'~ \

I

I !...._._.I J

i

\

\

SHELTER STUDY FOR THE STATE OF !Ol;.IJ\

- - f - WORTMAN

I

\ \ \ 1- ---

JUNE 1958

~. I '

\ t

IOWA STATE TRA YEUNG LIBRARY DES MOI N ES, IOWA

1' /I

/ I / I

L

(

/

SHELTER STUDY

For The

STATE OF IOWA

_j

•

SHELTER STUDY FOR THE STATE OF IOWA

I

INTRODUCTION

In the age of nuclear weapons the type of war Which can

be waged presents many problems that heretofore have not been

present. The use of thermal nuclear weapons so increases the

extent of destruction available to the enemy that planning

for the survival of the people is made more difficult. Two

possibilities are available to protect the people from the

effects of an attack upon this country; one of which is the

planned evacuation of the people from the target areas re-

sulting in a dispersion of the population. Another possibi­

lity is the construction of shelters to protect the popula-

tion from the effects of nucl~ar weapons. It is this last

possibility, shelters, which is the object of this study.

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. The effects of nuclear

weapons are very diversified; however, three definite e!fects

can be studied in relation to shelters. The three effects

are the blast effect, the thermal radiation effect, and the

.J effect of radiation fallout. The effect of blast and radia-. \ tion fallout are the two important effects of nuclear weapons

· for which shelters must be built. The effect of thermal

i -,,_

radiation occurs so closely with the blast effect that any

shelter designed to withstand blast will also·withstand the

effects of thermal radiation.

1

Area of study. The study of shelters for the protection

from the effects of blast is limited to the seven target

areas in the state. These seven target areas are as follows:

Davenport, Critical Target Area; Cedar Rapids, council Bluff~

Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City and Waterloo Target Areas.

The area of study for the construction of fallout shelters

in the state would include the entire State less that area

defined as targetsJ

Assumptions, Several assumptions have been made for con­

ducting a shelter study for the state of Iowa. One assump­

tion is the size of weapons that might be used upon any

target in the state. Four weapon.sizes have been considered

as possibilities which are: a 20 MT bomb, a 30 MT bomb,

a 60 MT bomb, and four 5 MT bombs placed in such a manner

that the 30 psi rings touch. The psi rings, as a result

of each weapon being dropped on a target, are imposed upon

the maps included in the study as an attachment. Another

assumption is the location of ground zero in determining the

exact location of the psi over pressure rings. In all but

two targets ground zero is assumed to be the geographic cen­

ter of the target area. In the other two targets, Council

Bluffs and Davenport, the fact that these targets are part

of a target complex which extends across state lines was

considered, This criteria is the same for all weapons ex­

cept the four 5 MT bombs in which case the bombs were placed

2

so that the most damage would result to the particular tar-

get area.

A third assumption is the population data used~ The

statistical analysis is based upon 1950 resident population

found in the Bureau of Census report for 1950. This data

has preference over any updated data available because the

distribution of the resident population within an urban tar­

get area is available and in addition, the distribution of

population within a county by townships. The updated data

is not available with the stratification or distribution as

available in the 1950 data.

Validity of Statistical Data. It must be realized that

the data presented is not without bias, which results from

the fact that the data was estimated without the benefit of

a sample or survey which would remove the bias. For the pur-

pose of this study, with the time and funds allotted, the

estimates, as determined, will serve the purposes for which

it is inten~ed - an initial study of the shelter requirement

in the State of Iowa.

In addition, only the resident population data is used.

This does not present a complete analysis of the effects of

nuclear weapons upon a target. However, if daytime popula-

tion concentrations had been collected by survey, the surviv~l

percentages in each target area v1ould have been less.

The theory concerning the validity of shelters is based

entirely upon the statistical analysis of the 20 MT bomb.

The results obtained, however, do give an indication of the

results which probably would have been obtained if the analy­

sis had been completed for each of the other assumed weapons.

II

SURVIVAL PERCENTAGES

The survival percentages for the seven target areas are

based upon the various overpressure rings of a 20 MT bomb.

This information is presented in Table I. The data presented

in Table I is plotted on Figures I through VII. The base

population figure used in the determination of the survival

percentages is the evacuation population as previously deter­

mined for the state Survival Plan for each target area.

Analysis of Table I. The survival percentages as pre­

sented in Table I do not present a very optimistic picture

for the validity of shelters for protection against blast

effect in the state of Iowa. It is noted (see Table I) that

without any shelters above 2 pounds per square inch (psi)

design levels the percent survival in the target areas varies

from less than one percent in Sioux City to 15 percent in

Waterloo. If shelters were constructed of 10 psi design

levels the ,survival percentage increases, yet the highest

peroaQt of survival is 33 percent in the waterloo,target

area, while t11e,,lowest sur vi val percentage with 10 psi shel­

ter 4esign level 1s Sioux City with 4 percent survival.

If the criteria is established that at least 50 percent

4

of the population must survive to justify the construction

of shelters, then at a design level of 20 psi 50 percent of

the population would survive in one city, Haterloo. Only

one city would have at least 50 percent survival with shel­

ter design levels of 30 psi, Waterloo. Hov;ever, in two other

cities the survival percentage is close enough to 50 per­

cent that it might be justifiable to build shelters at 30

psi design levels. These two target areas are Des Moines

with 49 percent survival and Counr.il Bluffs with 46 percent

survival. At the design level of 50 psi fonr target areas

would have survival of 50 percent or more; and at 100 psi

one additional target area would obtain 50 percent survival

or greater. (Note Table I) Even at this dcs5_gn level two

target areas would still have a surviving population of less

than 50 percent -Dubuque and Sioux City.

The table reflects the concentration of the resident

population in each city. In each area with possible excep­

tion of waterloo, the population is concentr'ated into a small

geographic area. This is a characteristic of a state whose

basic economy is agricultural and lacks any large industri­

alized areas. Consequently, the survival percentages are

not very high in the state. In the case of Waterloo, how­

ever, the population is dispersed over a wide area rather

than concentrated into a small area" This is a result of

several suburban areas located around the city which have

high population concentration, and is what one would normal­

ly assume from the growth patterns of tte u.rban areas.

