satellite power system (sps) mapping of exclusion areas for … · hcp/r-4024-10 satellite power...
TRANSCRIPT
HCP/R-4024-10
Satellite Power System (SPS) Mapping of Exclusion Areas For Rectenna Sites
October 1978
Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Satellite Power System Project Office
Under Contract No. EG-77-C-01-4024
DOE/NASA Satellite Power System Concept Development
and Evaluation Program
Available from:
Price:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) U.S. Department of Co111Derce 5285 Port Royal Road
·springfield, Vir&inia 22161
Printed copy: Microfiche:
$6.50 $3.00
HCP/R-4024-10 Dist. Category UC-11,41,60,63,
63a,b,c,e,64,66e,95f,97c
Satellite Power System (SPS) Mapping of Exclusion Areas For Rectenna Sites
October 1978
Prepared by: James B. Blackburn, Jr. Bill A. Bavinger PRC Energy Analysis Company Mclean, Virginia 22102
Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Satellite Power System Project Office Washington, D.C. 20545
Under Contract No. EG-77-C-01-4024
DOE/NASA Satellite Power System Concept Development
and Evaluation Program
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Project Staff
James B. Blackburn,
Bill A. Bavinger -
Arthur A. Few -
Peter G. Rowe -J. V. Leeds -
Research Assistants
Acknowledgements
Jr. - Principal Investigator School of Architecture
Co-Principal Investigator School of Architecture Co-Principal Investigator -Space Physics Department School of Architecture Electrical Engineering Department
Abdullah Al-Homomeidy - School of Architecture Francis Essien - School of Architecture John Gaulden - School of Architecture Emilio Giralt - School of Architecture Kevin Newman - School of Architecture Sara Procianoy - School of Architecture Mottaz S~1ama - School of Architecture Perry Winston - School of Architecture
Laboratory Assistants
Jabir Al-Hilali -Tim Barry -Owen Richards -William Turner -Michael Welsh -
Secretarial
School of Architecture School of Architecture School of Architecture School of Architecture School of Architecture
Christina Salas - Space Physics Department
Special Acknowledgements
Special acknowledgement is extended to Allan D. Kotin, Economic Consultant, Los Angeles, California, with whom we worked in developing many aspects of this report. His work is reported in a separate document on Resource Requirements For the Satellite Power System. Thanks are also extended to Wayne Smith and John Freeman of the Rice University Space Solar Power Research Program. Also, a special thanks to Joan Neagli, of Neagli 's Secretarial Service for typing this report.
The authors wish to acknowledge the following people for the time taken to review the draft of this paper and prepare written comments on it: T. Stephen Cheston of the Georgetown University Graduate School, Paul E. Custer of the National Science Foundation and Dr. James W. Moyer of Southern California Edison Co.
i i i
Executive Suntnary
This report sets forth the results of a study by Rice University to determine those areas of the United States that were not available as potential sites for receiving antennas that are an integral part of the Satellite Power System (SPS) concept. Under the current SPS program, 60 satellite-rectenna pairs would be developed. Each pair would produce 5 gigawatts of power and the rectenna would require the dedication of approximately 50,000 acres of land per site. Therefore, 60 sites of 50,000 acres each, totalling approximately 3 million acres, will be required.
This study's approach to finding where, or even if, 60 such sites existed was to determine those areas of the United States where the rectenna could not be sited. 36 variables with the potential to exclude the rectenna were mapped and coded into the Rice University Computer System. Some of these variables absolutely exclude a rectenna from locating within the area of its spatial influence, and other variables potentially exclude the rectenna. These maps of variables were assembled from existing data and were mapped on a grid system of the United States. Each grid square was 26 km on a side.
The analysis of the information was completed by utilizing overlay or sieve analysis. Under this approach, variables were laid over other variables and the composite of this union of variables would represent areas where the rectenna could not be located. This report shows, in Section IV, 11 summary maps that indicate the land areas excluded as rectenna sites under various combinations of variables. The areas in "white" are not excluded as sites and are considered as "eligible" areas. It is important to note that the only interpretation to be given to these eligible areas is that they were not ruled out as sites. The areas should be studied in more detail to determine where rectennas could be located within these subset areas.
These various surrmary maps go from being less rectrictive to being more restrictive with respect to sites. Under Surrmary Map 1, approximately 50% of the United States was excluded as potential sites, with Summary Map 8 excluding 73% of the United States and with Summary Map 9 excluding 83%. Each surrmary map is accompanied by a detailed statistical analysis which describes the 11 eligible 11 areas on a state by state basis with respect to other variables not directly utilized in the creation of the surrmary maps.
Due to the complex nature of siting studies such as this, the Rice University team feels that this report is certainly not definitive with respect to siting. However, the methodology utilized appears appropriate to the problem of siting. Future work will be required prior to definitive sites being identified, and a major attempt should be made to coordinate additional work with existing Federal governmental data management systems.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
I I.
I I I.
IV.
Methodology
A. Mapping of Variables B. Analysis of Data . . .
1. Data Encoding Storage Access and Display 2. Data Analysis. . . .
Discussion of The Variables.
A. Land and Water . . . . . B. Federal Lands .....
1. National Recreation Areas. 2. Indian Reservations .. 3. Military Reservations .. 4. Other Federal Lands .. .
C. National Forests .... . D. Population . . . . . . . . .
1. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. 2. Population Density Greater Than 50 Persons
per Square Mile ....... . 3. Adjusted Population Distribution
E. Wetlands ....... . 1. Marshes ...... . 2. Wetlands ..... .
F. Topography Unacceptable. G. South Slopes ..... . H. Navigable Waterways .. . I. Interstate Highways .. . J. Endangered Species Habitats. K. "Prime Agricultural Lands" . L. Flyways of Migratory Waterfowl M. Seismic Hazards ...... . N. 40 Degree Latitude ..... . 0. Winds Greater Than 50 Knots .. P. Number of Days With Hai 1 . . . Q. Number of Days With Thunderstorms. R. Sheet Rainfall S . Ac i d Ra i n . • T. States . . U. Conclusion
Analysis of The Data .
Summary Map 1 . Summary Map 2. Summary Map 3. Summary Map 4.
vii
Page
5
5 11 12 15
17
17 19 19 21 22 22 23 25 27
29 30 31 33 33 33 36 38 38 41 43 47 49 51 53 55 55 58 58 61 61
63
66 69 72 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS - (continued)
IV. Analysis of The Data - (continued)
Summary Map 5
v.
Summary Map 6 Summary Map 7 Summary Map 8 Summary Map 9 Summary Map 10 Summary Map 11
Conclusions and Suggestions For Future Work.
Appendix A Appendix B References .
viii
78 81 84 87 90 93 96
99
103 107 111
MAPPING OF EXCLUSION AREAS FOR RECTENNA SITES
I . INTRODUCTION
In determining the overall feasibility of the Satellite Power
System (SPS), many important issues must be analyzed in great detail.
One major area of inquiry concerns where the receiving antennas for
microwaves beamed from space can be located within the continental
United States. As set forth in the reference design, these receiving
antennas will require sites of approximately 50,000 acres each, with
60 such sites being required across the United States. These 60 sites,
therefore, would require the dedication of approximately 3,000,000
acres of land for the receiving antennas exclusive of land required for
transmission facilities, access roads and other activities related to
the land use.
The major purpose of this research effort was to determine where,
or even if, 60 such sites existed. The approach utilized in this study
was one of excluding land areas from consideration rather than seeking
sites which had desirable characteristics. In other words, certain land
areas cannot be considered as being eligible for rectenna sites since
they already are dedicated land areas (as with existing cities and
urban areas) or because of certain environmentally related character
istics that preclude other uses. If this set of variables can be
determined and mapped, the land areas that were not mapped would emerge
as 11 eligible 11 areas because no critical (or exclusion) variables were
present in these areas.
In conjunction with Allan Kotin, a set of important locational
variables was compiled. These variables are included in the white
paper on Resour(:es by Allan Katin, and an extensive list of references
and a review of pertinent literature is also included in the Katin
Report.
Even though the Katin Report contains an extensive review of
pertinent aspects of the Satellii.:e Powe: System and the Recte1111a, a
short summary of certain characteristics is needed to place this
locational work in a system context. Uncer the SPS, a large satellite
in geosynchronous orbit at the equator beams microwaves to a receiving
antenna on the earth's surface. The satellite and rectenna are sized
for 5 gigawatts D.C. power output. The satellite consists of a flat
solar array with a transmitting antenna (1 km dia~eter) on one end.
The receiving antenna is elliptical n shape and is 13 km on tne
north-south axis and 9 km on the east-west axis. This design is based
upon a reference latitude of approximately 34 degrees north. The satel-
1 ite' s position in geosynchronous orbit raeans that the circular micro
wave beam will project an ellipse on the earth's surface anywhere but
at the equator. T~erefore, the north-south dimension of the rectenna
will increase as a site moves north fro~ the 34 degrees north reference
position.
The receiving antenna is composed of a large number of 10 meter X
10 meter receiving panels. These panels are elevated in certain designs
and are on the land surface in other designs. These panels, whether on
the land surface or elevated, will cover approximately 25,000 acres.
The power density at the center of the rectenna will be approximately
23 mi 11 iwatts per square centimeter \vith the power density di mini shi ng
to 1 milliwatt per square centimeter at the edge of the rectenna.
Although the United States standard for microwave exposure is 10 mW/cm2,
standards in other countries such as the Sovi2t Union are much more
restrictive. For this reason, the reference site in the Kotin study
and in this Rice University study contains a 2 km buffer zone surround-
ing the rectenna. This makes the configuration of the site a 17 km x 13
ellipse. The use of a 2 km buffer zone lowers the microwave power
density to 0. 1 m~J/c m2 at the edge of the buffer. This level is 1 0
times higher than the Russian standard for non-occupational exposure.
The current implementation plan calls for 60 such satellite/rectenna
2
km
pairs to be constructed. Construction will corrrnence in 1996 with the
first system operating by the year 2000. From the year 2000 to the year
2030, two satellite/rectenna pairs will become operational each year,
totalling 60 pairs. The total land area estimated to be required for
the 60 rectennas (with a 2 km buffer zone) is approximately 13,300 km2
(over 5100 square miles), slightly less than 0.2% of the total land area
of the continental United States.
Therefore, the following factors are important fro~ the perspective
of seeking 60 sites. First, so~e 55,000 acres will be required for each
rectenna. Of this, approximately 50% will be cleared, with the remain
ing 50% being left uncleared but with restricted access due to microwave
levels. Second, microwaves levels will be measureable beyond the
rectenna with the buffer zone, and such levels may interfere with radio
and other types of corrrnunications and navigation equipment. The extent
of this radio frequency interference is not known, but the rectenna and
the microwave beam per se are considered as a problem from a radio
corrrnunications standpoint in this siting study. Third, the possibility
of multiple use beneath the receiving antenna has been raised, but this
siting study assumes that the land area directly beneath the receiving
antenna will be lost from functional, if not physical, standpoint. In
this study, no attempt was made to quantify additional land areas
required for access roads, construction buildings and transmission lines.
In the sections which follow, the siting methodology is discussed
first. Then, a detailed description and analysis of the data used will
be presented. Section IV presents the results of certain analytical
efforts and Section V lists our conclusions and suggestions for future
work.
3
II. METHODOLOGY
The methodology utilized in this analysis consisted of three
distinct steps. The first step involved the compilation and mapping
of 36 data items. The second step involved the encoding of these 36
variables into Rice University's comouter system. At this stage, the 48
states were also coded and entered as data items. The third step
involved sequentially overlaying variables to produce "synthesis" maps,
representing compilations across specified variables. In this manner, a
declining number of eligible areas were identified in each map. Further
the impacts of the addition of certain new variables can be viewed
directly. For each of these synthesis maps, a tabular suli111clry was
compiled which offered additional information concerning the grid cells
that emerge as "eligible"
A. MAPPING OF VARIABLES
As mentioned earlier, the Rice University team worked with Allan
Kotin in determining a list of important locational variables. Once
these variables were identified, the mapping exercise was initiated.
Those variables that are mapped and discussed subsequently in this
paper are:
Land and Water - Figure 4 Federal Lands - Figure 5
National Recreation Areas Indian Reservations Military Reservations Other Federal Lands
National Forests - Figure 6
Populotion - Figure 7 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Population on Density Greater Than 50 persons/sq. mile Adjusted Population Density
Marsh Vegetation - Figure 8
Wetlands - Figure 9 Topography Unacceptable - Figure 10
Open Mountains Hills Mountains
5
Topography Unacceptable, South Slopes - Figure 11 Open Mountains Hills Mountains
Navigable Waterways - Figure 12
Interstate Lighways - Figure 13 Endangered Species' Habitats - Figure 14 Land In Cultivation - Figure 15
Irrigated Land Cropland
Land Suitable for Cultivation - Figure 16 Greater Then 67% suitab 1 e 50% to 67% suitable
Flyways of Migratory Waterfowl - Figure 17 Seismic Hazards - Figure 18
Major Damage Potential Moderate Damage Potential
40 Degree Latitude - Figure 19 Windstorms - Figure 20
2% Probabi 1 i ty of ~~i nds Greater than 50 Knots 1% Probability of Winds Greater than 50 Knots
Hail - Figure 21 Thunderstorms - Figure 22 Sheet Rainfall - Figure 23 Acid Rainfall - Figure 24
PH Between 4.0 and 5.0 PH Less than 4.0
Once the data was gathered for each of the above variables, the
information was entered onto a map of the United States that was
divided into grid cells. These grid cells were used for coding purposes,
and the translation of the information to this form was essential to the
completion of the project.
Prior to entering the information on the gridded map of the United
States, a decision was made concerning the size of the grid cell. The
size of the grid cell represents a compromise between the time and
resources available for the task and the desire to obtain as much
spatial resolution as possible. The result was the choice of a grid
square approximately 26 km or 16.2 ~iles on a side. The total land area
within the grid square is approximately 170,000 acres.
In Figure 1, the relationship of the rectenna site to the grid
square can be seen. The rectenna occupies a~proximately 30% of a
single grid square. While it is arguable that a greater resolution
6
/\
'
r
E .:tC.
co N
v 2km .... 13 - 2 km, x I....._ .... ..-0 a:
(J) a.. ' a..
<(
BUFFER ZONE
I/ APPROX. 26 km. .... ..... ,
\II I
FIGURE 1
RELATIONSHIP OF RECEIVING ANTENNA TO GRID SQUARE
7
... 'iil::"" ".:? '!. !!~ ~
ei' Fii ...... ;: ~· ; ::i;::::u ' +++++-+-+
:...it±±l:; +t-" ~FI ,. " " ,-~
" .. ~i+ ., .. " . .. ..
• . o:i: . .
' . . . " ~ " 71:
" , . .. ,.
~ k
SPACE SOLAR POWER RESEARCH PROGRAM
RICE UNIVERSITY
f--,-
FALL 1976
MAPPING OF EXCLUSION AREAS FOR RECTENNA SITES
111 I I,; I I I f11 I I 1
1, I I I Eh ii B
SCALE ko &I Mi :iii CID ltil --.au
• • !::: •• Iii - 11:0.&I f~ tl:?J:'i~ !t ii iia.al.ll:o.lli .iii::!: ,g 6 as &8 8 'DI Bi';':!~?~~::., ·~5. i::i::: u:;. :1: Kli_;:t :l :r. =: A::-.:;:.v ., q :1: .. ,, Si;::: :a:a, II :0.1 sa. Ull ••• ··~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ • -
-t i.e.
111111•111111111111111111111111 .. 1111111111111111
Figure 2
would have been aesirable, it is the opinion of the Rice University
research team that this resolution is sufficient to be meaningful from
a locational standpoint. Therefore, all of the maps of these variables
will be presented in a 26 km grid eel l format. Figure 2 shows the
gridded map of the United States.
The mapping of the information at the grid cell level required a
determination of the presence or absence of the variable from grid cells
across the United States. Certain variables were coded as being present
if any portion of the variable was indicated as being present within
the grid cell whereas other variables were mapped as being present only
if approximately 50% or more of the cell contained the variable. The
discussion in Section III offers an explanation of the coding procedure
on a variable by variable basis.
Due to time constraints and/or data limitations, certain variables
considered to be important from a locational standpoint were not mapped
in this study. Those variables of concern that were not treated include:
Local or State Owned Land (State and Local Parks) Poor Soils High Groundwater Table Highways Other Than Interstate Highways Airports and Air Approach Corridors Major Air Corridors Railroads Dust Storm Areas Wildlife Habitats (Other Than Designated Endangered Species) Very Poor Air Quality Near Major/Numerous RF Sources
As will be explained in Section III, "Discussion of the Data", many of
these variables are represented to some degree through other variables
that were mapped. For instance, the mapping of Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas should include much of the land area that is dedicated
to major airports and major air approach corridors, and would include
major/numerous RF sources. Nonetheless, it is important to note that
the above variables were not mapped independently.
9
B. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The analysis of the date consisted of two different yet comple
mentary procedures. The first procedure concerned the decision on a
variable by variable basis that (1) the variable was an absolute
exclusion variable or (2) the variable was a potential exclusion
variable. DuP. to the preliminary stage of the reference design, the
analysis of the importance of most variables was from the perspective
of the dedication of land areas for other uses. Generally, those
variable-s that repre~ented 1and uses that-could not be-preempted-by
the rectenna were identified as absolute exclusion variables. The
remaining variables were treated as potential exclusion variables.
Further, there are two types of potential exclusion variables.
These are (1) variables that represent an environmental or resource
constraint that may not be addressed through design modifications and
(2) those variables that exhibit the capacity to exclude the reference
system but that can be addressed through design modifications. At this
time, it is difficult to speculate upon which of the non-design related
potential exclusion variables will emerge as critical locational criteria.
For example, many variables in this category are identified because of
unique legal/institutional problems associated with their use (i.e.,
the use of Indian lands for sites) and others are identified due to the
uncertainty of the microwave effects (i.e., the effects upon mi grat"ry
waterfowl). Due to the disparity between such variables, the analytical
approach is designed with an ability to aggregate and disaggregate the
variables.
The variables indicated as being design ~ariables appear easier to
assess. In many respects, these variables will cause design modifica
tions if the rectenna is to be located in areas where these variables
occur. In turn, addressing these variables will require additional
dollars to be expended and modifications in the cost expectations
relative to the rectenna will result. Therefore, these variables appear
11
more applicable in the context of understanding the full costs of build
ing the rectenna. These environmental variations were not addressed in
the reference system explicitly, although they are implicitly addressed
in the range of costs to be expected (lowest cost and highest cost per
satellite and rectenna pair).
Additionally, certain of the variables mapped in this study are
potential inclusion variables. In other words, there are aspects of
these variables that may make location within their spatial dominion
desirable. For example, "other federll lands" (excluding national forests)
would be potentially good sites since 257s or more of the mapped area is
under federal control. These other federal lands are relatively in
expensive; controversial regarding the aggregation of a 50,000 acre
contiguous parcel may be less than would be the case where private
property would have to acquired for the entirety of the site.
Therefore, there are many nuances of the information presented in
Section III. For this reason, a major attempt was made in this study
to fully document the approach and assumptions so that additional
variables can be considered and the impact of individual variables can
be traced. In other words, a critical element of this approach is to
determine those variables that "drive" the locational decision. A
further result may be the identification of options that have not been
considered heretofore.
1. Data Encoding, Storage, Access and Display:
Prior to analysis per se, the data utilized for analytical
purposes was entered into the Rice Architecture Geographic Information
System (RAGIS). The basic elements of RAGIS are shown in Figure 3.
One of the central features of the information system is the use of a
host language to support and control its operations. lhe computer
language Speakeasy (developed at Argonne National Laboratory, see
Cohen and Pieper, 1977) was used since it stresses the use of English
syntax, conversational inpuL-output modes and on-line interactions.
Speakeasy is an extensible language that comes with broad general
12
RAGIS SYSTEM DIAGRAM
MAJOR DATA INPU"." AND STORAGE FORMATS I
BINARY DATA I NUMERICAL DATA I
l \I/ CARD IMAGE CODEC CRT CODED -1 CHECK DATA I I CHECK DATA r-BINARY STORAGE ARRAY STORAGE
·=::~:i ,,=_,, 1!
DATA BASE ii +----1 CONVERT r------------'~ w ~
NUMERl:i
1
1
i I DATA~ 111
w --------,,---'
\I ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES
AND MAP OVERLAY< OR
NOT
CLUSTER FACTOR ADJACENCY ARE.t. CALCULATIONS I
I
,-, ~-----. RELATIONAL DATA BASE
'' GRAPHIC D!SPLAY
I 2 AND:.> DIMENSIONAL GRAPHICS II REPORT FOR MA TS GRAPHIC HARDWARE SUPPORT MAPPING
CHARACTER GRAY CONTOUR
13
-
---,------------~ J '
,, ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES
DIRECT MATRIX AND ARRAY PROCESSING
MAP OVERLA'.' CLUSTER
.._ FACTOR ~ RELATIONAL OPERATIONS f7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
ACCESS TO SPECIAL PACKAGES FINANCIAL (FE DEASY) SPSS
Figure 3
operating capabilities but also allows users to include functions and
operations peculair to their classes of problems. These special
functions or operations may in fact take the form of algorithms written
and compiled in other system supported languages, such as FORTRArJ, and
simply linked into Speakeasy's processor. These linked load modules are
called linkules. To the user linkules are a vocabulary of English
language key words that allow the associated programs to be called and
executed by name. During the develop~ent of RAGIS, an extensive number
of linkules specifically related to ~apping and spatial analysis were
established. In fact, RAGIS has become a subsystem within Speakeasy
consisting of more 250 programs and special operations for geographic
information processing.
Data is encoded through the use of a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). A
data encoding linkule establishes a uniform grid of cells (64 x 48) as
a two dimensional array across the CRT screen. Maps or other special
features to be encoded are reproduced at the appropriate scale as black
and white film positives. These film positives were taken from the 21
maps of the United States, with six individual 64 x 48 grid "cards"
being required for each map to be encoded. The film positive is placed
on the screen and the pattern of each feature is then visually coded in
a raster-like fashion as a dot pattern. In this study, a feature was
coded as either present or absent within the appropriate grid cell.
Checking the encoded data is accomplished on-line at the CRT screen by
simply displaying each dot pattern and checking it against the film
positive overlay.
The coded data is stored in the computer memory as a logical bit
stream with each image forming a distinct binary pattern. This form
of storage utilizes the con1puter' s memory switches and results in
considerable savings for basic storage, retrieval and display operations.
Each data pattern is assigned a unique alphanumeric code or name and
becomes like any other word in the system from the user's standpoint.
Access is achieved by simply calling for the pattern by name and having
14
it displayed or integrated into a computational sequence in the appro
priate manner.
In addition to various spatial display characteristics, RAGIS also
employs a relational data base management subsystem culled Rspeak
(Schlicting, 1977) which complements other existing analytical capabili
ties such as multi-variate clustering and factoring. The major importance
of the relational data base management capaoiliti2s relates to the
ability it offers in understanding or perceiving the results of the
analysis vis a vis the raw data. One use of the relational capabilities
will be to analyze the results of a certain analytical exercise with
respect to other variables that were not utilized in the analysis
directly. In other words, through the development of tables of data,
one can gain many insights about analytical results independently from
the information gained directly through the analysis.
