
12,925.
101.
•29,314.
29,415.
0.
2,169.
2,169.
0.
11,468.
11,468.
414.
14,441.
14,855.
43.
.11,169.
11,212.
628
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 192
STATE AND COUNTY
39 VENANGO CO
39 WARREN CO
39 WASHINGTON CO
39 WAYNE CO
39 WESTMORELAND CO
39 WYOMING CO
39 YORK CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
A^EA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
S HC NOX ' CO
5,406.
6,153.
11,559.
154.
4,867.
5,021.
622.
16,503.
17,125.
C.
3,370.
3,370.
2,298.
28,840.
31,138.
77.
7,215.
3,292.
2,337.
37,571.
39,908.
rt
u.
4,205.
4,205.
0.
3,547.
3,547.
0.
1,335.
1,035.
0.
357.
357.
C.
312.
312.
1,648.
2,873.
4,521 .
4,339.
2,412.
6,751.
21,249.
9,793.
31,042.
39.
2,306.
2,345.
1,139.
14,968.
16,107.
813.
1 ,780.
2,593.
37,005.
15,168.
52,173.
0.
1,671.
1,671.
0.
822.
822.
3.
564.
564.
C.
251.
251 .
0.
255.
255.
W V V V • W •» * • •" » •»
351.
22,757.
23,108.
254.
13,758.
14,012.
4,274.
73,490.
77,764.
181.
14,484.
14,665.
16,308.
121,853.
138,161.
108.
8,272.
8,380.
2,201.
130,306.
132,507.
0.
11,456.
11,456.
0.
19,859.
19,859.
0.
7,655.
7,655.
0.
2,156.
2,156.
0.
1,610.
1,610.
629
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES PA6E193
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
332.
332.
0.
3,827.
3,827.
C.
28C.
280.
0.
366.
366.
0.
342.
342.
0.
2,622.
2,622.
0.
1 ,236.
1,236.
0.
1,953.
1,953.
C.
365.
365.
0.
2,758.
2,758.
0.
455.
455.
C.
775.
775.
COMPUTED EMIS
NOX
C.
273.
273.
C.
1,275.
1 ,275.
G.
179.
179.
0.
315.
315.
o.
27fc.
27g.
0.
1 ,423.
1,^23.
0.
423.
423.
3.
1,033.
1,033.
C.
275.
275.
0.
1 ,921 .
1,921 .
C -
279.
279.
r*
u •
405.
405.
SIONS *
CO
0.
1,735.
1,735.
0.
24,670.
24,670.
0.
1,588.
1,588.
0.
1,861.
1,861.
0.
1,797.
1,797.
0.
18,066.
18,066.
0.
6,128.
6,128.
C.
14,260.
14,260.
C.
2,045.
2,045.
0.
14,708.
14,708.
0.
3,065.
3,065.
D.
5,729.
5,729.
630
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES PAGE194
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSION
==== = === = = == = = = = = = === = = = = = = = = = = =
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
=============
0.
166.
166.
C.
253.
253.
0.
388.
388.
0.
615.
615.
0.
290.
290.
0.
422.
422.
0.
0.
0.
C.
206.
206.
0.
1,845.
1,845.
0.
6,013.
6,013.
0.
1,007.
1,007.
n
w •
926.
926.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
====================
0.
150.
150.
0.
206.
206.
0.
321.
321.
0.
317.
317.
0.
266.
266.
0.
345.
345.
0.
0.
0.
0.
158.
15S.
0.
417.
417.
0-
1,172.
1,172.
0.
413.
413.
n
U •
429.
429.
*
CO
==========
0.
830.
830.
0.
1,439.
1,439.
0.
2,206.
2,206.
0.
4,651.
4,651.
0.
1,514.
1,514.
0.
2,193.
2,193.
0.
C.
0.
C.
1,288.
1,288.
0.
10,778.
10,778.
0.
33,974.
33,974.
0.
6,781.
6,781.
0.
5,159.
5,159.
631
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES PA6ET95
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
KC
0.
1,089.
1 ,085.
0.
288.
288.
0.
393.
393.
0.
1 ,262.
1,262.
0.
1,135.
1,135.
0.
480.
480.
0.
225.
225.
0.
330.
830.
n
C' •
1,439.
1,439.
0.
6C8.
608.
u •
457.
457.
D.
133.
133.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
681 .
681 .
0.
246.
246.
0.
321.
321.
C.
304.
304.
0.
444.
444 .
0.
401 .
401 .
0.
171 .
171 .
0.
435.
435.
C.
427.
427.
0.
265.
265.
C.
341.
341 .
C .
106.
1C6.
IONS *
CO
0.
7,76.3.
7,763.
n.
1,470.
1,470.
0.
2,251.
2,251.
0.
7,221.
7,221.
0.
6,341.
6,341.
C.
2,445.
2,445.
0.
1,253.
1,253.
0.
6,372.
6,372.
0.
9,207.
9,207.
0.
3,181.
3,181.
0.
2,592.
2,592.
C.
700.
700.
632
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES PAGE 196
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APEA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
421.
421.
0.
603.
603.
0.
183.
183.
0.
2,873.
2,873.
0.
102.
102.
0.
180.
180.
0.
3,975.
3,975.
C .
403.
403.
0.
322.
322.
0.
284.
284.
C.
343.
343.
r*
w •
336.
336.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
243.
243.
0.
511.
511.
0.
145.
145.
0.
808.
808.
0.
80.
80.
0.
146.
146.
0.
1,411.
1,411.
C.
311.
311.
0.
266.
266.
0.
224.
224.
0.
272.
272.
C.
275.
275.
*
CO
==========
0.
3,185.
3,185.
0.
3,139.
3,139.
0.
929.
929.
0.
16,343.
16,343.
0.
535.
535.
0.
963.
963.
0.
25,012.
25,012.
0.
2,295.
2,295.
0.
1,703.
1,703.
0.
1,444.
1,444.
0.
1,779.
1,779.
0.
1,804.
1,804.
633
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E197
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
318.
318.
0.
381.
381.
D.
4,304.
4,304.
C.
267.
267.
0.
157.
157.
0.
516.
516.
»,
u .
262.
262.
0.
3,005.
3,005.
0.
449.
449.
0.
10,200.
1C, 200.
n
_• •
456.
456.
L •
2,665.
2,665.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
239.
239.
0.
240.
240.
0.
2,041 .
2,041 .
0.
230.
230.
n
u .
130.
130.
0.
289.
289.
0.
206.
206.
0.
755.
755.
0.
365.
365.
0.
5,896.
5,896.
0.
358.
358.
C.
774.
774.
*
CO
0.
T.829.
1,829.
0.
1.972.
1,972.
P.
26,482.
26,482.
0.
1,393.
1,393.
0.
813.
813.
0.
3,874.
3,874.
0.
1,312.
1,312.
0.
17,431.
17,431.
0.
2,249.
2,249.
C.
57,794.
57,794.
C.
2,561.
2,561.
0.
15,319.
15,3t9.
634
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PA6E198
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSION
================================
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
41 BRISTOL CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
=============
c.
800.
800.
0.
325.
325.
0.
483.
483.
0.
409.
409.
0.
554.
554.
0.
357.
357.
0.
559.
559.
0.
1.
1.
G .
181.
181.
0.
2,650.
2,650.
0.
821.
821.
416.
3,691.
4,107.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
======================
0.
293.
293.
0.
264.
264.
0.
465.
465.
0.
376.
376.
0.
452.
452.
0.
302.
302.
0.
473.
473.
0.
0.
0.
0.
138.
138.
0.
767.
767.
0.
421.
421.
28.
1,177.
1 .205.
V "
CO
: = x = === = =
0.
4,538.
4,538.
0.
1,694.
1,694.
0.
2,470.
2,470.
0.
2,406.
2,406.
0.
2,851.
2,851.
0.
1,833.
1,833.
0.
2,840.
2,840.
0.
9.
9.
0.
1,124.
1,124.
0.
t4,63C.
•14,630.
C.
6,168.
6,168.
2.
14,305.
14,307.
635
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 199
STATE AND COUNTY
41 KENT CO
41 NEWPORT CO
41 PROVIDENCE CO
41 WASHINGTON CO
42 ABBEVILLE CO
42 AIKEN CO
4? ALLENDALE CO
42 ANDERSON CO
42 BAMBERG CO
42 BARNWELL CO
42 BEAUFORT CO
42 BERKELEY CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
1 ,986.
14,337.
16,323.
553.
5,727.
6,280.
13,225.
54,721.
67,946.
893.
9,373.
10,266.
2.
2,779.
2,781.
1,019.
10,375.
11,394.
25.
991.
1,016.
309.
13,423.
13,732.
1.
1,820.
1,821.
4.
2,292.
2,296.
1.
5,660.
5,661.
7,538.
6,839.
14,347.
278.
5,910.
6,188.
385.
2,713.
3,098.
4,278.
23,018.
24,296.
504.
4,085.
4,589.
76.
1,136.
1 ,212.
15,275.
5,480.
20,755.
22.
575.
597.
6,924 .
7,070.
13,994.
17.
865.
882.
72.
1 ,114.
1 ,186.
79.
2,338.
2,417.
17,731.
2,312.
20,043.
893.
76,656.
77,549.
28.
30,411.
30,439.
2,887.
258,558.
261,445.
46.
48,417.
48,463.
8.
10,316.
10,324.
857.
49,584.
50,441.
294.
4,411.
4,705.
420.
58,890.
59,310.
2.
7,832.
7,834.
39.
10,271.
10,310.
6.
23,580.
23,586.
735.
25,296.
26,031.
636
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE200
ST
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
ATE AND COUNTY
S==SSSSSSSSS=£SSSZ
CALHOUN CO
CHARLESTON CO
CHEROKEE CO
CHESTER CO
CHESTERFIELD CO
CLARENDON CO
COLLETON CO
DARLINGTON CO
DILLON CO
DORCHESTER CO
EDGEFIELD CO
FAIRFIELD CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS HC NOX
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
79.
1.027.
1,106.
8,023.
22,147.
30,170.
15.
4,435.
4,450.
3.
3,503.
3,506.
15.
4,238.
4,253.
0.
3,700.
3,700.
180.
3,712.
3,892.
583.
7,926.
8,509.
5.
2,781.
2,786.
3.
3,872.
3,875.
130.
1,641.
1,771.
325.
2,028.
2,353.
= == ==S55SS£5S*_~
0.
622.
622.
2,571.
10,082.
12,653.
366.
2,103.
2,469.
71.
1,625.
1 ,696.
65.
2,124.
2,189-
0.
1,449.
1,449.
15,918.
1,732.
17,650.
9,399.
3,222.
12,621.
40.
1,592.
1 ,632.
1,805.
2.506.
4,311.
16.
857.
873.
51 .
1,056.
1,107.
*
CO
n.
4,766.
4,766.
17,323.
101,991.
119,314.
71.
18,368.
18,439.
14.
13,160.
13,174.
5.
15,729.
15,734.
0.
14,743.
14,743.
1,394.
17,175.
18,569.
449.
C3.801.
24,250.
6.
12,588.
12,594.
29.
16,495.
16,524.
1,536.
6,840.
8,376.
3,811.
7,972.
11,783.
637
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 201
STATE AND COUNTY
42 FLORENCE CO
42 GEORGETOWN CO
42 GREENVILLE CO
42 GREENWOOD CO
42 HAMPTON CO
42 HORRY CO
42 JASPER CO
42 KERSHAW CO
42 LANCASTER CO
42 LAURENS CO
42 LEE CO
42 LEXINGTON CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
474.
12,292.
12,766.
398.
5,093.
5,491.
584.
35,099.
35,683.
400.
6,707.
7,107.
3,947.
2,947.
6,894.
882.
5,347.
9,225.
0.
1 ,598.
1,598.
2,513.
4,461.
6,974.
6,467.
5,077.
11,544.
39.
5.43C.
5,469.
37.
1,270.
1 ,307.
646.
13,645.
14,291.
2,740.
5,900.
8,640.
15,706.
2,101.
17,807.
778.
14,469-
15,247.
460.
3,202.
3,662.
163.
1 ,200.
1 ,363.
6,172.
4,565.
10,737.
0.
673.
673.
1,653.
2,374.
4,027.
1 ,227.
2,239.
3,466.
468.
2,631 .
3,099.
324.
938.
1,262.
7,185.
6,456.
13,641 .
5,126.
46*929.
52,055.
13,110.
19,204.
32,314.
154.
156,707.
156,861.
1,508.
30,60?.
32,111.
1,024.
10,302.
11,326.
2,786.
33,506.
36,292.
0.
6,966.
6,966.
2,284.
19,972.
22,256.
73.
18,374.
18,447.
466.
21,562.
22,028.
128.
6,103.
6,231.
1,029.
62,359.
63,388.
638
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE202
STATE AND COUNTY
42 MC CORMICK CO
42 MARION CO
4? MARLBORO CO
42 NEUBERRV CO
42 OCONEE CO
42 ORANGE6URG CO
42 PICKENS CO
42 RICHLAND CO
42 SALUDA CO
42 SPARTANBURG CO
42 SUMTER CO
42 UNION CC
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
34.
1,423.
1,457.
24.
4,076.
4,100.
39.
3,258.
3,297.
365.
4,314.
4,679.
212.
4,956.
5,168.
629.
7,855.
8,484.
117.
8,421.
8,538.
210.
22,042.
22,252.
0.
1,422.
1,422.
853.
22,727.
23,580.
4,084.
8,862.
12,946.
3,979.
2,969.
6,948.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
67.
469.
536.
43.
1,707.
1,750.
387.
1,499.
1 ,886.
1,001.
1,949.
2,950.
39.
2,423.
2,462.
846.
4,390.
5,236.
484.
3,759.
4,243.
20,165.
11,292.
31,457.
1.
894.
895.
1,789.
10,706.
12,495.
282.
4,443.
4,725.
204.
1,480.
1,684.
IONS #
CO
STS S 5 S £ * S S» S S S £ *E
395.
5,091.
5,486.
14.
15,235.
15,249.
56.
13,909.
13,965.
2,301.
17,307.
19,608.
294.
20,616.
CO, 910.
1,019.
30,121.
31,140.
226.
30,514.
30,740.
695.
107,772,
108,467.
0.
6,296.
6,296.
2,586.
81,841.
84,427.
227.
38,881.
39,1C8.
29.
12,264.
.12,293.
639
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE203
STATE AND COUNTY
42 WILLIAMSBURG CO
42 YORK CO
43 AURORA CO
43 BEADLE CO
43 BENNETT CO
43 BON HOMME CO
43 BROOK INGS CO
43 BROUN CO
43 BRULE CC
43 BUFFALO CO
43 BUTTE CO
43 CAMPBELL CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
3.
4,195.
4,198.
6,322.
8,263.
14,585.
C.
564.
564.
207.
2,060.
2,267.
0.
300.
300.