5

Effects of Larger Weapons Upon Survival Percentages.

The use of either of the other assumed weapons upon any tar­

get in the State would decrease the percentage of survival in

the target areas. This would occur because the area of des­

truction, as a result of blast effect, would be greater in

each of the target areas. It is because of the lack of time

and the findings of a 20 MT bomb analysis that the survival

percentages for the other bomb sizes have not been determined.

III

COST OF SHELTERS IN RELATION TO SURVIVAL

The cost per person of constructing shelter is the same

cost as used in the St. Louis Shelter Study. It is felt

that these costs represent fairly close the cost of con­

structing shelters in this state. The costs per person for

the construction of shelters at various shelter design levels

are as follows: a 10 psi shelter design costs 165 dollars

per person, a 20 psi shelter design costs 200 dollars per

person, a 30 psi shelter design costs 235 dollars per person,

a 50 psi shelter design costs 285 dollars per person, and a

100 psi design shelter costs 415 dollars per person. The

percent of survival (20 MTbomb) shelter design levels (psi)

and cost per person for each target area is shown in Figures

IA through VIIA. In addition, each figure has a tabulation

of percent cost increase through the various shelter design

levels and the percent survival increment as the design level

is increased.

6

Shelter Costs. If an optimum shelter design level of

30 psi is assumed then for each target area the cost of con­

structing shelters in relation to survival percentage from

a 20 MT bomb is as follows: In the Cedar .Rapids target area

the cost of shelter construction would be approximately 24

million dollars and 32 percent of the population would sur­

vive. The shelter construction cost in the Council Bluffs

target area would be approximately 13 million dollars and 46

percent of the population would survive. The Davenport tar­

get area would require approximately 23 million dollars to

construct shelters and 38 percent of the population would

survive. In the Des Moines target area the shelter construc­

tion cost would be approximately 51 million dollars and 49

percent of the population would survive. The Dubuque target

area shelter construction cost would be approximately 15

million dollars and 19 percent of the population would sur­

vive. The construction cost of shelters in the Sioux City

target area would be approximately 21 million dollars and

21 percent of the population would survive. The Waterloo

target area shelter construction cost would be approximately

26 million dollars and 50 percent of the population would

survive. The total shelter cost for the State of Iowa for

protection from a 20 MT weapon would be approximately 172

million dollars.

The total cost of constructing shelters for the larger

weapons would increase because the population which would

7

need shelters would increase. However, it is doubtful that

the increased number of shelters would increase the survival

percentages. It is felt that the converse would occur; the

total cost of she'l ters would increase and the percent of

survival would decrease. The above statement is based upon

the knowledge that the target areas have centralized popula­

tions in a small geographic area, while the destruction rings

from larger weapons increase in radius.

IV

SHELTER LOCATION FOR BLAST EFFECT

The shelter location for each of the target areas is

presented in Tables II through VIII. The tables contain

the resident population as of 1950 by county stratified by

township and the estimated shelter needs to protect the popu­

lation from the blast effect. In addition, two methods of

estimating the size of the shelters to the number of shelters

which should be constructed is presented. The size of the

shelters in column 6 is determined by estimating the number

of shelters, column 5, needed for the resident population in

each township based upon an estimate of placing the shelters

by geographic location. Then an assumption was made that

shelters should be constructed of three sizes which are:

100 person shelters in the rural areas, 1000 person shelters

in the more densely populated small communities and townships

and 2000 person shelters in the target cities. The findings

8

under this assumption are presented in columns 7 and 8 of

the tables.

It is noted that by basing the number of shelters upon

the population and geographic location will require less

shelters than arbitrarily setting a shelter size and deter­

mining the number of shelters. (See Tables II through VIII)

However, it is felt that due to the characteristics of the

rural areas, low concentration of population, the latter cri.;..

teria is more realistic in determining the number of shelters

needed to protect the people from the effects of blast. The

construction of more and smaller shelters may increase the

cost of constructing shelters per person, but data to sub­

stantiate this has not been determined. The increased cost

of constructing shelters, if such an increase is present,

would be justified in that it is more likely that the popula­

tion in the rural areas would have a better chance of reaching

the shelters in the event of an attack than if the shelters

were located over a wide area and constructed of a larger

size.

v

FALLOUT SHELTE.RS IN THE STATE

A statistical study of fallout shelters for the State of

Iowa has not been made due to the lack of time; however,

several problems and considerations in determining the fall­

out shelter needs are presented. The type of shelter needed

9

to protect the population from the effects of nuclear radia­

tion need not cost as much per person as the cost of con­

structing shelters for protection against blast. However,

it must be realized that the number of shelters needed for

the protection against radiation fallout will be greater

than the need of shelters for the protection against blast,

thus increasing total costs. The size of the shelters in

the fallout areas can be larger, if needed, due to the ele­

ment of time. More time will be available to reach the fall~

out shelters than the time which will be available to reach

the blast shelters.

So far, the consideration has been that shelters be con­

structed for the protection of populations from the hazards of

fallout. However, in an agricultural state such as Iowa, con­

sideration should be made for the protection of livestock and

grain from the effects of nuclear radiation. This would pre~

sent additional problems in the design of shelters and would,

of course, increase the total cost of constructing shelters

for the protection against the fallout effects. The decision

concerning the construction of fallout shelters for livestock

and grain is based in part upon social costs vs. social bene­

fits. This means that if the cost of constructing the shel­

ters in the long run is less than the benefits received then

such construction would be justified. rt is felt that if the

need ever arose in which the shelters for livestock and grain

were used the benefit would more than out-weigh the cost of

10

construction. Therefore, the nation would be assured a

potential food supply to aid recovery in the post-attack

period.

VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The shelter study as presented is based entirely upon

the complete utilization of shelters rather than evacuation.