2. Data Analysis
In the determination of areas that are 11 eligible 11 for
rectenna sites, the Rice University approach first identifies areas from
which the rectenna would be excluded. The areas remaining after the
exclusion area had been determined would be the 11 eligible 11 areas. This
relatively simple concept is achieved through the use of overlay or
sieve analysis. Generally, this technique requires that a list of
environmental features be prepared and arranged so that features are
ranked in order of assumed decreasing (or increasing) order of importance.
In the case of this determination of exclusion areas, the absolute
exclusion variables would be considered first with the potential
exclusion variables and the design variables considered subsequently.
These variables are displayed on transparent maps, and by overlaying
these maps, the areas of composite shading becomes apparent. Unlike
other uses whereby the darkness of the shading indicates the degree
of developability (or non-developability), the approach utilized in this
study weights all absolute exclusion variables equally. Therefore,
the new set resulting from the union of mapped variable set A with
15
mapped variable set B would be exclusion area 1. In this respect,
the methodology utilized for this study differs from traditional studies
such as those by Lewis (1962), Alexander and Manheim (1962) and McHarg
(1969) because these planners were concerned with the intersectipn of
the mapped variable sets and with interpretations of development suit
ability based upon the number of variables intersecting. Although the
previously cited authors used map overlays rather than computer generated
overlays, the applicability of a computer system to this type of
analysis sould be obvious. Attempts •o computerize the approach are
fairly numerous (Ward and Grant, 1970; Krauskopf and Bunde, 1972; Rowe
and Deleon, 1973), and several recent attempts to innovate the basic
technique are well summarized by Hopkins (1976).
Therefore, the approach utilized for data analysis will be as
follows. First, an initial overlay map will be composed by containing
five variable sets to determine their cumulative coverage. This
initial overlay will result in overlay Map l, which will become a new
variable. This resultant map will have shaded areas (exclusion areas)
and white areas (eligible areas). A statistical profile will then be
generated (utilizing the Rspeak capabilities) which will describe the
number of eligible sites (grid cells) by state, and this table will
also contain information about some of the design variables such as the
number of eligible sites above 40 degrees north latitude, the number of
sites subject to acid rain, etc.
Then, Exclusion Map l will be added to variable 6 to form Exclu
sion Map 2. The same statistical profile will then be used to describe
the eligible areas. Then, additional variables will be added until
seve1al exclusion maps, each being more restrictive, will be compiled.
In this manner, the effects of certain variables will be clearly identi
fied.
Finally, these exclusion maps will be overlayed with at least one
and possibility twc informational maps that will place the resulting
16
sites in a better perspective from the standpoint of (1) the existing
power distribution system and (2) the existing interstate highway
system. In this manner, a strong description of eligible sites will
exist.
III. DISCUSSION OF THE VARIABLES
As discussed in Section llA, 21 maps consisting of 36 environmental
variables were prepared during the course of this study. Prior to pre
senting the results of analyses performed using this data, the rationale
for use of the information and an assessment of reliability of the data
must be presented. In the sections that follow, each map is discussed
from the perspective of (1) the rationale for the use of the information;
(2) the source and reliability of the data and (3) the spatial coverage
of the variable.
A. LAND AND WATER - FIGURE 4
Rationale: Two reasons exist for mapping land and water areas.
First, a base map was needed for coding purposes that established a
uniform treatment of grid cells at the interface of land and water. As
shown in Figure 4, the decision was made to code a cell as land if a
portion of the cell included land area. This coding decision established
a protocol for treating cells in subsequent mapping efforts. The second
reast•n for coding land and water areas was to identify the degree to
which water sites need to be considered for rectenna sites. At this
time, water sites are considered as potential exclusion areas because
the reference SPS system does not include offshore construction speci
fications. At this point in the analysis, it is impossible to assess if
offshore sites are needed. However, the expectation is that onshore
sites may be difficult to locate within the eastern half of the United
States. Th~refore, potential water sites are identified to a distance of
32 miles offshore (2 grid squares). All of the Great Lakes are also
17
+J c:i.in'3r ~1
:::!::::::::::;:: ········1· ···1·1···
1· , .. -j .. ·1············
. . I , .
- ' -
••• 1,.
~:011\:IM ON'v' ON'v'l :a,,q;; O'lt C>OI' ot• DOI 0 'I
Ji --=ii £ !w Q1ttO (,
1 : \ .' I : t I I I I ~t I I n;rrrry
31Y:JS
S311S llNN31:>31::! !::!0'3 S\131::111 NOISnl::>X3 '30 ~lddllV'l
! =··:.; .-.:. : : ::: !;:; ~~~~~ ~: ~:~ :~':". ~ t: :.~::: t:. ~ ;'.; ~ ~ ~;~~~:: i~~-~~~ ~~~.:;;~; ~i~ .. ~:: b~:l<:~~~te~~==~::::~~~==~:::= ~~l:•• :.;;.;.:.;.;.: o::~:::=!!t~~~::::.:.:::~c. :: =.:.:: :.=. ~:.~.-:;.;::~'=~•;. ·:., :..:;;..::..:·. 6·• :.,; .- ..... ..: .c:•• ........... .
co
shown, although an international border does bisect the mapped waters.
Reliability of the Data: The base map from which the land and water
areas were drawn was Richard Edes Harrison's map titled "Shaded Relief",
wnich was published by the United States Geological Survey in the
National Atlas of the United States. The map was drJwn at a scale of
1:7,500,000, and 111 was equal to approximately 118 miles. The coding
decision with respect to land areas leads to an over representation of
the land area of the United States. Therefore, the sum of the grid
cells identified as land would represent a slightly larger land area
than is actually to be found in the Continental United States. The only
water areas mapped were coastal waters and the Great Lakes. Therefore,
water areas are underrep--esented both with respect to coastal boundaries
and with respect to smaller lakes within the borders of the United States.
Nonetheless, the information from which the map was drawn is considered
to be highly reliable.
Spatial Coverage: A~ sh0wn in Figure 4, land consists of 11699
grid cells. Because this map will be used as a reference map for coding
purposes, the total number of grid cells available for coding of informa
tion is 11699.
B. FEDERAL LANDS - FIGURE 5
In Figure 5, a map of the lands under federal ownership is presented.
Four distinct variables are displayed in the map. These are (a) National
Recreation Areas; (b) Indian Reservations, (c) Military Reservations, and
(d) Other Federal Lands. This map was assembled directly from a map
which had all four variables of concern, and Figure 5 was compiled by
first scoring grid cells over National Recreation Areas, then scoring
Indian Reservations, then military reservations and then other federal
1 ands.
1. National Recreation Areas
Rationale: Certain federal lands have been dedicated to
19
~~.-~:;_t_:;-+...++~ 1
+ll,++·• 1.+
~""~
~.:~ !~; ~
20
·~ .~
t ·e.,.T
... ·.:
·;
-+
--+-r+ -+~ ~~ _.:~~:t==:::t: ... • .::_. '-t·~Js=::5~
· 11 t-t ·-ti:j~~~) 1"'-l':_~t-
c-:-r.-
······-·~~~ ~"' ·t-t· rT. t]1=!" •r
i"t r-i1 rJt.J-;++
. ;---T +---T- -+-,...+-
-............ ,
. ~~.c.
-~
.. :'- "'~ ,. ...... ... ~:·
f+
It=
Cf) w I-Cf)
::E CD i < ... !!!
~; ~ LL ~ J:
~ ~ ljj w
~ !ii
! ~ 3
> (.) ..... x a: ~
w
<~ ~ ~~ i ~~ R:
< ::E
I
~ . c ~
~a. <(I _J (/)
_J a: <(w a:Z UJ 3: oo UJ u..
g
~
l ~
~ Ii ~
I ~
I Ii I
I :
. e < ~ ,g
] • .~ • z ..
recreational or wildlife preservation uses. These lands are
preserved as part of the heritage of the United States and their
conversion to other uses is prevented by federal law. Although
congressional action removing such prohibitions is Jll>SSible, such
action is unlikely. Therefore, these areas have been mapped and
are considered as absolute exclusion areas. Included in the National
Recreation Areas category mapped in Figure 5 are (1) National Parks,
(2) National Monuments, (3) Federal Wildlife Reguges, (4) National
Seashores and (5) National Recreation Areas.
Reliability of the Data: The areas coded as National Recreation
Areas were taken from a United States Geological Survey map titled
"Federal Lands". This map was published in the National Atlas of
the United States and compiled by the USGS as of January 1, 1968.
Therefore, this data is considered to be highly reliable as of that date,
but land areas added to these categories since 1968 are not included.
This variable was coded as being present in a cell if the variable
occurred in any portion of that grid cell.
Spatial Coverage: The areas identified as National Recreation Areas
are present in 424 grid cells.
2. Indian Reservations
Rationale: Indian reservations are federal lands that ar~
administered, by tribes living on these reservations with the Department
of Interior performing a guardianship function. This institutional
situation gives the Indian tribes substantial control over the use of
land within reservations, and there is a strong possibility that these
tribes will not allow a rectenna to be constructed on their lands.
Given this jurisdictional situation, Indian reservations were mapped
and are considered as potential exclusion areas.
Reliability of the Data: The areas coded as Indian Reservations
were also taken from the USGS 11 Federal Lands" map cited previously. The
reservations mapped are considered accurate, but certain smaller
21
reservations, such as the Alabama-Coushatta reservation north of
Houston, Texas, are absent from this map, indicating that a size
threshold was used by the USGS in assembling the "Federal Lands" map.
Therefore, certain other smaller reservations may not be mapped. This
variable was also coded as being present if the reservation appeared in
the grid cell.
Spatial Coverag~: The areas identified as Indian Reservations
are present in 558 grid cells.
3. Military Reservations
Rationale: Two reasons exist for mapping military reservations.
First, certain military reservations may not be desirable sites because
sensitive radio and telecommunications equipment could be subject to
radio frequency interference from the rectenna. Second, certain military
reservations may have substantial acreages that are removed from popula
tion centers. These latter areas may provide excellent sites whereas
the former would be undesirable sites. Therefore, military reservations
are mapped and are considered as potential exclusion and potential
inclusion areas.
Reliability of the Data: The information appearing on Map 4
was also obtained from the previously cited "Federal Lands" map. This
data is considered reliable, but the utility of the generic classifica
tion (military reservation) is questionable. A more detailed investiga
tion of military reservations will be necessary prior to determining the
proper interpretation to ascribe to this generic land use type. Again,
the variable was coded as being present if the land use were in a cell.
Spatial Coverage: The areas identified as military reservations
are present in 175 grid cells.
4. Other Federal Lands
Rationale: Other Federal lands were mapped for consideration
as an inclusion variable. These lands are either wholly or partially
22
under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and they may be
utilized for multiple purposes. Included in this category are
national forests, as well as lands with greater than 25% ownership
by the Federal government. While these lands may not be indiscrim
ately used, they are potentially available as sites for rectennas.
Reliability of the Data: The areas coded as other federal
lands also were obtained from the U.S.G.S. 's map titled "Federal Lands".
The major shortcoming of this information is that much of the land area
coded as other federal lands is only partially under the control of the
federal government. While this partial ownership is helpful in
aggregating 50,000 + acres of land, the mapped information is mis
leading if one assumes all of these lands are under federal control.
This variable was also coded if present in a cell.
Spatial Coverage: Other federal lands are coded in 3606 grid
ce 11 s.
C. NATIONAL FORESTS - FIGURE 6
Rationale: Although multiple use of National Forests is allowed
under Federal law, the conversion of portions of these forests into
sites for receiving antennas would be opposed by environmental groups
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Therefore, these national forests
have been separated from the "Other Federa 1 Lands" category and are
mapped separately. From an analytical standpoint, these lands are
considered as potential exclusion areas, although as a practical matter,
these areas should not be considered as being available for rectenna
sites unless no other alternative sites exist in the region of the
United States being analyzed.
Reliability of the Data: The areas coded as National Forests also
were taken from the USGS map of federal lands. This data is considered
as being highly reliable and the variable was mapped if it was present
within the grid cell. It should be noted that National Grasslands were
23
N ~ 1•
u
l~I v
Figure 6
not mapped due to time constraints. National grasslands do not have
the spatial coverage of the national forests but they should have
been included on this national forest map. Therefore, the information
contained in Figu~e 6 should have been expanded to include national
grasslands.
Spatial Coverage: The areas coded as national forests are present
in 1323 grid cells.
D. POPULATION - FIGURE 7
Populated areas offer several constraints with respect to rectenna
siting. First, populated areas represent dedicated land uses and the
displacement of ldrge numbers of people is considered to be highly
undesirable. Second, land prices in more densely populated areas will
be substantially higher than in other areas of the United States.
Third, microwave exposure levels adjacent to the rectenna will be
higher than the background non-occupational standard used by the
Societ Union. Although much research will have to be conducted before
definitive statements can be made about microwave effects, this study's
approach was to avoid locations immediately adjacent to urbanized areas.
Given a desire to avoid populated areas. the next question to be
addressed concerns the definition of populated areas. Three variables
were utilized in the map shown in Figure 7. These are (1) Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, (2) population density greater than 50
persons per square mile and (3) adjusteu population distribution. The
rationale for utilizing these variables is presented in the following
sections.
Two general problems must be raised at this stage. First, the
source for population information is the United States cens~s. with
the last census having been conducted in 1970. Therefore, population
data taken from the census is 8 years old. Because this information is
dated, the issue of future growth is raised. Although it is difficult
25
N O"I
.............. ~: -:-".''!' ~ ~ '.: '!'!2;:.::: ::! :-: ~:.!'!!'!Iii;.~~:.:::=;::;==~;:::::::::;.::;=:';."~&;:;:::;.::~;;:: :r ! ~: ~:1 ;: ;: :1 ~::: •; :: :a~::~i ~~?? ~~9;?; ~: :~!? ~= ~ ~~~::== =-.:::: = ;:: :::: ~ ~ ~ ~~:; ;-: : -; ~ ~. ~ ': :;. :::. :: : ~ :: ~-;::.: :;. : : ? ; :- :" ~ :- !': =" ~~ ;
m 1111111111 11111111111111rn1111111mmm1m±m+FHA1Htt+fffim+R1t11flfim:r=mt.1n11111Ifnra11111111.1 J1: .. -i":-ffl/;-. flff1111.-:-11i,-.-.. -1.11 .. -1, 11111 . 1. 1ff •. :1Y1111
4 ..
" " ~ ..
!.:H+++++++1
" ~
~ .. .. .. .. . " .. ., ~
~mnmE~ RICE UNIVERSITY FALL 1978
MAPPING OF EXCWSION AREAS FOR RECTENNA SITES
SCALE
' • • I\ PO R GRID Ii ii j\ \\ l \ ! 111 ! ! I I \I \ I 1 1 J
"'7 ~·~4 1.l ;: l00.00~ iOO POPULATION
... .., --·~ ... ... ... :.;11t1111111
0 Stand.ud H~tro1.olitian Stat;stJcal Ar .. a / 50 or !'4ore PPrsons Per Squar"' !'lile • Ad1ustP<i P<Jrul.tt10n u1c;trihution
Figure 7
to project growth to the year 2000, certain trends are now evident
that should be considered prior to a discussion of the variables mapped
for exclusion purposes in this study. One of the best and most succint
statements is found in the Council on Environmental Quality's seventh
annual report. In this document, the Council states:
"There are three important patterns of population distribution evident in the United States in the 1970's, each with its own implications for the future. The dominant pattern of population settlement continues ~o be the growth of major metropoli-tan areas, a trend that accelerated in the post World War II period, but which has now slowed appreciably. The second pattern is a considerable regional shift of population from the north ~entral and northeastern sections of the country to the southern and western regions. The third pattern is a more recently observed phenomenom: the relatively rapid growth of population in non-metropolitan areas. We have chosen to highlight this pattern in the Annual Report because it is a growing trend that runs contrary to the basic pattern of growth throughout most of our history. For the first time, population in non-metropolitan areas is increasing faster than that in metropolitan areas."
This non-metropolitan growth trend has many implications for rectenna
siting. Unfortunately, it is difficult to speculate at this time
about the spatial characteristics of this trend. In this study, the
goal was to identify areas where rectennas could not be locat~d.
Therefore, the variables mapped and described below should be considered
as a conservative indication of populated areas. Those areas that are
not mapped should not be considered as automatically being without
population. Instead, these areas did not have a sufficient density
to indicate that rectennas could not be located there. In other words,
the "white" areas do not indicate a locational carte blanche, and these
areas should be studied in greater detail to determine the actual dis
tribution of people within these areas.
1. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
Rationale: A substantial portion of the United States has been
27
urbanized and these settlement patterns represent dedicated land uses.
An initial indication of the location of these urban settlements may
be gained b_y mapping Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
SMSA's are the nhljor metropolitan areas of the United States and are
also areas where future population growth is likely to occur. The
research team determined that these areas would exhibit settlement
patterns precluding the aggregation of 50,000 + acres of land. Further,
if such an agglomeration were indeed possible, the cost of the land
would be prohibitive. These SMSA's ar~ shown on Figure 7.
Another reason for identifying SMSA's as exclusion areas is that
many other activities that represent siting constraints are present
in these areas. For example, most of Le major airports of the United
States are found in SMSA's (as well as other densely populated areas),
and the approach corridors most likely will be present within SMSA's.
Additionally, substantial concern has been voiced concerning the
potential radio freque~cy interference effects of the rectenna. Since
the majority of sources that could be disturbed by radio frequency
interference are located in major metropolitan areas, the mapping of
SMSA's (and other urbanized areas) begins to address the RFI issue.
Reliability of the Data: The areas shown as SMSA's in Figure 7
are from a map prepared by the Geography Division of the Department of
the Census. The definition of SMSA's was developed by the United
States Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards as of December,
1977. The data is considered highly reliable. However, alterations
were made to certain SMSA's prior to their being mapped on Figure 7.
These alterations were made because of the basis for determining
the spatial coverage of SMSA's. Generally, SMSA's are delineated along
county boundaries. For most areas of the United States, the approach
is sensible because counties are relatively small. However, the
western United States (notably California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and
Oregon) has extremely large counties. To map the entirety of these
28
SMSA's as exclusion areas would be misleading since large portions of
these counties are not urbanized. Therefore, certain alterations were
made to these defined SMSA's. Alterations were made by examining a
"dot" map of population distribution, prepared by the Department of the
·census from 1970 Census data, and eliminating grid cells from the SMSA
that were indicated as having less than 500 people.
Spatial Coverage: Areas indicated as SMSA's on Figure 7
include 1871 grid cells across the United States.
2. Population Density Greater than 50 Persons per Square Mile
Rationale: As discussed previously, populated areas other than
SMSA's need to be represented. A second type of indication is a popula
tion density analysis, and areas that were identified as having a popula
tion density greater than 50 persons per square mile \<Jere mapped and
considered as exclusion variables.
Reliability of the Data: The areas mapped as having a population
density greater than 50 persons per square mile were compiled from a map
prepared by the Department of Census from 1970 census data. Therefore,
the infonnation represented by this variable is somewhat out of date.
However, a more severe shortcoming of the data relates to the fact that
the data was represented on a county by county basis. Although counties
are corrmonly used for data representation purposes, the land area
represented by many counties causes significant concentrations of people
to be diluted when the data is mapped on a county by county basis.
Therefore, while there is a great degree of confidence that the mapped
information is an accurate representation of those counties with a
population density greater than 50 persons per square mile, there are
many areas of the United States that are not adequately represented
through the use of this population variable.
Spatial Coverage: The land area represented as having a
population density greater than 50 persons per square mile include
1276 grid cells. It should be noted that this count does not include
the areas previously mapped as SMSA's.
29
3. Adjusted Population Distribution
Rationale: Due to the problem of county land areas diluting
the population density per square mile measure used above. a third
population variable was ~apped as an exclusion area. This area is
identified as "adjusted population distribution" and it represents a
third approach to determine the exclusion area for population.
Reliability of the Data: Unlike the two previous variables,
adjusted population distribution represents a somewhat subjective
approach to population density. Th,: data was developed by overlaying
the grid of the·united States over the U.S. Department of the Census's
dot map of the population of the United States. This dot map is based
upon 1970 census data. It is important to note that certain counties
of the United States are large enough that 10 to 20 grid cells fit
within their boundaries. By overlaying the grid cells and the dot map,
substantial areas were added to the populated areas map. Although
replication of the process might lead to varying results, certain rules
were followed. First, any grid cell with a city of 25,000 persons or
more was added. Second, if there were two towns of 10,000 persons or
more, the grid cell was scored. Third, if there were combinations of
a town of 10,000 or more and a number of dispersed, smaller dots, the
grid cell was scored. As stated earlier, this process was subjective
and was based upon visual examination of the dot map. However, it is
felt that those areas covered by the "adjusted population density"
variable should not be considered as sites. The important point is that
the combination of the three population variables represents a rather
conservative assessment of the land areas unavailable as potential
sites on the basis of population.
Spatial Coverage: The land area mapped as "adjusted population
distribution" consists of 419 grid eel ls.
30
E. WETLANDS - FIGURES 8 and 9
Rationale: Wetlands have been a focal point of environmental
~oncern for many years now. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities in most wetland areas
of the United States under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 and 1977, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has issJed guidelines that are intended to prevent
the conversion of wetlands to other uses. Wetland areas are extremely
important habitat areas, both for marine and avian species. Although
it is possible under existing federal statutes to convert wetlands,
it is clear that the intent of Congress is to protect wetland areas.
Therefore, wetlands are considered as absolute exclusion areas, and
are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Reliability of the Data: While the intent of Congress may be
clear, the spatial distribution of wetlands is more obscure. Wetlands
may be marshes: swamps or ponded areas within farmlands or forests.
At this time, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting
to compile a comprehensive inventory of wetland areas, but this study
is not complete. For this reason many smaller wetland areas are not
included in Figures 8 and 9. A 1955 Department of the Interior publica
tion titled "Wetlands of The United States" identified important wetlands
in a very generalized fashion. This publication determined that there
were 22,400,000 acres of wetlands of primary importance to waterfowl
and 52,000,000 acres of wetlands of lesser importance. However, these
areas could not be mapped with a sufficient degree of accuracy. There
fore, a need exists for additional information before this issue can be
adequately addressed. The two maps presented in Figures 8 and 9
include only larger wetland systems, and these figures should be
considered as conservative indications of the spatial coverage of
wetland areas.
31
.. r-...................................................................................................................................................................................................... -:--:-""'.'":-'."1'"'."".""'."T"":"" ................ ~ ...... -r ...... ~...., ...................... !"'""1
" .. .. ... '" .. " " '· ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ... "
,.. '.!: 1=::::::::::::::::::::.::.; "' "' ... '" '" '" ... '" '" '" "· "'
. ·- • -· ·- •. -· .. '. : : : : : : : -: :-:--:-: : : :-: : : =::-:- ~~-=:: -.-.--.-.'-.-. -.-.----- =::::;:;~::,;:: .• ::.::: • .:::::::::_=..::..::.::..::_::::..::..::..::_-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.j : : : : : :. : :...: : : : : :_:__::.: : ~ : : : : : :._: :. : ~ : : ~ : : -:-~ ; 1 :--: . ; :· ~ ~ : ; ~ : .:...:-: :·:-:-::.-_ :..:.:..: :.=-1~: ....... --....-. ....... - ···~--. ------- --------·· - -· ---- __ -..,.._
: :~-:-;_:=:::::_.:_::~_::::::::~~- :-:--~-:-::-:: ::-~~ ~=~:~. -- --- .... j. •-f~T!-:::-:-::-:-: .. -4~ . ' ..•• •--+--• .. - .................... -- .............. ; .... ·-- .. --- .. ·-- -. . - ... ·------ ... . . . . - ... ___ ______......... ______ ..... ---- ........... -.... -~_..._ -- .... .........