P
u •
P05.
805.
6.
2,166.
2,172.
333.
4,071.
4,404.
n
'•J •
947.
947.
C.
147.
147.
0.
1,008.
1,008.
O
i_' •
305.
305.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
29.
1,857.
1 ,886.
6,244.
4,269.
10,513.
0.
525.
525.
63.
1,355.
1 ,418.
0.
286.
286.
0.
788.
788.
90.
1,328.
1 ,418.
84.
2,373.
2,457.
C.
640.
640.
0.
127.
127.
0.
729.
729.
0.
288.
288.
IONS *
CO
5.
14..923.
14,928.
8,623.
39,954.
48,577.
0.
3,514.
3,514.
17.
11,974.
11,991.
C.
1,832.
1*832.
0.
4,574.
4,574.
59.
12,277.
12,336.
11.
23,467.
23,478.
0.
5,796.
5,796.
0.
803.
803.
0.
6,180.
6,180.
c.
1,943.
1,943.
640
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE204
STATE AND COUNTY
A3 CHARLES MIX CO
43 CLARK CC
43 CLAY CO
43 COD1NGTON CO
43 CORSON CO
43 CUSTER CO
43 DAV1SON CO
43 DAY CO
43 DEUEL CO
43 DEWEY CO
43 DOUGLAS CO
43 EDMUNDS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS "*
S HC
0.
945.
945.
Q.
588.
588.
0.
979.
979.
1,651.
2,267.
3,918.
0.
623.
623.
371.
1,818.
2,189.
9.
1,819.
1,828.
0.
795.
795.
0.
733.
733.
0.
487.
487.
0.
453.
453.
0.
56C.
560.
NOX
0.
836.
836.
0.
600.
600.
0.
650.
650.
0.
1,173.
1,173.
0.
478.
478.
52.
625.
677.
171.
1,017.
1 ,188.
0.
730.
730.
0.
737.
737.
0.
390.
390.
0.
451.
451.
0.
578.
578.
CO
0.
5,678.
5,678.
0.
3,558.
3,558.
0.
5,927.
5,927.
0.
10,575.
10,575.
0.
3,301.
3,301.
4,351.
12,055.
16,406.
22.
9,781.
9,803.
C.
4,471.
4,471.
0.
4,808.
4,808.
0.
2,464.
2,464.
0.
2,815.
2,815.
0.
3,564.
3,564.
641
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE205
STATE AND COUNTY
43 FALL RIVER CO
43 FAULK CO
43 GRANT CO
43 GREGORY CO
43 HAAKON CO
43 HAMLIN CO
43 HAND CO
43 HANSON CO
43 HARDING CO
43 HUGHES CO
43 HUTCHINSON CO
43 HYDE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
66.
1,157.
1,223.
C.
418.
418.
35.
1,014.
1,049.
G.
671.
671.
0.
308.
308.
0.
620.
620.
0.
568.
568.
0.
596.
596.
0.
246.
246.
0.
1,123.
1,123.
O
w •
919.
919.
0.
271.
271.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
85.
553.
638.
0.
419.
419.
19,266.
856.
20,122.
G .
576.
576.
0.
309.
309.
0.
553.
553.
0.
619.
619.
0.
527.
527.
0.
275.
275.
0.
708.
708.
0.
888.
888.
0.
318.
318.
*
CO
17B.
6,883.
7 , 061 .
0.
2,616.
2,616.
102.
5,989.
6,091.
0.
3,831.
3,831.
0.
1.90P.
1,900.
0.
3,367.
3,367.
0.
3,703.
3,703.
0.
3,41?.
3,418.
C.
1,646.
1,646.
0.
7,102.
7,102.
0.
5,537.
5,537.
C.
1,646.
1,646.
642
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE206
STATE AND COUNTY
£S SS * SSSSt^ SSSS~S5 £SS£
43 JACKSON CO
43 JERAULD CO
43 JONES CO
43 K1NGSBURY CO
43 LAKE CO
43 LAWRENCE CO
43 LINCOLN CO
43 LYMAN CO
43 MC COOK CO
43 MC PHERSON CO
43 MARSHALL CO
N
43 MEADE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA.
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISS
HC
0.
513.
513.
0.
315.
315.
0.
410.
410.
0.
801.
801.
0.
1,203.
1,203.
154.
2,261.
2,415.
0.
1,773.
1,773.
C.
767.
767.
0.
897.
897.
C.
444.
444.
C.
658.
658.
522.
3,668.
4,190.
NOX
0.
429.
429.
0.
319.
319.
C.
339.
339.
0.
766.
766.
0.
784.
784.
14.
814.
828.
0.
1 ,317.
1,317.
C.
675.
675.
0.
805.
805.
C.
492.
492.
0.
573.
573.
47.
1,444.
1,491.
IONS *
CO
1.
2,678.
2,679.
0.
1,957.
1,957.
0.
2,255.
2,255.
0.
4,685.
4,685.
0.
6,772.
6,772.
1,820.
16,278.
18,098.
0.
10,128.
10,128.
0.
4,447.
4,447.
0.
4,931.
4,931.
0.
2,971.
2,971.
C.
3,880.
3,880.
6,179.
€2,367.
28,546.
643
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE2D7
STATE AND COUNTY
43 MELLETTE CO
43 MINER CO
43 WINNEHAHA co
43 MOODY CO
43 PENNINGTON CO
43 PERKINS CO
43 POTTER CO
43 ROBERTS CO
43 SANBORN CO
43 SHANNON CO
43 SPINK CO
43 STANLEY CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
P^'NT
COMPUT
S HC
0.
240.
240.
C.
425.
425.
1 ,606.
11,238.
12,844.
0.
761.
761.
743.
8,885.
9,62£.
46.
50?.
554.
C.
432.
432.
C.
1,174.
1,174.
r»
w •
427.
427.
r-
484.
484.
C.
1,114.
1 ,1U.
0.
526.
526.
ED EMISSIONS
NOX
S S S S" * • • • •• ST S •
0.
227.
227.
C.
419.
419.
1 ,936.
6,270.
8,206.
C .
721.
721 .
2,776.
4,261 .
7,037.
9.
543.
552.
0.
436.
436.
0 .
1,002.
1 ,002.
0.
434 .
434.
0 .
291 .
291.
0.
952.
952.
j .
365.
365.
*
CO
0.
1,529.
1,529.
0.
2,597.
2,597.
88.
64,821.
64,909.
0.
4,611.
4,611.
1,562.
51,895.
53,457.
132.
3,491.
3,623.
C.
2,700.
2,700.
0.
7,285.
7,285.
0.
2,655.
2,655.
0.
2,746.
2,746.
0.
6,992.
6,992.
o.
2,541.
2,541.
644
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 208
ST
ss
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
44
44
T\
44
ATE AND COUNTY
===============
SULLY CC
TODD CO
TR1PP CO
TURNER CO
UNION CO
UALUORTH CO
UASHABAUGH CO
YANKTON CO
ZIEBACH CO
ANDERSON CO
BEDFORD CO
e.
BENTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSION
HC
==============
C.
301.
301.
0.
541.
541.
0.
888.
888.
0.
874.
874.
C.
1,632.
1,632.
12.
734.
746.
0.
133.
133.
294.
2,320.
2,614.
0.
2C6.
206.
1,324.
7,006.
8,330.
279.
3,566.
3,845.
1.
1,754.
1,755.
NOX
== ===========
C.
238.
238.
0.
454.
454.
0.
730.
730.
0.
871.
871.
0.
1,097.
1,097.
162.
536.
698.
0.
121.
121.
262.
1,142.
1,404.
0.
197.
197.
21,104.
3,275.
24.379.
101.
1,995.
2,096.
34.
1,025.
1,059.
s *
CO
===========
C.
1,717.
1,717.
0.
2,903.
2,903.
0.
6,297.
6,297.
C.
5,274.
5,274.
0.
6,646.
6,646.
25.
4,482.
4,507.
0.
880.
880.
27.
10,724.
10,751.
0.
1,277.
1,277.
404.
29,684.
30,088.
18.
16,233.
16,251.
18.
7,753.
7,771.
645
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 209
STATE AND
44 BLEDSOE
44 BLOUNT
44 BRADLEY
44 CAMPBEL
44 CANNON
44 CARROLL
44 CARTER
44 CHEATHA
44 CHESTER
44 CLAIBOR
44 CLAY CO
44 COCKE C
TYPE OF
COUNTY EMISSIONS
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
L CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
H CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
NE CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
0 POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
1.
704.
705.
815.
7,248.
8,063.
32,766.
6,046.
38,812.
2,893.
2.705.
5,598.
30.
902.
932.
90.
3,407.
3,497.
37.
4,128.
4,165.
273.
1,495.
1,768.
0.
858.
858.
157.
1,959.
2,116.
22.
849.
871.
806.
3,003.
3,809.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
10.
658.
668.
1,321.
4,868.
6,189.
152.
3,517.
3,669.
55.
1 ,795.
1,850.
11.
679.
690.
58.
1,959.
2,017.
1,303.
2,787.
4,090.
3.
1,424.
1,427.
9.
637.
646.
26.
1 ,561.
1 ,587.
6.
454.
460.
249.
1,724.
1,973.
*
CO
1.
3,451.
3,452.
€0,479.
40,463.
60,942.
747.
28,838.
29,585.
3,089.
12,097.
15,186.
401.
4,074.
4,475.
268.
15,426.
15,694.
106.
19,338.
19,444.
1.
7,024.
7,025.
0.
4,581.
4,581.
11.
8,294.
8,305.
1.
3,376.
3,377.
131.
12,837.
12,968.
646
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE210
STATE AND COUNTY
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
COFFEE CO
CROCKETT CO
CUMBERLAND CO
DAVIDSON CO
DECATUR CO
DE KALB CO
DICKSON CO
DYER CO
FAYETTE CO
FENTRESS CO
FRANKLIN CO
GIBSON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
===============:
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
, AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
520.
4,206.
4,726.
35.
1,296.
1,331.
928.
2,500.
3,428.
7,435.
44,106.
51,541.
14.
1,284.
1,298.
0.
1,745.
1,745.
456.
2,698.
3,154.
519.
3,449.
3,968.
23.
1,607.
1,630.
1 ,643.
1,326.
2,969.
45.
3,024.
3,069.
246.
4,807.
5,053.
177.
2,137.
2,314.
68.
1,161.
1,229.
87.
1,502.
1,589.
4,564.
23,359,
27,923.
8.
828.
836.
6.
918.
924.
9.
1,728.
1,737.
140.
2,627.
2,767.
2.
1,224.
1,226.
19.
941.
960.
519.
1,938.
2,457.
230.
2,964.
3,194.
375.
20,028.
120,403.
1.
5,963.
5,964.
1,917.
10,272.
12,189.
2,595.
204,424.
207,019.
0.
4,638.
4,638.
0.
6,943.
6,943.
0.
1.1,307.
11,307.
25.
16,450.
16,475.
6.
7,189.
7,195.
5,268.
5,568.
10,836.
11.
13,982.
13,993.
130.
24,370.
24,500.
647
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE211
STATE AND COUNTY
44 GILES CO
44 GRAINGER CO
44 GREENE CO
44 GRUNDY CO
44 HAMBLEN CO
44 HAMILTON CO
44 HANCOCK CO
44 HARDEMAN CO
44 HARDIN CO
44 HAWKINS CO
44 HAYWOOD CO
44 HENDERSON CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
221.
2,973.
3,194.
0.
1,820.
1,820.
200.
5,503.
5,703.
0.
1,153.
1,153.
821.
5,687.
6,508.
10,338.
25,673.
36,011.
8.
549.
557.
394.
1,934.
2,328.
358.
2,230.
2,588.
1,456.
3,621.
5,077.
101.
1.925.
2,026.
114.
2,313.
2,4270
124.
1,628.
1 ,752.
2.
1,112.
1 ,114.
53.
3,632.
3,685.
7.
812.
819.
2,946.
2,654.
5,600.
7,384.
12,695.
20,279.
0.
421 .
421.
81.
1 ,436.
1,517.
1,718.
1,417.
3,135.
23,311 .
2,474.
25,785.
14.
1 ,266.
1,280.
14.
1,397.
1 ,411 .
125.
12,959.
13,084.
6.
7,339.
7,345.
15.
25,424.
25,439.
2.
5,078.
5,080.
31C.
21,682.
21,992.
21,986.
115,164.
137,150.
1.
2,995.
2,996.
72.
9,628.
9,700.
23,457.
9,552.
33,009.
1,323.
17,801.
19,124.
227.
7,732.
7,959.
588.
9,631.
10,219.
648
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE212
STATE AND COUNTY
=r === s=ss ===========
44 HENRY CO
44 HICKMAN CO
44 HOUSTON CO
44 HUMPHREYS CO
44 JACKSON CO
44 JEFFERSON CO
44 JOHNSON CO
44 KNOX CO
44 LAKE CO
44 LAUDERDALE CO
44 LAWRENCE CO
44 LEWIS CC
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
255.
2,774.
3,029.
142.
1,634.
1,776.
32.
652.
684.
1,295.
1,761.
3,056.
14.
687.
701.
471.
3,539.
4,010.
1.
1,339.
1,340.
504.
29,391.
29,895.
314.
906.
1,220.
1,111.
3,879.
4,990.
1,037.
3,205.
4,242,
0.
861.
861.
167.
1,832.
1 ,999.
2,739.
1,062.
3,8C1.
3.
527.
530.
38,514.
1,125.
39,639-
19.
657.
676.
44.
2,236.
2,282.
17.
1,004.
1,021 .
1,307.
15,633.
16,94C.
24.
590.
614.
22.
2,599.
2,621.
45.
2,392.
2,437.
42.
708.
750.
*
CO
22.
15,465.
15,487.
1,105.
8,320.
9,425.
312.
3,208.
3,520.
34,427.
8,260.
42,687.
2.
3,576.
3,578.
22.
17,324.
17,346.
e
5,854!
5,859.
2,299.
133,069.
135,368.
5.
3,707.
3,712.
15.
11,645.
11,660.
64.
18,326.
18,390.
1.
5,045.
5,046.
649
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE213
TYPE OF
STATE AND COUNTY EMISSIONS
44 LINCOLN CO POINT
AREA
TOTAL
44 LOUDON CO
44 MC MINN CO
44 MC NAIRY CO
44 MA CON CO
44 MADISON CO
44 MARION CO
44 MARSHALL CO
44 MAURY CO
44 MEIGS CO
44 MONROE CO
44 MONTGOMERY CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIO
HC NOX
7.
2,653.
2,660.
645.
3,416.
4,061.
1,735.
4,450.
6,185.
86.
2,535.
2,621.
15.
1 ,590.
1 ,605.
644.
6,946.
7,590.
39.
2,289.
2,328.
4.
2,536.
2.54C.
258.
4,794.
5 ,052.
C.
964.
964.
119.
2,598.