Because it is impossible to predict which method an enemy

might use to deliver a bomb upon any target in the State,

it seems advisable to consider the combination of evacua-

tion and shelters in the State of Iowa. This is based upon

the findings of this study and as the situation changes a

later study may arrive at different findings.

In summarizing the shelter study for the State of Iowa

it is noted that the survival percentages as presented in

Table I indicate that the survival percentage for 4 of the

targets at 30 psi shelter design levels would be considerably

less than 50 percent. Even at a 100 psi shelter design level

two target areas would still have less than 50 percent sur-

vival of the population of the target area.

In determining the cost of sheltere for the State a 30

psi shelter design level was assumed and for a 20 MT weapon

the total cost for constructing shelters in the State is

approximately 172 million dollars. This is based upon a

shelter construction cost of 235 per person. It was felt

that a larger weapon size than 20 MT would increase the

11

shelter cost while the percent of survival of any target

area would decrease.

The number of shelters needed in any one of the target

areas was determined two ways. One, the location was based

upon geographic considerations and the other by establishing

an assumed size, then determining the number of shelters re­

quired. The latter method was thought to be the better of

the two methods for locating shelters; for while costs may

be increased the implementation time for the utilization of

the shelters would be less, particularly in the sparsely

populated rural areas.

The basic problem in the construction of shelters for

the protection against fallout radiation is whether or not

to include the use of shelters for the protection of live­

stock and grain as well as people. Such a consideration is

based upon the social cost vs. the social benefit principle,

which in this case would justify the construction of shel­

ters for the protection of all resources -- human, animal

and others.

It should be noted that the determination of the statis­

tical analysis is based upon the most optimum damage situa­

tion which could be devised for each of the target areas.

Any deviation from the assumed ground zero in any target

area would increase the survival percentage regardless of

the size of bomb which might be dropped by the enemy,

This study has considered only the protection of the

12

population from enemy attack, but the shelters, if construc­

ted, could be used also for protection from natural disas­

ters which might affect any area, i.e., a tornado or high

winds.

A more detailed analysis of the needs and requirements

of shelters in the State of Iowa could have been made if

time had been available. A more complete study would have

placed considerably more emphasis upon the construction of

shelters for the protection against radiation fallout. This.

should include a detailed analysis of the feasibility and

cost of construction shelters for the protection of live­

stock and other essential resources from the dangers of

radioactivity. Another area of study is the construction

of shelters in the target areas to protect essential re­

sources from all the effects of nuclear weapons. While this

study is basically concerned with the protection from nuclear

weapons, some planning for shelter protection against bac­

teriological and chemical warfare should be considered.

This is particularly true in an agricultural area where de­

fense against such types of attack assumes considerable

importance.

13

TABLF. I. ---= .._, ___ , __

Percent survival seven target cities of Iowa, 20 MT bomb based upon shelter design resistance levels of 2 psi, 10 psi, 20 psi, 30

50 psi, and 100 psi. psi,

% % % % % % TARGET SlJlW, SURV. SURV. SURV. SURV. SURV. AREA 2 PSI 10 PSI 20 PSI 30 PSI ~0 PSI 100 PSI

Cedar Rapids 3 26 29 32 41 52

Council Bluffs 9 20 39 46 55 64

Davenport 3 23 25 38 53 64

Des Moines 2 17 19 49 55 61

Dubuque 3. 12 17 19 28 43

Sioux City (1) 4 5 21 29 38

Waterloo 15 33 50 50 62 72

(1) LESS THAN 1%, ACTUAL .4%

SOURCE: 1950 United States Census Of Population, Department Of

Commerce, Bureau Of Census, estimated population in each target

area from studies conducted for evacuation, IOWA SURVIVAL PLAN,

ANNEX W; population in each psi ring estimated by D.E.W.

. ·------100·-

g~ Rapids Target Area

90

80

70 rl

~ 60 ..-1

:> J.t ::s

(I) 50

'I!R.

20 MT

40

30

20

10

i . o 1 I 1 l '1 1 l 1 \ I 1

2 10 20 JO 4o 5'0 60 70 80 90 100

Shelter Design Resistance (psi)

Figure I % Survival/Shelter Design Resistance; Source: Tab:).e I

'

CEDAR RAPIDS TARGET AREA

DESIGN PSI 10 2., ,,, t 100 I Pi!RCEJITT COST INCREA~E ~ 18 ·21'-f -46 ---~ PE¥2~ft!v~~VIVAL ~----_]_ _ _,________3. _ _1_ 9 1l

80 -

60

20 MT ---1oo psi r-1

~4o

~ tf.l

~

20 10 psi

--------~ -r-- 1 0 ~ J L ___ t _ -~--~----1- ---------~---------•---------·

100 150 165 200 235 250 285 300 350 400 415 450

Cost Per Person ·'

igure I-l Survival Percentages/Shelter Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person ___ _::S:,::o:,::u::r.::;c:_e.:.:_:T::_:a::b~l~e:._::I:_::Sur:=:v::i::v::a::l::::I::n::::Pu:;b::l:;:i;:c:::::S::h:;:e::1::t::er::s:_,:_:F~C~D:A:_:,_:::19:_5::_7~-- -----··--··-·-·

100-COUNCIL BLUFFS TARGET AREA

90

80-~~

70.