. ·-. ·--. --- ·-· -........ __ __...._ _____ ... ·---·-.. ----· .. - , ________ .. _ ....
. . --- . . : : :-: :-:-: :.: ::-:.:_-:_:::: -· :-: :=-:-:--:-~: ~-:-. -. -. : : ; : :-. -- ----· .._. :-:.:: :·:-: - ________... ~IH.;.I;,."".:-:'~~-._;.~.;;-,.,··.,..: :~: :: :::·~-:::T::--:J ;~0.::;_:~::_.-:~_::_~-:_!_-• ---·:-;-:-1
. .. ·-,,'So: .':" -~-------· --· __.
1; _____ _
::>-----" ::t:::::::.::..::::::.::::::::::::::::i+:::::::::::::::+====:::-:==:::::i=:=:::::~
z 0
~ ------- Cf) I-UJ UJ .. --~--....._=n~ >-.. Cii (.'.) .. UJ .. < >
" ~ " UJ I ,. >- (/)
" u er: " ~ " ...J <! " ...J
" < ~ ~
" u.. " " u.. " ~ Cf) g ,.
< a: .. -·' UJ "' " !;£ " ., " 0 " " " Cf) •· 3 ,, " >- u .. >- x ,, Cii w
er u.. w ~ 0 z
~ ::>
w R: < ~
E .
32
w w
. ' • . I I . I I . . . • . . . ,, . . . " .. n .. " • "' • " . M
• . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. M .. . " . .. .. . . .. .. • •
-" ........... ! :: '!:?~!~,!a;;.::::~==~ ::t~ .. ~=:!.~~::; ~=~; -:o.: :: '~ :: : ;.::i ::1:::1;;:: :: ;;::~:: :o :i: ~~::::a.::; :a•:::.; :i: •~== ~i !! ~!,!I!!;~=~~!;;:;!!;~;:!;;;;;;;;;;;!:?;;;;!!?:~;~; ;;;;r ;; !! ;;;; :; : ; ~;: ~;; :~; ~ ~·; ffitttt+Rt+R+FH+ ltt+FFl+Ftlt HtHHHtfi Fl I Ht HR ttmfl If FH'.f IHfR Ht FH FttH t+tnm t+tt+tt mm+H H tttHHI fl ffitt+H f tt+ftttmtfff fftfffltl fl RI H Hf f! 11 '1 FHHfH HFH
SPACE SOLAR POWER RESEARCH PROGRAM RICE UNIVERSITY FALL 1978
MAPPING OF EXCWSION ME.AS FOO RECTEl\NA SITES
SCALE
1'1111j 111!j111i"liiIfl11 J f\ GAi>
,t
mtt 1iW1
...... ar.a z'g I-------- WETLANDS
Figure 9
1. Marshes - Figure 8
Marshes were identified on the basis of vegetation. The
source of this information was A. W. Kuchler's 1966 map titled 11 Poten
tial Natural Vegetation". Th~s map was included in the National Atlas
of the United States, published by the United States Geological Survey
in 1970. Those vegetation types mapped included (1) the Mangrove
broadleaf forest, (2) the Everglades grassland, (3) the Cypress Savanna
grassland, (4) the live oak-sea oats grassland, (5) the southern cord
grass prairie and (6) the northern congrass prairie. This information
is considered to be highly reliable. However, a disparity may arise
because a grid square was coded if a marsh was present (but not nec
essarily dominant) in that grid square.
2. Wetlands - Figure 9
Wetlands were identified from the United States Geological Survey
map titled 11 Major Land Uses", also from the National Atlas of the United
States. In this mapping effort, the areas of the United States classified
as swamps were entered in the grid scares shown in Figure 9. It should be
noted that this USGS map only showed the dominant land uses within mapped
areas, and many other portions of the United States would have substan
tial acreages of wetlands that are not the dominant land use type. A
grid cell was coded for wetlands if any portion of the grid cell inter
sected mapped swamp areas.
Spatial Coverage: The areas mapped as marshes in Figure 8 con
sist of 219 grid cells and the areas mapped as wetlands in Figure 9
consist of 487 grid cells.
F. TOPOGRAPHY UNACCEPTABLE - FIGURE 10
Rational: Excessively steep slopes are considered to be unacceptable
for rectenna construction, either because the microwave beam cannot inter
sect the rectenna or because the problems of cbnstruction are too severe.
With one exception, discussed in Section 7, infra, those areas mapped as
having unacceptable topography are considered as absolute exclusion
variables. 34
r,:l++:::t:::::r:;:;:::::::::::::::::::::+:;:~:-:;+:::;:;:::::::;:r::-r:-:-:-::"t:;:::::::::i:::::-:"'.:+:;::::::-:;-:;-:-:-:~7:";:::;::-:;-:~r.::::-;:r"'."'T"'."'Tj"'.'-:-:::'."'.:"":::"":"':::7-=:::::::-:::::::":"':::-::::::~
'" ... '" rn~~~#~~~::E;~~~~~~ :~: '" ... ... ... " '" '" ... ·~· '" .. ... ... "' H:P:+++1+::+++=1::J::::+P:+:+::t1::;:i:.;.:::r~~~t::;+
"' ... ig H-+-++--+-;t;_._, __ .,..,..-,--7
:~: ~~r1:t~~tt:--t::::t::r::==:::i:::r ~~: q:tf=E:;Effg::::::~~=!i~f~~~:x:±g:~:n=t::=ij rn._ ~i: l:::tt±i:t:::t:±:t:t;:::::;:+::+::::t:t.:l:t::tt:tl~~~ "' "' "' '" '" ... "' ~~: '" '" ... ... f.i ~:t:::±:j::::f=::!:..=:::=!.-=i:::(j:# ~::~_,.... ...... --,---,_,_ __
" i;"'~-"-<~1-;---+-'-r----,--,-'-t'-c-i-+----J--'--h-+-'-++-+-,..-,--•·t-+
" .. ..
~~!=:$==~a~ " " " " " ;!1:::::::::::::-::t;. " ... ... " !~ ., " " " ~ .. !: tt-:t~:::;:~:::;:~;ss~~~~~:JH':T-H---r---1 " i:F-£.~~a~~~~~~g
35
"' >- ':l
w :r:: al ... a..~ iii <(a.. < a:w z Ou
~ z ~u w
~ ... u o<( w 1-Z -' a:
-' :J <
~ ...
"' g < c: w " ~
~ "' :::i -' > u ... x
a: iii w < a: ... _J w 0 0 >
"' z ~ :::i w 0: Uw a.
~SJ < "' a: ::?
0
c
J 0
:c
.£
t 0
'
Reliability of the Data: The source of topographic information
presented in Figure 10 is the U.S.G.S. map titled "Classes of Land
Surface Form" which was adapted from a map by Edwin H. Hammond. This
map was also published in the National Atlas of the United States. This
USGS map sets forth five general land surface form categories with some
21 subcategories. For exclusion purposes, three of these 21 sub
categories were mapped. These were high hills, low mountains and high
mountains, with less than 20% of the land area gently sloping. These
were chosen because they were the t~ree categories that indicated the
most severe slope constraint. Therefore, these mapped areas include
only those areas where it is felt that a definite slope problem exists.
Certain other areas of the United States that are not shown in Figure 10
could cause problems with respect to topography.
Spatial Coverage: The variables mapped in Figure 10 comprise 2436
grid ce11 s.
G. SOUTH SLOPES - FIGURE 11
Rationale: Because the satellite will be in geosynchronous orbit
at the equator, the microwave beam could reach a rectenna sited on the
south side of ridges or mountains that run predominantly east-west. For
this reason, areas with otherwise unacceptable topography may be
potential sites, and, this subset of the high hills, low mountains and
high mountains category is considered as a potential exclusion variable.
Reliability of tr1e Data: The information concerning the east-west
ridges is taken from the U.S.G.S. map titled "Shaded Relief", also from
the National Atlas of the United States. This information is considered ---- --- -- --to be highly reliable, although the determination of the dividing line
between the northern and southern boundaries of such east-west ridges
is subject to interpretation and some error. This information, shown
on Figure 11 is considered to be reasonably accurate.
Spatial Coverage: The variables mapped in Figure 11 cover 142
grid cells.
36
.. "
. ~- ~-·------- --·-
g ~~~-.------+- •-.--t--+~ ::t~
" "
,L
~- .. ~4- --' • ~~~---"----+--.-I :E·~~- -'-.=+ ' ' . :~-r::z::.
-J
I -:-:r:
37
- .__.,_ --
::; «> < ~ a: <e? <.? 0 ...J a: ...J Cl. <
u. I u a: < w
"' w a: a: UJ ~ 0 >-Cl. .... a: iii < a: ...J w 0 > V) z
::I w Uw ~ ':2 (/) a:
"' UJ .... (ii
< ~ w .... u M!
~ "' < w ~
~ "' 3 u x w u. 0
<.? z & < ::;
w •
< ~
E ':
..... .....
c ·;; 5 ! 0
:c
.S . '§ ! i 0
'
H. NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS - FIGURE 12
Rationale: Navigable waterways were considered as absolute
exclusion variables due to the possibility that the microwaves
beamed to the rectenna could interfere with sensitive navigational
equipment. Additionally, these navigable waterways could not be
spanned by the rectenna due to physical interference with navigation.
Reliability of the Data: Those waterways indicated as being
navigable were mapped from the Oxfor1! Regional Economic Atlas: United
States and Canada, published by the Clarendon Press in 1967. Those
rivers marked as navigable include some areas with less than six feet
of controlling depth, but the majority of these waterways have a
navigable depth of 10 or more feet. There are certain problems with
this map. First, new navigation projects that have been completed
since 1967 may not be included. Second, routes through the Great Lakes
may be less rigid in fact than is indicated on the Oxford Map. Third,
the seaways adjacent to the coastline and the entry and exit routes
from the seaways into coastal seaports are not included on this map.
This information exists in the form of numerous maps af various
segments of the United States coastline, but there was insufficient
time to assemble this information for inclusion in Figure 12. These
seaways adjacent to the coast would be a major exclusion variables for
rectenna sites on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Spatial Coverage: There are 582 grid cells that are identified
as cells where navigable waterways exist.
I. INTERSTATE HIGHvJAYS - FIGURE 13
Rationale: Due to the large capital outlays for interstate highways
and the investment patterns associated with these infrastructure items,
the decision was made to map these arterials and to consider them as
absolute exclusion variables. Although this designation is question-
38
w l.O
MAPPING OF EXCLUSION AREAS FOR RECTENNA SITES
SCALE
11
! 111'1 11 I 1i 11 i(j I I 11j !! I" GRID
~JC'!~~ I ,oo 400 JOO :oo~ NAVIGABLL WATERWAYS
1111
1i.1U IHt
~ ' .a ,_
- 1-1 , . ./Y
l r
!
l ~ l i ..
lirnttlHHHl rn mrn:::n 1 i+n .§ltttill1llf1illl I ~It t++Ft-ttttm:t .•. "" :1tttt-ttt t t t t H II ... ..,. .. , ... ... ... "' "'
l 1-f
w
~t-
l\
Figure 12
..i:::. 0
"""'•••~ •e'?: ~":'!~ !~'°!2 ;:,;.-::::,::~,t:;, ~"!A ;o::::;~~:::~:;::~O:; ':'; :-::: !'': o;, .. ,. "' ~-• _ .... • • ... eo _ ...... ' lj J. rr tu • .. i.s ..• 1 ••••• 1.: •. - --- ::: ::1;;::11;1::.:::a11a:~;;;;HH!I;!; :~•!to!!t;;.:~:u~=:: ;=• •••. ~·· -•••t••• ••- •••• • ; :1 . ~~ t ------~.----·w;-;'''''-1';""-'"":·· .. ;•;;.mmmr;::~!\~?/,
• I I I - t ; t ij1 t H :J ,; ' r I J j 4t th- ~+ {. j : 1E tt ~ 1 f · . t:t ~· !t ~ Y ~ ult 1 · " , ~ - j . 1 ~ HL ;: '-' ~! , - 'r"' I rt 1·1 t •"1i :; t:[+j[ n j D t' , , ~ Iv £ t .... ~ + ~ • - t t j ~ -:; j ~ ~ 1 i j r11 ~ ~ ~ ~ cl 11 • : a.~). 11- ~ + e 1 e ' t I } j lj 111 {f:: . f ' ~ g ~I ~ I~~~ i~j ft t .. rt ~ 1 ~ • { t ~·, ) t~r I;;. ~ It
1
E iJ Fft ffi' 1.[ J • b~ ~- 'I ,~~1 .. ~: it " r~, !,~ft,'· ;·1~< •01t ~! :: . ' t t i ~ ~ -' 'rtf-J-j rt f c ;I ! 11 ! - I / l Jt :l " ' f 'J i f ~ IV. 77t1.i 17 ' ~ ,{.[ +.' l ) . ltl I ~ 1 t ~ +:l r1 , { " ,, 1 . "rr" j, /J.'1/r~.[1.~. 1 1 ~ ill. -t tr ~' '· . :...,.... · _J u +j HI ' ~ , ~ ' lh:/j ). ,,L .fJ 1 J J I) ); t:'~J:t :: K '+ '! ,{, V µ l ' "~ ~ i !' . ~ ttf ). 1 ·~t -'
1 ; ._:. ~ ,, ' ~ I , . 11; y ,;i ~ l ti'
• 1 ~ 1 ~~ " ;{;fr "·~ fL ,._ jt Q ft ~f,~ 'l · t1 ~ ' ' I! .Ii ~ ~ i ii I 1 j. I if I n ~~;r~_, r ! .) ' ~J.; ~ ~'¥ j ; j + t ~-· ··-:; " + i + t! j, u i.11 ~~~It -~[ 1i- ~ ~,: ~ : t t ~ "" t rn 11 , : , t . 1 , ~ ; , ~ ~¥,1r r1 , ~, lt!1 ~~ rr, ~t ; ,+I t , ~ .. I t t,.+ Hi\tl i '~'4.00 ~I ~1tt1' '1' I ! ' .. + , . 1 • .. l ,, ,, f v i' ,, 12 ~ mr 1, ~ /, 1 .. ~ 1
~ ' >:Ftµr +fu~ ~t 1 I I r ~/; ~ L ~ :: ? :~!u lilit 't ' i 4 <~\1 ti i 1 ll :: ,. Lt, ::tt:'Li+t:~~ t .:. r ; I ~· " i I !,i •+t-rr,- - 11]•':.>: 1 w :i '.i:I;:; J !t ~j l + - +~ '" . A "-' ·~ H +' j µ1 :; • ,t lrt~~t. i'J iljf - " 1 1' . r I ~ - .,J;lT t1Pl 17.~ ~·; 11~1' j i1+t•~ tt m · .~ ,~[1[+'1 r t ~v ~ 14 t ~ , ,??. ,, w1tgf1 · lTit l l1 tt +ti :". ' li:.1~ vrr ! 'Li. f r t [J '· Y.1 if -t I " 1 '(:J;~A'· ,,~;·tg tr/. t '.t I 11. TI
'
. l' ~. ,:,~ 1 1 + ~ 1 l (',1,tj,, "t~,r·.1 .L .r u. t Id lt't pl+ 1-·" ·) 'E'" .~~;t,,, . : 1 +-· .. J. ,. , r+ .. 1
J11 I j " ,,, "lir, • ' r (1 7 I/Ir ~ . ~ ~ I .A ., I ' '
1 i I ,J_ r i<IJ
· r " II . 1 ~ ~ ""
~ ~ 1 1 LI . , · · ' 11 -- Jhi. ~ ~~·1tm" = , f 11 , i f -t i r, II rr : 111 ,~ "' r i '1 §'""'' "'"" """'" "'""""" '""""'" : -. [ {, i ~·11~! ,,~:iffl ....... i ill.' UtflJt.111lt.ll t\™-~L.r-~;. !1t!tjrHtu1111J itJ1t11rrrn
RICE UNIVERSITY FALL 1978 ..... - .. l'l. i ...... ,1 tt. i.µ. u~mti .. it u ~t 1H1 it u tm ~ ~ ''.°'~~ _,, "R'""- '"" ~ • ~ 11' !1 ill I Ill! .I' I l i I . :r1;~r ', il!Ij"j!' 1n11m'~· L
,,"Ii Ii~ iii Ii I l!ll II II I l~ GRID INTERSTATE ;, h I j t ii t J j I ll I £ ,! :Fa:;~ HIGHWAYS "' i •I l t If J ~·~ft I Ii: I 1+ rr ~ :11-1 lt~tHHHtHI
Figure 13
able, it is felt that it is realistic to expect large portions of
the land areas adjacent to these highways to be unavailable for
rectenna sites.
Reliability of the Data: The data on interstate highways is
quite good, and the major criticism of the mapping of this variable
would be the fact that an entire grid square was coded if an inter
state highway were present in that grid. This problem can only be
remedied by selecting a smaller grid square size, which is beyond
the resources of this project.
Spatial Coverage: Figure 13 shows Interstate Highways being
represented on 2163 grid cells.
J. ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITATS - FIGURE 14
Rationale: Known habitats of endangered species are protected by
the Endangered Species Act if these areas have been designated as
"critical habitats". Federal agencies are prevented from altering
such designated habitats as the law is currently written. However,
this variable was classified as a potential exclusion variable because
of amendments currently pending in Congress. These amendments, if
passed, may allow the conversion of such critical habitats. Although
this course of action (conversion of these habitat areas) would lead
to substantial controversy, the possibility exists that such a con-
version could occur under the pending amendments to the Endangered
Species legislation. These areas should not be considered if any
alternatives exist in the area of concern.
Reliability of the Data: The information shown in Figure 14 was
taken from maps appearing in the Federal Register which were compiled
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This information is
very specific, and in certain cases covers relatively small areas.
However, it is very reliable. It should be noted that designated
riverine habitats of endangered fish species were not mapped, due to
41
~ N
ti i U it i ~liU±H iliHit -l1 ill ffillllH !tfUi' :[f--····"'·'·'·'·'·'·'·'·'·'·'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'·'·'·'·''''''.'.'JJ'?'.','P.'m.'.'''''"''!''•'.'.'.'."'''''','''-'P'
,, ,H-H-+-Hc+-+t+..
' ' .. " .. ,, '° +++++Ht+++1H+++t-++t
" n
" ,. :!•++++lrl++-H " ~ H I
'; l " " l ~-+
" " " ' " ~
~Hhl-+-H-t+++t+ :: 1--+~+H-H+ . " ::t-+-t t-N-1+H-t+t
"' " " " .. " . " "
11lltfllft1 imttm J I ~ 1-+m-+tt++ttttutl-H-t-H-iu r t
ll ltll1H iH~Hlll I ii! ll II I I Ill l llif 111ttN!·
t- 1 '' ' '··-·
I 1111! I u 1' '.1mm1m1mmu1N i
mmnwnmmmmNttttt++Hl-W~ Bl ..... MtHtttH+tt'rnmtmh mnmm
"' . ., "" ... :J.+-+.+-HU.+l
-"I! L
ll ,,
~
SCALE
.;' 111~1 µg1~ 1= GRC ENDAN~::i~~T;PECIES' ~mmoo1l11illilllll!J1111llllitffiffiltt1tlll-11llttlIIJt1l1llllillJuJtil,illttl Figure 14
the probability that such sites would not be utilized for rectennas.
It is also important to note that this map only shows designated
critical habitat areas. There are many other areas throughout the
United States that provide habitat for endangered species, but these
areas have not been formally designated. Therefore, Figure 14 should
be considered as a legally based map rather than a biologically derived
map.
Spatial Coverage: There are 89 grid cells indicated as being
habitat for endangered species.
K. "PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS" - FIGURES 15 and 16
Rationale: A substantial amount of attention has been recently
focused upon "prime" agricultural lands. The United States Soil Con
servation Service has been concerned for years about the conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses, and this concern is best expressed
in two U.S. Department of Agriculture publications titled "Perspectives
on Prime Lands" and "Recommendations on Prime Lands". At least two
reasons have been mentioned for this concern. First, prime agricultural
lands are being converted into residential and commercial land uses
because these lands are generally flat and well drained. Secondly, as
energy costs increase, more land may be needed for agricultural pro
ductivity. At this time, many states have programs to prevent or
minimize the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses, but a
formal United States governmental policy has yet to be articulated.
In other words, while pri~e lands are not currently protected under
federal law, they may come under protection in the twenty year period
before the SPS is implemented.
Due to this questionable legal status, "prime" agricultural lands
are considered as a potential exclusion variable. This potential
exclusion variable could be addressed if multiple use of the area
beneath the rectenna were possible. According to Dick Siler at NASA,
43
... L/"'i .. ... ... ... !l) ,... ;::l ... ... 00 ... "rl
i:...
.,,
.! ;: i -
.. .,, " c .. 0 .. } .. .. u ,, .. °' .. .. " ~
* .. :: z ..
-.~- 0 !I (/) ;;;;:; .. UJ
~ .. .... .. iii 0 .. z > .. < <t 5 ,. co ~ .....J .. ..... ~ :J ,. ~ l)
:~ u
" ..J !11 :! ..J
<(
15 ~~ u.
u. " "' (/) g " "
<( " " UJ " " ~ " " " ~ .. .. " (/) . ,, 3 . u " x
" UJ
" u. .. . 0 . ~ R: <( ::;
44
... ::: "' ... :~:
~: '" ... ... ... ::: "' ... ... ... ... ... .. ~!: ... ... ... ... ::~ rn ... '" "' "' "' :~: '"
lf--t'V'
\...
+ '-t-
-t- - • .~:t,.;.~'\-C-0 '-4 ·j
-~
,· •
"' "' ... -~ I~ i -~·, ,. ~~·~- ·:<:;; Ir+-+--+ -~---+---...
~~: ... ::: ~~! "' ... '" '" '" '" '" '" , .. ~:: ... :: ~: ~i--i. ... ... ,,, ... .. .. ~µ++ ..
±
·'''
......... ' ""~~ ...... -- '1~ ~~ .... ~ ..... ~
, , , , ,t ~fl -H-r+-T_,.-Ht+
"""'~ ~~~ ",
~-
H~~,~~~ .~ .• ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~r·~
"'~~:;-'-: . ' '' ,.,,'' ... '
~~ '1~-~ ........ :~~~~~~~~~n
"' ~' ~ ":''I~!~::"°'\~, ~,,,,,,,,
~:'lo-'''
~ . \! . . _, , , ' , !~R~~,~~ ~ . " ·~~;::- ~ .... ~~~~~i~~~~~~i't~~~:, •'°o~~++++-t-t-+~r-.!'--:...4. ~:L:'.,, -~,."~.f,'.oJ.,,,~1'~~:--~~;:-..S_, ... ~~,1','°,' . .._,~~' :Sl~ \,1' ·:-:,"-~'" ~ ~ N"'.'.._i'•; +~ . ~~''''''"'''0.-ll! .. ~Hg+~~'-'~ ··~llE~~ ........... ~~~~-~-~-~,~-~~~-"§'§'~-~-~~-~--~ .§'§'~~·~-·~,,·~·m~~ "'~~ ",_ ~., ~ ~l~)t-~ t-~~~~~"-!''''.''''~i:J.uc '' ~ K " :1~~'~ r'I~~,:,, ~....: ]~; !~~~ il"~ '-'""""''''''-'·">-~ :: "~~S.._~"-'-i.;:' ""'i~..,..."-:~~~~ ., '~1,1 ... ~ ' ·~~; , • '.'.t'i~~~ ~~''-i'-'1'-'-·~z~t._~~'I '',~ ! I I ill-+- '""·~"~ ""' ,., '''"' "" i. +; &;:s~, ~~~" ~'": ~: ~;l'l'!::i' ~<:!"' ':-::-'-""~~ ........ ~~.... ' j
.. " :: .. " " .. :: " ::~ " ~: .. " " ~ " .. " ~~ .. :: " .. !: ~: .. " " " " " " " !~ ~ .. " " " !~ " ~~ ~ " " :: ~ r-r-1+-.. ,, " ,, :
., ..