2,717.
402.
5,701.
6,103.
8.
1 ,892.
1 ,900.
211.
2,066.
2,277.
5.422.
2,698.
8,120.
4.
1,729.
1 ,733.
19.
1 ,079.
1 ,098.
708.
3,511.
4,219.
403.
1,551.
1 ,954.
12.
1,341 .
1 ,353.
598.
3,493.
4,091 .
1 .
575.
576.
22.
1 ,769.
1,791 .
456.
4,176.
4,632 .
NS *
CO
4.
13.524.
13,528.
57.
i 14,967.
15,024.
8,653.
20,589.
29,242.
6.
11,359.
11,365.
146.
6,717.
6,863.
419.
32,705.
33,124.
64.
11,026.
11,090.
51.
10,851.
10,902.
62.
26,745.
26,807.
0.
3,901.
3,901.
57.
12,358.
12,415.
275.
•28,962.
29,237.
650
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE2U
STATE AND COUNTY
44 MOORE CO
44 MORGAN CO
44 OBION CO
44 OVERTON CO
44 PERRY CO
44 PICKETT CO
44 POLK CO
44 PUTNAM CO
44 RHEA CO
44 ROANE CO
44 ROBERTSON CO
44 RUTHERFORD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
43.
219.
262.
2.
1,441.
1,443.
158.
3,314.
3,472.
4.
1,627.
1,631.
1,880.
819.
2,699.
0.
527.
527.
33.
1,355.
1,388.
959.
5,326.
6,285.
371.
2,367.
2,^38.
626.
5,500.
6,126.
304.
3,236.
3,540.
1,186.
6,494.
7,680.
268.
240.
508.
35.
835.
870.
189.
2,073.
2,262.
10.
1,135.
1,145.
4,696.
544.
5,240.
2.
271.
273.
228.
930.
1 ,158.
263.
2,759.
3,022.
6,481 .
1,511.
7,992.
76,923.
2,655.
39,578.
41 .
2,213.
2,254.
267.
3,694.
3,961 .
50.
1,173.
1,223.
6.
7,468.
7,474.
1,580.
16,767.
18,347.
49.
7,694.
7,743.
1,092.
3,062.
4,154.
2.
1,862.
1,864.
23.
5,934.
5,957.
435.
22,597.
23,032.
380.
10,475.
10,855.
4,665.
23, COO.
27,665.
2.
15,641.
15,643.
31.
30,011.
30,042.
651
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE 215
STWTE AND COUNTY
A4 SCOTT CO
44 SEQUATCHIE CO
44 SEVIER CO
44 SHELBY CO
44 SMITH CO
44 STEWART CO
44 SULLIVAN CO
44 SUMNER CO
44 TIPTON CO
44 TROUSDALE CO
44 UN1C01 CO
44 UNION CO
TYPE Of
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
206.
1,463.
1 ,669.
r
643.
643.
15.
3,225.
3,240.
13.86C.
61,431.
75,291.
1,563.
1,271.
2,834.
809-
1,025.
1,834.
18,300.
13,517.
31,817.
8,075.
6,153.
14,228.
19.
2,953.
2,972.
8.
535.
543.
91.
1,8CO.
1 ,891.
72.
1 ,089.
1 ,161.
190.
933.
1 ,123.
5.
523.
526.
55.
2,477.
2,532.
51 ,646.
31 ,974.
83,620.
27.
1,099.
1 ,126.
47,140.
722.
47,862.
20,019.
8,226.
28,245.
23 ,366.
3,829.
27,195.
47.
2,857.
2,904.
<• .
443.
447.
15.
1,187.
1,202.
1 .
646.
647.
214.
5,94$.
6,162.
2.
2,516.
2,518.
19.
14,052.
14,071.
29,725.
28C.275.
310,000.
1,822.
5,971.
7,793.
2,743.
4,773.
7,516.
8,307.
69,447.
77,754.
1,385.
31,298.
32,683.
4.
13,259.
13,263.
0.
2,169.
2,169.
11.
9,876.
9,887.
2.
4,448.
4,450.
652
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE216
STATE AND COUNTY
44 VAN 8UPEN CO
44 WARREN CO
44 WASHINGTON CO
44 WAYNE CO
44 WEAKLEY CO
44 WHITE CO
44 WILLIAMSON CO
44 WILSON CO
45 ANDERSON CO
45 ANDREWS CO
45 ANGELINA CO
45 A KANSAS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
r= = = = = ==:= = = s = = s = = = = s = z = s= = = = = s = = == = = ssss = =
0.
516.
516.
73.
4,049.
4,122.
1,567.
8,466.
10,033.
221.
1,365.
1,586.
187.
2,940.
3,127.
93.
1,969.
2,062.
198.
4,479.
4,677.
106.
5,023.
5,129.
707.
3,307.
4,014.
2,403.
1,777.
4,180.
126.
7,276.
7,402.
5,522.
2,783.
8,305.
0.
277.
277.
57.
2,161.
2,218.
363.
5,384.
5,747.
1,547.
890.
2,437.
290.
2,050.
2,340.
39.
1 ,247.
1 ,286.
19.
2,857.
2,876.
20.
2,786.
2,806.
218.
2,048.
2,266.
9,932.
1,288.
11 ,220.
1,961.
3,906.
5,867.
297.
1 ,286.
1,553.
0.
2,144.
2,144.
577.
15,301.
15,878.
96.
42,348.
42,444.
84.
5,991.
6,075.
63.
12,899.
12,962.
143.
8,541.
8,684.
9.
17,194.
17,203.
0.
20,085.
20,085.
5.
17,754.
17,759.
4.
11,330.
11,334.
1,990.
30,450.
32,440.
125,436.
10,590.
136,026.
653
-------
EMISSION! PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE217
STATE AND COUNTY
45 ARCHER CO
45 ARMSTRONG CO
45 ATASCOSA CO
45 AUSTIN CO
45 BAILEY CO
45 BANDERA CO
45 BASTROP CO
45 BAYLOR CO
45 BEE CO
45 BELL CO
45 BEXAR CO
45 BLANCO CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
955.
955.
0.
547.
547.
805.
2,218.
3,C23.
1.
1 ,898.
1,899.
C.
815.
815.
C-
487.
487.
433.
2,379.
2,812.
0.
987.
987.
258.
6,351.
6,609.
14,297.
12,113.
26,410.
4,676.
£2,935.
t7,611.
C.
664.
664.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
716.
716.
0.
526.
526.
£24.
1 ,444.
2,268.
49.
1 ,496.
1 ,545.
0.
574.
574.
0.
<.23.
423.
2,124.
1 ,473.
3,597.
0.
441 .
441.
457.
3,672.
4,129.
164 .
5,975.
6,139.
21 ,648.
41 ,890.
63,538.
0.
627.
627.
*
CO
P.
4,173.
4,173.
0.
2,929.
2,929.
14.
13,026.
13,040.
563.
9,973.
10,536.
C]
5,099.
5 , 099 .
3.
2,326.
2,326.
76.
14,097.
14,173.
0.
5,483.
5,483.
1 .
33,727.
33,728.
26.
55,391.
55,417.
1,504.
464,821.
466,325.
0.
3,887.
3,887.
654
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE218
STATE AND COUNTY
45 BORDEN CO
45 BOSQUE CO
45 BOWIE CO
45 BRAZORIA CO
45 BRAZOS CO
45 BREtaSTER CO
45 BRISCOE CO
45 BROOKS CO
45 BROwN CO
45 BURLESON CO
45 BURNET CO
45 CALDWELL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS HC
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
— —S — =— — — — SSSSSS
0.
188.
186.
0.
1,344.
1,344.
84.
9,040.
9,124.
181,758.
11,832.
193,590.
188.
6,617.
6,805.
0.
1,017.
1,017.
3.
387.
387.
1,972.
941.
2,913.
2,465.
7,982.
6,447.
0.
1,121.
1,121.
0.
1 ,610.
1,610.
22.
1,762.
1,782.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
0. 0.
123. 1,113.
123. 1,113.
0.
930.
930.
205.
4,801.
5,006.
41,916.
8,969.
50,885.
2,540.
4,257.
6,797.
0.
614.
614.
0.
246.
246.
3,045.
539.
3,584.
10.
1 ,804.
1,814.
0.
853.
853.
C.
1,127.
1,127.
517.
1,095.
1,612.
r.
6,880.
6,880.
278.
49,235.
49,513.
124,968.
60,172.
185,140.
60.
38,158.
38,218.
0.
6,224.
6,224.
r,
2,302.
2,302.
31.
5,903.
5,934.
1.
17,237.
17,238.
0.
5,199.
5,199.
0.
8.C66.
8,066.
n.
13,368.
10,368.
655
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
STATE AND COUNTY
45 CALHOUN CO
45 CALLAMAN CO
45 CAMERON CO
45 CAMP CO
45 CARSON CO
45 CASS CO
45 CASTRO CO
45 CHAMBERS CO
45 CHEROKEE CO
45 CHILORESS CO
45 CLAY CO
45 COCHRAN CO
TYPE O.F
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
63,732.
5,754.
69,486.
2.
1,393.
1,395.
11,883.
16,039.
27,922.
36.
833.
919.
745.
1,883.
2,628.
2,814.
3.394.
6,208.
1 ,317.
1,110.
2,427.
1,723.
4,491.
6,214.
882.
4,042.
4,924.
0.
1,225.
1 ,225.
54.
1,627.
1,681.
51.
476.
527.
94,821 .
2,158.
96,979.
209-
1 ,171.
1,380.
4,738.
8,327.
13,065.
41.
533.
574.
1 ,644.
1 ,108.
2,752.
1 ,504.
2,268.
3,772.
687.
943.
1 ,630.
20,996.
3,349.
24,345.
5,744.
2,159.
7,903.
C.
599.
599.
144.
1 ,088.
1,232.
477.
331 .
608.
6,894.,
20.7BO.
27,674.
7.
7,167.
7,174.
4,024.
75,719.
79,743.
0.
4,633.
4,633.
5.
6,557.
6,562.
3,362.
15,182.
18,544.
1.
7,012.
7,01?.
4,125.
17,378.
21,503.
1,991.
17,380.
19,371.
0.
7,928.
7,928.
0.
9,555.
9,555.
1.
3,094.
3,095.
656
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE220
STATE AND COUNTY
45 COKE CO
45 COLEHAN CO
45 COLLIN CO
45 COLLINGSWORTH CO
45 COLORADO CO
45 COMAL CO
45 COMANCHE CO
45 CONCHO CO
45 COOKE CO
45 CORYELL CO
45 COTTLE CO
45 CRANE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS HC
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
----- - -^ =======
243.
409.
652.
64.
1,286.
1,350.
385.
8,292.
8,677.
^
-> •
600.
600.
1,731.
2,800.
4,531.
0.
4,224.
4,224.
0.
1,495.
1,495.
0.
496.
496.
?09.
3,893.
4,102.
0.
4,843.
4,843.
0.
348.
348.
6,471.
874.
7,345.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
========= ========
5,763.
328.
6,091.
1,043.
758.
1,801.
5,230.
4,964.
10,194.
0.
318.
318.
3,729.
1,856.
5,585.
227.
2,196.
2,423.
3.
1,085.
1 ,088.
0.
420.
420.
864.
2,020.
2,884.
0.
2,348.
2,348.
0.
228.
228.
13,201.
545.
13,746.
============
13.
2,051.
2,064.
18.
8,105.
8,123.
129.
41,130.
41,259.
n
u .
L r\L*>
•* , u** j .
4,045.
9.
15,901.
15,910.
n.
24,679.
24,679.
g.
8,708.
8,708.
0.
2,644.
2,644.
1 .
18,279.
18,280.
C.
17,620.
17,62C.
0.
1,673.
1,673.
23 .
6,750.
6,773.
657
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE221
STATE AND COUNTY
45 CROCKETT CO
45 CROSBY CO
45 CULBERSON CO
45 DALLAM CO
45 DALLAS CO
45 DAWSON CO
45 DEAF S^ITH CO
45 DELTA CO
45 DENTON CO
45 DE WITT CO
45 DICKENS CO
45 DIMMIT CO
TYPE Of
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
HC
848.
917.
1,765.
0.
769.
769.
0.
895.
895.
1.
1 ,213.
1,214.
29,956.
152,822.
152,778.
67.
1 ,821.
1,888.
0.
2,312.
2,312.
-^
U •
422.
422.
120.
11,115.
11,235.
104.
1,952.
2,056.
C.
38C.
38C.
2,465.
077.
3,4 5e,
COMPUTED EM1S
NOX
15.91C.
575.
16,485 .
C.
604.
604.
0.
700.
700.
0.
967.
967.
30,935.
73,828.
10<*,763.
282 .
1 ,167.
1 ,449.
0.
951.
951 .
0.
32fc.
328.
1,141.
5,849.
6,990.
417.
1 ,088.
1 ,505.
0.
305.
3C5.
879.
611 .
1 ,49C.
SIONS *
CO
21.
6,412.
6,433.
0.
3,976.
3,976.
0.
4,140.
4,140.
537.
8,089.
8,626.
1,578.
735,685.
737,263.
0.
1C, 810.
10,810.
3.
17,424.
17,427.
C.
2,289.
2,289.
18.
58,028.
58,046.
0.
10,121.
10,121.
0.
1 ,958.
1,958.
2.
5,442.
5,450.
658
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE222
STATE AND COUNTY
45 DONLEY CO
45 DUVAL CO
45 EASTLANO CO
45 ECTOR CO
45 EDWARDS CO
45 ELLIS CO
45 EL PASO CO
45 ERATH CO
45 FALLS CO
45 FANNIN CO
45 FAYETTE CO
45 FISHER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
812.
812.
173.
1,080.
1,253.
209.
2,942.
3,151.
18,692.
9,845.
28,537.
0.
167.
167.
590.
7,702.
8,292.
2,338.
40,657.
42,995.
31.
2,435.
2,466.
0.
1,629.
1,629.
119.
2,090.
2,209.
32.
2,526.
2,558.
132.
577.
709.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
685.
685.
321.
737.
1,058.
563.
1 ,645.
2,208.
28,567.
6,011.
34,578.
0.
197.
197.
2,745.
4,011.
6,756.
8,281.
14,257.
22,538.
1.
1,357.
1,358.
0.
1,072.
1,072.
7,748.
1 ,440.
9,188.
0.
1,659.
1 ,659.
773.
473.
1 ,246.
*
CO
0.
4,184.
4,184.
0.
6,655.
6,655.
3.
17,404.
17,407.
11,259.
51,269.
62,528.
0.
948.
948.
*
30.
37,987.
38,017.
18,107.
268,932.
287,039.
0.
13,889.
13,889.
0.
9,147.
9,147.
82.
10,942.
11.024.
104.
12,922.
13,026.
1C.
3,186.
3,196.