60 20 MT ----___ _....-----

.-i 5'0-· (\j :>

..-1 :> 8 4o (/)

* 30

20

10

I ' -

0 10 20 30 40 5'0 60 70 80 90 100

Shelter Design Resistance (Psi)

figure II %Survival/Shelter Design Resistance, Source: Table I

COUNCIL BLUFFS TARGET AREA ' - ' --- -~ . ---DESIGN PSI lQ __ _g_g, ____ 30 0 ___ 1,5)0

-PERCZNT COST INCR~SE ~ 18 __ ?.L::f ____ '!§ __ l _, ~E~gfi}H~!,&VIVAL 19 , 2 ---• _;__ _____ ---9- ----- :

80 ·c

20 MT ----100 psi 60 - /'5o psi

~ 40. ~3o psi

1-20 psi

~ -~ (Q

~ _I

20 / 10 psi

0 100

I t ' ---~-~ 150 165 200 235 250 285 300 350 400 415 450

Figure II-A

Cost Per Person

Survival Percentages/Shelter Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person Source: Table I 1 Survival In Public Shelters, FCDA, 1957 -----------

I

I

I I

100

I DAVENPORT TARGET AREA

90

80

70

60 I 20 MT

50 .-l

"' :> •rl 40 :> I'< ::J

D)

~ 30

I 7-20

10

' 70 80 90 100 0 10 2b 30 40 50 60

Shelter Design Resistance (Psi)

Figure III % Survival/Shelter Design Resistence, Source: Table I

J

c-1

~ ':;! M ;:l

t:f.l

~

DAVENPORT TARGET AREA ' ,----------. ---------- '