I+
45
::;: <Xl < .... a: <])
0 0 _, a: _, a. <(
u. J: (.) a: < w Cf) w a: a: w !;:: ~ >-.... a: (/) < 0: _, lU - ·+-;-- + o> Cf):-:
~ w ::i
u llJ 8: <). Cf) 0:
Cf) w .... Cf)
< ~ I!! ~ ~ Cf)
< w ~
0 Cf)
3 (.) x w u. 0
0 z ~ < ::;:
wz __J 0 co t-~ ~ ::i ~ Cf) ::i 0 (.) z ~ a: __J 0
u..
~ . < u Vl -
80% of the incident sunlight should pass through the rectenna and the
expected heat rise beneath the rectenna should be approximately one
degree centigrade. From this information, multiple use cannot be said
to be precluded. However, the use of land area beneath a rectenna
will pose cultivation problems, repair and maintenance problems and
will require design modifications. This alternative of multiple use
should be examined in much greater detail prior to determining its
feas i bil i ty.
Reliability of the Data: At this time, the U.S.D.A. is compiling
detailed maps of the prime agricultural lands of the United States.
The definition of 11 prime 11 agricultural lands is exceedingly complex,
having several categories and subcategories. The expectation is that
prime lands will vary substantially at the county level, and only by
examining detailed maps on a county by county basis can one determine
whether the agricultural lands in question are indeed "prime". This
data may not be available for the entire United States until the
early l 980' s .
Given this situation, two "proxy" variables were established for
prime lands. In Figure 15, areas that are irrigated farmland and areas
that are almost totally cropland are mapped. In Figure 16, regional
classifications of land area on the basis of its suitability for
cultivation are shown. Figure 15 was derived from the U.S.G.S.'s
Land Use Map of the United States in the National Atlas of the United
States. Although all of the areas mapped in Figure 15 may not meet
the S.C.S. 's definition of prime or unique farmlands, the expectation
is that most of the land areas included in this map would be so classi
fied. The major shortcoming of this map is that substantial acreages of
prime agricultural lands exist beyond those areas mapped in Figure 15.
For this reason, Figure 16 was developed. This map was derived from a
United States Soil Conservation Service publication titled 11 2/3 of Our
Land: A National Inventory", published in 1971. This figure classi-
46
fies SCS regions from the standpoint of the percentage of lands that
are suitable for cultivation. In Figure 16, two levels of suitability
are indicated with one level being more than 67% of the land suitable
and the second level being from 50% to 66% of the land suitable for
cultivation. This map is considered to be less reliable than Figure
15, and the agricultural variable is overrepresented in Figure 16.
Together, figures 15 and 16 should include most of the land area that
would be considered as prime agricultural land under the SCS classi
fication program.
Spatial Coverage: In Figure 15, 341 grid cells are classified
as irrigated land and 2025 grid cells are classified as cropland.
In Figure 16, 4741 grid cells are mapped as more than 67% of land
suitable for cultivation and 507 grid cells are mapped in the 50%
to 66% suitable category.
L. FLYWAYS OF MIGRATORY WATERFOWL - FIGURE 17
Rationale: Implementation of the Satellite Power System will result
in microwaves being beamed from the satellite to the rectenna. Migrating
birds and other life forms that fly would be exposed to microwave levels
with a power density as high as 23 miliwatts per square centimeter if
they flew between the rectenna and the satellite. At this time,
little if any research has been conducted on the effects of these
microwave levels on unshielded species. Prior to the implementation
of the SPS, this research will need to be conducted. If the results
of this research effort indicated significant effects from these micro
waves, then areas that are utilized extensively by migrating birds
would be treated as exclusion variables. Because of time constraints,
the Rice University team did not attempt to study the migration habits
of all migratory bird species. However, the flyways utilized by
migratory waterfowl are fairly well known .and the decision was made to
map these corridors to examine the effect that these flyways could
47
. " " " " .. ~! " .. " " " " .. ' H
:. t--.
f-+ t-T-
I~ ' ,,
~~- ,_ ....
"'-"·
" ''" 1~:~ i' ~~..,,.:~~s··
.~
I-+- H-
' '
::li~~-~~~,~~~~~~~~,~~,~~~~"'1~!1
1,~l~~~~ii:l::'l~!Kt~ct~"~~l~~,~~~'l;-.;s~~i~~~:il~:'~~~~~~~~~~~~l1
~-t-~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,t~ '~T~ *' t ,!'' I '
••• - !"Ir-.~ ~~~1:~" ~~s~ ~~ " "' " " •,...,..~ -1---+-._-+- -r -t.,; '"11:"'~'''~~~~'''~~~ ~1 ;,.., -....._ a...-
1-+~ ~ ~~~~'~ '"'
-~~···~··•~)02,w:w1a~~ci~•h•~a~•A•••~••••ao1st~••••aG1•1a111•a;a11a112~tc1t~ter1&a;a11~11K5~&111
48
~ ... l~
"' . ... .. ~ -
II
I ':
have upon the location of receiving antennas. This variable was
treated as a potential exclusion variable due to the uncertain
results of future research activity.
Reliability of the Data: The data mapped in Figure 17 was obtained
from very general maps published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Pacific, Central, Mississippi and Atlantic flyways were combined
from individual maps of those areas. The boundaries of these flyways
were ill defined in the original information and the limits of the
flyways are somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps more importantly, graphs
showing the distribution of migrating birds across these corridors or
other similar data was not available to the project team. Therefore,
while the land areas mapped as flyways appear correct, there may be
discrepancies from state to state. The best approach to this variable
would have been to compile information for each state from the state
fish and wildlife agency and compile the map nationally from this more
specific infon:'lation.
from being utilized.
However, time constraints prevented this approach
The information shown in Figure 17 does have
factual validity and it certainly indicates the importance of research
in the area of microwave effects on migratory bird species.
Spatial Coverage: 5441 grid cells are indicated as being within
the flyways of migratory waterfowl.
M. SEISMIC HAZARDS - FIGURE 18
Rationale: Published information about the receiving antennas
indicate that they are not designed to withstand earthquakes. Although
this variable could be considered as a design variable, it may be that
the cost for undertaking earthquake resistant rectennas would be
extremely high, and, the areas with high quake risks would be avoided.
Therefore, seismic hazards were mapped and are considered as potential
exclusion varibles.
49
+ ·+
11:.:;::::::+:i t
... . !! .•.
50
en Cl a: < N < I (,)
~ en UJ en
I :
00
Reliability of the Data: In Figure 18, two areas of earthquake
risk are mapped. These are areas of major seismic risk and areas of
moderate seismic risk. The source of this information is a book by
David M. Cargo and Bob F. Mallory titled Man and His Geologic Environ
ment. The zones are based on the distribution of historical, damaging
earthquakes, their intensities, evidence of strain release and distribu
tions of geological structures related to earthquake activity. The
frequency of possible earthquakes within the zones is not reflected in
this data. Areas of major seismic risk are areas where an earthquake
rated at VIII or higher of the Modified Mercali Scale is possible and
areas of moderate seismic risk correspond to VII of the Modified Mercali
Scale. If a site is to be located in these areas, much more detailed
analysis will have to be undertaken to determine the best locations
within these high and moderate risk areas.
Spatial Coverage: 1295 grid cells are indicated as being subject
to major damage from earthquakes and 3247 grid cells are indicated as
being subject to moderate damage from earthquakes.
N. 40 DEGREE LATITUDE - FIGURE 19
Rationale: Areas north of the forty degree latitude line were
mapped and considered as potential exclusion areas. The reason for
this consideration is that certain studies have indicated that the
rectenna size and configuration will become larger and more expensive
for sites north of the 40 degree latitude line. Therefore, this
potential exclusion variable is related to the baseline design and
represents a constraint that may be mediated by design changes.
Reliability of the Data: The location of the 40 degree latitude
line is readily available and the only issue relates to the fact that
this line is not coterminous with the grid cells. Therefore, all grid
cells intersecting the forty degree latitude line were coded, incor
porating minimal land areas south of this line.
51
<.n N
............. ! : ~~!~ ! ~ •! 1.::::.:rc: ~st•:;::::::=•= tt::s; :ii s:t: :: ::.s:~:• :;•:a;:::-: :c:.1:r = r:rr ~:: t't'l•I :1:11•t:1~:1 11~1tli :a~; 1;111: ~~~•:: ttg ;;:n::aa~t ti :::1=1 ~~•t ;-:; : '!~'~:;. ::: :: ; :1 :e ::: ::~: 1 r: :: : !!r:: :! :1; llffiflFltfllH+tlllHtHltlllttt+tttt+tttnlmt1111111111mm1111111111111111111111111 nnmmiliinil#imiiiiiiiiiiiiitt:itiiiiiiititmiffiffiffinffffiiiiff(ffffffffffffi
·~ . . ~ . Ii n " n .. " .. ,. .. .. "' ~ "
v .. .. .. , ~mmmmm ,. .. " .. .. .. ~ .. ., .. . -.. --"'' " " " ~ .. "' "' " . :l+J.1 1 1+++1 n+++n 1-++rn-1-++-11 u+H+H+Hll +H+1 ++H+n 1H+
1 u 1HH+ +++n 1 ™rmttlill+++++++tft1A++l11 tt+tiJt-++++H+HH 1+H1 11ffi1 1 11-++1 illllt+111f+t+l1111111 -.. . .. .. ·E•JB1Hm++1-++1H+1+111111111111111111
SPACE SOLAR POWER RESEARCH PROGRAM RICE UNIVERSITY FALL 1978
MAPPING OF EXCWSION AREAS FCA FECTElltlA SITES
SCALE ' • ,, _,_ __ _a
lll!lfllllllllll!lllllllll GAD
"i , E !PcL"1 kl - - JD6 - - -
OVER 40 DEGREES LATITUDE
:H+H+I~ lllll 111' I llH
... .. ... :H++l+l I I I I I I! 1111-+++4~ •. ... ... ~;I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I llHttUl++-1++1
1+++1-++h"I >+
Figure 19
Spatial Coverage: 5332 grid cells are indicated as lying north
of the 40 degree latitude line.
0. WINDS GREATER THAN 50 KNOTS - FIGURE 20
Rationale: In certain of the documentation concerning the design
of the rectenna, it was stated that the rectenna would be designed for
wind speeds less than or equal to 90 mph. At the data gathering stage,
this information was not directly available. Therefore, a "proxy"
variable was developed from a NOAA document titled "Climates of the
United States". This "proxy" variable was titled % winds over 50
knots, with two areas being mapped. These were areas where winds were over
50 knots for 2% of the year and areas where winds were over 50 knots 1% of
the year. Although this variable does not directly apply to the 90 mph
criteria, it offers some idea of the spatial dimension of the wind issue.
Reliability of the Data: The map titled winds over 50 knots was
developed from a NOAA publication titled "Climates of the United States".
The data was extrapolated from a map indicating the number of days over
a thirteen year period which had winds of greater than 50 knots. This
data was reduced to a % form, indicating the % of a year with winds over
50 knots. This extrapolation was an attempt to offer an order of
magnitude difference between various regions of the United States with
respect to wind. This data does not include information relative to
hurricanes, which have their primary influence on the Gulf and Atlantic -
Coasts. This variable needs further work prior to the project team
having confidence that it directly relates to the issue of the ability
of the rectenna to withstand high winds.
Spatial Coverage: 1667 grid cells are mapped as being subject to
to 50 knot winds more than 2% of a year and 4810 grid cells are mapped
as being subject to 50 knot winds more than 1% of a year.
53
2 " 0
"' i 0
• +,- -!I .£ ~ 0 ~
j + !.
"! '-
! ~
i 0 -!I .£ ~
• ~ :.0 ..8 !. t.
en (f) LU ~ .... (i5 a:
0 < I-
:::; "' ~ (f) < .... LU Cl a: 2! .... z u <-'
~ 3: 0 -' a: -' ll. < ~ u. :c u.
~ en g < < a: !jj w " w ~ a: a: 0 w en ~ 3 ~ )- u .... x a: [jj LU
< a: u. -' w 0 ~~
~ :::> w a: U LU ~ \,2 < en a: :::;
E •
54
P. NUMBER OF DAYS WITH HAIL - FIGURE 21
Rationale: The number of days with hail is a variable of
importance due to the potential for damage due to these severe storm
events. The major importance of the inclusion of this variable is to
identify areas with a high risk of hail damage, and to indicate where
design alterations need to be considered. This variabie is considered
a potential exclusion variable.
Reliability of the Data: This information was taken from a NOAA
document titled 11 Cl imates of the United States" and is an extrapolation
from various weather reporting stations. More important, however, is
the absence of information regarding hail size, which is the best
indicator of potential damage due to hail. Absent hail size data, the
decision was made that the presence of more than four days of hail per
year should yield a reasonable probability of large size hail. There
fore, areas were mapped in Figure 21 that exhibited more than four
days of hail per year, with the intent that this information be used
as a proxy for hail size.
Spatial Coverage: 1469 grid cells are indicated as being subject
to potential hail damage.
Q. NUMBER OF DAYS WITH THUNDERSTORMS - FIGURE 22
Rationale: The number of days with thunderstorms was included be
cause of the possibility of dan2ge due to lightning. This information
is considered as a potential exclusion variable, both from the perspec
tive of damage and also from the standpoint that alterations may be
required in the design of the rectenna.
Reliability of the Data: The number of days with thunderstorms is
intended as a proxy variable for lightning density. At this time, a
detailed study is underway at Rice University under the direction of
Dr. Arthur A. Few to compile a detailed map of the risk posed by
55
- ........... • 2: :~? ~ !<:,!2;; ::::;: :=:.~:a;~~~=~::;~=~•:::::::: :;.:::::s:s:ae::: :: ;s:t: :o:::::: ee1e:::11e::::a:::11e::li ~~;;,;1; ! ~ :~!~!': !!;~;:;!!;!;!;;;;;;:!;; ;;; i!!i ! :;;;;;;;;. ,; ;i;;i;;; ;1~; !~~:~; ~;~ i =tffiHHllffifmfHIHffffi±±±fHHftBfHHffBffiffiH!fHHHEHffiHfHfHtHI 11111111111111 fHiffitfffHffffittffftHEffl±fffffHfftffiti±IHFftIIHlilmm:tfffifIDa
!I HH+l++-H-l-Hm+-1-111i11111 l+++H++Hl
" " . " .. . . .. " .. " " ,. " ,.
~ ..
~ """""' m ~ . ., . .. .. .. .. .. " ;llli1llllllllD
'llo
r7 ..
~r·rrrrTrTTTTTT"'lTT"'f--,YT , . n l •~ rJn tt•rvt.m ri. ~m• . + './- Ti++uT-rrr lJ+ f t , H t ' . ,., I ~
" ' " " . '""" '"""" ;: . ~ " · ,1 i u 1-i +I l ~u I- . . HJ
L
.., -~ ~ •. ~ µ±; : ' - • tt t.. :: 1 =.!.:...: • ' p ~ :: r 1 r i Ll+t, " "
t t I t II f mttttli±±tlttttt±ttt:t :.nH •l t N Httt~ :µ+~ H ~ ~H-t· ~
I-
++
SPACE SOLAR POWER RESEARCH PROGRAM
Uffi}~++-+rn ..
ITT RICE UNIVERSITY FALL 1978 ~HHHH Htftittt1t~
"" µ+
MAPPING OF EXCWSION AREAS FOR RECTEJllllA SITES
SCALE +-t+++H+HH-HHJ • ..
1' I'll R GRID 1'11111111111111111111111
.. , : ;C;o; 2wYJ -~-loo._.. ...... -
HAIL / 4 or More Dayi ~' Year
Figure 21
,, .. " :: .. ;: " " " " " .. .. " ~t " .. .. .. .. .. , . .. ,. " " " " :~ " ~~ "' .. .. " .. !! " .. .. ,, . ,, ' . ' 0 . .
57
en w t-en
~ . .. u "' -
Cl)
~ a:
~ a: w 0 z :::::> I I-
E M
lightning. This use of thunderstorm information should serve as a
general "proxy" variable until more detailed research into this
phenomenon is completed. The basic information was obtained from the
NOAA document titled "Climates of The United States," and was extra
polated by Dr. Few for the project team.
Spatial Coverage: 6118 grid cells are indicated as being subject
to thunderstorms.
R. SHEET RAINFALL - FIGURE 23
Rationale: The possibility exists that heavy rainfalls can produce
rain sheeting on the rectenna face, shielding the rectenna from micro
waves. This is true of the Marshall Design Type and other designs are
also susceptible to this phenomena. The extent to which this factor is
considered in the reference design is not clear, but this factor does
need to be considered. For this reason, this variable is considered as
a potential exclusion variable.
Reliability of the Data: The areas mapped in Figure 23 are inter
preted from a map in the NOAA document titled "Climatic Atlas of the
United States". This map specified mean annual precipitation in terms
of million gallons of water per square mile. Those areas exhibiting a
mean annual precipitation greater than 700 million gallons per square
mile are shown in Figure 23. This data is based upon extrapolations of
recording data stations and is considered reliable.
Spatial Coverage: 3472 grid cells are indicated as being subject
to sheet rainfall.
S. ACID RAIN - FIGURE 24
Rationale: The presence of a low pH in rainfall is a design
criteria that should be incorporated into materials specifications for
rectennas being constructed in these areas. To the extent that acid
58
" " ,. " " " " " " ~~ " "' " " " .. " " U IH"""t~ " " " ~: " i; 4- -r- ~~
" . . ' : .
59
,4
'i
~·:~§2~~~2ill!E~
_J _J
en Lt UJ ,_ z Ci5 ~
< a: ::!' "' ~ I-< ,._ UJ a: O> ,_ w <.:l l> w 0 _, !!! I a: _,
(/) c.. < ~ u..
J: l> en 0 a: < < a: UJ UJ " en ~ ' ! UJ
§ a: a: 0
~ ~ UJ en i ~
::::> >-
_, ~ l> ,_ x •
a: en UJ ! <a: u.. ~ _, UJ 0 o> •
~ en z ~ l ::::>
UJ
8: ~ . ~ l> UJ ~ l> < <
" en a: ::!' "' - e .
°' 0
_ .. " ••• ~ •• 2:: '!':'! ~ ! : ~! 2 :.::::~:::; =~51 • ~=:;~~=- ~=~; :~ ::~:: :: : ;.:::::1:.s:t••==: :::::t:: :::: ~t:: t:1;:2::1~:::.: :::a~::li ;; !§191! ! ; ;;;!!: ~!; ;;~;~!;; ;! ;;;;;; ;3;; !'!'; ;~!":! :;;;;;;;; ;; ;! ;;;;;; !! ~; :~; ;! ; ~ :! ;
:tttt:!-ttttttttttmttttttttt:tttmtttttttttiitttttt:mtt:ttiitmtt:!::ttt:l:ttttt:t:m:t:t:m:t:mtt:tttttH:!tl:ttt:tt:tt:mtt:mmt:t1mt:t1r:!:tffi~rtmrtmrtt:1+m~1++++mt:tmti:mt+t:i+m1
·r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . . . 0 •
: , . ., ·-·~ .. f-+ ~ ~ t ,,,, fit- ~
I Tl' '"'"
' : ; . ;r,,f, '.(, c: =mn;\jj " "
, ,~DL!Xl',tU!;~~•• L'~ ~~.
"· 1WH t 11± l ~ 1vrr~r~vvvwvi~~~Ur~;fllll}-1llJ
~t·
;: , "-' ~~I
~.i 'fill
~Ip - .,, Ci '+'" " ,!mu:nrrrrn 1111rrrnu11
• t t:±± j~ t • •• + i\. lllfl-H-l+.IHfHlr.r.r.r.~~\JIWHlll-1-1-U.LHUUUI
tt
µ+++JH~.1-1-1-l l'YVl'l'
l±±ti±±ttl±ttlttititiJ1.1+1-1-l-l-!-l+l-H++UW-1-H-l ~
'ftmtµ.( H++++++! ::~ " . t 1 t , 1 '
Httj m ~ r-.~ J1 t ~l. -l _ ,
SPACE SOLAR POWER RESEARCH PROGRAM : RICE, UNIVERSITY FALL 1978 : -4 I f MAPPING OF EXCLUSION AREAS FOR RECTENNA SITES ::!
::;HtH 11111m-1:mtttt:t1 ~
SCALE 1
'"11tI1110111R GRID 11 11!1111 I I I
.. , r • ., I ACID RAINFALL .~ttttttttttfffifftJ=rmmrnmgmm 11111111 trrffifffiffirnmumIITI1m1mlllM1 mmmmmanmnm "'.--.00- ,IQO )QC) 400 IOO llUll
/ Ph Between 4 .0 and S .O • Ph l•H Thon <4 .0
Figure 24
rainfall is not considered in the current reference design, this
variable should be considered a potential exclusion variable.
Reliability of the Data: This data was obtained from Scientific
American: "The Amateur Scientist" 230: 122-127 (June, 1974). This
map offers a general definition of the scope of the problem and is
fairly reliable as of the date of its publication. As more use is
made of coal for fuel purposes, the spatial coverage of this variable
should increase. Therefore, this variable should be updated and
perhaps even extrapolated into the future to more reasonably reflect
those areas of the United States where acid rainfall represents a
design constraint.
Spatial Coverage: 1493 grid cells are indicated as being subject
to acid rain of pH 4.0 - 5.0 and 168 grid cells are indicated being
subject to acid rain of pH less than 4.0.
T. STATES - FIGURE 25
For coding purposes, the grid cells had to be placed in one state
or another. This informational variable is of importance only to the
the extent that compilations are desirable on a state by state basis.
However, since the coding of grid cells may lead to one state containing
more grids than are in fact in that state, Figure 25 is offered to show
the relationship of cells coded as states to state boundaries.
U. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the assumptions used in assembling these maps have
been set forth. While there are shortcomings in many of these data
items, the overall effort should be considered credible. If this
approach is considered desirable, the Rice University project team has
a number of alternative approaches that should be considered in future
work with respect to data collection and appropriate variables. Con
sidering the preliminary nature of this exclusion effort, this data
should be sufficient.
61
'" ... '" '" ...
... '" ::: '" "' '" ::: '" ,., ... ... ... "' '" '" "' "' "' '" :i: "' '" '" '" "' ~~ :~;
;H '" '" '" ... '" '" '" !:: '" '" ... ::. :: '" ... :. :: .. .. :: ~= .. .. .. :: .. " .. " "' .. .. .. .. .. " " " " .. .. .. :: .. .. ~= .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " :~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
t~
62
::!! co < .... a: !!!
~ ...I ...I
0.. < ... ~ w Cf)
~ a: w
~ i': a: ii5 < a: ...I w £:::: ~
w Uw ~ \,,! Cf) a:
Cf) w ..... u; < ~
g ~ ~ ~
! )( w ... 0
~ R: < ::!!
g !§
(/) w t-~ (/)
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
In this section, the results of the overlay or sieve analysis
discussed in the methodology section of this report are presented.