659
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES PAGE223
STATE AND COUNTY
45 FLOYD CC
45 FOARD CO
45 FORT BEND CO
45 FRANKLIN CO
45 FREESTONE CO
45 FRIO CO
4j GAINES CO
45 GALVESTON CO
45 GARZA CC
45 GILLESPIE CO
45 GLASSCOCK CO
45 GOL1AD CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
G.
984.
984.
0.
270.
270.
1,422.
9,079.
10,501.
301.
818.
1 ,119.
854.
1 ,872.
2,726.
44.
1 ,381 .
1,425.
300.
1,445.
1 ,745.
64,217.
18,719.
82,936.
0.
1,002.
1,002.
0.
1 ,479.
1.479.
0.
306.
306.
0.
586.
586.
0.
699.
699.
0.
252.
252.
13,870.
4,929.
18,799.
555.
611 .
1 ,166.
24,153.
1 ,448.
25,601 .
2,025.
987.
3,012.
2,602.
1 ,112.
3,714.
46,832.
12,256.
59,088.
0.
549.
549.
0.
886.
886.
C.
309.
309.
0.
479.
479.
0.
5,991.
5,991.
0.
1,464.
1,464.
152.
40,920.
41,072.
2.
3,826.
3,828.
2,292.
10,629.
12,921.
11.
8,346.
8,357.
3.
9,019.
9,022.
155,685.
93,551.
249,236.
P.
6,261.
6,261.
0.
8,615.
8,615.
0.
2,091.
2,091.
0.
3,063.
3,063.
660
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE224
STATE AND COUNTY
45 GONZALES CO
45 GRAY CO
45 GRAYSON CO
45 GREGG CO
45 GRIMES CO
45 GUADALUPE CO
45 HALE CO
45 HALL CO
45 HAMILTON CO
45 HANSFORD CO
45 HARDEMAN CO
45 HARDIN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
18.
2,085.
2,103.
16,606.
3,316.
19,922.
650.
10,479.
11,129.
5,793.
10,903.
16,696.
0.
1 ,514.
1 ,5U.
30.
5.2C3.
5,233.
2,539.
3,617.
6,156.
C.
849.
849.
0.
893.
893.
2,905.
613.
3,518.
25.
1 ,062.
1 ,087.
P41 .
2,681.
3,522.
— — • — •••»«••**•
72.
1,402.
1 ,474.
2,299.
1,728.
4,027.
894.
5,121.
6,015.
11 ,974.
5,562.
17,536.
0.
954.
954.
83.
2,787.
2,870.
1,609.
2,269.
3,878.
0.
449.
449.
0.
579.
579.
3,763.
578.
4,341.
589.
617.
1,206.
1 ,320.
2,001.
3,321 .
0.
11,706.
11,706.
59,735.
18,498.
78,233.
169.
51,094.
51,263.
541.
51,954.
52,495.
0.
8,189.
8,189.
2.
28,398.
28,400.
1.
21,647.
21,648.
C.
4,938.
4,938.
0.
4,973.
4,973.
4.
3,893.
3,897.
6.
6,466.
6,472.
462.
12,832.
13,294.
661
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE225
STATE AND COUNTY
45 HARRIS CO
45 HARRISON CO
45 HARTLEY CO
45 HASKELL CO
45 HAYS CO
45 HEMPHILL CO
45 HENDERSON CO
45 HIDALGO CO
45 HILL CO
45 HOCKLEY CO
45 HOOD CO
45 HOPKINS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
209,214.
217,915.
427,129.
10,171.
6,296.
16,467.
C.
702.
702.
33.
982.
1,C15.
2.
7,806.
3,808.
C.
591.
591.
1 ,764.
3,154.
4,918.
1,652.
16,153.
17,805.
0.
3,729.
3,729.
472.
2,089.
2,561 .
1C.
888.
898.
351.
3,065.
3,41t.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
102,528.
114,657.
217,185.
10,307.
3,862.
14,169.
0.
466.
466.
2,951 .
669.
3,62C.
63.
2,185.
Z ,248.
0.
533.
533.
4,696.
2,283.
6,979.
4,414 .
10,201 .
14,615.
0.
2,240.
2,240.
5,012.
1 ,374.
6,386.
7,395.
795.
8,190.
£49.
1,950.
2,799.
118,098.
1 ,063,987.
1t182,085.
1,990.
34,468.
36,458.
C.
4,506.
4,506.
26.
5,919.
5,945.
4.
22,231.
22,235.
0.
2,504.
2,504.
52.
16,096.
>6,148.
37.
90,732.
90,769.
0.
£0,400.
20,400.
3.
12,513.
12,516.
180.
4,262.
4,442.
6.
17,338.
17,344.
662
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE226
STATE AND COUNTY
45 HOUSTON CO
45 HOWARD CO
45 HUDSPETH CO
45 HUNT CO
45 HUTCH1NSON CO
45 I* ION CO
45 JACK CO
45 JACKSON CO
45 JASPER CO
45 JEFF DAVIS CO
45 JEFFERSON CO
45 JIM HOGG CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
7,863.
1,934.
9,797.
13,529.
4,520.
18,049.
0.
1,367.
1,367.
964.
6,724.
7,688.
52,860.
2,424.
8.
222.
230.
159.
947.
1 ,106.
1,717.
1,747.
3,464.
1,946.
3,651.
5,597.
0.
233.
233.
261,088.
27,208.
288,296.
r
334.
334.
122.
1,353.
1,475.
6,386.
3,085.
9,471.
4.
1,130.
1,134.
913.
3,349.
4,262.
24,575.
2,204.
26,779.
92.
193.
285.
411.
582.
993.
2,307.
1 ,246.
3,553.
1 ,404.
2,160.
3,564.
C.
231.
231 .
86,145.
21,328.
107,473.
0.
209.
2C9.
586.
9,888.
10,474.
69,864.
26,405.
96,269.
0.
7,235.
7,235.
22.
34,423.
34,445.
460,815.
13,142.
473,957.
0.
1,171.
1,171.
0.
5,684.
5,684.
1.
10,633.
10,634.
12,801.
15,701.
28,502.
0.
1,227.
1,227.
131,591.
147,224.
278,815.
0.
2,080.
2,080.
663
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE227
STATE AND COUNTY
45 JIM WELLS CO
45 JOHNSON CO
*5 JONES CO
45 KARNES CO
45 KAUFMAN CO
45 KENDALL CO
45 KENEDY CO
45 KENT CO
45 KERR CO
45 KIMBLE CO
45 KING CO
45 KINNEY CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
4,206.
3,214.
7,420.
8,728.
5,764.
14,492.
2,489.
2,164.
4,653.
324.
1 ,486.
1 ,810.
146.
5,168.
5,314.
C.
838.
838.
707.
4,156.
4,863.
C.
288.
288.
0.
2,298.
2,298.
7.
917.
924.
G.
165.
165.
r
i~ •
294.
294.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
9,081 .
2,345.
11 ,426.
91 .
3,309.
3,400.
7,738.
1 ,259.
8,997.
338.
934.
1 ,272.
6.
3,049.
3,055.
0.
7C5.
705.
1,049.
517.
1 ,566.
0.
144.
144.
0.
1,301.
1 ,301 .
34.
503.
537.
0.
149.
149.
C.
311 .
311 .
*
CO
221.
19,895.
20,116.
15.
27,997.
'28,012.
145.
13,089.
13,234.
4.
8,771.
8,775.
0.
28,587.
28,587.
C.
4,146.
4,146.
39.
13,929.
13,968.
0.
1,333.
1,333.
r.
12,029.
12,029.
7.
5,824.
5,831.
0.
906.
906.
0.
1,631.
1,631.
664
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE228
STATE AND COUNTY
zszss zz=z==z— ssssrrs
45 KLEBERG CO
45 KNOX CO
45 LAMAR CC
45 LAMB CO
45 LAMPASAS CO
45 LA SALLE CO
45 LAVACA CO
45 LEE CO
45 LEON CO
45 LIBERTY CO
45 LIMESTONE CO
45 LIPSCOMB CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSION
HC NOX
8,613.
4,001.
12,614.
46.
615.
661.
14.
4,433.
4,447.
12.
1,532.
1,544.
C.
1,185.
1,185.
j .
947.
947.
523.
1,705.
2,228.
0.
1,174.
1,174.
C.
1,668.
1,668.
338.
4,124.
4,462.
7.
1,643.
1.650.
G.
3H.
314.
15,066.
2,069.
17,135.
30.
460.
490.
77.
2,288.
2,365.
3,085.
1 ,141.
4,226.
C.
709.
709.
0.
572.
572.
559.
1 ,173.
1,732 .
0.
702.
702.
0.
1,392.
1 ,392.
874.
3,210.
4,084.
92.
1,C74.
1 ,166.
C.
301 .
301.
S *
CO
234.
•20,121.
(20,355.
D.
2.994.
2,994.
147.
21,589.
21,736.
43.
8,326.
8,369.
?.
6,796.
6,796.
C.
6,951.
6,951.
2.
9,320.
9,322.
0.
6,186.
6,186.
0.
8,108.
6,108.
2,050.
24,873.
26,923.
183.
8,300.
8,483.
C.
1,674.
1,674.
665
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 229
STATE AND COUNTY
45 LIVE OAK CO
45 LLANO CO
45 LOVING CO
45 LUBBOCK CO
45 LYNN CO
45 MC CULLOCH CO
45 MC LENNAN CO
45 WC MULLEN CO
45 MADISON CO
45 MARION CO
45 MARTIN CO
45 MASON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
HC
455.
1,353.
1,808.
6.
1 ,069.
1,075.
0.
354.
354.
994.
22,076.
27,07C.
1 ,935.
941.
2,876.
C.
1 ,196.
1 ,196.
5,358.
19,964.
25,322.
1.
843.
844.
0.
1,298.
1,298.
29.
1 ,332.
1,361.
58.
788.
846.
0.
386,
386.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
655.
984.
1 ,639.
4,761 .
618.
5,379.
0.
283.
283.
14,773-
11 ,431 .
26,204.
387.
683.
1 ,070.
877.
796.
1,673.
17,916.
10,201 .
28,117.
98.
714.
812.
0.
992 .
992.
18,390.
829.
19,219.
582.
678.
1 ,260.
u .
314.
314.
*
CO
2..
6,354.
6,356.
115.
5,178.
5,293.
?.
1,805.
1,805.
622.
116,710.
117,332.
5,482.
5,734.
11,216.
D.
7,072.
7,072.
111.
110,801.
110,912.
?.
4,581.
4,583.
0.
7,622.
7,622.
456.
6,691.
7,147.
2.
4,071.
4,073.
0.
1 ,993.
1,993.
666
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE230
STATE AND COUNTY
5.5 S C S Z S 2C S Z ££££ = £££££•£.£:
45 MATAGORDA CO
45 MAVERICK CO
45 MEDINA CO
45 MENARD CO
45 MIDLAND CO
45 Ml LAM CO
45 MILLS CO
45 MITCHELL CO
45 MONTAGUE CO
45 MONTGOMERY CO
45 MOORE CC
45 MORRIS CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
10,497.
5,666.
16,163.
C.
1,968.
1,968.
0.
2,081.
2,061.
0.
419.
419.
4,114.
9,548.
13,662.
524.
2,177.
2,701.
0.
495.
495.
84.
1,517.
1,601.
C.
2,193.
2,193.
5,639.
7,388.
13,027.
16,668.
1,580.
18,248.
1 ,624.
1,542.
3,166.
* » V • .«*••»._«..
4,305.
3,646.
7,951 .
1C.
815.
S25.
2.
1,232.
1,234.
0.
610.
610.
11,381 .
5,524.
16,905.
9,244.
1 ,373.
10,622.
0.
413.
413.
12,549.
999.
13,548.
0.
1 ,410.
1,410-
9,106.
6,136.
15,242.
24,730.
991 .
25,721.
11 ,459.
1 ,267.
12,726.
1,566.
24,645.
26,211.
C.
13,768.
13,768.
0.
10,665.
10,665.
0.
3,814.
3,814.
8.
62,338.
62,346.
674.
12,864.
13,538.
0.
2,675.
2,675.
61.
9,046.
9,107.
0.
12.224.
12,224.
67,518.
36,494.
104,012.
113,337.
9,050.
1-22,387.
7,142,
9,702,
16,844,
667
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE231
STATE AND COUNTY
45 MOTLEY CO
45 NACOGDOCHES CO
45 NAVARRO CO
45 NEWTON CO
45 NOLAN CO
45 NUECES CO
45 OCHILTREE CO
45 OLDHAM CO
45 ORANGE CO
45 PALO PINTO CO
45 PANOLA CO
45 PARKER CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APEA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
G.
415.
415.
1S4.
4,969.
5,153.
742.
4,860.
5,602.
0.
1 ,322.
1,322.
180.
2,773.
2,953.
71,715.
28,233.
59,748.
258.
1 ,181.
1,439.
0.
1,321.
1,021.
32,455.
K.644.
41 ,C99.
362.
3,628.
3,990.
4,699.
2,048.
6,747.
651.
4,309,
4,96C.
0.
204.
204.
53.
2,431 .
2,484.
2,839.
2,631 .
5,470.
0.
847.
847.
2 ,486.
1 ,453.
3,939.
36,600.
15,647.
52,247.
134.
678.
812 .
0.
800.
800.
117,317.
5,519.
122,836.
4,891 .
1 ,752.
6,643.
3,205 .
1 ,336.
4,541 .
1 ,522.
2 ,636.
4,158 .
0.
1,946.
1,946.
113.
•23,709.
23,822.
158.
27,690.
27,848.
0.
6,266.
6,266.
0.
16,994.
16,994.
52,529.
157,180.
209,709.
0.
7,202.
7,202.
0.
4,856.
4,856.
91,919.
38,637.
130,556.
2C.
15,648.
15,668.
132.
11,746.
11,878.
11.
•2 3 , 696 .
•23,707.
668
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE232
STATE AND COUNTY
sszsa= = ss,= = = = = = = = = ====:
45 PARMER CO
45 PECOS CC
45 POLK CO
45 POTTER CO
45 PRESIDIO CO
45 RAINS CO
45 RANDALL CO
45 REAGAN CO
45 REAL CO
45 RED RIVER CO
45 REEVES CO
45 REFUGIO CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
? S * 5 S * S*«ZS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
/ COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
==z=s= ============== ==========s====r=zss=s
C. 0. P.
1tC67. 907. 6,394.
1,067. 907. 6,394.
10,187.
2,156.
12,343.
141.
2,577.
2,718.
14,684.
16,323.
31,007.
0.
518.
518.
0.
547.
547.
D.
5,607.
5,607.
526.
358.
884.
0.
236.
236.
85.
1 ,736.
1,821.
3,043.
2,338.
5,381.
867.
3,073.
4,840.
6,447.
1,315.
7,762.
510.
1,824.
2,334.
16,611 .
11,055.
27,666.
0.
358.
358.
0.
405.