i !?_ESIGNPSI J\0 2b ___ 3lo_____ Q_ ______ 1 0

~~~~El~E2~. I ~~ T ~~=1 : ~ 80 ~-

60

40 -·

20

0 100

----,

20 MT __.-------~-----100 ps4

-.------ ... //50 psi

_,/" /

,/30 P'i _______ /.

10 psi 20 psi

.. l.--+----1- t--1-150 165 200 235 250 285 300 350 400 415 450

Cost Per Person

Figure III-A Survival Percentages/Shelter Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person Source: Table I Survival In Publ,;j,c Shelters, FCDA, 1957

100 r

90 -·-

sot 70·

60-

.-I 50., "' :> ·~

.. t':l Ul

40 .

DES MOINES TARGET AREA - -

r -----

I '*' 301 I

201 , .... -/

1: V._;..., ----t--...------,----~---+---o-10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Shelter Design Resistance (Psi)

Figure IV %Survival/Shelter Design Resistance~ Source: Table I

0 ::E )>

tJ> o--; ~')>

Vl :::

>- rr~ > 0--i '-;;o

~?< "' -r o-

~ti ..-;;; ;;o )> ;;o -<

l''"' iL ~.J

on ClJ 0 en e-=, <:4,-.:f

I -··-----. _ .. ___ , ________________ .

TARGET AREA

80

60

lto -

20

m:s MOINES J

j};lESIGN PSI 1 _ .,.YERCENT COST .INQREA E 21

PERCENT SURVIVAL 2 _ .. ..niCBEHENT ... ---- --·----

---'20 psi 10 psi

2f ~~ 3t 2~ f ~ --~j

20 MT ------- ------------ 50 psi

100 psi

30 psi

0 ~-oo 1501

;65 2ob 23~ 215o 2S5 1oo 350 ltoo lt~5 i -. lt50

Cost Per Person

Figure IV-A Survival Percentages/Shelter Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person Source: Table I Survival In Public Shelters, FDCA, 1957

'----------- .. •·• I

100 l 90 j·

! 80 1-

701 I

601-50-~

.-t •

. ~ 4ol-g 30 L ~ 1

0 -

DUBUQUE TARGET AREA

\ !_, (

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Shelter Design Resistance (Psi) !

.__ ___ F_::igure V % Survival/Shelter Design Resistance, Source: Table I I -------· ·---· -···---·

DUBUQUE TARGET AREA .----··------·~---- ~ -------- . . !~,.~.~~. n;~~ ·~ 2~-2 ~8 -j- a-::- -------~r t PEj~~W~J:~VIYAL. ____ L _____ _5 ____ . _____ 2__! ____ 2 ________ 15. ____ !

80 ...

60

r-1 «! >

•.-I 4 > 0-·· ··100 psi

~ <J)

~

20

0 !. .• _, ____ -+ '

~-5o psi

~2o;;i-3o psi

10 psi

100 150 165 -+---~-+-----L---t--

200 235 250 285 300

Cost Per Person

-· ····+-··-· ' ... L ....... -. I 350 400 415 450

I

Figure V-A Survival Percentages/Shelter Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person I Source: Table I, Survival In Public Shelters, FCDA, 1957 J

100. ---·· . ---------SIOUX CITY TARGET AREA

901 I

80 L

70 -·

6o .•.

';;I 50 -~-:> •rl :> 13 40. m ~

30

20-l- /~--

lOt// 0 I/-'

' \ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

·1 Shelter Design Resistance (Psi) , Figure VI % Survival/Shelter Design Resistance, Source: Table I L- ... -·----~------ -- -·----·-·

rl

,.

fl? ~~

81 I

6

SIOUX CITY TARGET AREA "

B;SIGN PSI --- l b_ 2b < B;RCENT COST INCREA ~E 21 f-· _18 - ~ _ ..... ···- ·-··-I]; .QDRVIVAL 1 16

-r:;h _li· 0 • 46 21 I

8 ! 9 ' --·-~ I

~ ·:; 4Q~.

-- 100 psi 1'-i ::; 20 MT (J)

~ )0 psi

20 /30pd . ; lq··-p-s-i-""'20 psi , , , .

OL----.1..-+ . ··---- . --~--- ----t ..... ··--t- ··;

100 i 150 165 2oo 235 250 285 300 350 4oo 415 450

Cost Per Person

I

I

Figure VI-A Survival Percentages/Shelter Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person

1.

So~ce: Table I, Survival In.E~blic Shelt~, FCDA, 1957 .. -- -- -

1:: J WATERLOO TARGET AREA

so I 70

60

.-1 50

-~ ':;! 40

/~-" -----------------~----------~~----~---··· /

l'i ;:l

CQ

-~ 30

20 I

i ' I

10

0 I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Shelter Design Resistance

Figure VII %Survival/Shelter Design Resistar-:ce, Source: Table I ~·~------ ·-----.. ··----·--·---··-·--------------·---~----·-··· .

' I

I

I

lrJATi!:RLOO TARGET AREA t--DE_S_I-GN_P_S=-I -- ld------ --~------+3i0 ____ 10 ---------iooi ::!:E~CENT COST INCREASES 21 ~ 18 __ :c 21 46 :-~~~-~~-~ ;--~E~fi~UJ:~XIVAL I 17 - 0 J 12 - 10 _I

80 ,_

I 20 MT ----100 psi

60

40.

20

0

/20 psi

/ -'10 psi

/"5o -- 30 psi

-----i-~1 ----1------L--'- _ lDO 150 165 200 235 250

psi

-+-------+---_( 0 350 400 415 ~50

I Cost Per Person

figure VII-A Survival Percentage.s/Shelte_r Design Levels (Psi)/Cost Per Person I_ ____ _:S::.:o:::.u:;:;r:_c::;e::;:_: _T.:::a::..::b.:::l:::_e_:::I2,_,S::u::r::::v::;i::::v::a::l=:I:.;n:::::::P::u::b;::l::;i:;:c:::::;S.:;h::2:::J:;t:;e::t:;s:_:9~F::_C::_-:D:A:_:9_::1:.::9:.::5~7---~-

TABLE II.

Counties, tovmships, resident population (1950) in 2 psi ring, number of shelters and siz.e- by ·geog:raphic area and· number of shelters by assumed size for Cedar Rapids target area. (Population in thousands)

1

COUNTY Linn

Linn

Linn

Lirm

Linn

Linn

Linn

Benton

Benton

Linn

Linn

Linn

Benton

Linn

Linn

Linn

Linn

2 3

ASSN 1 D 1'1A.P

T01tiN§HIP NO. VJashi:1gton 1

Otter Creek 2

Maine 3

Buffalo 4

Marion 5

Jl!onroe 6

Fayette 7

Canton 8

Fremont 9

Clinton 10

Linn 11

Bertram 12

Florence 13

Fairfax 14

College 15

Putnam 16

Franklin 17

Big Grove 18

Jefferson 19