Prior to presenting the results of this effort, a number of issues
need to be dis·cussed concerning the analytical format and the inter
pretation of the results. First, through the establishment of a com
puter overlay capability, a very large number of maps could have been
produced. The actual number of potential maps would be 36 factorial.
For this reason, only 11 overlay maps (called surrvnary maps) are included
in this report. However, a tabular description of the 11 eligible11 areas
is included in a table accompanying the synthesis map. Therefore, an
attempt was made to show all of the data in a consistent format. It is
important to note that all of this data does exist on data tapes, and an
operator at the terminal could pick and choose those variables to be
overlayed.
In many respects, the results of the analysis require little if any
accompanying written explanation'. The major information needed for
interpretation is the base map used and the new variable added to the
overlay. The protocol established was to create a synthesis map, and
then to add a new variable to the existing synthesis. The protocol
followed in the ll synthesis maps is as follows:
1. Surrmary Map l: This map consists of overlaying five
variables. Those variables utilized were (1) National Recreation Areas,
(2) Population (all 3 variables), (3) Topography Unacceptable Without
South Slopes, (4) Navigable Waterways and (5) Marshland Vegetation.
2. Surrmary Map 2: This map was composed by overlaying Surrmary
Map l with Wetlands.
3. Summary Map 3: This map. was composed by overlaying Summary
Map 2 with South Slopes of Unacceptable Topography.
63
4. Summary Map 4: This map was composed by overlaying Summary Map 3 with National Forests.
5. Summary Map 5: This map was composed by overlaying Summary Map 4 with Indian Reservations.
6. Summary Map 6: This map was composed by overlaying Summary Map 5 with Endangered Species• Habitats.
7. Summary Map 7: This map was composed by overlaying
Summary Map 6 with Interstate Highways.
8. Surrmary Map 8: This map was composed by overlaying
Summary Map 7 with Land In Cultivation (both irrigated and cropland).
9. Summary Map 9: This map was composed by overlaying
Surrmary Map 8 with Land Suitable For Cultivation.
10. Summary Map 10: This map was composed by overlaying
Surrmary Map 7 with Flyways of Migratory Waterfowl.
11. Summary Map 11: This map was composed by overlaying
Summary Map 7 with Seismic Hazards.
In addition to the 11 summary maps, each summary map is followed by
a grid square profile. This grid square profile was compiled upon the
"eligible" areas emerging from each synthesis map. The "eligible" areas
are those areas that are not marked by an 11 X11 on the summary map, or the
white areas. The information contained in the grid square profile is as
follows:
1. States: All eligible areas are broken down on a state by
state basis, with the total number of cells in the eligible areas being
reported.
2. Land: The number of grid cells in the "eligible" areas are
set out in this column. Additionally, the total number of cells for the
United States are compiled at the bottom of the column.
3. Percent of Total Land Area: This percentage represents the
relationship of the eligible cells to the total cells as a percent.
64
4. Over 40 Degree Latitude: The number of grid cells lying
north of the 40 degree latitude line are set forth in this column.
5. Federal Land Ownership: The number of eligible cells that
are (1) on military reservations and (2) in other federal lands (
national parks)category are displayed in this column.
6. Windstonns Over 50 Knots: The number of eligible cells that
are subject to windstorms over 50 knots are shown in this column, broken
down with respect to a 1% and 2% occurrence of windstorms.
7. Hail: The number of eligible cells that are subject to Hail
are shown in this column.
8. Thunderstorms: The number of eligible cells subject to
thunderstorms are shown in this column.
9. Sheet Rainfall: The number of eligible cells subject to
sheet rainfall are shown in this column.
10. Acid Rainfall: The number of eligible ce 11 s subject to
acid rainfall are shown in this column, both with respect to pH from
4.0 to 5. 0 and with respect to pH less than 4.0.
It is important to remember that this grid square profile surrmary is
not a profile of the entire state with respect to the identified variables.
Instead, it is a profile of the "eligible" cells within the state. There
fore, if an entire state was excluded through the overlaying of the
exclusion variables, the number of "el igible 11 cells would be zero and
the statistical analysis of those cells would also be zero. A state
by state surrmary across all variables is included in Appendix A.
Finally, it is important to recognize that "eligible" cells are not
necessarily proper sites for rectennas. The only meaning to be given
to these areas is that they were not excluded on the basis of the ex
clusion criteria used to assemble the su1TU11ary map. Therefore, these
are the areas that are not eliminated.
65
SUMMARY MAP 1
This map was assembled by combining (1) National Recreation Areas,
(2) Population (all 3 variables), (3) Topography Unacceptable Without
South Slopes (all 3 variables), (4) Navigable Waterways and (5) Marsh
Vegetation. The areas marked with an 11 X11 are excluded as potential
sites. Those areas not marked by an 11 X11 are not excluded on the basis
of the variables mapped and combined.
66
°' co
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-------------·---
'EIIGJllLE AREAS'
STATES
Alal:>a"'" ' Ariz-ona
Ar" ar1S;llS
California Cnlor;,do Connect i c•Jt Del ~"'a re rlol'ida Geor!lia Idaho Ill iron(!! lr1rJi~n~
In"" Kanc:ac; "pnf.•Jf"~ ... Ln•Ji5i ana Haine Hand and Hassachusett"' Hichi!lan Hinne-.ot.a Hissi ,.,siPr i Missouri t1ontar1a NPl:>rao;ka N .. vada NPW lfa•F-shi re NPw Jerse" New He:~ir:-o
Neu York North Carolina North Da~ota Ohio O~l;,ho11a
Ore~on
Pennswlvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Da~ota Tenr)es9ee Texas Utah Ver•ont Vir!linia Washin~lon
West Vir~inia Wisconsin w~o•in~
TOTALS
LAND
67 270 107 153 1RB
0 0
70 102 114
52 22
131 258
33 58 84
0 0
139 209
97 132 319 265 354
5 0
336 21 32
234 2
172 124
7 0
26 269
46 732 192
3 30 RI
0 121 246
5903
GRID SDllARE PROFILE OF SIJHHARY HAP 1
11 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS -------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERC[NT II OVER OF TOTALll40 DEGREEI
LAND II LATITUDE!
FEirE:RAL LAND
OWNFRSHIP
WINDSTORHS OVER 50 l<NOT!:i HAIL
I THUNDER I SHEET I I STORMS I RATNJ'"ALL I I I I
ACID RAINFALL
-----------------------···----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 61 51 25 48
0 0
29 45 36 24 16 63 92 22 31 59
0 0
56 63 52 50 56 91 es 14
0 n 11 15 87
I 66 33
4 0
22 92 29 70 ~?
8 20 2?
0 53 66
50
I: I HILITARYI OTHER I 2% PROl:l I 1X PROl:l I I Ph 4-5 I Ph < 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I 11 II I I I I 11
I I
I:
0 0 0
45 49
0 0 0 0
114 22
9 131
12 0 0
04 0 0
139 209
0 32
319 265 1~1
s 0 0
21 0
234 2 0
124 7 0 0
269 0 0
61 3 0
81 0
12 I 246
2755
0 17
0 19
0 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 1 0 0 2 0
106
7 132
18 112
93 0 0 9 7
102 3 5 0 2 2 9 0 0 0
39 14 19 25
183 9
319 4 0
168 0 2
24 0
1'I 106
3 0 4
25 0
26 157
1 0
14 0
18 177
1851
14 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 10 81
194 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
18 102
0 47
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 0 0 0
35 142
0 0 0 0 0
12 0
819
53 29
103 0
127 0 0
70 102
0 21 12 50 64 33 58
0 0 0
52 109
79 30 25
185 0 5 0
77 17 32 95
2 46
0 7 0
26 177
11 424
0 2
30 0 0
41 61
:?255
0 0 0 0
109 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
198 0 0 0
79 0 0 0 0
121 0 0 0 0
48 0
197 30
0 0 0 0 0
74
1008
67 142 107
0 187
0 0
70 102
0 ~1 22
131 258
33 58
0 0 0 0
29 97
132 l
265 0 0 0
269 0
32 0 0
172 0 0 0
26 151
46 378
47 0
15 0 0
17 141
3046
67 0
107 18
0 0 0
70 102
0 10
Q
0 0
33 58 17
0 0 0 0
97 48
0 0 0 5 0 0 3
32 0 0
35 4 6 0
26 0
46 111
0 2
30 29
0 0 0
965
12 22 12
1 0 0 0 0
19 26 10 15 25 74
7 0
33 0 0
25 24
0 5 6
JO 1 0 0 0
14 2
14 0
51 0 6 0 5 0 7 1 0 1 7 0 0
J.7 19
491
0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
11
SUMMARY MAP 2
This map was assembled by combining Summary Map l with Wetlands.
69
.. E ·: " " .. .
70
w Uw ~ ':! (/) cc
'
~ . < u
"'
l
:
E _:
---------------------------~---------------·----------GRI[l SOLIARE PROFILE or SUHHARY HAP 2
---------------------·---·-·-------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------------------------------'ELIGtlllE AR!::AS' II DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
-----·--·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------rERCENT II OVER I FEl.ll:RAL I WINl.lSTORHS I I TllUNDER I SHEET I ACID
STATES I I.AND I OF TOTAi.i 140 l.lEGREE I LAND I . OVER 50 t<NOlS I HAIL I STORHS I RAINFAl.LI RAINFALL LAND II LATITUDE! OWNERSHIP I I I ' I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I HJl.ITARYI OTHER I 2% f'ROl.I I 1% PR08 I I I I Ph 4-5 I Ph < 4 - ----·--·-----------------------------------·- ---·------------------------------------------------·---------
Alaba•a I 60 I 30 I 0 I 0 7 I 14 46 0 I 60 60 . 12 I 0 ' Arjzona I 270 I 61 I 0 I 17 132 I 0 29 0 I 142 0 I 22 I 0 A1+an"as I 106 : 50 I o· : 0 18 I 4 102 0 I 106 f06 I 12 I ,, California I 153 I 25 I 45 I 19 112 I 0 0 0 I 0 18 I 1 Colorado : 108 I 48 : 49 I 0 93 I 0 127 109 I 197 0 ' 0 I 1)
' Cor1n,.ctic•1t I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 DelawarP- I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 l"lorida I 46 I 19 I 0 3 6 I 0 46 0 ' 46 46 ' 0 : 0 o .. or!fia I 82 I 36 I 0 1 7 I 0 82 0 I 82 82 ' 17 I 0 Idaho I 114 ' 36 II t14 1 102 I 0 0 1 I 0 0 I 26 I 0 II lino is I 52 I 24 II 22 0 3 I 31 . 21 0 51 10 I 10 I 2 . Indiana ' 22 16 11 9 1 5 I 10 ' 12 0 22 9 I 15 I 2
' Iowa I 131 63 I I 131 0 0 81 I 50 0 131 0 I 25 I 0 Kans a,; 258 82 :t 12 0 2 194 I 64 149 258 0 I 74 I 0 Kent•.Jci-:Y 33 22 : 0 1 I 2 0 I 33 0 33 33 I 7 ' 0 LoOJisiana 30 16 I 0 0 I 7 0 I 30 0 30 30 I 0 I 0
-......J ' Haine 84 59 . 84 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 17 33 I 1 ' Har'1land 0 0 ' 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Ma,;,;ach•1,;P.tts 0 0 I 0 I 0 ' 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0
Hichi~an 139 56 I 139 I 0 ' 38 3 I 52 0 0 0 25 I 0 Hinn,.,;ota 179 54 I 179 I 0 I 13 0 ' 107 0 29 0 24 ' 0 tti o;,; i ,;o; i f'P i 78 42 I 0 I 0 : 15 15 I 63 0 78 78 0 ' 0 HissoOJri 132 50 I 32 I 0 I 25 102 ' 30 0 132 48 5 I 0 Montana 319 56 319 I 0 I 183 0 I 25 I 2 1 0 6 I 0 Nebra,;ka 265 I 91 265 0 I 9 47 185 198 265 0 10 0 NP.Vada 352 I 85 151 19 I 317 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 New lfa•P,;htre 5 I 14 5 0 I 4 0 5 0 I 0 I 5 0 0 New Jer,;P.'1 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 NP.W He>dco 336 I 72 0 20 I 168 0 77 79 I 269 I 0 0 0 NPw Yor~. 21 I 11 21 0 I 0 0 17 0 I 0 I 3 14 0
North Carolina 13 I 6 0 0 I t I 0 13 0 I 13 ' 13 2 0 North Da~.ota 234 : 87 234 0 I 24 I 0 95 0 I 0 I 0 14 0 Ohio 2 I 1 2 0 I 0 I 0 2 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 o~,laho•a 172 I 66 0 0 : 14 I 126 46 121 I 172 I 35 51 0 Ore!fon 124 I 33 124 1 I 106 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 4 0 0 I f'enns'1lvania 7 I 4 7 0 : 3 I 0 7 0 I 0 I 6 . 6 I 0 I Rhode Island 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 : 0 I 0 0 I 0 I SoOJth Carolina ' 17 ' 14 0 0 I 4 I 0 17 I 0 I 17 17 5 I 0 I
' So•Jth Dakota 269 I 92 269 0 I 25 I 0 177 48 I 151 0 0 0 I Tennt!ss,.e 41 I 26 0 0 I 0 ' 30 11 0 I 41 41 7 0 I ' Te:.: as 715 I 69 0 I 0 ' 23 I 142 407 197 I 361 94 1 0 I ' Utah 192 I 59 61 I 18 I 157 I 0 0 30 I 47 0 0 0 I Ver111ont 3 ; 8 3 I 0 I 1 I 0 2 0 I 0 2 1 0 I Vir<linia 30 I 20 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 30 0 I ·~ 30 7 3 I Wa,;hin!fton et I 29 81 I 0 I 14 ' 0 I 0 0 I 0 29 0 2 I ' West. Vi r!fini a 0 I 0 I 0 ' 0 : 0 I 0 ' 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I ' ' Wisconsin 117 I 52 : : 117 I 2 ' 18 I 12 I 40 0 I 17 0 I 36 0 I . w .. o•in<I 246 I 66 II 246 : 0 I 177 I 0 I 61 74 I 141 0 I 19 0 I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------·--------------------------------------------TOTALS I 5718 I 49 11 2721 I 104 I 1835 I 811 I 2111 I 1008 I 2897 I 916 I 4fl8 I 11
--------------------------· - ---- -----------
SUMMARY MAP 3
This map was assembled by combining Summary Map 2 with South Slopes
of Unacceptable Topography.
72
"' CX) r.: N '" '" ... (l) ... ~
... •· ... :::
00 ... ... ... ·..-< µ,.. ... ...
'" .. .•. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... :::
(")
a.. Cf) <( UJ ... 2 Cii < >-~ a: UJ <( ... (.) ~ UJ
2 a:
~ ::J Cf)
Cf) g < a: UJ " !ii ~ Cf)
3 (.) >< UJ
"-0 (!) z a: "' ... < " u ::; "' E ~
73
- --- -- -· - - - - ---- - --------------- --- ----GRID SntJARE PROFILE or SUHHARY HAP 3
---------------------------------------------------·-------·-·---·------·--------------------------'ELIGIPLF AREAS' : I DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
------ -- ---··----·------·----·------·--------------- --------·-----------------·-------------------------PERCENT 11 OVER I FE[IERAL I WINDSTORMS I I TllUNJlER I SHEET I ACill
STl'\JfS . LAND : OF TOTAL I 140 DEGREE: LAND ' OVER 50 kNOTS I HAIL I STORHS I RAINFALi.. i RAINFALL '
LAND I I LATITUJlE I OWNFRSHIP - -----·- - - - ------ --- -----·-·- ----------·-·------·--· - - - ------------ ----
11 I HILITARYI Olllf:R ' 2X PROP J 1% PROP I I I I Ph 4·-5 I f'h < 4 -- ----- ---- - ---·---- ---·---- -------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------·-----------
Al aba"1a 60 I 30 : I 0 I 0 I 7 I t4 I 46 I 0 I 60 I 60 I 12 I 0 l\ri7ona 266 I 60 11 () I 17 I 130 I 0 I 28 I 0 I 138 I 0 I 72 . 0 . A rJ· ans as 91 I 43 II 0 I 0 I 7 I 4 I 87 I 0 I 91 I 91 I 3 I 0 Laliforrda 1~2 I 24 " 45 . 19 I 111 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 18 I 1 I 1 . Colorado tflS I 48 11 49 I 0 I 90 I 0 I 127 I 106 I 184 I 0 I 0 I 0 Cor1r1Pcticut 0 I 0 .. '. 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 : 0 : 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 DPlawarr 0 : 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Florid"' 46 I 19 I I 0 . 3 I 6 I 0 I 46 I 0 I 46 I 46 I 0 I 0 Geor!'lia 8:> I 36 .. .. 0 1 I 7 I 0 I 82 I 0 I 82 I 82 I 17 I 0 Idaho 96 . 30 II 96 1 : 84 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 24 I 0 . TJlinoi<; 52 I 24 II 22 0 I 3 31 I 21 . 0 I 51 I 10 I 10 I 2 . lndir.n~ 22 I 16 11 9 1 I 5 10 I 12 I 0 I 22 I 9 I 15 I 2 Iowa 131 I 63 II 131 0 I 0 81 I so : 0 I 131 I 0 I 25 I 0 t\ar1sr.s :>SA I 82 I I 12 0 I 2 194 I 64 : 149 I 258 I 0 . 74 I 0 ' t\ent•Jc"'':I 33 I 22 I 0 1 I 2 0 I 33 I 0 I 33 I 33 I 7 : 0 Louisiana I 30 I 16 : 0 c I 7 0 I 30 I 0 I 30 I 30 I 0 . 0 .
....... : M-"'ine I 84 I SY I 84 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 17 I 33 I 1 .j:::> . Maryl;mrJ I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
' Hao;,.ach•J<;Ptts : 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 . Mkhi!'lan I 139 I 56 I 139 0 . 38 3 I 52 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 7.5 I 0 . Mir1nesota I 179 . 54 I 179 0 . 13 0 I 107 I 0 I 29 I 0 I :?4 I 0 . ' Hiso;issir-Pi . 78 I 42 I 0 0 I 15 15 I 63 I 0 I 78 I 78 I 0 I 0 . Hi'3SCJIJri I 128 I 48 I 32 0 I 23 I 99 I 29 I 0 : 128 I 44 I 5 I 0 Hontana I 304 I 54 I 304 0 I 168 I 0 I 25 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 NPbrac,~ a 265 I 91 I 265 0 I 9 I 47 I 185 I 198 I 265 I 0 I 10 I 0 Nev aria 352 I 85 I 151 19 317 I 0 ' 0 0 I 0 : 0 I l I 0 . New lla10r-shirP 3 : 8 I 3 0 2 I 0 I 3 0 I 0 I 3 I 0 I 0
NPw JersPY 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 ! 0 I 0 I 0
Nt.1w He~-t i ro 331) 71 I 0 20 162 I 0 I 77 79 : 263 I 0 I 0 I 0
New Yor~ 21 11 I 21 0 0 I 0 : 17 0 I 0 I 3 I 14 . 0 . North Carolina 13 6 . 0 0 1 : 0 I 13 0 I 13 I 13 I 2 I 0 '. North na~.ota 234 87 11 234 0 24 I 0 I 95 0 I 0 I 0 I 14 I 0
Ohio 2 1 .. 2 0 0 I 0 I 2 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 .. o~ laholOa 170 65 11 0 0 14 I 126 I 44 121 I 170 I 33 I 50 I 0
Ore!'lon t ts 31 II ltS l 97 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 4 I 0 I 0
F'er111cYlva1da 7 4 I I 7 0 3 I 0 I 7 0 I 0 I 6 I 6 I 0
RhodP ls l arid 0 0 11 0 I 0 0 0 . 0 0 I 0 I 0 : 0 I 0
So•Jth Carol tna 17 14 I I 0 I 0 4 0 17 0 I 17 I 17 I 5 I 0
!:outh IJa~ ola 269 92 . 269 I 0 25 0 177 48 I 151 I 0 I 0 I 0 . TPnr1es~eP 41 26 I 0 I 0 0 30 II 0 I 41 I 41 I J I 0
Te:ra" 710 68 : 0 I 0 23 142 404 197 ! 361 : 94 I l I 0
Utah t8S 57 I 56 I 1R 156 0 0 25 I 42 I 0 I () I 0
1Jer10ont ~~ 8 . 3 I 0 l 0 2 0 I 0 I 2 . 1 I 0 . ' Vir!'linia 30 20 . 0 I 1 0 0 30 0 I 15 I 30 I 7 I 3 . Washin!'lton 90 29 I BO : 0 13 0 0 0 I 0 I :?.B I 0 I 2
West Vir!'linia 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 I 0 . wt .. consin 117 I S2 . 117 I 2 lB 12 40 0 I 17 I 0 I 36 I 0 '. WY010in!i 211 . 65 ~ r 241 I 0 173 0 I 61 74 I 141 I 0 I 19 I 0
' --------·--------·--····· -----··-----------------·------- ·----------- --------·-··------·--·----··-------·----··-·--------------·---------------·--------------rOlALS I 5621 I 4A 11 261o6 I 104 I 1760 I BOB I :>087 I 991:1 . 2857 I 792 I 471 I tt .
-·------ -·- -· -··-·- -- - ·- ---- - --·- -· ------ ---- --·- ------··--------·--------·-------------------·------·------------------· ---- ----- -·- ---·- --·--- ------- -- ---·- ·--
SUMMARY MAP 4
This map was assembled by adding Summary Map 3 with National Forests.
75
O'I :~: N '"
(!) ~ :l 00 ...... ~
""'" (L
(/) <l'. w .... ::? iJi
"" >-z
::; CXl z ... ,.._ w c:: '<' u "' w 0 __J a: a. __J
(l_ ... 5 "-
::r: <l'. L L ::J Cf)
:t ... u
(/) a:
"' "" w w
g
"' " (/) er w "" a:
er ~ w (/)
3: 3 0 )- u (l_ .... )(
a: iii w ... a: "-__J w 0 &l ~ z
~ ::i w g: u w if_ u "" (/) ii ::;
'·,,..
'-I '-I
SIATf.S
'ELIIHPLI: AREAS' II
LMlll PERCENT II OVER I
I or TOTAi_ I I 40 DEORF.C: I I LANll II tATITUDf.l
GRID SOLIARF. rROFILE OF SIJHHARY HAP 4
llf.SION CONSlllERATIONS
FF:llf.RAt tANll
OlolNrRSHIP
WINC•STORHS OVER 50 l<NOTS HAU
II I HILllARYI OTHER I 2% PROB I U PROP I
AlabalOa Ari2.on" Al'~ ansa'S Cali foi·ni" Cnlorado Cor1nectic•Jt. llelawar,. Florid" Geor!'lia Idaho Illinois Irodi an;i Iowa Kansas l(,.nt•Jch,i Lo•Jisiana Hair,,. Han1land Hassach11s .. tts Htr.hl "'"n Him1Psota Hiso;i<!SiN•i Hi <;Sour i Hont.ar.a N"l:>r"s~.a Nevadl'I NPw lfalllF''Shi r" New J,.1-st>Y Nf?w Htrnico NPW York North C"rolina Nort.h l'l"k nt" Ohin
' o~ l "honoa llt·P~on
r'£'rtns4lvania Rhnd!' fglanrl So11th Carolinet Sn1Jth lla~.ota
TE-nnessP.e f ip:~r.tl!t ut,,h VPr111ont Vtr!'lirda lola<>hin<,1ton W<?o;t Vir!'lini" Wi~con-;;tn
WYonoln<l
TOTALS
54 232
BB 137 17B
0 0
""" BO B9 51 18
131 259
33 26 84
0 0
111 16B 66
122 29B 262 325
3 0
321 21 12
:;>34 2
t69 89
4 0
14 :?.67
41 705 172
2 30 77
0 103 23R
!'\3'.'i9
27 52 42 22 46
0 0
19 35 28 24 13 6;J B2 22 14 59
0 0
""" 51 35 46 52 90 78
B 0
69 11
5 87
1 65 :;>4
2 0
12 91 26 68 53
5 20 '}'7
0 45 64
41.