405.
0.
3,189.
3,189.
3,071.
296.
3,367.
0.
225.
225.
291.
976.
1 ,267.
1,106.
1,271.
2,377.
3,839.
2,837.
6,676.
231.
13,804.
14,035.
524.
12,676.
13,200.
1,652.
102,585.
104,237.
0.
2,898.
2,898.
0.
2,612.
2,612.
0.
36,285.
36,285.
4.
1,636.
1,640.
0.
1,426.
1,426.
94.
8,392.
8,486.
87.
14,538.
14,625.
44.
24,271.
24,315.
669
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE233
STATE AND COUNTY
45 ROBERTS CO
45 ROBERTSON CO
45 ROCKWALL CO
45 RUNNELS CO
45 RUSK. CO
45 SABINE CO
45 SAN AUGUSTINE CO
45 SAN JAC INTO CO
45 SAN PA TRICIO CO
45 SAN SABA CO
45 SCHLEICHER CO
45 SCURRY CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
MC
0.
311.
311.
857.
1 ,440.
2,297.
3.
1 ,518.
1,518.
59.
1 ,456.
1,515.
1 ,216.
4,196.
5,412.
0.
749.
749.
35.
1 ,277.
1 ,312.
C.
974.
974.
15,126.
4,405.
19,531.
0.
552.
552.
159.
337.
496.
2,225.
2,194.
4,419.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
1S5.
185.
2.
1 ,096.
1 ,098.
C.
1 ,019.
1 ,019.
46.
863.
911 .
21 ,352.
2,762 .
24,114.
0.
566.
566.
0.
590.
590.
0.
823.
823.
76,987.
2,989.
79,976.
^
w •
381 .
381 .
84S.
356.
1 ,204.
9,815.
1 ,320.
11 ,135.
IONS *
CO
0.
1,423.
1,423.
83.
8,746.
8,829.
0.
8,671.
8,671.
1.
8,130.
8,131.
4,421.
21 ,330.
•25,751.
C.
2,985.
2,985.
0.
5,859.
5,859.
0.
5,502.
5,502.
4,324.
24,699.
29,02*.
r>
U •
3,294.
3,294.
1 .
2,300.
2,301.
88.
13,71*.
13,802.
670
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE234
ST
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
ATE AND COUNTY
SHACKELFORD CO
SHELBY CO
SHERMAN CO
SMITH CO
SOMERVELL CO
STARR CO
STEPHENS CO
STERLING CO
STONEWALL CO
SUTTON CO
SKISMER CO
TARRANT CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
101.
453.
554.
334.
2,191.
2,525.
0.
511.
511.
21,702.
13.C57.
34,759.
C.
347.
347.
1,062.
1,264.
2,326.
78.
1,527.
1,605.
G.
306.
306.
23.
294.
717.
922.
579.
1,501.
62.
1,340.
1,402.
35,449.
95,007.
130,456.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
501 .
443.
944.
336.
1,562.
1,898.
0.
515.
515.
1,595.
7,377.
8,972.
• 0.
341.
341.
2,685.
971 .
3,656.
352.
1,009.
1 ,361 .
0.
275.
275.
68.
315.
383.
360.
559.
919.
1.
918.
919.
23,256.
44,586.
64,842.
IONS *
CO
n.
2,133.
2,133.
99.
9,790.
9,889.
0.
3,066.
3,066.
171.
68,30?.
68,479.
0.
1,834.
1 ,834.
19.
6,583.
6,60?.
0.
9,625.
9,625.
C.
1,603.
1,603.
0.
1,702.
1,702.
3.
2,614.
2,617.
C.
8,586.
8,586.
1,821 .
498,752.
500,573.
671
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE235
STATE AND COUNTY
45 TAYLOR CO
45 TERRELL CO
45 TERRY CO
45 THROCKMORTON CO
45 TITUS CO
45 TOW GREEN CO
45 TRAVIS CO
45 TRINITY CO
45 TYLER CO
45 UPSHUR CO
45 UPTON CO
45 UVALDE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
348.
13,302.
13,650.
1,689.
185.
1,874.
4C.
1,811.
1,851.
0.
246.
246.
3,862.
2,551.
6,413.
109.
6 , 6 4 C •
6,749.
8,751.
39,740.
48,491.
11.
828.
839.
69.
1 ,485.
1,554.
38.
2,271.
2,309.
744.
553.
1 ,297.
0.
1 ,982,
1,982.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
235.
7,68C.
7,915 .
10,071 .
18u.
10,251 .
1 ,8C9.
1 ,309.
3,116.
C.
189.
189.
51 ,484.
1 ,494.
52,978.
3,591 .
3,759.
7,350.
4,963.
25,116.
30,079.
1 .
583.
584.
6.
959.
965.
21 .
1 ,537.
1 ,558.
3,059.
406.
3,465.
C.
1 ,235.
1 ,205.
*
CO
24.
74,985.
75,009.
4.
905.
909.
55.
11,158.
11,213.
0.
1,276.
1,276.
10,663.
U,225.
24,888.
427.
30,046.
30,473.
195.
212,107.
212,302.
134.
4,452.
4,586.
1,298.
6,863.
8,161.
•3.
11,587.
11,587.
3.
3,569.
3,572.
?.
11,691.
11,691 .
672
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE236
STATE AND COUNTY
zrirs ==rzr==========z==;
45 VAL VERDE CO
45 VAN ZANDT CO
45 VICTORIA CO
45 WALKER CO
45 WALLER CO
45 WARD CO
45 WASHINGTON CO
45 WEBB CO
45 WHARTON CO
45 WHEELER CO
45 WICHITA CO
45 WIL6ARGER CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
MC NOX
77.
3,505.
3,582.
803.
2,965.
3,768.
7,386.
6,124.
13,510.
276.
3,738.
4,014.
5,094.
1,671.
6,765.
3,037.
1,716.
4,753.
0.
2,446.
2,446.
467.
6,217.
6,684.
714.
3,783.
4,497.
4,557.
1,377.
5,934.
2,185.
22,778.
24,963.
16.
2,193.
2,209.
12.
1,594.
1,606.
1,613.
2,363.
3,976.
9,934.
3,949.
13,883.
600.
2,223.
2,823.
3,828.
1,339-
5,167.
11,577.
1 ,108.
12,685.
0.
1,679.
1 ,679.
2,565.
3,401.
5,966.
7,233.
2,473.
9,706.
517.
873.
1 ,390.
132.
11 ,331.
11 ,463.
662 .
1,176.
1,838.
*
CO
0.
16,107.
16,107.
4.
15,000.
15,004.
14,835.
34,365.
49,200.
1,532.
20,286.
21,818.
258.
9,364.
9,622.
45.
10,670.
10,715.
0.
11,420.
11,420.
562.
37,022.
37,584.
71.
€1,157.
«1,228.
99,229.
7,924.
107,153.
7.
143,632.
143,639.
22.
14,013.
14,035.
673
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE237
STATE AND COUNTY
45 W1LLACY CO
45 WILLIAMSON CO
45 WILSON CO
45 WINKLER CO
45 WISE CO
45 WOOD CO
45 YOAKUM CO
45 YOUNG CO
45 ZAPATA CO
45 2AVALA CO
46 BEAVER CO
46 BOX ELDER CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
236.
2,530.
2,766.
6,561.
6,425.
12,986.
0.
1,425.
1 ,425.
10,499.
899.
1 1 ,398.
1,301.
2,982.
4,283.
561.
2,296.
2,857.
948.
841.
1 ,789.
422.
1,903.
2,325.
n
963.
963.
1,103!
1,103.
0.
1,035.
1 ,035.
3.
6,609.
6 ,617.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
1 ,309-
868.
2,177.
6 .
3,814.
3,822.
0.
1 ,129.
1 ,129.
8,873 .
732.
9,605.
1 ,442.
2,178.
3,620.
5,840.
1 ,181 .
7,021 .
7,576.
645 .
6,221 .
7,691 .
1 ,029.
8,720.
0.
378.
378.
0.
622.
622 .
G .
486.
486.
3CC.
2.51C.
2,810.
*
CO
ri t
10,89ol
10,890.
29.
38,100.
38,129.
0.
7,991.
7,991.
6C.
5,671.
5,731.
4.
17,893.
17,897.
68.
16,017.
16,085.
107.
5,462.
5,569.
51.
10,121.
10,172.
0.
3,750.
3,750.
0.
6,493.
6,493.
0.
7,374.
7,374.
2£.
46,362.
46,390.
674
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE238
STATE AND COUNTY
46 CACHE CC
46 CARBON CO
46 DAGGETT CO
46 DAVIS CO
46 OUCHESNE CO
46 EMERY CO
46 GARFIELD CO
46 GRAND CO
46 IRON CO
46 JUAb CO
46 KANE CO
46 MILLARD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
S HC
0.
5,926.
5,926.
81.
1,768.
1,849.
C.
188.
188.
1,386.
11,362.
12,748.
2.
1,623.
1,625.
207.
2,295.
2,502.
215.
1,086.
1,301.
190.
1 ,793.
1 ,983.
1.
2,749.
2,750.
0.
1 ,835.
1,835.
C.
989.
989.
0.
1 ,933.
1,933.
NOX
7.
2,681.
2,688.
4,891.
894.
5,785.
0.
95.
95.
67C.
5,405.
6,275.
0.
1,053.
1 ,053.
12,513.
1,170.
13,683.
19.
469.
488.
0.
597.
597.
92.
1,005.
1,097.
C.
695.
695.
0.
396.
396.
0.
1,110.
1 ,110.
*
CO
0.
36,259.
36,259.
271.
11,019.
11,290.
0.
1,442.
1,442.
25,953.
84,247.
110,200.
26.
11,864.
11.89C.
693.
17,907.
18,600.
2,548.
7,594.
10,142.
43.
14,904.
14,947.
5.
21,208.
€1,213.
C.
16,103.
16,101.
0.
6,587.
6,587.
0.
14,550.
14,550.
675
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES PA6E239
STATE AND COUNTY
46 MORGAN CO
46 PIUTE CO
46 RICH CO
46 SALT LAKE CO
46 SAN JUAN CO
46 SANPETE CO
46 SEV1ER CO
46 SUMMIT CO
46 TOOELE CO
46 UINTAH CO
46 UTAH CO
46 WASATCH CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APE A
TOTAL
HC
p
<- •
612.
612.
Lr' .
394.
394.
C.
354.
354.
5,118.
59,289.
64,407.
0.
1,894.
1,894.
0.
1 ,874.
1,874.
0.
2,366.
2,366.
C .
1 ,802.
1,802.
196.
3,889.
4,085.
0.
2,141.
2,141.
53.
15,137.
15,193.
0.
1 ,506.
1 ,506.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
2,378.
342.
2,720.
0.
195-
195.
0.
306.
306.
19,795.
27,603.
47,398.
C.
903.
903.
0.
1 ,04C.
1 ,040-
0.
1 ,176.
1,176.
0.
1 ,002.
1 ,002.
351.
1,512.
1 ,863.
0.
1 ,067.
1 ,067.
2,476.
7,116.
9,592.
C .
652,
652.
#
CO
n.
4,097.
4,097.
C.
3,045.
3,045.
•%
1,680.
1,680.
5,493.
382,563.
388,056.
0.
12,772.
12,772.
0.
11,332.
11,332.
0.
17,847.
17,847.
C.
14,165.
14,165.
7,917.
29,831.
37,748.
0.
14,608.
14,608.
14,492.
108,753.
123,245.
C.
11,906.
11,906.
676
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE240
STATE AND COUNTY
46 WASHINGTON CO
46 WAYNE CO
46 WEBER CO
47 ADDISON CO
47 BENNINGTON CO
47 CALEDONIA CO
47 CH1TTENOEN CO
47 ESSEX CO
47 FRANKLIN CO
47 GRAND ISLE CO
47 LAMOILLE CO
47 ORANGE CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
S HC NOX CO
^
2.673!
2,673.
0.
454.
454.
499.
12,814.
13,313.
1,365.
1,926.
3,291.
403.
2,585.
2,988.
40.
1 ,854.
1,894.
1,645.
7,341.
8,986.
194.
859.
1,053.
554.
2,665.
3,219.
C.
594.
594.
12.
1,125.
1,137.
235.
1,583.
1,818.
0.
1,117.
1,117.
0.
213.
213.
15fc.
6,801 .
6,959.
106.
1,591.
1 ,697.
72.
1 ,618.
1,690.
35.
1,492.
1,527.
267.
4,494.
4,761.
2.
336.
338.
75.
1 ,714.
1,789.
C.
256.
256.
63.
951 .
1,014.
41 .
1 ,232.
1,273.
0.
18,981.
18,981.
0.
3,219.
3,219.
672.
97,504.
98,176.
20.
8,654.
8,674.
9.
9,645.
9,654.
4.
6,738.
6,742.
59.
35,406.
35,465.
0.
1,601.
1,601.
9.
11,331.
11,340.
0.
2,398.
2,398.
12.
4,257.
4,269.
8.
6,405.
6,413.
677
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 241
STATE AND COUNTY
47 ORLEANS CO
47 RUTLAND CO
47 WASHINGTON CO
47 WINDHAM CO
47 WINDSOR CO
48 ACCOMACK CO
48 ALBEMARLE CO
48 ALEXANDRIA
48 ALLEGHANY CO
48 AMELIA CO
48 AMHERST CO
48 APPOMATTOX CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
436.
1,795.
2,231.
218.
4,902.
5,120.
27.
3,937.
3,964.
197.
3,768.
3,965.
276.
4,132.
4,408.
10.
3,664.
3,674.
7.
7,677.
7,684.
230.
3,093.
3,323.
301.
12,797.
13,098.
U *
1,637.
1,637.
79.
913.
992.
256.
1 ,49C.
1,746.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
116.
1,299.
1 ,415.
59.
2,987.
3,046.
68.
2,532.
2,600.
26.
2,209.
2,235.
20.
2,883.
2,903.
25.
1 ,946.
1 ,971.
132.
3,598.
3,730.
8,584.
1 ,679.
10,263.
4,412.
8,648.
13,060.
0.
1 ,356.
1 ,356.
966.
732.
1 ,698.
55.
1,283.
1 ,338.
#
CO
16.
8,174.
8,190.
23.
18,876.
18,899.
15.
18,594.
18,609.
4.
12,972.
12,976.
4.
15,639.
15,643.
3.
13,994.
13,997.
17.
31,393.
31,410.
1,975.
6,592.
8,567.
5,136.
87,623.
92,759.
0.
8,483.
8,483.
545.
3,840.
4,385.
17.
7,051.
7,0*8.
678
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE242
STATE AND COUNTY
====================
48
48
48
48
48
48
<>8
48
48
48
48
48
ARLINGTON CO
AUGUSTA CO
BATH CO
BEDFORD CO
BLAND CO
BOTETOURT CO
BRUNSWICK CO
BUCHANAN CO
BUCKINGHAM CO
CAMPBELL CO
CAROLINE CO
CARROLL CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
E======-===s=r====s= ======================
70.