Monroe 20

4 RES. POP IN

2 PSI RING

.6

·3

.5

.6

8.0

1.9

.5

.2

.8

1.9

.5

1.2

.6

1.0

1.3

.7

2.0

.4

.6

.4

5 6

NO. SHELT. SHELT. SIZE

2 300

2 150

1 500

2 300

16 500

4 500

2 250

2 100

4 200

4 500

2 250

3 400

2 300

5 200

6 200

4 200

4 500

2 200

3 200

2 200

7

SHELT. SIZE

ASSJVI' D. 100

100

100

100

1,000

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

8

NO. SHELT.

6

3

5

6

8

19

5

2

8

19

5

12

6

10

J)

7

20

4

6

4

Johnson

Johnson

Johnson

Linn Cedar Rapids 21 72. "\ _l2_ 2 '000 2 '000 ----'"~~--

TOTAL COLUiViNS 4 and 5 96.3 109

SOURCE: 19'50 UCJ~1 teg._ States Census of Ponulation, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, estimated by D.E.VJ.

TOTAL 160 @ 100 8 @1000

37 @'2000 205 Shelters

}'ABLE IJ:.I.

Counties, townships, resident population (1950).in 2 psi ring, number of shelters and size by geographic area and number of s.helters by assumed size for Com1eil Bluffs target area. (Population in thousand:o;)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RES. POP

ASSN'D. DT SHELT. MA.P 2 PSI NO. SHELT. SIZE NO ..

COUNTY TOVJ]I)SHIP NO. RING f~:2~-~ -~ 0 rr~~-;-J. ASSJvi'D. SHELT. Pottawattamie Rockford 1 .2 1 2QO 100 2

Pottawattamie Hazel Dell 2 .4 2 200 100 4

Pottavrattamie Crescent 3 .6 4 150 100 6

Pottmva ttamie LaJ'e 4 .8 4 200 100 8

Po ttavra ttamie Garner 5 1.0 5 200 100 10

Pottavmttamie Lewis 6 2.2 11 200 100 22

Jvrills St. Marys 7 .l 1 100 100 1

Mills Oak 8 ·3 2 150 100 3

Potta1:1a ttamie COUl1Cil Bluifs9 4') .4 21 2,000 2,000 21

TOTAL COLUMNS 4 and 5 50.1 53 TOTAL 56 @ 100 21 @~000

79 Shelto

SOURCE: 19')_Q United States Census of Ponulation, Department of

Commerce, Bureau of Census, estimated by D.E.W.

TABLE IV.

Counties, to-vmships, resident population (1950) in 2 psi ring, number of shelters and size by geocraphic area and number of shelters by assc@ed size for Davenport target area. (Population in thousands)

l 2 3 4

COUNTY Scott

RES. POP

AGSN'D. IN JVlAP 2 PSI

TOWNSHIP NO. RING Allens Grove l .1

Scott Winfield 2

Scott Butler 3

Scott Princeton 4

Scott Linco~n 5

Scott Sheridan 6

Scott Hickory 7

Scott Cleona 8

!v[uscatine Fulton 9

Scott Blue Grass 10

Scott Davenport ll

Scott Pleasant 12 Valley

Scott Le Claire 13

Scott Bettendorf 14

Scott

Scott

Rockingham 15

Buffalo 16

JvJuscatine JV!ontpelier 17

·3 .4

.2

.6

1.2

.l

.4

1.5

2.8

3.2

2.3

5.1

1.4

·3

5 6

NO. SHELT. §HELT..:. SIZ]j;

l 100

7

SHELT. SIZE

ASSN 1D. 100

2 150 100

2 200 100

l 200 100

4 150 100

4 300 100

4 125 100

l 100 100

2 200 100

5 300 100

7 400 100

6 600 100

6 lfOO 100

5 1,000 1,000

5

6

2

300

400

150

100

100

100

8

NO. §lillLT.

1

3

4

2

6

12

5 l

4

15

28

32

Scott Davenport 18 .1.t:..:.2... __]§__ 2 '000 2,000

23

5

14

24

3

i8

TOTAL C OLUHNS 4 and 5 - 97.1 101 TOTAL 177 @ 100 5 @1000

'\8 012000 220 Shelt,

SOURCE: 1950 ~r-_15" ted States Cel}S:\1~ of l2_opulation, U. S. Department

of Commerce, Bureau of Census, estimated by D.E.W.

TABLE V.

Counties~ townships, resident population (1950) in 2 psi ring, number of shelters and size by geographic area and number of shelters by assumed size for Des Moines target area. (Population in thousands)

1 2 3 l.j. RES. POP

ASSN 1 D. IN HAP 2 PSI

COUNTY Polk

TOWNSHIP Jefferson

.JiQ.:. RING 1 .5

Polk Madison 2

Polk Crocker 3

Polk Douglas l.r

Polk Franklin 5

Polk Beaver 6

Polk Clay 7

Polk Dela1:1are 8

Polk Saylor 9

Polk Webster 10

Dallas Walnut 11

Dallas Boone 12

Polk Walnut 13

Polk Four Mile llt

Polk Camp 15

Polk Allen 16

Polk Bloomfield 17

Madison Lee 18

vlarren Linn 19

1rJarren Greenfield 20

Warren Allen 21

.1

2.3

.l.r

.2

.7

l.lt

2.9

l.r.l.r

tr.o

.6

·3

3·9

1.1

.6

.7

10.2

.1

.8

5 6

NO, SHELT. SHELT. SIZE

2 250

7

SHELT. SIZE

ASS£1Jl D. 100

1 100 100

l.j. 600 100

2 200 100

1 200 100

2 350 100

7 200 100

6 500 100

9 500 100

8 500 100

3 200 100

3 100 100

8 500 100

5 200 100

3 200 100

l.j. 200 100

10 1,000 1~000

1 100 100

l.j. 200 100

5 200 100

6 200 100

8

NO. SHELT.

5 1

23

l.j.

2

7

llt

29

l.j.l.j.

tro

6

3

39

11

6

7

10

1

8

9

13

(Continued)

TABLE V. (Cont 1 d)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RES. POP

ASSN 1D. IN SHELT. MAP 2 PSI NO. SHELT. SIZE NO.

COUNTY TOWNSHIP ...N.Q.!. RING SHELT. ~ ASSM 1D. Sill~ Warren Palmyra 22 .2 2 100 100 2

Warren Richland 23 .1 1 100 100 1

Warren Lincoln 24 .1 1 100 100 1

Warren Jefferson 25 .1 1 100 100 1

Polk Des Heines 26 178.0 .Jl2. 2,000 2,000 89

TOTAL COLUMNS 4 and 5 215.9 188 TOTKL 307@ 100 10 @1000 82 @2000

406 Shelt.

SOURCE: ~250 United States Census of Po2ulation, U. S. Department

of Commerce, Bureau of Census, estimated by D.E.W.

!,~~1~.-YI "-Counties, townships, resident population (1950) in 2 psi ring,