II It 11 It 11 II 11 II II II II 11 11 I I I I I
l I I I I I II II JI II II
I I
I I
0 0 0
31 49
0 0 0 0
B9 22
9 131 12
0 0
84 0 0
111 168
0 32
298 262 145
3 0 0
21 0
234 2 0
89 4 0 0
;;>1,7 0 0
55 2 0
77 0
103 2:lR
25:1R
(I
16 0
19 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ()
0 0
tn 0 1 0 0 :? 0
to:•
2 99
4 96 83
0 0 4 5
77 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 0 0
to 5 4
17 163
6 291
2 0
154 0 0
24 0
13 72
0 0 1
n 0
HI 143
0 0
10 0 4
170
1 :';10
11 ()
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 10 81
194 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
13 95
0 -47
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 0 0 0
.rn 14;>
0 0 0 0 0
12 0
799
4J 23 B4
0 127
0 0
44 BO
0 20
B 50
"" 33 26
0 0 0
43 107 53 27 21
IB4 0 3 0
77 17 12 95
2 43
0 4 0
14 177
11 399
0
:rn 0 0
:w 61
702}
0 0 0 0
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
195 0 0 0
79 0 0 0 0
121 0 0 0 0
48 0
197 21
0 0 0 0 0
71
•1n1
TlllJtl[lf.R I SHEET I I STORHS I RAINFALi. i I I I
ACill RAINrALL
I Ph ~-5 I rh < "
54 109
BB 0
177 0 0
44 90
0 50 19
131 258
33 26
0 0 0 0
29 66
122 0
?62 0 0 0
/54 0
12 0 0
169 0 ()
0 14
t51 41
.l':.6 39
()
15 0 0
17 t:3B
?753'.
54 0
BB t3
0 0 0
"" eo 0 9 5 0 0
33 26 17
0 0 0 0
66 30
0 0 0 3 0 0 3
12 0 0
:~2 4 3 0
14 0
41 n9
0 2
.w '.'6
0 0 (l
7:17
9 16
3 1 0 0 0 0
1 l> 22 10 11 25 74
7 0
:13 0 0
21 24
0 5 1
t () 0 0 0 0
t4 t
I 4 0 ~o
0 4 0
" 0 7 I 0 ()
7 0 0
32 19
'111
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ()
0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
II
SUMMARY MAP 5
This map was assembled by adding Summary Map 4 with Indian Reservations.
78
f~~f:t::f'.::;:;::~:::+:i+~:::::;++:1T;+;:'"M:;:1:-;:h"';'iTi7<~:::::-::r;7:-:::;i:r:::--:-:-:-:::-:;-:;-r,-:-:-;--:-:-";"";T::--:-rj:T,-:"'fr:-'.'"'."".'"".-::-".""f:":-'.'7:7:-:-:-:-:-:-::-:-:::::::-:"!'.1 ... ... ... ...
" .. " .. .. .. " .. .. " : .. .. :! .. .. " .. " .. .. .. .. .. :: ~: .. " " " " K
" " " ~! .. " .. " " " .. " ll ,.t--H'!;;;;;il ,, " .. :: ~ .. " .. . • . . : . ' .
.....
79
.. •••!!~i!~~•!t!=~
U1
0.. (/) <( w ~ 0-Ci5 < >-
::!: GD ~ a: < ,._ w <( a: '!! 0-
~ <!) u 0 ...J M! ~ a: ...J :'.) c.. < 6 "- Cf) J: "-a1 (/) g < < ct w w CJ (/) st w a: a: ~ w (/)
~ 3 ~ > u
0- )(
a: u; w <Ir "-...J w 0 55 ~
~ :J w uw B: ~~ < (/) a: :::;
00 0
"ELIGll'ILE AREAS"
SlATF:S
Alaba•a Ari zor1a Ar~ansa<;
California Colorado Connect. i c•1t. [•el a ... are Florida Georgia Idaho 11 llnois Indiana lo..,a I\ ans as KPr1t.•1c~" to•Jisiana Haine HarYland Hassach•1se t. ls Hi chi <1ar1 Hinr1Psot." Hissi<;siF'F'i Missouri Hont.an" Nebraska Nevada Ne.., lla10Pshi re Ne.., JerseY I· Ne.., Hexico I New Yor~ I North Carolina North Dakot.a Ohio OUaho10a Ore'!lon PennsYlvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Da~ ot.a Terine-;5pe Te:: as Ut.ah Ver•onl Virginia Washin'!llon Wesl Vir!'linia Wi~c-onsin
Wwo10in<1
TOTALS
LAND
54 137 88
136 177
0 0
H 80 79 51 18
131 255
33 26 EM
0 0
109 154 66
122 261 259 310
3 0
279 21 12
213 2
169 86
4 0
14 185
41 705 163
2 30 68
0 96
220
4995
II
PERCENT II OVER I or TOTALll40 DEGREEI
LAND II LATllUDEI
l•RID SOUARE PROFILE OF SUHHARY HAP 5
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
FEDERAL LAND
OWNERSHIP
WINDSTORHS OVER SO KNOTS HAIL
II I HILITARYI OTHER I 2% PROl'I I 1% PROl'I I
27 31 42 22 46
0 0
18 35 25 24 13 63 91 22 14 59
0 0
44 "'7 35 46 46 R9 75
9 0
60 11
5 79
1 65 23
2 0
12 63 26 68 50
5 20 74
0 42 61
4:3
I I I I II I
11 11 Io
'' 11 r:
11
0 0 0
31 49
0 0 0 0
79 22
9 131
12 0 0
94 0 0
109 154
0 32
261 259 136
3 0 0
21 0
213 2 0
96 4 0 0
185 0 0
51 2 0
68 0
96 228
2327
0 16
0 19
0 0 0 3 1 1 0 t 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 1 0 0 2 0
102
2 99
4 96 83
0 0 4 s
77 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 0 0
10 s 4
17 163
6 291
2 0
154 0 0
24 0
13 72
0 0 1
23 0
18 143
0 0
10 0 4
170
1510
11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 1Q 81
191 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
13 95
0 46
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 0 0 0
30 142
0 0 0 0 0
12 0
795
43 22 84
0 127
0 0
44 80
0 20
9 so 64 33 26
0 0 0
43 101 53 27 21
182 0 3 0
77 17 12 86
2 43
0 4 0
14 126
11 399
0 1
30 0 0
38 61
1952
0 0 0 0
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
195 0 0 0
78 0 0 0 0
121 0 0 0 0
28 0
197 19
0 0 0 0 0
70
963
I THUNDER I SHEET I I STORHS I RAINFALL! I I I
ACID RAINFALL
I Ph 4-S I Ph < 4
54 63 88
0 176
0 0
44 80
0 so 18
131 255
33 26
0 0 0 0
29 66
122 0
259 0 0 0
212 0
12 0 0
169 0 0 0
14 105
41 356
31 0
15 0 0
17 138
2604
54 0
88 1J
0 0 0
44 80
0 9 5 0 0
33 26 17
0 0 0 0
66 38
0 0 0 3 0 0 3
14: 0 0
32 4 3 0
14 0
41 89
0 2
30 23
0 0 0
729
9 16
3 1 0 0 0 0
16 22 10 11 25 73
7 0
33 0 0
21 21
0 5 1
10 0 0 0 0
14 1
12 :)
50 0 4 c 4 0 7 1 0 6 7 0 0
29 19
432
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
11
SUMMARY MAP 6
This map was assembled by adding Su11111ary Map 5 with Endangered Species
Ha bi tats
81
a.. UJ <I'. UJ :? 0-UJ
< >-:::;; CXl ~ a: < .... UJ <I'. a: en 0- :? u 0 )!! :? 0 _, a: _,
:::> c.. < ~ "- (/) :i: "-
if ~ g < a: UJ UJ " UJ !i ~ ~ UJ er
a: ~ UJ UJ i ~ 3
>- u 0- x
er (ii UJ l < c: "-_, UJ 0 0:::
UJ z ~ l ::J
UJ R: ~ . u UJ
~ '=1 < .. u
UJ er :::;; "' E •
82
CX> (,,.J
STATES
"ELIGIBLE AREAS" II
LANl.l I PERCENT I I OVER I I OF TOTALll40 l.lEGREEI I LAND I I LAT ITIJDE I
ORill snUARE F'ROFILE OF SIJHHllRY ~IAF' 6
DESIGN CONSIDERllTIONS
FEDERflL LAND
OWNERSHIF'
WINl.lSTORHS OVER 50 KNOTS HAIL
I THUNDER I SHEET I STORHS I RAINFALL I I I I
----------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACIP RAINrllLL
II I HILilARYI OTllER J 2X l'ROB I U l'ROB I I F'h 4--5 r"h < 4
---------------------·-----·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·---·-------------·-----Alal:>a•a Arizona Arkansao; California Colorado Conn•t:tic1.1t l.lelaware Florida Geor!li• Idaho Illinois lrodiana Iowa l\am111s t<ent•Jt:l-,Y Lo•Ji!liana Haine HarYland Hassaehusetts Hit:hi!lan Minnesota HhsissiPPt Hi!Hoori Hant.an• Nel:>raska NPvada New H;;o•P<shire New Jersey New He:dco New Yori<. North Cat'ol imt North [lal<.ot" Ohio O~,laho•a
Ore!lon PennsYlvanis Rhod• hland So•Jth Carolina South I.la!< otA l•nnes!!e• Te><as Utah Vi!!r•ont Vir!linia W••hin!lton Wi!!!lt Vir!!linis Wiseonsin WYo•in!l
TOTALS ·1
54 137
BB 1J5 177
0 0
43 BO 79 51 18
131 254
33 26 84
0 0
109 147 66
122 261 255 310
J 0
278 21 12
213 2
168 86
4 0
14 185
41 703 163
2 JO 68
0 96
228
4977
27 31 42 22 46
0 0
1B 35 25 24 13 63 81 22 14 59
()
0 44 45 35 46 46 87 75
0 0
60 11
5 79
1 64 23
2 0
12 63 26 68 50
5 20 24
0 42 61
43
11 11 11 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 II II II II I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
11
0 0 0
31 49
0 0 0 0
79 22
9 131
12 0 0
B4 0 0
109 147
0 32
261 255 136
J 0 0
21 0
213 2 0
B6 4 0 0
185 0 0
51 2 0
69 0
96 22B
2316
0 16
0 1 '1
0 0 0 2 1 1 ()
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 1 0 0 2 0
100
2 99
4 96 83
0 0 -4 5
77 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 0 0
10 2 4
17 163
6 291
2 0
154 0 0
~4
0 13 72
0 0 1
23 0
18 143
0 0
10 0 4
170
1507
11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 10 81
190 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
13 95
0 46
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 0 0 0 0 0
30 142
0 0 0 0 0
12 0
793
43 22 84
0 127
0 0
43 BO
0 20
8 50 64 33 26
0 0 0
43 101 SJ 27 21
178 0 3 0
77 17 12 86
2 43
0 4 0
14 126
11 397
0 1
30 0 0
38 61
1945 ----------------------··-----·--------------------------------------------------------------·--
0 0 0 0
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
191 0 0 0
7B 0 0 0 0
1?0 0 0 0 0
28 0
197 19
0 0 0 0 0
70
958
54 63 88
0 176
0 0
43 80
0 50 1B
131 254
33 26
0 0 0 0
29 66
t22 0
255 0 0 0
211 0
12 0 0
169 0 0 0
14 105
41 354 JI
0 15
0 0
17 130
2594
54 0
ae ll
0 -<> 0
43 BO
0 9 5 0 ()
33 26 17
0 0 0 0
66 JB
0 0 0 3 0 0 3
12 0 0
32 4 3 0
14 0
41 08
0 2
JO 23
0 0 0
727
9 16
3 1 0 0 0 0
16 22 10 11 25 73
7 0
33 0 0
21 21
0 5 1
10 0 0 0 0
14 1
12 0
50 0 4 0 4 0 7 1 0 0 7 0 0
29 19
432
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 ()
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
t1
SUMMARY MAP 7
This map was assembled by adding Summary Map 6 with Interstate Highways.
84
'" ~· .. .. " " .. .. " " ' " " :: " " " .. " " " " .. .. " " " ·" " .. .. " " .. " .. .. " . "
&I I:~§~~~~~~~ I!:~
" " " .. " "
,... " ., " " " " :: "
Cl. <fl <( w I- :::? Ci5 ..
" ,. ,. .. " " " n " " " " " " " " " ., u " " " " " ,, "
< >-::; CXl ~ a: <
,._ w <( a: 2! I-
" u :::?
0 _, M:' :::? a: _, c.. <
~ :::J
u.. (/) J:
!!! <fl e < < a: w w " <fl ~ w a: a: ~ w <fl :;: 3 0 >- u c.. I- x
" " " ,, . . a: Cii w < a: u.. _, UJ 0 ~~
~ :::> UJ & u UJ a: \,1 < <fl a: ~
E ~
35
co °'
'EL IGJBLE AREAS'
STATES
Alaba111a Arizona Arkar1sas California Colorado Connectic1Jt Delaware Florida GPor!li a Idaho 11 linoi s Indiana Iowa Kansa!I Kent1Jc~ o,i Lo•Ji!liana Hair1e Haro,ilanti Hassach•tsetts Hichi!lan Hinnesota Hissis!liPPi Hi!lso1Jri Hontana Nel'>raska NP•1ada New He11P,.hi rp New Jerseo,i New He><ico New Yor~.
North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklaho•• Ore!lon F'ennso,ilvania Rhotie Island So•Jth Carolina South Da~.ota Tenne!lsee Te>: as Utah Ver11ont Vir!linia Washin!lton We!lt Vir!linia Wiscon,.in Wo,io11in~
TOTALS
LAND
'17 102
91 106 156
0 0
29 71 66 .tlO 12
115 230
26 21 7.tl
0 0
100 13.tl 56
105 239 236 299
3 0
236 20 10
19.tl 1
151 R3
3 0
12 16.tl
33 61.tl 139
2 2.tl 62
0 97
199
'131.0
11
PERCENT II OVER I OF TOTAi.i I .tlO DEGREE I
LAND 11 LATITIJDEI
GRID SOUARE PROFILE OF SUHHARY HAP 7
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
FEDERAL LAND
OWNERSHIP
WINDSTORHS OVER 50 KNOTS HAIL
11 I HILITARYI OTHER I 2% F'ROB I 1% F'ROB I
23 23 39 17 .tlO
0 0
12 31 21 19
9 55 73 17 11 52
0 0
.tlO
.. 1 30 39 '12 91 1.9
9 0
51 10 .. 72
0 59 22
1 0
10 56 21 59 '13
5 16 22
0 38 flt
37
11 11 I I I I I I I I I I I
11 11 11 I: 11
" 11 11
" II II II II II I I
" I I
" , , I
11
0 0 0
31 .. 1
0 0 0 0
66 19
7 115
12 0 0
7'1 0 0
100 13.tl
0 27
239 236 119
3 0 0
20 0
19.tl 1 0
83 3 0 0
16.tl 0 0
.tl2 2 0
62 0
87 189
2067
0 11
0 17
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 l 0 0 1 0
89
2 75
4 75 80
0 0 2 3
6.tl 1 1 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 8 2 ..
15 151
6 269
2 0
127 0 0
22 0
11 72
0 0 l
22 0
19 122
0 0 9 0 ..
1"9
1326
11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 7
69 171
0 0 0 0 0 3 0
13 82
0 '12
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 0 0 0 0 0
24 132
0 0 0 0 0
11 0
702
36 18 77
0 110
0 0
29 71
0 15
5 46 59 26 21
0 0 0
39 92 .tl3 23 19
163 0 3 0
7.tl 17 10 73
1 .tl3
0 3 0
12 108
9 332
0 1
::>4 0 0
30 '19
1679
0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
175 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0
107 0 0 0 0
25 0
192 14
0 0 0 0 0
53
849
I THUNDER I SHEET I I STORHS I RAINFALLI
I I
ACID RAINFALL.
I F'h 4-5 I Ph < 4
47 53 81
0 155
0 0
29 71
0 'J9 12
115 230
26 21
0 0 0 0
24 56
105 0
236 0 0 0
173 0
10 0 0
151 0 0 0
12 86 33
313 24
0 11
0 0
15 106
2234
47 0
81 13
0 0 0
29 71
0 5 2 0 0
26 21 17
0 0 0 0
56 31
0 0 0 3 0 0 3
10 0 0
28 4 2 0
12 0
33 73
0 2
24 23
0 0 0
616
8 13
3 0 0 0 0 0
13 18
6 8
20 65
6 0
29 0 0
21 17
0 5 1
10 0 0 0 0
13 1
11 0
43 0 3 0 3 0 6 l 0 0 6 0 0
29 15
374
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
9
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
SUMMARY MAP 8
This map was assembled by adding Summary Map 7 with Land In Cultivation.
87
~,
~~
~~
- -. ~ •• , • - • ~ o- -. ~,,.-: • ~ ~~-::. ::::::-:-:!!:. ~ ~ • ~ "'::"' ~~:. '! !~; ~~ :-; -: : ':!-;: :,:-:~:.;. ~:; ::~i;. :-:; : :;: :;::~::-~:.!:~:~~a;;:: :1;::~ .,; :::1~::~2 9~ ~~~~Q;~: ;:;;!: ~= g ~;~;;;~: ;~ ~;;;;;;;.~;; ! -;; ; !?? ~~~~;;;;;~; ;;;~. :;;;;~ ;;~~ ::~ ;~; ~ ~~ ~
.. ,.
.. k
SPACE SOLAR POWER RESEARCH PROGRAM RICE UNIVERSITY FALL 1978
MAPPING OF EXCLUSION AREAS FOR RECTENNA SITES
SCA.LE
GRIO
ml j@ j;; '!--.C:1 1i.ir---·~e; ..xii ............ ~
SUMMARY MAP 8
Figure 33
-------·----···--------··----····---- ---------------------·---------------------------------·---------------·---------------------------·----------ORlfl SOlJllRF: F'ROFJLE or SIJHHllRY HllF' B
-------·--------------··-----------·-------·-·-·---------·--------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------"F:LIGlllLE AREA!>' : I CIESIGN CONSIClERA°I IONS
------·---·-------------------------------------------------·------·------------------------------···---F'ERCENT II OVER I FEDERAL I WINflSTORHS I I TllUNCIER I SllF:ET I ACJ[l
STArE:S I LAND I or TOTAL! I 40 llEClREE I LANO I OVER 50 t;NOTS I HAIL I STORH!'l I RAINFALL! RAINFALL LAND II LATITUDF:I OWNF.RSHlf> I : I I I
--·-------· ---·----------------------------------------·-----------------·--·------·----------------------------------------------·------f ~ 'I HILHllRYI OTllEH I 2% F'ROll I tr. F'ROll I I I I rh 4· 5 I f'h < 4
----------- ------------·---·-------------- ·-- ------ -·--------·-···---·--· ··-·- ·-- ------·-.. ··-·-····-··- ··-·--.. -----Alal:iama I 47 I 23 II 0 I 0 I 2 I 11 I 36 0 I 47 I 47 I a I 0 Arizona I 101 I 23 11 0 I 11 I 74 I 0 I 10 0 I 53 I 0 I 13 I 0 Arkansas : 67 I 32 11 0 . 0 I 4 I 0 : 67 0 I 67 I 67 I 3 I 0 California I 100 I 16 I I 30 17 I 74 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 12 I 0 I 0 Colorado I 90 I 25 11 20 0 I 69 I 0 59 48 I 97 I 0 I 0 I 0 Conr1.,cticut : 0 I 0 11 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 l 0 I 0 I 0
I
flelawarP I 0 : 0 11 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Florida I 29 I 12 ll 0 1 I 2 I 0 29 0 I 29 I 29 I 0 I 0 Geo1·<1ia I 71 I 31 I 0 1 I 3 I 0 71 0 I 71 I 71 : 13 I 0 . ld.,ho I 63 I 20 I 63 1 I 61 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 16 I 0 11 lino is I 8 I 3 I 1 0 I 1 I 4 4 0 I a I 5 I 0 I 0
lndi ana : 5 I 3 I 1 1 I 1 I 2 3 0 I 5 I 2 I 3 I 1 Iowa I 8 I 3 I 8 I 0 I 0 I 8 0 0 I a I 0 : 0 I 0 Kansas 101 I 32 I 5 I 0 I 0 I 78 23 45 I tot I 0 I 38 I 0 Kt=tnt•.JCkY 25 I 16 I 0 I () I 1 I 0 25 0 I 25 I 25 I 6 I 0 Louisiana 21 I 11 I 0 : 0 I 3 I 0 n 0 I 21 I 21 I 0 I 0
00 f Haine 74 I 52 I 74 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 17 I 29 I 1 \.0
Maryland 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 : 0
HassachusPtts 0 : 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Hichi!!an 92 I 37 I 92 I 0 I 8 3 30 0 0 I 0 I 21 I 0 Hinnesota 75 I 23 I 75 I 0 I 2 0 37 I 0 t I 0 I 14 I 0 Hississi1>r-i 56 I 30 I 0 I 0 I 4 13 43 I 0 56 I 56 I 0 I 0 Hi'l!louri 87 I 33 I 18 I 0 I 15 64 23 I 0 97 I 30 I 5 I 0 Hont.ana I 151 I 27 I 151 I 0 I 122 0 14 I 0 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 Nebr as~. a I 158 I 54 I 158 I 0 I 6 1 126 I 133 158 I 0 I 0 I 0 Nevada I 204 : 68 I 114 I 19 I 265 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 : 0 I 0 New ffa"'rshire I 3 I 8 I 3 I 0 2 0 3 I 0 0 I 3 I 0 I 0 I
New ,IPrseY I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 New H<'Hiro I 224 I 4fl I 0 19 127 0 64 I 53 162 I 0 I 0 I 0 . N<'w Yor~ I 20 I 10 : 20 0 0 I 0 17 I 0 0 I 3 I 13 I 0 North Carolina I 10 : 4 I 0 0 0 I 0 10 I 0 10 I 10 I 1 I 0 North flakot.a I 45 I 17 11 45 0 17 I 0 13 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Ohio I 1 I 0 II 1 0 0 I 0 t I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Oklahoma I 52 I 20 II 0 0 7 I 29 23 I 14 ~2 I 27 I t 1 I 0 Ore.ion I 69 I 19 11 69 0 64 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 4 I 0 I 0 F'PnnsYlvania I 3 I 1 I I 3 0 . 0 I 0 3 I 0 0 I 2 I 3 0
Rhode Island : 0 : 0 11 0 () I 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 Sout,h Caro 1 i na I 12 I 10 II 0 0 : 1 I 0 I 12 I 0 12 I 12 I 3 0 South [lakota I 97 33 I 97 0 I 22 I 0 I 42 I 24 49 I 0 I 0 0 Tennes~ee : 33 21 0 0 I 0 I 24 I 9 I 0 33 33 I 6 0 Te,ras I 465 45 0 0 . 13 I 94 : ?.,J3 I 91 180 59 I 1 0 . Utah I 136 42 42 17 I 119 I 0 I 0 I 12 I 24 0 I 0 0 VPr111ont, I 2 s 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 : 1 : 0 I 0 2 I 0 0 . Vi nlini a : 2'1 16 0 : 1 : 0 I 0 I '.'4 I 0 I 11 24 I 6 ;3
Washin'!lton : 32 11 32 I 0 ' s I 0 I () I 0 I 0 23 I 0 0 . We!lt Vi r<1in1 a : 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0
Wi!lcon!lin : 82 36 82 I 1 I 4 I 9 I 27 I 0 I 13 0 I 29 I 0 Wyo111in'!I : 172 46 172 I 0 I 140 I 0 : 42 I 44 I 95 0 I 14 I 0
--------·----···-·--------------------·-- .--------·-----····--·-·---·-·--··-··----------···-----------·- ···-----···-·---·-----·-----------------·-----·---·------------TOTALS I 3203 I 27 11 1379 : 99 I 1237 I 330 : 1152 I 464 : 1474 I 504 : 2~6 I s .