5,906.
5,976.
3,725.
U.2C4.
17,929.
0.
4,417.
4,417.
785.
1,484.
2,269.
0.
1,624.
1,624.
1.
1 ,099.
1,100.
2.
1,638.
1,640.
870.
1,316.
2,186.
2.
1,771.
1,773.
304.
2,357.
2,661.
7.
5,705.
5,712.
592.
2,599.
3,191.
SCO.
4,156.
4,956.
1,795.
8,015.
9,810.
0.
4,511.
4,511.
1,131.
825.
1,956.
0.
1 ,605.
1,605.
724.
578.
1,302.
15.
1,178.
1,193.
8.
1,142.
1,150.
0.
1 ,544.
1 ,544.
743.
1,133.
1,876.
C.
5,024.
5,024.
8C.
1,144.
1,224.
104.
12,276.
12,38C.
151.
78,071.
78,222.
0.
26,844.
26,844.
122.
5,119.
5,241.
0.
8,516.
8,516.
0.
2,985.
2,985.
3.
7,174.
7,177.
263.
5,062.
5,325.
0.
10,270.
10,270.
24,155.
6,010.
30,165.
82.
30,416.
30,498.
9.
7,680.
7,689.
679
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 243
STATE AND COUNTY
48 CHARLES CITY CO
48 CHARLOTTE CO
48 CHESAPEAKE
48 CHESTERFIELD CO
48 CLARKE CO
48 CRAIG CC
48 CULPEPER CO
48 CUMBERLAND CO
48 DICKENSON CO
48 OINWIDDIE CO
48 ESSEX CO
48 FAIRFAX
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
u •
1,067.
1,067.
0.
605.
605.
2,933.
7,373.
10,306.
4,151.
7,633.
11 ,784.
C.
979.
979.
C.
29C.
290.
120.
1 ,939.
2,059.
0.
430.
430.
0.
925.
925.
10.
4,564.
4,574.
0.
1,235.
1 ,235.
C.
20,765.
^C,765.
COMPUTED EMIS
NOX
0.
832 .
632 .
12.
396.
4C8.
11 ,625.
4,385.
16,010.
15,732.
3,199-
18,931 .
0.
624.
624.
0.
286.
286.
10.
1 ,279.
1,289.
C.
298.
298.
0.
836.
836.
165.
2,286.
2,451 .
0.
535.
535.
0.
11 ,837.
11 ,837.
SIGNS #
CO
o
5 , 268 \
5,268.
1.
2,240.
2,241.
538.
46,412.
46,950.
833.
20,240.
21,077.
r, t
3,045.
3,045.
C.
1,423.
1,423.
15.
9,147.
9,162.
r-
'* •
2,029.
2,029.
C.
3,973.
3,973.
23.
22,081.
22,104.
0.
3,399.
3,399.
0.
159,659.
159,659.
680
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE244
STATE AND COUNTY
ssss= sssss =z== = r = ==:
48 FAIRFAX CO
48 FAUQUIER CO
48 FLOVD CO
48 FLUVANNA CO
48 FRANKLIN CO
48 FREDERICK CO
48 GILES CO
48 GLOUCESTER co
48 GOOCHLAND CO
48 GRAYSON CO
48 GREENE CO
48 GREENSVILLE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARLA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S hC
1,993.
30,803.
32,796.
0.
2,256.
2,256.
C.
849.
849.
78.
679.
757.
25.
3,399.
3,424.
3,542.
7,151.
10,693.
158.
1,173.
1,331.
0.
1,577.
1,577.
3.
619.
622.
303.
2,051.
2,354.
0.
401.
401.
66.
1 ,669.
1,735.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
465.
17,916.
18,381.
0.
1,850.
1,65C.
C.
687.
687.
6,357.
463.
6,820.
26.
1 ,834.
1 ,860.
117.
3.CS3.
3,200.
9,309.
944.
10,253.
0.
981.
981 .
25.
526.
551.
258.
1 ,564.
1 ,822.
0.
342.
342.
453.
1 ,049.
1,502.
IONS *
CO
50.
168,968.
169,018.
0.
10,960.
10,960.
C.
4,220.
4,220.
255.
2,834.
3,089.
9.
.11,337.
11,346.
16.
>22,005.
22,021.
264.
4,964.
5,228.
0.
6,269.
6,269.
3.
3,095.
3,098.
49.
9,546.
9,595.
0.
1,952.
1,952.
725.
7,583.
8,308.
681
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
STATE AND COUNTY
48 HALIFAX CO
48 HAMPTON
48 HANOVER CO
48 HENRICO CO
48 HENRY CC
48 HIGHLAND CO
48 ISLE OF WIGHT CO
48 JAMES CITY CO
48 KING AND QUEEN CO
48 KING GEORGE CO
48 KING WILLIAM CO
48 LANCASTER CC
TYPE OF
EMI S SIGNS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
433.
3,283.
7,766.
19.
£,580.
8,599.
269.
4,Q3C.
4,299.
311.
26,894.
17,205.
3,302.
12,109.
15,411.
. *
23d.
236.
435.
2.C83.
2,518.
2 ,829.
2,402-
5 ,231.
5.
532.
537.
£.
659.
667.
1 22.
1 ,895.
2 ,317.
C.
1 ,042.
1 ,042.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
383.
2,096.
2,479.
305.
4,431 .
4,736.
15.
2, 602 .
2,817.
141.
16,935.
17,076.
2,021 .
4,295.
6,316.
0.
196.
196.
4,853.
1 ,254.
6,107.
713.
1 ,599.
2,312.
C.
372.
372.
1C.
497.
507.
2,269.
613.
2,882.
0.
704 .
704 .
#
CO
70.
15,200.
15,270.
29.
47,849.
47,878.
8.
17,707.
17,715.
0.
181,306.
181,306.
158.
37,656.
37,814.
0.
1,123.
1,123.
•27,126.
8,948.
36,074.
263.
13,463.
13,726.
65.
2,547.
2,612.
2.
2,643.
2,645.
9,486.
4,711.
14,197,
0.
4,D36.
4,,036.
682
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE246
STATE AND COUNTY
SSSSS :ZZ=~S£*5ZES5S.S£
48 LEE CO
48 LOUDOUN CO
48 LOUISA CO
48 LUNENBERG CO
48 MADISON CO
48 MATHEMS CO
48 MECKLENBURG CO
48 MIDDLESEX CO
48 MONTGOMERY CO
48 NANSEMOND CO
48 NELSON CO
48 NEW KENT CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
M
u •
1,339.
1,339.
2.
4,378.
4,380.
0.
1,460.
1,460.
353.
1,206.
1,559.
C.
804.
804.
0.
735.
735.
13.
3,775.
3,788.
0.
675.
675.
62.
6,837.
6,899.
0.
3,602.
3,602.
2.
981.
983.
0.
767.
767.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
3.
1,197.
1,200.
1.
3,270.
3,271.
0.
956.
956.
12.
668.
680.
C.
556.
556.
0.
477.
477.
264.
1 ,889.
2,153.
C.
470.
470.
1,651.
3,244.
4,895.
w .
1 ,924.
1 ,924.
0.
794.
794.
0.
499.
499.
*
CO
0.
5,814.
5. 8U.
0.
19,988.
19,988.
0.
6,089.
6,089.
787.
4,273.
5,060.
0.
3,224.
3,224.
0.
3,131.
3,131.
31.
15,016.
15,047.
0.
2,863.
2,863.
1,124.
27,570.
28,694.
0.
15,164.
15,164.
C.
4,656.
4,656.
n
w *
3,175.
3,175.
683
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE247
STATE AND COUNTY
48 NEWPORT NEWS
48 NORFOLK
48 NORTHAMPTON CO
48 NORTHUMBERLAND CO
48 NOTTOWAY CO
48 ORANGE CO
48 PAGE CO
48 PATRICK CO
48 P1TTSYLVANIA CO
48 PORTSMOUTH
48 POWHATAN CO
48 PRINCE EDWARD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
1 ,141.
17,313.
18,454.
2,966.
21 ,045.
24,011.
C.
2,258.
2,255.
8.
1,133.
1,141.
13.
1,410.
1 ,423.
0.
1 ,602.
1 ,802.
1.
1,897.
1,898.
15.
1,753.
1,768.
4,095.
10,712.
14,807.
319.
7,881.
8,200.
1.
666.
667.
9C.
1 ,524.
1 ,614.
779.
5,889.
6,668 .
1 ,537.
12,813.
14,350.
0.
941 .
941 .
144.
636.
780.
69.
989.
1 ,058.
6.
1 ,121 .
1 ,127.
40.
1 ,155.
1 ,195.
90.
1 ,005.
1 ,095.
2,027.
5,409.
7,436.
1 ,649.
3,850.
5,499.
26.
564.
59C.
90.
925.
1 ,015.
709.
53,847..
54,556.
1,828.
105,101.
106,929.
0.
8,485.
8,485.
12.
4,238.
4,250.
14.
6,887.
6,901.
D.
7,875.
7,875.
3.
7,865.
7,868.
16.
6,124.
6,140.
147.
46,999.
47,146.
431.
39,716.
40,147.
2.
3,086.
3,088.
121.
7,078.
7 , 1-99 ,
684
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE248
ST
*S
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
ATE AND COUNTY
PRINCE GEORGE CO
PRINCE WILLIAM CO
PULASKI CO
RAPPAHANNOCK CO
RICHMOND
RICHMOND CO
ROANOKE CO
ROCKBRIDGE CO
ROCKINGHAM CO
RUSSELL CO
SCOTT CO
SHENANDOAH CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
2,674.
3,925.
6,599.
343.
9,641.
9,984.
2,197.
3,284.
5,481.
G.
523.
520.
8,631.
13,703.
22,334.
17.
757.
774.
3,355.
19,507.
22,862.
3,374.
3,096.
6,470.
484.
8,227.
8,711.
284.
1,663.
1,947.
C.
1,591.
1,591.
614.
2.83C.
3,444.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
13,955.
1,685.
15,640.
22,287.
5,792.
28,079.
411.
> 1,586.
1,997.
0.
400.
400.
900.
3,857.
4,757.
36C.
494.
854.
301.
8,027.
8,328.
76.
1 ,509.
1,585.
418.
4,255.
4,673.
16,939.
1,473.
18,412.
0.
1,305.
1 ,305.
176.
1,814.
1,992.
*
CO
12,804.
15,570.
28,374.
1,226.
49,960.
51,186.
169.
11,795.
11,964.
0.
2,248.
2,248.
412.
9,472.
9,884.
17.
3,111.
3,128.
145.
84,820.
84,965.
16.
13,199.
13,215.
153.
29,254.
29,407.
941.
7,134.
8,075.
0.
7,082.
7,082.
1,565.
9,995.
11,560.
685
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 249
STATE AND COUNTY
48 SMYTH CC
48 SOUTHAMPTON CO
48 SPOTSYLVANIA CO
48 STAFFORD CO
48 SURRY CO
48 SUSSEX CO
48 TAZEWELL CO
48 VIRGINIA BEACH
48 WARREN CO
48 WASHINGTON CO
48 WESTMORELAND CO
48 WISE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
1,051.
3,464.
4,515.
3.
2,858.
2,861.
3,150.
4,748.
7,898.
C.
3,174.
3,174.
0.
997.
997.
77.
848.
925.
13.
2,384.
2,397.
89.
5,709.
5,798.
39.
9,741.
9,78C.
91.
4,405.
4 ,496.
13.
3,34Z.
3,355.
44.
1 ,624.
1 ,66£.
99.
1,769.
1 ,866.
100.
1 ,551 .
1 ,651 .
1 ,005.
2,640.
3,645.
0.
2,841 .
2,841 .
G.
645 .
645.
160.
472.
632.
21 .
1 ,200.
1 ,221 .
373.
3,771 .
4,144.
3,504.
6,213.
9,717.
32 .
1 ,587.
1,619.
1 .
2,901 .
2,902.
4 .
1 ,10£.
1 ,112 .
U.
12,339.
12,353.
15.
11,212.
11,227.
83.
22,834.
22,917.
G.
15,130.
15,130.
r.
4,873.
4,873.
407.
3,116.
3,523.
50.
6,432.
6,482.
33.
20,652.
2C,685.
145.
67,030.
67,175.
127.
9,747.
9,874.
162.
16,680.
16,842.
520.
5,154.
5,674.
686
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PA6E250
STATE AND COUNTY
48 UYTHE CO
48 YORK CO
49 ADAMS CC
49 ASOTIN CO
49 BENTON CO
49 CHELAN CO
49 CLALLAM CO
49 CLARK CO
49 COLUMBIA CO
49 COULITZ CO
49 DOUGLAS CO
49 FERRY CC
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
. t i
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #•
HC NOX CO
1.
3,358.
3,259.
7 ,140.
2,651.
9,791.
0.
2,513.
2,513.
C.
1,507.
1,507.
75.
9,217.
9,292.
571.
5,207.
5,778.
296.
9,175.
9,471.
2,656.
15,464.
18,120.
0.
934.
934.
14,064.
16,375.
30,439.
22.
1,732.
1,754.
257.
853.
1,110.
4.
2,153.
2,157.
18,098.
1,620.
19,718.
8.
1,437.
1,445.
0.
827.
827.
4,139.
4,151 .
8,290.
5,947.
2,569.
8*516.
2,284.
3,311.
5,595.
4,774.
7,163.
11,937.
C.
1,187.
1,187.
14,923.
5.318.
20,241.
109.
1,692.
1 ,801 .
57.
365.
422.
0.
15,169.
15,169.
911.
9,551.
10,462.
1 .
13,839.
13,810.
0.
9,211.
9,211.
192.
46,204.
46,396.
22,592.
24,915.
47,507.
1,117.
49,165.
50,282.
15,255.
80,110.
95,365.
P.
5,499.
5,499.
21,954.
71,699.
93,653.
22.
9,366.
9,388.
2,962.
3,545.
6,507.
687
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 251
STATE AND COUNTY
49 FRANKLIN CO
49 GARFIELD CO
49 GRANT CO
49 GRAYS HARbOK CO
49 ISLAND CO
49 JEFFERSON CO
49 KING CO
49 KITSAP CO
49 KITTITAS CO
49 KLICKITAT CO
49 LEWIS CO
49 LINCOLN CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
2,172.
4,024.
6,196.
0.
759.
759-
264.
6,956.
7,220.
527.
10,437.
10,964.
13.
3,343.
3,353.
224.
6,372.
6,596.
6,664.
121,019.
127,683.
571.
9,996.
10,567.
C.
6,800.
6,800.
94.
1 ,961.
2,055.
1 ,478.
8,973.
10,451.
125,
?,070.
2,195.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
0.
1 ,737.
1 ,737.
C.
586.
586.