number of shelters and size by geograpr1ic area and number of shelters by assumed size for Dubuque target area. (Population in thousands)

1 2 3 ' I" 6 7 8 '+ )

RES. POP

ASfN'D. IN SI-E~LT,. MAP 2 PSI NO., SHEW, SIZE NO.

COTThlTY -- TO\'JNSHIE _N£.:.. RIHG S}f~IJT, _S ±ZE! --L\.J?.§Jvl~J2. · SHEI.J;. ---·--Dubuque Con-cord 1 .l

., 100 lOO 1 .;..

Dubuque Jefferson 2 ,8 '+ 200 IOO 8

Dubuque Peru 3 .8 4- 200 100 8

Dubuque Dubuque l..;- L.. 1 '·~

L!. 11000 "": "!" "· .J '1 Vdl. .. .: 4

Dubuque Center 5 ,8 ~- 200 100 8

Dubuque Io11ra 6 ; l 100 100 1 o.L

Dubuque Taylor 7 ~ ... ., 3CC 100 3 J.

Dubuque Vernon 8 .8 4 2CO lQC 8

Dubuque Table Hound 9 l.l ' LJ· 300 lOC 11

Dubuque Hosalern 10 ~6 4 150 lOO 6

Jackson Tete Des lvlorts ""1 'l ' 100 J .. OO "1 .-1..-<. o.L ' .L

Jackson Prairie ].2 .3 2 1~50 l.CG ., :J

Springs

Dubuque vl a shj_ng ton l3 r.] 2 1?.:: 1SO 3

Dubuque Prairie Creek llt .3 1 300 , (\(\ ...Lvv .3

Dubuque Dubuque 15 50.5 16 ') ,.,,.."Jc· .- ;lA '? ocu 1 ?.

.J_\.) -------- ·-·-~~~--

TOTAL COL Ul•f::,S 1j and 5 60.9 53-0 ~;-~OT.AI.~ ... ·~ 0_, @ 100

I. -;~ @1000

_16 @~000 --·- 83 Sl-:_t~1t4

SOURCE: ;:L. Department

of Commerce, .Bureau of Census, est:.maceJ by D.E .. H,.

TABLE VII.

Counties, townships, resident population (1950) in 2 psi ring, number of shelters and size by geographic area and number of shelters by assumed size for Sioux City target area. (Population in thousands)

1 2 3 4

COUNTY Plymouth

TOvJNSHIP Sioux

RES. POP

ASSN 1D. IN MAP 2 PSI NO. RING

1 .2

Plymouth Liberty 2

Plymouth Hungerford 3

Plymouth Perry 4

Plymouth Hancock 5

Woodbury Concord 6

11/oodbury Floyd 7

Woodbury Woodbury 8

\lfoodbury Liberty 9

Woodbury Sioux City 10

.1

.2

.6

.2

.6

.1

1.9

·3 83.9

TOTAL COLUMNS 4 and 5 88.1

5 6

NO. SHELT. SHELT. SIZE

1 200

1

2

4

2

1

100

100

150

100

150

100

400

100

7 8

SHELT. SIZE NO.

ASSM 1D. SHELT. 100 2

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

1

2

6

2

6

5

3

42 2,000 2,000

1

19

3

42

65 TOTAL 42 @ 100 42 @2000

84 Shelt.

SOURCE: 1950 Unjted States Census of Population, u. s. Department

of Commerce, Bureau of Census, estimated by D.E.W.

TABLE VIII,

Counties, townships 2 resident population (1950) in 2 psi ring, number of shelters and s1ze by geographic area and number of shelters by assumed size for 11Jaterloo target area. (Population in thousands)

1

COUNTY Bremer

Bremer

Bremer

2

TOWNSHIP Jackson

Jefferson

Maxfield

BlackhavJk Lester

Blackhawk Bennington

Blackhawk Mt. Vernon

Blackhawk Washington

Blackhm..rk Union

Butler Beaver

Grundy Fairfield

Blackhawk Cedar Falls

3

ASSN'D. JI:!AP NO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Blackhav1k East Waterloo 12

Blackha111k Poyner

Blackhawk Barclay

Blackhawk Fox

Blackha>vk Cedar

Blackhawk Orange

Blackha111k Blackhavrk

Grundy Grant

Blackhawk Lincoln

Black.havk Eagle

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Blackhawk Waterloo 22

TOTAL COLUHNS 4 and 5

4 RES. POP IN

2 PSI RING

.4

.6

1.1

1.0

.4

.4

·3 15.8

2.0

1.4

.3

.2

·9

1.1

1.2

.4

.3

.4

5

NO. SHELT.

2

2

2

2

4

5

5 4

2

3

10

4

7

3

2

3

4

4

2

2

4

65.]: 33 91r.6 109

6 7

SHELT. SHELT. SIZE SIZE ASSM 1D.

200 100

250 100

250 100

150

150

200

200

100

200

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

150 1,000

500

200

100

100

300

300

300

200

150

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

2,000 2,000

TOTAL

8

NO. SHELT.

4

5

5

3

6

11

10

4

4

3

16

20

14

3

2

9

11

12

4

3

4

33

SOURCE: 1220 United States Census of Ponu1atio~, u. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, estimated by D.E.W.

137@ 100 16 @1000 ii @2000

186 Shelt.

. __ ..___ --- ...,__.....__ __ - ---+-------+---- ---!-?----- ----+--1 u t.o 19 ,s I

I I I I 1--

1 I 1 l I I L ) I :

1- ZCJMT: p~f:SSIJ~ cor-frou1't1i- su~]cE I$W~S) I I

I I !---1 •. I

~ I I

\_r, I i t=-----+------+------......._- ___ L_

-, I I ' 1 I I I

1 I I -r---~---+---

1 I I

I --t-3 I I!

~- I I I ---t---t-------+

5 I

I I

-~t I I

1 I

I ~---

--~---l 1 r---1 I

s-! I ___ __,.... ___ j __ j __

( ? 1 a I \ I I

t _ __,.J ::1 I . -~--~---t-----

1 I I .--- ___J

, I I I }----_l-~--.-_j~--

1 _ 20

MT PR~'S~RE c:ot~root<s- f'JI"<I=AC.C 13\JRfT I COUNCIL BLUFFS -t A~S14N£r::> Tot"t'u; •. nr Nu""e~Yts 1

i I i _c_j -Ll I i ---r---t--lL_ 1 L?--t-L I I I I I I

I I I I ----....-------+--..!' ~ ...... J f/·~~ II

~ - !_......- I ._,. i I '-~ ~· ..... ~~

I I I i ) --- ---~-- -r--~t--;-t 4 :

I 7 I I r-- -·1 I I I I I I

I

I --~

L_ I

______ ..

I I I

j_ 17 I

I I

:::;:;:;=----=.:::::L ~-. I IZ.

....

I- ZOMT pRE.SSU~€.. conTouRS- SlJRFAce BURST DAVE:NPORT - ASS14tU:C TOWNSMIP NUMGE.RS

•

\

I I I

\ I ~-t--

L_,_J I

I I

I

I

I I s-

-f---t -~t--;--p---- I'' I I f I \

I I I :z.' I ' --~-------+--------L----t---+----

1 1 I I I

-~---1

I I I I ', : I I I ' ----r--~---+---~~

1 I I 1