···-· ·--·-·---
SUMMARY MAP 9
This map was assembled by adding Summary Map 8 with Land Suitable For
Cultivation (both variables).
90
--:t '""'
... Q)
'" ,... .. ~ ... co ,,
"H .. i:... .. ... ... .. ...
" ... "· ,.. "· .-. " ... .. ... .. ,, ~!: ... ... '"' ... '" , .. ... '" " '" '" !~:
H:
0)
a.. "' ~ w ,_ :E c;; < >-
:::; '° ~ a: <"" w ~ c:: 2? ti :E (!)
~ 0 ...J :E c:: ...J Q. <
~ :::> ... (/) l:
~ "' Q < a:
w w " "' ~ w c:: c:: ~ w "' ~ 3 it ~ u
>< c:: iii w < c:: ... ...J w 0 g 2: ~ ~ w
~~ R: <
"'c:: :::; E '"
91
----·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ARID SOUARE PROFILE or SUMMARY HAP 9
----------------·----------------------------------------------------------------------'ELIGilllE ARFAS' 11 PESJGN CONSIPF.RATTONS
---------------------··--·------·----·---··------·---------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I rERCENT .. OVER I FEC•ERAL I WINDSTORMS I I TllUNnER : SllEEl I ACID ..
STATFS : LAND I or TOTALll40 DEGREE! LAND I OVER 50 KNOTS I llAIL I STORMS I RAINFALL. I RAINFALL LAND : I LATI HIDE I OWHERSllJr I I I I I
-------- - --- ----·-----·--·------------------------·----------------------------------------------·-·---·---------------------------·--------I I HILITARYI OTllER I 2% PROl.I I 1% PROB I I I I Ph 4--5 I Ph < 4
------ --- - -- ---- -- - -··-·- -··- ----· -·------· -------------------------------·---------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------Al abanoa 4 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 4 0 I 0 I 4 4 1 0 Ari7ona 101 23 : 0 I l1 I 74 0 19 I 0 I 53 0 13 0 Ar" ani;~c; 17 8 I 0 I 0 I 2 0 17 I 0 I 17 17 3 0 California 100 16 I 30 I 17 I 74 0 0 I 0 I 0 12 0 0 Colorado 97 25 I 20 I 0 I 69 0 57 : 49 96 0 0 0 ConnPc-tir.ut 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0
Del aw"r" 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 Geor!l;a 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 63 20 : 63 I 1 I 61 0 0 I 0 0 0 16 0
Illinois 0 . 0 : 0 I 0 I '
0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0
Indiana 2 I 1 : 0 1 I 1 1 1 I 0 2 t 2 0 lnwa 0 I 0 I I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 Karri;ai; 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0
t<enl ""~" 25 16 0 0 I 1 I 0 25 I 0 25 25 I 6 0 Lo•Jio;t,.na I 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 I 0 1 1 I 0 I 0 Haine I 74 52 74 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 17 I 29 I 1 Har.,.];>nd . 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0
' ~ ' H<Ji;i;achue:.ptf.i; : 0 0 0 I 0 0 I I I N ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hichi!laro I 13 5 13 0 I 0 3 4 0 0 I 0 : 5 I 0 Hinr1P'5ola I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 : 0 Hiso;issiM't I 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
Hi sso•Jri I 35 13 0 0 9 13 22 0 35 23 0 I 0
Montana I t 15 20 115 0 97 0 14 0 0 0 1 I 0
Nebr"s~" I 107 ~p 107 0 6 0 76 93 107 0 0 I 0
Nevada I 294 69 I 114 19 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0
New Ha•Pshire I 3 9 .. 3 0 2 0 I 3 0 0 3 0 I 0 ''
Hew Jerse'J I 0 0 II 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0
New He:dco . 185 40 II 0 I 19 119 I 0 I 26 35 143 0 0 I 0 . New York I 16 9 II 16 I 0 0 I 0 I 13 0 0 2 12 I 0
Hor t.h C ~ ro l i na I 3 1 : I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 3 0 3 3 0 I 0
North Dakot" I 9 3 II 9 I 0 I 9 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I
Ohio I 0 0 11 0 I 0 : 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 I
Oklahn•a I 16 6 I 0 0 I 3 I 5 I 11 . 0 16 14 3 0 I . Ore!lon I 69 19 I 69 0 I 64 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 4 0 0 I
Penns.,.lvania : 3 1 I 3 0 I 0 I 0 I 3 . 0 0 2 3 0 I . Rhode l!!land I 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 I
So•ith Caroline 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 1
South [lakota 52 1B I 52 0 I 14 I 0 9 I 24 31 0 I 0 0 I
Tenr.essP.e 26 16 I 0 0 I 0 I 17 9 I 0 26 26 I 6 0 I
TP.XP.15 260 25 I 0 0 I 2 I 4 109 I 0 2 1 I 0 0 I
Utah n6 42 I 42 17 I 119 I 0 0 I 12 24 0 I 0 0 I
V•r•ont ;;' 5 II 2 0 I 0 I 0 1 I 0 0 I 2 I 0 0 I
Vir!linia 0 0 II 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I
Wa'lhin!lton 32 11 rt ;12 0 I 5 I 0 0 : 0 0 : 23 I 0 0 I
W•o;t Vir!linia 0 0 : : 0 0 I 0 . 0 0 : 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I '
Wisconsin 3 I 1 II 3 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I
w .. o .. in!I 172 I 46 11 172 0 I 140 I 0 42 I 44 I 95 : 0 I 14 I 0 I
----------------------·------·---------------------------------·-----------·----------------·------------------------------------TOTALS I 2025 I 17 " 939 I 95 I 1123 I 47 I 4/.3 . 246 I 690 I 190 I 114 .
SUMMARY MAP 10
This map was assembled by adding Su1T1J1ary Map 7 with Flyways of
Migratory Waterfowl.
93
0
a. (/) <( UJ .. ,_
:? .. ii) " .. < >-..
~ !: "' a: ,._ UJ <( ~
,_ u :? _, ~ :? _,
< 5 :::J lL (/) lL
(/) g < a: UJ " ~
~ (/)
3 u x UJ
... 0
~ UJ a: u < a: ~ ; e
94
-------·-----------------------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------·-GRiil SlllJAl~E l"ROF'JLE: or SUHHARY HAI" 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------·---------------·--------------------------"EUOil.ll £ ARE:AS" II DE:SION CON~IllERATIONS
--------------------------·-------------------·------------------------------------------------PERCENT II OVER I rE:DERl\L 1 WIN!lSTORHS I I TlllJNllER I SllF.El I ACID
STATES ' LAND I or TOTAU 140 DEGREE I LAND I OVER 50 fc:NOlS I HAIL I STORHS I RAINF"ALLI RA tiff ALL I
LAND II LATITUDEI OWNERSIHI" I I I I I ----------------·---------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------·------------------------·---------
II I HILITARYI OTllER I 2% F'ROll I 1X F·ROF I I I I f'h 4-5 I Ph <. 4
----------------------·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------·---------------------------·-·-·------------·-----Ale1'.111111a 44 I 22 II 0 I 0 I 2 I 8 I 36 I 0 I H I H I a I ()
Arizona 77 I 17 I 0 I 8 I 54 0 I 14 0 I 40 I 0 I t! I 0 Arkensas 53 I 25 I 0 I 0 I 4 0 I 53 0 I 53 I 53 I 3 I 0 I
Cali forni" :;>5 I " I 1 I 1 I 22 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Colorado 79 I 20 I 8 I 0 I 63 0 I -43 37 I 78 I .0 I -0 I 0 Connecticu·t, 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Delawar• 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Florida 2-4 I 10 0 I 1 l 2 0 I 24 0 24 I 24 I 0 I 0 Oeor!lia 71 I 31 0 I 1 I 3 0 J 71 0 71 I 71 I 13 I 0 Ideho JO I 9 30 I 0 I 29 0 0 0 0 0 I 9 I 0 Illinois 17 1 7 J I 0 I 0 5 12 0 16 0 I 3 I 2 Indiana 8 I 5 s 1 I 0 5 J 0 8 0 I 5 I 1 Iowa I -48 I 23 I -48 0 I 0 20 28 0 -48 0 I 13 I 0 fc:ansa!I 103 I 33 11 0 I 0 101 2 13 103 0 I 65 I 0 Kent•Jc:kY 19 I 12 0 0 I 0 0 19 0 19 19 I 4 I 0 Louisiana 12 I 6 0 0 I 3 0 12 0 12 12 I 0 I 0
l..O I Hain• 62 I -44 62 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 s I 19 I 1 U"I
HarYland 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 Hassach•Jsef. ts 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 Hichi!l11n 45 I 19 45 0 I 4 0 22 I 0 () 0 I 13 I 0 Hinnesota 31 I 9 31 0 I 0 0 31 0 16 0 I 0 I 0 Hissi11SiPPi 32 I 17 0 0 I 3 9 23 0 32 32 0 I 0
'Hissouri 74 I 29 16 0 I 15 51 23 0 7-4 26 s I 0 Hontana 19 I 3 19 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Nel'.lra!lkB 126 I -43 126 I 0 I 1 39 95 71 126 0 10 I 0 Nevada 194 I -47 78 B I 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 New Ha111Pshir1P 3 I 9 3 (I I 2 0 J 0 0 3 0 I 0 N•w JprstrY 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 New Henico 1BB I 40 0 10 I 1.12 0 63 37 130 0 0 I 0
New York 15 I 7 15 0 I 0 0 12 0 0 1 10 0 North Carolina 5 I 2 0 0 I 0 0 5 0 5 s 0 0 North D11kot• 97 I 36 97 0 I 9 0 30 0 0 0 6 0 Ohio 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oklaho111a 65 I 25 I 0 0 7 37 29 21 65 2B 11 0 Orl'!!lon I 16 I 4 I 16 0 15 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 Pl'!nns1o1lvania 3 I I I 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 I 2 3 0 Rhodl'! I wl and 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 () 0 So•Jth Carolina 11 I 9 I '.) 0 1 0 11 0 11 I 1t 2 0 South Dal< ota BO I 27 I BO 0 4 0 78 0 -43 I 0 0 0 Tennl'!•••P. 22 I 1-4 I 0 0 0 18 I 4 0 22 I 22 3 0 Te><•s ?BO I 27 II 0 I 0 16 9 1BO 53 97 I 39 0 0 Utah 59 I 1B 11 "' I B 51 0 0 s IS I 0 I 0 I 0 V1rr11ont 2 I 5 11 2 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 I 2 I 0 I 0 Vi r!finh 21 I 14 11 0 I 1 0 0 21 0 I 11 I 21 I 6 I 0 W•shin!lton 31 : 11 11 31 I 0 5 0 0 0 I 0 I 11 I 0 I 2 Wewt Vir!lini e 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 r 0 I 0 Wiwconsin 63 I 29 11 63 : 1 I 4 5 20 0 I B I 0 I 24 I 0 Wvo111in!t 90 I 24 1 I 90 : 0 I B6 0 0 11 I 38 I 0 I 0 I 0
-------------------------·----------·---------------·--------·----------------------· --·------- ---------------··---------·-·------------- --------TOTALS I 2243 I 19 11 B96 I 40 I 704 : 307 I 960 2-4B I 1209 I 431 I 2'17 I 6
-----------------·--------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY MAP 11
This map was assembled by adding Summary Map 7 with Seismic Hazards
(both variables).
96
... ,, " " " " " .. .. ,, ::.....;....r-+-~ .. " E =~ " " .. .. " " " " .. .. " .. .. " "
"'
"
~
.,
" " " "'
ii
mm .....
~~
"""""" ~" ...... xx ~
"';~ic
i~t.~ ;;~~ ~~ ~~~i(l(~ "" "JC~,;j_,.~"""-.i:.r-io;-oc:'\.., ,.._ ..... ·"'I
Y.Y:JO: ..... ~~~ ~.: .::~~!~ITnIT~'! ~~~~ !!~::~
97
~1=~e222~e2~;~=~
--(/) a.. w <( ...
~ (/)
< >-z ::? "' z c: < ,._ w <( CI: "'
... (J u ~ w 0 -' CI:
~ CI: -' 0.. < ~ '.:) u.. :i: u.. Cf)
~ (/) Q < < a: w w " (/) ~ ' l w CI:
CI: ~ ~ w (/)
' 5: 3 0 >- u ~ 0.. ... x CI: (i'j w
! <CI: u.. -' w 0 0 ::: (/) z (J l ::> ~ w () w R: ~ . ct '=2 < <
u (/)CI: ::? "' : e
~ C:>
'ELI G 11.ll.E AREAS'
STATES
Alaba•a Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Geor'!ia Idaho 111 inois lndhna Iowa Kansas Kentucl-"' Louisiana Heine H"r!Jland Hassach•Jsetts Hichi!lan Hinnesota Htssissi,.Pi Hissourt Hontana Nebresl<.a tlevada New llaia,.shtre New Jerse!J Nf!w Heldco Nf!w York North Carolin• North D•l<.ol• Ohio Okhhoia• Ore!lon P1mnsvlv•ni• Rhode Island South Carolina So•Jth D•l<.ot11 Tenn••••• T1n:as Uhh Ver•ont Vir•tni• W•shtn!lton W•st 'Ji r!lini• Wisconsin .I Wvoiatn!I I
TOTALS
I AND
"IJ 0
61 0
156 0 0
29 46
0 27
7 11S 190
16 21 35
0 0
100 134
46 99
193 219
0 0 0
166 0 8
194 1
143 22
3 0 0
164 21
601 36
0 7 0 0
97 187
3166
II
PERCENT II OVER I or TOTALll40 DEGREEI
LAND II LATITUDE!
GRID SOUllRE PROFILE or SUHHARY HAP 11
DESIGN CONSlllERATIONS
FEDEIUIL LAND
OWNERSHIP
WINDSTORHS OVER SO KNOTS HAIL
I THUNDER I SHEET I I STORHS I RAINFllLLI I I I
ACID RAINFALL
-----------------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------~------·----
21 0
29 0
40 0 0
12 20
0 13 s
55 57 10 11 25
0 0
40 41 25 37 34 75
0 0 0
36 0 3
72 0
SS 5 1 0 0
S6 13 58 11
0 4 0 0
38 so
27
11
11
0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0
18 7
115 6 0 0
35 0 0
100 134
0 27
193 218
0 0 0 0 0 0
194 1 0
22 3 0 0
164 0 0 2 ()
0 0 0
87 187
1SS4
I HILJTARYI OTHER I 2% PRO~ I 1% PROB I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1"'
2 0 4 0
80 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 8 2 3
15 137
6 0 0 0
66 0 0
22 0
11 20
0 0 0
22 0
19 36
0 0 0 0 4
146
610
to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 5
69 121
0 0 0 0 0 3 0
10 77
0 24
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 0
13 132
0 0 0 0 0
11 0
597
33 0
61 0
110 0 0
29 46
0 5 2
46 59 16 21
0 0 0
38 '12 36 22 18
163 0 0 0
74 0 8
73 1
43 0 3 0 0
108 8
332 0 0 7 0 0
30 49
1533
0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
172 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 0 0
25 0
192 4 0 0 0 0 0
52
822
43 0
61 0
155 0 0
29 46
0 J.6
7 115 180
16 21
0 0 0 0
24 46 99
0 218
0 0 0
109 0 8 0 0
143 0 0 0 0
96 21
313 19
0 1 0 0
15 104
190S
43 0
61 0 0 0 0
29 46
0 0 0 0 0
16 21 16
0 0 0 0
46 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
28 2 2 0 0 0
21 73
0 0 7 0 0 0 0
444
I Ph 4-5 I Ph < 4
7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 6 5
20 22
6 0
2~ 0 0
21 17
0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0
43 0 J 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 0
29 15
2SS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~ 0 1 0 0 0 0 ()
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
5
---------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
At this point in time, no firm conclusions are offered by the Rice
University team regarding potential sites. There are several reasons for
not making these conclusions. First, each of the synthesis maps needs to
be considered in more detail to more adequately understand the spatial impacts
of the variables and combinations of variables. Secondly, additional
syntheses need to be performed to see the effects of certain other com
binations of variables. However, Sunmary Maps 7, 8 and 10 appear to be
most meaningful of the maps created under this contract.
It must be said that "eligible" areas do emerge under from the
summary combinations of variables, but the need exists for more information
about these "eligible" areas before specific sites may be suggested. The
conclusion that a rectenna could be located in any of these "eligible"
areas is clearly not warranted. A major concern of the research team is
that these summary maps will be taken out of context and be set forth as
identifying preferred sites without any accompanying information indicat
ing the data collection methodology and limitations.
The approach taken does appear to be well adapted to these types of
large scale, locational problems. The overall framework established in
this study is highly adaptible, and both the scale and the number of
variables considered can be altered.
With respect to the overall availability of 3 million acres of land,
two distinct issues must be identified. First, there is the issue of
whether or not 3 million available acres exist in the proper geographic
region of the United States. Secondly, there is the issue of whether the
United States is willing to dedicate such available land to receiving
antennas. Although 3 million acres of land represents less than 0.2% of
the total land area of the United States, it is important to note that
in 1969, urban land uses were determined to utilize 35 million acres.
In other words, 60 rectenna sites would represent almost 9% of the total
99
land area devoted to urban uses in 1969.
Finally, it should be noted that the entire project was completed in
a very short time frame and that the project team has not had much time to
carefully study the maps and data profiles. Therefore, our conclusions
concerning future work may be more meaningful than our "conclusions"
from the analytical exercise.
There are at least three types of future work that we feel should be
pursued. The first involves refinement and enlargement of the data base
at the United States level. The second involves research into identified
"eligible" areas and the third involves the development of varying resolu
tion data base that utilizes existing Federal government data management
systems and Landsat imagery.
Initially, a number of the maps set forth in Section III need to be
checked and perhaps altered. In particular, national grasslands need to
be added to the national forests map, the topography unacceptable map
needs to be considered in more detail, the windstorms map may be supple
mented by other data, etc. In other words, while this initial effort
collected some very good information in a very short time frame,
additional information can be added to make this system more functional
with respect to the rectenna siting requirements. Additionally, a more
detailed description and analysis of the rectenna design should be
required.
Second, detailed research should be conducted in the "eligible" areas
so that siting recommendations could be made on a state by state or
region by region basis. An initial decision at this stage would be to
determine which 11 eligible 11 areas map should be used. Our recommendation
would be to alter the national maps according to the first future work
suggestion and to then rerun syntheses using this new information. At
this time, Summary Maps 7 and 8 would seem to be prime candidates for
determining 11 eligible 11 areas, but a decision should not be made at this
time concerning which 11 eligible 11 areas map to consider.
100
Third, the approach utilized in the analysis of the "eligible" areas
would be the same as the approach utilized to study the United States.
In other words, these areas would be analyzed in detail with respect to
selected variables of concern and additional information would be
gathered at this second level for certain variables not mapped at the
national level. Of particular importance at this scale of analysis would
be state and local recreat'ional areas, wetlands, major non-interstate
highways, "prime" agricultural lands and population concentrations, to
mention a few. Then, the overlay or sieve analysis procedure would be
performed on these "eligible" areas, thereby excluding certain portions
of these areas from further consideration. In this manner, information
that would be directly relevant to site determinations could be generated.
Inherent in this second level of sieve analysis is the need for more
detailed spatial data. While research will need to be undertaken to obtain
spatial information for certain of these variables, a major option that
should be pursued would be to identify the degree of compatibility between
the Rice University data system and several ongoing data management efforts
at the federal level. In particular, the Department of Energy is currently
establishing the Energy-Environment Atlas which should be coded and ready
to use in the near future. Additionally, the United States Geological
Survey is also establishing high resolution computerized land use data
base, with a substantial portion of the United States already having
been mapped. This Soil Conservation Service is following the U.S.G.S.
mapping effort with interpretative soils data and prime agricultural land
designation. Finally, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands
Inventory is also supposed to be established as a computer data system.
With all of these data systems in existence, an obvious area of future
research would be to determine how these systems could be integrated at
the output level and to determine how a varying resolution spatial data
base could be established. In short, computer-assisted analysis of
existing computerized data should be pursued as a major aspect of future
work.
101
Several other alternatives should be considered in future work.
First, no types of analysis besides overlay or sieve analysis have been
perfoemed on the data presented in this report. At this time, it is
difficult to state which additional types of analysis should be performed,
if any, but the opportunity exists to more fully explore the information
existing at this time. Second, those grid squares that are excluded on
the basis of a single variable could be examined in more detail to
detennine which variable excludes that cell and to determine the limits
of confidence ascribed to that variable. While this is not suggested
throughout the United States, this procedure could be useful in certain
regions with few sites.
A final alternative for future work would be to integrate the legal/
regulatory study with this exclusion mapping effort. There are several
reasons why this combination could be useful. First, the analysis of 11 eligible11 areas will directly raise issues regarding state and local
environmental policies. Second, the work pursued in this siting study
has somewhat of a legal orientation that could be expanded in a future
phase. Therefore, while the combination of the legal/regulatory research
is not essential, it would certainly be compatible and perhaps desirable.