962.
3,236.
4,193.
2,717.
4,200.
6,917.
G .
2,340.
2,340.
1 ,195.
1 ,734.
2,929.
4,727.
44,987.
49,714.
749.
12,102.
12,851 .
158.
3,585.
3,743.
362.
1 ,208.
1 ,57C.
49,095.
3,77C.
52,£25 .
112.
1 ,615.
1,727.
#
CO
0.
20,392.
20,392.
0.
4,257.
4,257.
170.
38,072.
38,242.
2,843.
47,497.
50,340.
0.
16,070.
16,070.
1,288.
32,591.
33,879.
4,317.
583,300.
587,617.
110.
63,469.
63,579.
7.
41,110.
41,117.
20,177.
8,724.
•28,901.
7,904.
46,561 .
54,465.
1,255.
11,454.
1 2 , 709 .
688
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE252
STATE AND COUNTY
49 MASON CO
49 OKANOGAN CO
49 PACIFIC CO
49 PEND OREILLE. CO
49 PIERCE CO
49 SAN JUAN CO
49 SKAGIT CO
49 SKAMANIA CO
49 SNOHOMISH CO
49 SPOKANE CO
49 STEVENS CO
49 THURSTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
S£SSS=S=S = =SI
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
145.
3,749.
3,894.
286.
12,800.
13,086.
237.
4,261.
4,498.
93.
1,097.
1.19C.
5,409.
40,530.
45,939.
0.
1,654.
1,654.
4,171.
8,433.
12,604.
285.
2,395.
2,680.
2,843.
23,496.
26,339.
1,873.
33,835.
35,708.
892.
3,155.
4,047.
31.
11,304.
11,335.
68£.
1 ,467.
2,155.
1,119.
3,513.
4,632.
623.
1,652.
2,275.
337.
617.
954.
6.37C.
16,374.
22,744.
0.
2,761.
2,761 .
3,634.
3,702.
7,336.
236.
1 ,234.
1,470.
3,648.
10,469.
14,117.
617.
14,671.
15,288.
108.
3,374.
3,482.
54.
5,361.
5,415.
152.
17,022.
17,174.
280.
72,664.
72,944.
521.
CO, 754.
•21,275.
1,045.
5,595.
6,640.
29,456.
205,039.
234,495.
0.
9,545.
9,545.
1,555.
43,248.
44,803.
2,286.
13,182.
15,468.
2,489.
1C3.617.
1(26,106.
35,784.
178,203.
213,987.
9,725.
15,963.
25,688.
5.
60,483.
60,488.
689
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE253
STATE AND COUNTY
49 WAHKIAKUM CO
49 WALLA WALLA CO
49 WHATCOM CO
49 WHITMAN CO
49 YAKIMA CO
50 PARBOUR CO
50 BERKELEY CO
50 BOONE CO
50 BRAXTON CO
50 BROOKE CO
50 CABELL CO
50 CALHOUN CO
TYPE Of
EMI SSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AR? A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
HC
32.
661.
693.
28.
4,869.
4,897.
5,197.
10,579.
15,776.
C.
4,160.
4,16C.
305.
17,548.
17,853.
23.
1 ,139.
1,162.
25.
4,372.
4,397.
C •
2,675.
2,673.
C.
1 ,231.
1,201.
4,785.
2,525.
7,310.
6.
9,511.
9,517.
•~ •
858.
858.
COMPUTED EMISJ
NOX
t
961 !
964.
526.
1 ,935.
2,461 .
3,692.
4,509.
8,201.
0.
2,647.
2,647.
1 ,365 .
7,792.
9,157.
0.
1 ,912.
1,912.
1,652.
2,813.
4,665 .
C.
1,699.
1 ,699.
0.
925 .
925.
975.
1,450.
2,425 .
304.
4,898.
5,202.
0.
1 ,197.
1 ,197.
5IONS *
CO
306.
3,240.
3,546.
5,067.
23,896.
28,963.
91,026.
47,449.
138,475.
0.
25,328.
•25,328.
320.
86,497.
86,817.
76.
5,913.
5,989.
33.
20,821.
'20,854.
0.
12,907.
12,907.
0.
5,235.
5,235.
50,771.
9,260.
30,031.
3,459.
37,117.
40,576.
0.
4,237.
4,237.
690
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE254
STATE AND COUNTY
50 CLAY CO
50 DODDRIDGE CO
50 FAYETTE CO
50 GILHER CO
50 GRANT CO
50 GREENBRIER CO
50 HAMPSHIRE CO
50 HANCOCK CO
50 HARDY CO
50 HARRISON CO
50 JACKSON CO
50 JEFFERSON CO
TYPE OF COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
EMISSIONS HC NOX CO
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
0.
732.
732.
0.
558.
558.
U.
2,795.
2,809.
0.
517.
517.
463.
771.
1,234.
AC.
2,539.
2,579.
1.
1,047.
1,048.
812.
2,531.
7,343.
1.
936.
937.
672.
5,525.
6,197.
20.
2,943.
2,963.
8.
1,834.
1,842.
0.
485.
485.
0.
559.
559.
887.
2,310.
3,197.
0.
619.
619.
28,378.
614.
28,992.
281.
2,018.
2,299.
7.
914.
921.
85,851.
2,164.
88,015.
7.
884.
891 .
40,346.
3,576.
43,922.
39.
2,393.
2,432.
251.
1 ,354.
1 ,605.
0.
3,393.
3,393.
0.
3,356.
3,356.
7,121.
,10,191.
17,312.
0.
2,822.
2,822.
1,566.
3,032.
4,598.
48.
9,951.
9,999.
1.
5,181.
5,182.
32,591.
12,161.
44,752.
1.
4,911.
4,912.
2,417.
22,959.
25,376.
3.
14,671.
14,674.
19.
7,569.
7,608.
691
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PA6E255
STATE AND COUNTY
50 KANAWHA CO
50 LEWIS CO
50 LINCOLN CO
50 LOGAN CO
50 MC DOWELL CO
50 MARION CO
50 MARSHALL CO
50 MASON CO
50 MERCER CO
50 MINERAL CO
50 MIN60 CO
50 WO\ONGALIA CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
379.
19,232.
19,611.
0.
2,523.
2,523.
0.
1,510.
1,510.
1.
3,369.
3,370.
54.
3,299.
3,353.
34.
5,248.
5,282.
1,557.
2,785.
4,342.
995.
2,041.
3,036.
0.
5,148.
5,148.
123.
1 ,657.
1,78C.
2.
1,721.
1,723.
441.
5,573.
6,014.
17,082.
11,202.
28,284.
C.
2,953.
2,953.
0.
1,034.
1 ,034.
2.
2,044.
2,046.
4.
1,939.
1,943.
1 ,977.
2,987.
4,964.
78,046.
1 ,974.
80,020.
15,055.
1 ,597.
16,652.
0.
3,166.
3,166.
146.
1,419.
1 ,565.
12.
1 ,386.
1,398.
26,197.
3,579.
29,776.
1,533.
94,652.
96,185.
C.
18,160.
18,160.
0.
7,425.
7,425.
3.
14,666.
14,669.
642.
18,325.
18,967.
173.
18,330.
18,503.
11,948.
12,296.
24,244.
837-
9,405.
10,242.
0.
"21,768.
(21,768.
1,415.
7,060.
8,475.
2.
6,837.
6,839.
1,463.
«26,157.
27«62C.
692
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE256
STATE AND COUNTY
50 MONROE CO
50 MORGAN CO
50 NICHOLAS CO
50 OHIO CO
50 PENOLETON CO
50 PLEASANTS CO
50 POCAHONTAS CO
50 PRESTON CO
50 PUTNAM CO
50 RALEIGH CO
50 RANDOLPH CO
50 RITCHIE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSION
HC NOX
0.
1,127.
1,137.
5.
684.
689.
55.
2,662.
2,717.
0.
6,307.
6,307.
0.
755.
755.
95.
690.
785.
0.
694.
694.
126.
1,916.
2,042.
1,097.
2,309.
3,406.
22.
5,097.
5,119.
41.
2,533.
2,574.
0.
929.
929.
0.
1,165.
1,165.
80 •
561 .
641.
88.
1 ,700.
1,788.
C.
3,076.
3,076.
0 .
850.
850.
4,961 .
567.
5,528.
45.
542.
587.
5,85C.
1 ,445.
7,295.
62,160.
1,969.
64,129.
2.
3,668.
3,670.
39.
1,989.
2,C28.
0.
905.
9C5.
S *
CO
0.
4,271.
4,271.
11.
3,117.
3^128.
62.
8.32S.
8,387.
C.
'29, 66 A.
'29,664.
0.
4,575.
4,575.
29C.
2,587.
2,877.
3.
2,975.
2,978.
328.
8,330.
8,658.
3,552.
11,240.
14,792.
268.
22,517.
22,785.
10,134.
11,061.
21,195.
0.
4,109.
4,109.
693
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE 257
STATE AND COUNTY
50 ROANE CO
50 SUMMERS CO
50 TAYLOR CO
50 TUCKER CO
50 TYLER CO
50 UPSHUR CO
50 WAYNE CO
50 WEBSTER CO
50 WETZEL CO
50 WIRT CO
50 WOOD CO
50 WYOMING CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
^\
_ *
1,236.
1,236.
1.
1 ,060.
1,061.
r*
O •
1,141.
1,141.
0.
535.
535.
9.
814.
823.
1.
1,412.
1,413.
123.
3,244.
3,367.
264.
664.
928.
0.
1 ,786.
1,786.
13.
281.
294.
69.
8,467.
8,536.
0.
2,138.
2,138.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
863.
863-
24.
656.
680.
C.
717.
717.
0.
448.
448.
266.
666.
934.
6.
949.
955.
307.
2,072.
2,379.
2.
554.
556.
0.
1 ,382.
1,382.
2.
286.
288.
1 ,003.
4,769-
5,772.
C.
1 ,878.
1,878.
IONS *
CO
0.
4,467.
4,467.
3.
5,090.
5,093.
0.
4,657.
4,657.
0.
2,024.
2,024.
13.
2,804.
2,817.
1.
6,029.
6,030.
1,274.
15,729.
17, -003.
443.
2,908.
3,351.
59.
7,319.
7,378.
11.
1,321.
1,332.
12,394.
37,258.
49,652.
0.
9,368.
9,368.
694
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE258
STATE AND COUNTY
sr====z============
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
ADAMS CO
ASHLAND CO
BARRON CO
BAYFIELD CO
BROMN CO
BUFFALO CO
BURNETT CO
CALUMET CO
CHIPPEWA CO
CLARK CO
COLUMBIA CO
CRAWFORD CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
HC NOX CO
0.
2,539.
2,539.
34.
1,295.
1.329.
C.
3,073.
3,073.
n
2.423I
2,423.
395.
10,667.
11,062.
75.
7,140.
7,215.
0.
1,699.
1,699.
0.
4,134.
4,134.
6.
3,994.
4.00C.
6.
3,399.
3,405.
136.
4,434.
4.57C.
C.
3,439.
3,439.
0.
1,317.
1,317.
1,357.
465.
1,822.
3.
1,291.
1,291.
C.
1,744.
1 ,744.
17,078.
2,755.
19,833.
4,547.
6,894.
11 ,441.
0.
812.
812.
36.
847.
883.
286.
1,526.
1 ,812.
111.
2,554.
2,665.
8,222.
2,024.
10,246.
r\
U •
2,353.
2,353.
C.
12,209.
12,209.
67.
4,228.
4,295.
0.
11,051.
11,051.
0.
11,559.
11,559.
2,359.
13,389.
15,748.
252.
43,742.
43,994.
0.
7,530.
7,530.
3.
9,688.
9,691.
21.
12,890.
12,911.
12.
17,418.
17,430.
456.
18,171 .
18,627.
0.
20,934.
20,934.
695
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE259
STATE AND COUNTY
51 DANE CO
51 DODGE CC
51 DOOR CO
51 DOUGLAS CO
51 DUNN CO
51 EAU CLAIRE CO
51 FLORENCE CO
51 FOND DU LAC CO
51 FOREST CO
51 GRANT CO
51 GREEN CC
51 GREEN LAKE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
462.
12,520.
12,982.
C.
17,905.
17,905.
6.
4,351.
4,357.
88.
3,065.
3,153.
3.
3,010.
3,017.
19.
4,136.
4,155.
2,982.
2,982.
1.
5,326.
5,327.
0.
4,241.
4,241.
94.
2,636.
2,730.
4,071.
4,071.
C.
2,802.
2,802.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
2,322.
4,046.
6,368.
34.
11,338.
11 ,372.
8.
2,203.
2,211.
666.
1 ,205.
1 ,871 .
70.
1 ,644.
1 ,914.
657.
1 ,836.
2,493.
C.
2,735.
2,735.
56.
1 ,239.
1 ,295.
0.
3,639.
3,639.
15,119.
960.
16,079.
0.
2,606.
2,606 .
0.
1 ,576.
1 ,576.
#
CO
1,595.
24,447.
26,042.
435.
104,178.
104,613.
140.
19,496.
19,636.
175.
12,673.
12,848.
82.
17,460.
17,542.
414.
15,466.
15,880.
0.
t6,142.
16,142.
5.
10,481.
10,486.
0.
20,731.
20,731.
314.
11,143.
11,457.
235.
•22,767.-
23,002.
702.
14,379.
15,08-1.
696
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE260
STATE AND COUNTY
51 IOWA CO
51 IRON CO
51 JACKSON CO
51 JEFFERSON CO
51 JUNEAU CO
51 KENOSHA CO
51 KEWAUNEE CO
51 LA CROSSE CO
51 LAFAYETTE CO
51 LANGLADE CO
51 LINCOLN CO
51 MANITOWOC CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
APEA
TOTAL
POIKT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS #
HC NOX CO
0.
1*896.
1,896.
5.
1.62C.
1,625.
45.
1,365.
1,410.
5.
5,3U.
5,319.
10.
4,586.
4,596.
157,985.
11 ,942.
169,927.
21.
6,333.
6,354.
33.
4,955.
4,988.
0.
3,751.
3,751.
3.
1 ,790.
1,793.
71.
2,705.
2,776.
74.
7,575.
7,649.
0.
1,269.
1,269.
103.
1,023.
1,126.
3.
509.
512.
37.
1,388.
1,425.
0 .
2,993.
2,993.
461 .
2,091.
2,552.
162.
4,256.
4,418.
528.
1,543.
2,071 .
0.
3,397.
3,397.
17.
982.
999.
2,608.
1,022.
3,630.
1,224.
1,996.
3,220.
0.
11 ,186.
11,186.
0.
7,423.
7,423.
144.
5,744.
5,888.
35.
11,169.
11,204.
126.
22,351.
22,477.
184.
12,782.
12,966.
28.
39,805.
39,833.
303.
10,928.
11,231.
0.
21,839.
21,839.
3.
8,860.
8,863.
114.
8,687.
8,801.
149.
16,057.
16,206.
697
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE261
STATE AND COUNTY
51 MARATHON CO
51 MAR1NETTE CO
51 MARQUETTE CO
51 MENOMONIE co
51 MILyAUKEE CO
51 MONROE CO
51 OCONTO CO
51 ONEIDA CO
51 OUTAGAM1E CO
51 OZAUKEE CO
51 PEP1N CO
51 PIERCE CO
TYPE OF
EMISSION
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
S HC
3,942.
8,566.
12,508.
86.
7,655.
7,741.
C.
2,331.
2,331.
22.
608.
630.
12,091.
70,587.
£2,678.
0.
42,692.
42,692.
5.
3,120.
3,125.
187.
3,203.
3,390.
116.
9,076.
9,192.
279.
8,952.
9,231.
G .
2,910.
2,910.
7
_> *
1,709.
1,712.
COMPUTED EM1SS
NOX
46,868.
3,516.
50,384.
1,254.
3,814.
5,068.
0.
1,700.
1.70C.
110.
550.
660.
42,801 .
12,745.
55,546.
0.
33,665.
30,665 .
89.
1 ,641 .
1 ,730.
898.
1 ,294.
2,192.
6,875.
2,652.
9,527.
6,261 .
5,006.
11 ,267.
0.
2,434.
2,434.
37.
739.
776.
IONS, #
CO?-
15,447.
26,099.
41,546.
201.
35,491.
35,692.
0.
12,494.
12,494.
22.
3,504.
3,526.
6,730.
62,476.
69,206.
217.
283,374.
283,591.
3.
13,091.
13,094.
519.
12,438.
12,957.
6,592.
18,295.
24,887.
633.
44,076.
44,709.
0.
15,441.
15,441.
6.
6,422.
6,428.
698
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE262
STATE AND COUNTY
sz =.zss = ss?=s=zs = = ss:
51 POLK CO
51 PORTAGE CO
51 PRICE CO
51 RACINE CO
51 RICHLAND CO
51 ROCK CO
51 RUSK CO
51 ST CROIX CO
51 SAUK CO
51 SAWYER CO
51 SHAUANO CO
51 SHEBOYGAN CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
HC NOX
0.
3,017.
3,017.
42.
4,183.
4,225.
43.
3,049.
3,092.
304.
10,924.
11,228.
9.
£,005.
8,014.
113.
10,180.
10,293.
19.
7,072.
7,091.
0.
2,332.
2,332.
1.
4,753.
4,754.
0.
3,246.
3,246.
0.
2,130.
2,130.
230.
9,388.
9,618.
0.
1,732.
1,732.
155.
1,851.
2,006.
236.
1,935.
2,171.
631.
2,290.
2,921.
135.
6,212.
6,347.
9,102.
2,124.
11 ,226.
237.
5,159.
5,396.
9.
1,058.
1,067.
470.
1,971.
2,441.
C.
2,165.
2,165.
0.
936.
936.
27,131.
2,497.
29,628.
#
CO
0.
12,955.
12,955.
184.
16,336.
16,520.
147.
15,470.
15,617.
4,128.
12,663.
16,791.
453.
49,957.
50,410.
2,208.
13,210.
15,418.
174.
42,218.
42,392.
0.
8,334.
8,334.
1,485.
16,824.
18,309.
0.
14,976.
14,976.
0.
9,033.
9,033.
5,335.
18,424.
23,759.
699
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAGE263
..STATE AND COUNTY
51 TAYLOR CO
51 TREMPEALEAU CO
51 VERNON CO
51 VILAS CO
51 WALWORTH CO
51 WASHBURN CO
51 WASHINGTON CO
51 WAUKESHA CO
51 WAUPACA CO
51 WAUSHAPA CO
51 WINNEBAGO CO
51 WOOD CO
TYPE OF
EMI SS10NS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
0.
5,502.
5,502.
C.
1,935.
1,935.
120.
2,357.
2,477.
0.
2,971.
2,971.
C.
A, 388.
4,388.
0.
3,S66.
3,868.
111.
5,748.
5,859.
15.
17,220.
17,235.
17.
14,081.
U.098.
C.
2,826.
2,826.
398.
12,909.
13,307.
540.
9,817.
10,357.
COMPUTED EMISS
NOX
0.
3,870.
3,870.
17.
1,085.
1,102.
7,232.
1 ,678.
8,910.
n,
u •
1,307.
1 ,307.
71.
1,287.
1 ,358.
0.
2,959.
2,959.
372.
1 ,510.
1 ,882.
20.
4,680.
4,700.
237.
9,389.
9,626.
0.
2,151 .
2,151 .
2,161 .
2,410.
4,571 .
13,481 .
4,547.
18,028.
IONS *
CO
0.
31,647.
31,647.
2.
8,121.
8,123.
401.
13,826.
14,227.
0.
11,347.
11,347.
1,515.
9,663.
11,178.
0.
18,954.
18,954.
560.
10,033.
10,593.
3,558.
31,669.
35,227.
33.
83,248.
83,281.
0.
15,266.
15,266.
14,064.
17,261.
31,325.
6,351.
42,443.
48,794.
700
-------
EMISSION PROFILES Of COUNTIES
PAGE264
STATE AND COUNTY
===== === = = ========= = =
52 ALBANY CO
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
BIG HORN CO
CAMPBELL CO
CARBON CO
CONVERSE CO
C R OOK CO
FREMONT CO
GOSHEN CO
HOT SPRINGS CO
JOHNSON CO
LARAMIE CO
LINCOLN CO
TYPE OF
EMI SSIONS
S S S S S — C S**S**£S£
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
SEE == ==Z
216.
5,777.
5,993.
1.
2,811.
2,812.
40.
1,525.
1,565.
951.
2,065.
3,016.
509.
2,000.
2,509.
0.
1 ,061.
1,061.
1,013.
1,913.
2,926.
0.
3,094.
3,094.
4.
1,368.
1,372.
0.
910.
91C.
6,327.
3,932.
10,259.
435.
5,605.
6,040.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS *
NOX CO
= = = = = = = = == = = = = = ===
51.
5,484.
5,535.
56.
4,246.
4,302.
1,501.
1,693.
3,194.
1 ,255.
2,199.
3,454.
30,582.
1,991 .
32,573.
0.
1 ,438.
1,438.
106.
3,590.
3,696.
0.
2,841.
2,841.
0.
904.
9C4.
0.
1,202.
1,202.
892 ^
8,007.
8,899.
16,340.
4,375.
20,715.
2,496.
48,440.
50,936.
5.
21,340.
21,345.
107.
10,514.
10,621.
28,440.
12,818.
41,258.
1,699.
16,182.
17,881.
0.
8,028.
8,028.
11,971.
7,950.
19,921.
0.
26,674.
26,674.
50.
12,111.
12,161.
0.
6,180.
6,180.
2,158.
12,156.
14,314.
2,198.
47,544.
49,742.
701
-------
EMISSION PROFILES OF COUNTIES
PAX5E265
STATE AND COUNTY
52 NATRONA CO
52 NIOBRARA CO
52 PARK CO
52 PLATTE CO
52 SHERIDAN CO
52 SU8LETTE CO
52 SWEETWATER CO
52 TETON CO
52 UINTA CO
52 WASHAKIE CO
52 UESTON CO
TYPE OF
EMISSIONS
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
ARE A
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
POINT
AREA
TOTAL
HC
5,009.
2,398.
7,407.
0.
5,629.
5,629.
3,916.
1 ,276.
5,192.
C.
2,180.
2,180.
235.
1 ,448.
1,683.
2,324.
2,024.
1,282.
1,607.
2,889.
2,421.
2,421.
154.
1,227.
1,381.
0.
1,043.
1,043.
2,403.
997.
3,400.
COMPUTED EMISSIONS
NOX
2,186.
3,765 .
5,951 .
0.
3,629.
3,629.
255.
1 ,413.
1 ,668.
C.
1 ,799.
1 ,799.
216.
1 ,640.
1 ,856.
0.
1,387.
1 ,387.
53,634.
2,179.
55,813.
0.
1 ,713.
1,713.
14.
1 ,060.
1,074.
0.
935.
935.
1,877.
810.
2,687.
*
Ctf
29,250.
9,069.
38,319.
n
49,881.
49,881.
18,868.
6,105.
24,973.
0.
17,545.
17,545-
2,630.
8,996.
11,626.
0.
16,506.
16,506.
8,409.
6,688.
15,097.
0.
19,252.
19,252.
1,825.
9,094.
10,919.
0.
8,297.
8,297.
2,010.
7,963.
9,973.
Tons/Year
702
-------
STATE ALPHABETICAL AND NUMERICAL CODES
AL (01) Alabama
AK (02) Alaska
AZ (03) Arizona
AR (04) Arkansas
CA (05) California
CO (06) Colorado
CT (07) Connecticut
DE (08) Delaware
DC (09) District of Columbia
FL (10) Florida
GA (11) Georgia
HI (12) Hawaii
ID (13) Idaho
IL (14) Illinois
IN (15) Indiana
IA (16) Iowa
KS (17) Kansas
KY (18) Kentucky
LA (19) Louisiana
ME (20) Maine
MD (21) Maryland
MA (22) Massachusetts
MI (23) Michigan
MN (24) Minnesota
MS (25) Mississippi
MO (26) Missouri
MT (27)
NB (28)
NV (29)
NH (30)
NJ (31)
NM (32)
NY (33)
NC (34)
ND (35)
OH (36)
OK (37)
OR (38)
PA (39)
PR (40)
*RI (41)
SC (42)
SD (43)
TN (44)
TX (45)
UT (46)
VT (47)
VA (48)
WA (49)
WV (50)
WI (51)
WY (52)
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyomi ng
703
-------
APPENDIX J
Pb EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY DATA
704
-------
ESTIMATED ATMOSPHERIC LEAD EMISSIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1975».»
Source category
Mobile subtotal
Gasoline combustion
Stationary subtotal
Waste oil combustion
Solid waste incineration
Coal combustion
Oil combustion
Gray iron production
Iron and steel production
Secondary lead smelting
Primary copper smelting
Ore crushing and grinding
Primary lead smelting
Other metallurgical
Lead alkyl manufacture
Type metal
Portland cement production
Pigments
Miscellaneous
Total
Annual emissions.
MT/yr
142,000
142,000
19,225
10,430
1,630
400
100
1,079
844
755
619
493
400
272
1,014
436
313
112
328
161,225
Emissions as percentage of
Subtotal
100
100
100
54.3
8.5
2.1
0.5
5.6
4.4
3.9
3.2
2.5
2.1
1.4
5.3
2.3
1.6
0.6
1.7
Total
88.1
6.5
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
100
1 Inventory don not include emission* Irom exhausting workroom air. burning ol lead-painted surfaces, welding ol lead-painted Heal structures, or weathering of painted
turtle**.
Reference: Air Quality Criteria for Lead, EPA-600/8-77-017, December
1977.
705
-------
--4
O
O LEAD SMELTING AND REFINING PLANTS (7);
PRIMARY PRODUCTION FOR 1976 - 652. 877 MT
TETRAMETHYL AND TETRAETHYU LEAD PLANTS IS)
STORAGE BATTERY MANUFACTURERS O 188)
Location of major toad operation* In the UnHad Stataa, 1976.il
• LEAD MINES (25 LARGEST);
PRODUCTION - > 9SX Of DOMESTIC OUTPUT
Reference: Air Quality Criteria for Lead, EPA-600/8-77-017, December 1977,
-------
O
-J
•ft
•
O
. NIMH LUI NIIIK OISTIICT
. ttFIHIT 01 «CIT» IKATIM1
I- i*m«f UMTS (tow. u sun)1 .
. SCCOMUT IUD MLTIK (KCLUKD
ns)'
«r MTUIT ruins)
I - M.tTl,l[M
>- 1(71 tl>0 MLTII NOMCTIM (TOO)
lr
IlllMli. URTUCIT. MM MI I CO
I0». OICCM. MUNINETOII, MO
rtmx.it I. MO TM
Reference: Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, Volume I: Chapters 1-3,
EPA-450/2-77-012, December 1977.
-------
HIGHEST QUARTERLY AMBIENT LEAD LEVELS REPORTED FROM THE
25 LARGEST URBANIZED AREAS IN 1977
Urbanized areas in decreasing
order of population
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
New York, NY-Northeastern NJ
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
Chicago, IL-Northeastern, IN
Philadelphia, PA
Detroit, MI
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Boston, MA
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Cleveland, OH
St. Louis, MO-IL
Pittsburgh, PA
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
Houston, TX
Baltimore, MD
Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX
Milwaukee, WI
Seattle-Everette, WA
Miami, FL
San Diego, CA
Atlanta, GA
Cincinnati, OH-KY
Kansas City, MO-KS
Buffalo, NY
Denver, CO
San Jose, CA
Number
of sites
reporting
4
5
8
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
7
1
1
2
2
0
4
1
Highest quarter
reported
pg/m3
2.18*
3.90*
2.09*
1.44
1.08
1.70*
0.82
1.13
0.90
1.07
1.31
1.96*
1.61*
1.18
2.29*
1.06
1.62*
1.73*
2.40*
1.36
0.90
1.01
1.30
2.90*
Quarterly average above NAAQS (1.5 pg/m3).
708
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO:
EPA 450/2-80-071
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Program to Prevent the Significant Deterioration of
Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen
Dioxide and Lead.
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1980
7. AUTHOR(S)
David R. Dunbar, Roy A. Paul
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
505 S. Duke Street
Durham, NC 27701
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2A2113
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4147
Task Order Number 104
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-AQP
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section 166 of the 1977 Clean Air Act requires EPA to conduct a study and to pro-
mulgate regulations to prevent significant deterioration of air quality resulting
from carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC) or hydrocarbon (HC),
nitrogen oxides (NO,.) and lead (Pb). The regulations which are to be promulgated
shall provide specific numerical measures against which permit applications may be
evaluated. The regulations must also provide a framework for stimulating improved
control technology, protection of air quality valves, and the fulfillment of the
goals and purposes of the PSD program which are set forth in Section 160 of the Act.
This report identifies and evaluates various alternatives for implementing the
PSD program and describes in detail a number of issues which need to be resolved in
order for the PSD program to be effectively carried out. The report identifies the
various sources to be affected by the PSD program for CO, VOC or HC, ozone (03),
NOX and Pb. It also provides an assessment of the impact in terms of potential
growth which may be precluded as a result of the PSD program for CO, VOC or
HC, 03, NOX and Pb as compared to the current PSD program for TSP and S02-
Finally, the report provides an assessment of the potential consequences of no
further regulatory action for PSD.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
8 DlST= BJT'ON STATEMENT
Release to Public
; 19. SECURITY CLASS
1 Unclassified
leporti
120 SECURITY CLASS I This page i
\ Unclassified
716
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION >s OSSOLE-E
------- |