102
APPENDIX A
103
-- -- ---- ----·-· ·- -- --··--·--·-- ·------ --·- -------· - . --------·- --·--·----------·-----------------------------·-----------------------------------------------GRHI SOUARE DATI\ r1wnu: PY STAlF
·--- -· --------·- . -···· - ·---------- -----·- ---·-··-··--· ---·--·····--· -· .
rEDERAL I I HARSH I TOPOGRAPllY
STATFS I I.AND I Ll\Nfl I f'OF'IJLATlON I l!GETlllION I IJNllr:CEl'lllllLE OWNH<SllII' I I I
------ -----------------------------------------·-···----·-·----·-------------------------------··--------------·----------------------------·------·-------IRCREllTIONI INflillN I HILITllRYI OTHER IHFTROAREAl50/SOHILEI llflJLJSTEDI IOF'ENHOIJNT' HILLS I HOllNr ---·--·--·----- ---- ·-·---------·-- ··----- ----------------------· ------- ------·---------------- ---------· --·-··--·- ----·· - - ---·-· --- ·-·-
Alal"tc-•a I 200 I 0 0 : ~ 16 I 67 . 34 12 I 2 9 0 ., . ftri;-ona I 441 I 63 124 I lR 209 I 36 I t 9 I 0 77 0 3 Ar~,,,,.,,,,. . 210 2 0 I 0 47 I 33 I 21 11 I 0 16 19 14 . Califnrnia I 62:? 6'7 ., : 36 317 . 17B I 23 ~v • I 0 105 0 220 . Colorado I 309 11 5 I 3 ?5J I 35 I 0 3 . 0 110 0 t.6 . Conneictic-11t . 22 (I 0 I 0 0 I 17 I 4 1 I 0 1 0 0 . flpl;iwarl' I 9 0 0 I 0 0 I 3 I 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 Flori•fa I 2"10 13 3 . 12 14 I 96 I 23 1 I 77 0 0 0 . GPor!ii" I 226 .., 0 I 7 27 I 42 I 50 12 I 5 0 I 0 11 Id ah" I 316 4 21 I 1 295 I 4 I 6 16 I 0 R6 I 0 I 111 II l i noi" I 215 1 I 0 I 0 6 I 61 I 7"1 14 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 lr1di~n;:1 I 136 0 I 0 I 5 10 I 51 I 55 7 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 IOl.J;t 209 I 0 I 1 I 0 0 I 21 I 33 17 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 t<ansr1c; 314 I 1 I 4 I 0 s I 22 I 18 13 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 KPnt•Jc~ Y 153 I 3 I 0 I ~. 25 I 24 I 63 I 13 I 0 0 I 32 I 10 Loui t; i ~n;:, 185 I 5 I 0 I 0 19 I 43 I 36 I 6 I 49 0 I 0 . 0 . H"tnp 142 I 2 I 0 I 0 1 I 4 I 1:'1 I 4 I 0 31 I 0 0 Har·,/}and 50 I 0 I 0 . 1 0 I 19 I 27 I 2 I 5 5 I 0 0 . ...... : '1~i;sar.h•Jt;Ptts 40 I 3 . 0 0 0 I 17 I 19 I 5 I 0 11 I 0
0 . 0
+::. I Hirhi<lan 250 I 3 I 2 0 ..,.. I 60 35 I 9 0 0 0 0 Hinnesot;, 330 I 2 I 33 0 34 I 72 23 I 16 0 9 0 0 Hi««issir-Pi 196 I 2 I 0 0 27 I 20 41 I 19 4 0 0 0 Hi c;t;o1Jr t I 266 1 I 0 0 53 I 34 28 I 21 0 0 "17 0 Hont>1na . 568 25 I 64 0 361 . 12 4 I 7 0 12"1 0 114 . NPl:tra!l~a I 292 ., I 5 0 9 10 9 I 3 0 0 0 s> Nf>vada I 416 39 I 16 19 343 12 2 1 0 I 16 0 0 NPw 11,,,.,F o;hi r" I 36 0 I 0 0 I 10 2 16 1 0 I 23 0 3
NPw -'"r""" I 3:3 1 I 0 1 I 0 23 9 2 9 I 0 0 0 NPW H1.,dco I '167 9 I 72 I 24 . 244 21 4 17 0 I 52 I 0 "10 . N"" York I 199 0 I 0 I t I 2 77 65 7 4 I 28 I 0 I 19
North Carolina I 209 9 l 1 I 4 I 28 42 106 4 16 I 12 I 0 I 24
North [la~.ot.a I 268 11 I ?1 I 0 I 24 15 0 e 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
Ohio I 1,t,1 (J I 0 I 0 I 19 76 74 4 I 0 I 0 I 48 I 0
Okli!thoioa I 262 4 I 11 I 0 I 26 55 i2 7 0 I e I 5 I 0
OrP!!lon I 375 20 I 8 I 1 I 305 39 5 12 0 I 161 I 0 I 73
F"enns"l var1i a I 169 0 I 0 I 0 I 7 73 ·10 0 0 I 61 I 15 I 8
RhodP Isl,.nd I 6 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 3 3 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
Sot.Jth Carolina I 120 9 I 0 I 2 I 11 34 44 6 6 I 0 I 0 . 4 . Sot.Jth flakntl!! : 292 5 I fP : 0 I 35 4 0 6 0 0 . 0 I 11 ' TennP1J'5~e I 158 3 I 0 I 3 I 11 44 40 8 0 7 I 0 I :?0
Te:< as I 103? I 10 I 0 I 1 I 38 215 14 29 40 0 I 22 . 2 . lltah I 323 I JS I 26 I 18 I ?40 18 3 5 0 70 I 0 I 23
VPrioont I 36 I 0 : 0 I 0 I 9 0 13 1 0 26 I 0 I 0
Vlr,.inh I tSJ I 2 I 0 I ., I 33 40 56 2 3 44 I 0 I 17
Wa!lhin!!lt.on I 280 I 29 I 28 I 5 I 98 44 10 13 0 "19 : 0 I 104
WP!lt Vi r!!lini" . 98 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 21 1 :;.> I 36 I 5 0 30 I 36 I 21 . Wis10onsin I 227 I ., I 11 I 2 I 20 42 I 39 I 16 0 0 I 0 . 0 ' w.,,o .. in<I I 373 I 20 I 1 ... . 0 I 262 0 . 0 I 9 0 31 I 0 I 83 . .
---------------------------·--·-- ·-------·-------··-------·------·--- ---------------·-·-- -····-·-------------------------------------·--------------·---TOTALS I 11699 I 424 : :'1~9 I 17~ I 3606 I 1871 . : t276 I 419 : 219 I 1201 I 223 I 1012
-·-··--·------··--··----------·-------------·--------·------------··-------------------··-··----··-·----·----·-----·---------GRHI !':OUARE MTA PROrILE IIY STATE
···-·- ···-------···--- -· ·--·- ··-----·- .. ·----·----·----·- .. - ··---··- ····-·-·-- -----·----·-·-···- .. ·--------- -·- ... -. ---TOPOGfMrHY INAVIGAIILEllNTRSTATEI I NATIONALIFNrANGFRDI LANO : LANO
STATES I UNACCFPTAIILE IWAlE:RWAYSI lllGllWAYSI WETLANDS! FORESTS I SPECIES I IN I SIJITADLE FOR sourn SLOF·ES : I I I I llAillTATS I CULT IVATIOU . CULTIVATION . -----·-------·--·---------------------------·-------··--------------------------------------------- ·-------·---------------
I Of'ENHOl.INT I HILLS I "OUNT : I I I I I CROPLANDllP~IGATEDI > 67% I 50-"6% I ------···-·----------·------------·--···-·-·---·-·-·---·------···--·--·------------- ·-·-- ·--·-····-·----·-------------------·---·-·------------·----·--·-··---·-
Al3b"'"'" : 0 I 0 : 0 : 36 J 50 I 12 I 9 I l I 0 0 144 I 0 Arizona : 5 J 0 : 0 : 0 I 6'I I 0 I 02 I 0 : 0 10 0 I 0
Arkan""" . 5 I 7 , B I 35 I 26 I 2 l 27 I 0 I 37 0 123 I 0 . Cali fn1·ni a I t I 0 I 13 I 5 I 100 1 0 I 153 I 4 I 0 78 0 I 0 Cnlor..,dn : 0 I 0 I 4 I 0 : 54 I 0 I 90 : 2 I 61 39 16 I 0
Conr,ect i r.t it : (I I 0 I 0 I 2 I 11 I 0 I () I 0 I 0 (I 0 I 2 Delaware : 0 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 9 Flnrida I 0 I 0 I 0 I 513 I 7fl I fl~ 1 7 I 14 I 6 0 te3 I 42 Geor.ita I () I 0 I 0 I 17 I 61 I 35 I 13 I <> I 0 0 1'55 I 52 Idaho . 10 I 0 J 8 : 0 I 33 I 0 I 140 I 3 I 11 24 0 I 0 . Illinois I 0 I 0 0 : 32 I 78 I 0 I 5 I 0 I 181 0 I 215 : 0 lrodi ana : 0 I 0 0 . e I 55 I 0 I 6 I 0 I 9fl 0 ' 118 I 0 . ' Iowa : 0 I 0 0 : 9 : 41 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 196 0 I 209 I 0
l\;in"a" I 0 I 0 0 : 4 I 46 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 155 I 5 I 314 I 0 l<P.ntor.kY I 0 I 0 0 . 26 I 41 I 1 I 11 I 0 I 5 I 0 I 14 I 0 . I.nu is i an;i I 0 I 0 0 I 60 I ~4 : 100 I 8 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 139 I 39 Haine : 0 I 0 0 I 4 I 19 I 0 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 : 0 I 0 Han1l ;tnd I 0 I 0 0 I 7 I 14 I 2 0 . 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 47
_. Ha~sac-huc;pt.t.s I 0 I 0 0 I 1 I 18 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 : 0
0 I Hir.hi<lan I 0 I 0 I 0 I 10 I 55 I 0 32 0 I 33 I 0 I 235 I 0 (J1 I Hinnr.,.ota I 0 I 0 0 4 I 43 I 3(, 29 50 110 I 0 I 325 I 0
Hlssis<;iPPi I 0 I 0 0 17 36 I 36 18 1 0 I 0 I 180 I 2 Missouri I 0 I 4 0 30 54 0 21 0 40 I 0 : 158 I 0 Hont.ioma I 17 I 0 0 0 6'5 0 134 0 108 I 41 I 125 I 0 NPbr1Hika I 0 I 0 0 4 29 0 3 4 110 I 11 I 170 I 0 Nev;irfa : 0 I 0 0 0 30 2 33 0 0 I 8 : 0 I 0 New lla.,Pshl re I 0 I 0 2 0 13 0 4 0 0 0 I 0 ' 0 . New .lerseY I 0 I 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 30 New Hexir.o I 3 I 0 3 0 57 0 I 55 2 7 9 I 56 I 0 New Yorj,. I 0 I 0 0 40 71 0 I 0 0 0 0 39 I 9 North Ca,.ol froa I 0 I 0 0 ;tt 49 48 20 0 0 0 118 I 49 North [lal<.ota I 0 I 0 0 0 33 0 I 0 0 204 0 250 . 0 ' Ohio I 0 0 0 14 59 0 I 12 0 66 0 92 I 0 Oklahn"'" : 3 3 0 . 0 I 44 0 I 4 1 147 1 2~8 I 0 Ore.ion I 9 0 0 I 5 I 32 0 108 0 26 9 0 . 0 ' renn<;Ylvania I 13 0 I 0 I 7 : 75 0 5 0 0 0 0 I 62 Rhode Island I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 South Carolina I 0 0 I 0 I 9 I 42 I 40 10 0 0 0 82 I 35 South 0'.lkota I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 36 I 0 9 0 '16 1 160 I 0
Tennesc;e@ I 0 0 I 0 I 27 I 55 I 9 e 0 4 0 42 I 0 Te:.<1'!1 0 6 I 0 I 21 I 169 I 56 10 5 224 69 ~1:12 65 Ut.ah 2 0 I 7 I 0 47 I 3 57 0 0 7 0 0 Ver111ont 0 0 I (J I 3 17 I 0 5 I 0 0 0 0 0 Vir!linia 0 0 I 0 I 10 50 I 2 23 I 0 () I 0 : 46 56
Washin.<:tton 2 0 I 2 I 20 45 I 0 flt I 0 50 I 11 I 0 0
West Vi r.Unia 0 0 : 0 I 7 26 I 0 15 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 8
Wisr.onsin 0 0 I 0 I 9 29 I 7 14 : 0 46 I 0 I 2::!4 0 WY<>llli n!I 0 0 I 5 I 0 52 . 0 61 I 0 I 14 I 18 I 0 0 .
·- ·- ·-· -·· -··- --· .•. -- ·- -- ··- . ·----·--------·-----·----·--------·--------·- -·-·-----·-·----·---·--·------·-----·-·---------·-----·--------------·-··---····-------·--·· --·--------TOTALS 70 I ,0 I 52 I 582 2163 I 487 : 1:123 ' 99 I 2025 . I 341 I 4741 507
---·---·-·-------···----·----·-·---·--·-·---·-····-----------------·----------·----···-····------·-·---·-·-··--·--- ---·-· ·-·-- .... __ ._ ..... ·--· ... ···--·-·. - ··-·--- - --·--
-·--- -- -- ----------- ------------------ -------------------·-------------------------------------------------------------------ORID !'1111JARE l•ATll PROFILE llY !Hiil£
-- --- --·- ------- ------·----··--·--------·---------------·----------------------------------· OVER I FLYWAYS I I I TltlJNl•ER I SEISMIC I SHEET I ACID
5TllTF5 140 DEGREEI OF WllTERI WINllSTOFi:HS ' HAIL I STORMS I HAZARDS I Fi:AINrALLI RAINFALL ' I LATITunr: rnwt I I I I I I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:ni: l'ROD I 1% l'ROll I I I Hll.JOR HOflERA TE' I I Ph 4-5 I Ph < 4
--- - - --- - -- . - ----------- -- --- . - -· --------·--------------------------- ------- -----------------------------·---·-Al"l';t"'~ I 0 I 12 I 70 I !JO I 0 200 I 0 76 I 200 I 44 0 llri"'"",. t 0 I 121 I 0 t 59 t 0 234 I 0 425 I 0 I 33 0
II r~ ""'"'"' 0 I 70 I 16 I IN I 0 210 13 35 I 210 I 36 0 c .. 1trornia 1 ::'8 I 405 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 444 177 I 122 I 31 19 fotor;odo 107 : 141 I (l I 134 I 257 376 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I Cnn11Pc t. i r11t 22 I 7 I 0 I '.;12 I 0 0 0 0 I 22 I 9 1 I [1el.:-1.1arP 1 I B I 0 I 9 I 0 0 0 0 I 9 I 0 4 I r '"rirfa 0 : "" I 0 I 218 I 0 240 0 0 I 240 I 0 0 t f1pnr~ti'J 0 I B I 9 t ?17 0 2::'6 0 109 I 226 I 49 0 I Idaho 316 t 114 I 0 t 0 2 14 100 216 I 0 I 31 1 I
· I 11 i no i" t19 t 132 I 160 I 55 0 202 13 42 t 34 : 44 12 I lnt:li ;-tn;::1 70 I 42 t 95 I St 0 134 2 62 I 41 t 72 19 I
Io"" :;>09 I 133 I 136 I 7:J 0 209 0 0 I 0 t 33 0 t t-.ar1r:.?~ 14 ' 141 I 2~0 t 64 157 314 0 97 t 0 I 105 I 0 I
' f\Pr1f.tJC' ... '-' 0 I 42 3 I 150 0 I 153 24 49 t 152 t 39 t 0 I l.C'l 1Ji~i;1n~ 0 135 0 I 195 0 I tR5 0 I 0 185 t 0 I 0 I Ha lroe 142 36 0 I 7 0 I 0 ':'7 t 56 41 I 47 I 9 I 11a ry 1 anti I 43 0 t 50 0 I 4 I 0 I 1 50 t 10 I 23 t
__, ,...a!=-~t'Chll~';t· t ~ ,,0 :?O 0 I 4" 0 I 0 20 t 17 40 I 22 I 15 I
C' r Hichicfi"r1 I 250 106 57 I 94 0 I 5 0 I 0 0 92 I 0 I
"" 1 Hinnesot;:1 t 330 289 0 : 186 0 I 60 0 I 0 0 37 0 I His"lissin i I 0 99 27 I 159 0 I 19,t, 14 I 29 186 0 0 t 11i o;<;our i ' ,, 1 102 196 I 70 0 I 266 10 I 37 120 to 0 I . 11"nt,.na 568 419 0 ' 25 9 40 68 t 209 0 22 0 t
' NPl:1rao;~"' 2?2 1.35 6.l I 196 210 292 0 t 25 0 10 0
NPv"ri" 174 I:;-~ 0 t 0 0 0 207 I 209 0 1 0
NP" H"'"'""hi 1·e 36 I 1 0 I 30 0 0 0 I 36 36 10 7
Ne" .JersP" n n 0 I 3.J 0 0 0 I 0 33 4 17
N"" Ht>•dcn 0 119 0 ' 84 115 379 0 I 188 0 0 0 '
NP" Ynr~ 198 62 I 0 I 189 0 0 66 I 74 109 133 12 North Carolina 0 62 I 0 I 200 0 '.109 I 0 I 97 209 54 0
He>rth ll"'~"l" 268 142 ' 0 I 113 I 0 0 t 0 I 0 0 23 0 '
Ohio 109 54 ' 69 I 92 t 0 108 I 0 I 32 24 47 0 '
o~ 1 .. hn1t1a I 0 117 I ~05 ' 57 I 167 262 I 0 t 34 56 6:J 0 '
OrP<!on I 375 253 I 0 ' 0 0 0 I 4 I 234 101 46 0 '
r·er.ns" I van t" I 11.5 90 . 0 I 169 0 22 I 1 I 9 151 78 I 4 '
RhodP Io; I "'"J I 6 4 ' 0 I 6 0 0 I 0 t 4 6 :J I 0 ' <;0•1th c .. rol inil I 0 ]6 I 0 ' 1::'0 0 120 I 49 I 68 120 ';16 t 0
so .. t.h n .. ~.ota I 292 I 1 :50 0 106 64 172 I 0 I 0 0 0 t 0
T enr1t .. itt;P.P I 0 54 El9 69 0 159 I 34 t 68 158 44 I 0
lp·~a~ t 0 "1 'I 202 610 235 591 : 0 t 36 207 19 t 0
Utah I PO 192 0 0 96 125 I 135 I 79 0 0 t 0
VertRnr.t t 36 4 \) :?8 0 0 I 0 I 36 19 I 10 t 4
Vi r"I ni" I 0 29 0 1~3 0 82 I 0 t 116 153 t 6.J t 9
W"'o;hito<!ton I ?RO 174 0 0 0 0 I 63 I 217 125 I 2 I 12
West 'Jir,.ini" I 2 B 0 08 0 84 t 0 I 15 87 ' 0 I 0 ' Wisc-oni;in I 227 5,, 30 I 16 0 30 I 0 t 0 0 ' BS t 1
i ' w-,,o•in<! I lll l"'R 0 71 157 236 I t ' 44 0 I 19 I 0 '
- .. -- - ·-- -- -- -- --- - - --- - ·- ... - . - --· - --- ·--·--··-- ·-----··--·------------ -------------------------·-·----··------Hlfllt!' I ~.1J::! l ~441 I l"'l·7 I 1A10 I 146? l 6118 I 1295 I 3247 I 3472 I 1493 I 160 --- ------··· -- ---·- --·- ··- -------- - . -·-- - - --· --- - -- -·--- ----- -· .. - .. -·-- ---- ·-··- - - .. -- ···- ··---- -···----- ----- - --· ----·-·· -·-·-·
APPENDIX B
The two maps shown in this Appendix are Su1T111ary Maps with hand-drawn over-1 ays showing the Interstate Highway System and the Power Distribution System of the United States.
107
0 co
1
.............. !: ~~!~ t:9!R;;.::::.:!!:. zta; ::::::a~~:!::~:~:::: !:.2:::s:1:1s1;::: :1::1::;: ::! :r::: ::1m1;:11e::1.::1:1e:1li i~f~lill!: ::!!!: ~! ~E;~;!!;~~~ ;;;;;;s~!! ;;; ; !!:!?;;;;;;;;'';;;;;;;;!I!::~;:~;~~! i . .
" " " ~ . " . .. .. .. n n .. " .. " .. ,, " . " "' " .. " " " " .. .. ., " .. ~ .. .. .. .. . " "' .. .. .. " .. .. ., . " .. .. .. .. " ..
" " .. "' .. .. " :;1+Ht+H t+ . " u . "' .. " .. ... ..
RICE UNIVERSITY •FALL 1978
MAPPING Qi' EXCLUSION AREAS FOR FECTEfll\IA SITES
SCALE
•••'''°Al I II I II II II II I! Ii Ii I! I! Ii GAil SUMMARY MAP 7 M , T ~rt .1 • : 1 .....
.. §._tt:mm:tt±lttttool±±fj_ BlJhmmi=
14-1-W..U.> W > L >':C~J"'...!~ ...
~ mmm ~ INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Figure 37
109
a: UJ
:l <( u.
~ )-ll. I-
~ [£ ..J UJ 0 :? Cf) z
::> UJ (.) UJ
~ 1.1 Cf) a:
Cf) UJ I-iii <(
~ UJ I-u ~
~ Cf) <( UJ
i 5 "' a )( UJ ... 0 <!) ;;:: R: <(
::ii
CD
Cl. <(
::?
>-a: <(
::? ::? :::> CJ)
g f5
(/) UJ z ...J
z Q (/) (/)
~ (/) z <( a: 1-
UJ
~ 0 > I Q I
Selected References (Does not include Satellite Power System References -See Kotin Report on Resources)
1. Alexander C. and M. Manheim. The Use of Diagrams in Highway Route Locations. Publ. No. 61. Dept:-Of---cTvlT Eng. M.I.,..-:-. Cambridge. Mass. March. 1962.
2. Cargo, D. and B. Mallory. Man And His Geologic Environment. 2nd Ed. Addison Wesley Publ. Co. MenTO Park-:--C-a. 1977.
3. Clarendon Press. Oxford Regional Economic Atlas: United States and Canada. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1967.~
4. Cohen, S. and S. C. Pieper. The Speakeasy - l Reference Manual-Level Mu. Report AHL-8000 Rev 2. Argonne Nat. Laboratories. Chicago. Ill. Augus~ 1977.
5. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality: 1976 - The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quali~Council on Environmental Quality.---W-ashington-.-D. C. 1976.
6. Federal Register, Vol. 42. P. 47840. September?~, 1977.
7. Hopkins, L. D. "Methods of Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation". Amer. Inst. of ?lanners ~··October, 1977.
8. Krauskopf, T. M. and D. C. Bunde. "Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Through Computer Modelling Process". in R. Ditton and T. Goodale, eds. Environmental Impact Analysis: Philosophy and Methods. Univ. of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin. 1972.
9. Lewis, P. H. Development.
Recreation In Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin 1962.
State Department of Resource
10. McHarg, I. Design With Nature. The Natural History Press. Garden City,. New York. 1967. --
11. Rowe, P. G. et al. Principles For Local Environmental Management. Ballinger Press~ Cambridge, Mass. 1978.
12. Rowe, P. G. and A. Deleon-Fajardo. Analysis Technique". DMG Journal.
"LUFSAT-Land Use Feasibility Study Vol. 6, No. 4. 1973.
13. Schlicting, R. D. "Data Base Manipulation In Speakeasy". Speakeasy Center. Argonne National Laboratories. Argonne Illinois. Unpublished, 1977.
14. Steinetz, C., et al. "Hand-Drawn Overlays: Their History and Prospective Uses". Landscape Architecture. September, 1976.
15. "The Amateur Scientist". Scientific American 230:122-127 (June, 1974).
16. United States Department of Agriculture. "Perspectives On Prime Lands". Background Papers For Seminar On The Retention of Prime Lands. July, 1975.
111
17. , 11 Reco111T1endations on Prime Lands". Prepared at the Seminar on the Retention of Prime Lands. July, 1975.
18. , 11 2/3 Of Our Land: -:-:----=----=---ti on Service. Program Aid #984.
A National Inventory". Washington, D. C. 1971.
Soil Conserva-
19. United States Department of the Census, Geography Division. Assorted Maps. 1978.
20. United States Department of Conunerce, Environmental Data Service. Climatic Atlas of the United States. Reprinted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric-Xdministration, Washington, D. C., 1977.
21. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climates of The United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. -Washington, D. C.
22. United States Geological Survey. National Atlas of the United States of America. United States Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. Washington, D. C., 1970.
23. U. S. Department of the Interior, "Wetlands of the United States". U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C. 1955.
24. Ward, J. and D. Grant. "CASAT: Computer Assisted Space Allocation Technique". Proc. Kentucky Workshop On Computer Applications to Environmental Design. Lexington, Ky., 1970.
112