I I I I I I -+--1 /_::: Zo-"l_L__~RE -'1:T0Uf1._>_ ::__SU~FA<~ BURSt ___ +I __

I ousucaue. A'SSI41"l£b I WNSt·UP N~SG:RS" r I

:-----r I i I

/ I I I II

' I I I I I +- -+ __ _L ___ _ r----.---,---~-- ~- I

',, I I 1

I I

' I • I --+--- -----

6 I i

I I I

~--L. rj__,_j I I ! I I

• __ 1 __ -L,, -t----·--------; +-

! • I : I ~~ [ I I

~-----+---~--~-\ i I I

• 1 I I ,/ __ L _l_~ 1- .Z ()M T PRf.SSUQt: C.CN To u"R'F..Ke. au R5;T

Sioux Cfy - ASSI41<1ED TowN SH eE.Rs

I I I

-+--I I I J,_

I I I

I I I

I I II I

I I :

-Ll. /~ ~---~-~=-==-::::-=-....J....,----l----~------, I I I

7 ' I I

t--_/ I'\ I I I I

--~ ___ j ~-,_-l_-~_1_ ____ ~-- ~--1 ' I I

I I --r---1

I I

l ;; I

I I I

I I I t---- --j-\---

1

I l I ~----

I I I

1 :

'--- /','--/ I

I I

-+------+--1

I '

I ~ r--/"' I /-----... ( ) I

~--r---. -1 "'~r ~ r (~ r--i--, I L ~ I l I l- ) I I I 1_ '30 MT PRf:$SUu RE koNroui~S- IJRFA(-15 13Uf?ST +

--fE.DA~APIDS1 ----~ ~--r--1_L__ __ ' r------1 \ I I I

1, I

'\ I

I

v', I

I I I I

..............;----~----L-1

1 I I

1 I I --t---r --~---+--· I I I I

I ! I

--+--- '----+---: I I I I ~---

_t__ r-----1 I I r--1 I I

_j __ j __

I I I

I I I I I

I _l_ -~--+----1 I I

r--- __J

-2--\ I I I _l ~-, }-- -f-----,--- r-----

1- 30 MT PRfiFSUR.€ c.o~Toul~s- sURf~c.k I'?Ui~Sf 1

COUNCIL BlUFFS \ I ! l

------

I I I

I I I

---~---(- 30 MT PR€-SSURE CO~Totr~!>- SURFACE BU~T

DAVE:.N PORT

I I I

_ ... i',

I" I ...... _~--- ~~~~

I 1 I ',__,__ __

I I I I --+ ---~--1 I

: I ---t- --+--

: I

I I _j_ __ -'---+---j_ ___ s ---...........,...~

I I I I I I I I I ' I I : I \

--~---------+---- -L---+--- ---1 I I .I I \ I I I I I \ --t--- ----r----+----+---r--· ! I I I I I • I I I I

-l--1 L:::3Q..MT_~ ~s~u ~~ _!~ rDIJ RS _:-__$RFAC£ __!!vRJ~ ___ ~ __ I DUSUQU~ I I ! l I

t-----~ I 1

l I I I I I I

I___ --+-' ---+-----"! ....__ I I I (-· _, ___ _L ___ j

',, j I I I 1

1 I I

',, __ J ___ +---+-- I I I I I -t----t

.l-:30 MT StOt.IX Cify

I I I I I :

~--- I -------t I I I I

--f-t_j __ , --,_1

I I I

I I ~~--+--

1 I I I I

-/!.. ~-- :::+---~---t-\ I I I

) I I I ~""e<"S<<I<li LOI4TO\'!!"~¢e ""RfT __ L _J __

I

-~----+---~

--, I

I

I I I I • !P I

I I ~ I

I I /"' I /~ ( \ I ~ ~~t-""- I ) L

I I I

----!-i I I

----!-I I I

t---1 I

---t- --, I I c\ __ I : I I l I I I L ) I :

--i-· I 1- 60 MT PRESSURe coN-fouRs l suRF::AJ:.e:. 6UR.LT +I

---f£DA~APIDS8 ---~ r--f--_1

_L__ __ I t ~---~ \ I

' I I

I I I :

\..L..--1--c------+- --- ---t--, I I I

I I I I I ~--t----r-- ~--~--

1 I I

I I I -t----+ --t---

1 I I I I ~--t ___ l --1 I I r--· I I I

..............__-.p_j __ j __

I I

--s- I / I /

I _l_r__ --+----1 I I , /_j I

~t ,_ _ _l_f---,-_lf---1- eo MT PR€S~URE C.ONTOU~'S- suR.FAdE: BURST I

couN c' L 6LUrF.S \ 1 ! 1

---t---1--~Ls,-J I I I I I I i I

I --+---~ --- --- I, _ ~- ... -J f ... ~- ...

Ll I I L-+----, I r r--L I I I I

I I

'-~

: I I 1 I I I I I I

-----t----t-----+---TJ :

I I i ~---1 l I I I

m_.., ...,j......,.___..,_~ _L~ ...,.#

I _J

I I I

L __ --~-~. I

l ;r----

\-60 Mr DAVENPORT

10

---.e--

I I

- I, ____ .......,.... ____ "!=---------_+-1-_------+-------t--1 --l I I I

-r- -l "1, i I j \ r-------+---r--I I I

I I I I

t----t-1 :

I I I

\1 I 1 1 I I

-~ l_-r---t', I I I

I I I I

I I I

_ ... 1', I

---1--,i~-~~r- .......... .....,...._ _____ _ ... ,

I \

I I

-+-----r-1 I

I I ~---t-

1

I I __ j_ __ _

I I s I I I I I I I : I

-- ---L---+---+---' \

1 I 1 I

I I \ I I 1 ' I \ --+--- ----r----+----+---r---: I I I I I I I I I I

__ I I_:::::_~T-~PR€S.SUR£_to!'IITouR~-JuRFAcE._ 8.!JL •r_ __ + __ I DUBUQUE' I , t r ,

r-----~ I I I I I

I I i I I I

,------~---r--1 --~---J ', I 1 I I I """ I 1 1 I I

', I 1 I I , --t---. ---r----4>.----+

I-60MT Sioux c.'fy

I I I I I I I I

~--- I -------t

I J I I I

__ 11_ ___,__L

I I I I I I

__ j;---·- 1---t- -~-

1 I i t------+- -t--I-

l I I ~ ,J I I I

P~Essu~:o>& C.ON~--- __ L _j __ \_"'S - SUI";?FAC£ i5'CJRS'r

-+---~---r----t----+----+--1 : I I I : I I I I I ----1 I

_T ___ : L-~--~---r I L_ ____ / I I I I l

I I I

--- ----+-----~-

I I I I

_j_~--~ I

I l

t---t-

1

I

\ I

I I I

--i--I I I

--~-I I I

'" 1 I --t-· __ ___j l ~---.,...__ s---- "\ I

l----~ I

I ~ I I I '--

--1-----

1 I I I ( I I "Z I I )-

.- t -1-SOMT-~ P~E.>SURE icoJJTOURS :::1-suRFACE EtRs.;=----1 I WATERLOO I ! I I !

8 I I

• - -o~--- ----~------+------ ---+-___,.,.-. ---+--- ----4----

1 : I I I I ~ I 1--

1 I /"" I /"" /\ I : I-" ~/'--r~/ y ) L t ---r----: I I "~-- ~-- --

' I L ) I :

---fEDA_!LRAPID51 --~ r--r--,-L__ __ I l :---~ \ I

' I I I

'v, I :

t=-----+--- --- ---f--\ i I I I

I I I I -- ---r---~---+--· I I I I

--r-...1 i I

~ ~---+ ---+---i---

1 i ! I I ~--·

~.,L---\-H'~~---~---~-- t --I---1 I I r---1 I !

---¥-----J __ j __

I I I I \

__ •z I 1 .

' _L_r---.-1---r------1 I I

..-- ___.J

, I I I }---_l-f----.--__j~--

4- 5 MT p(:l.e.*UC:i!£ CONTOURS~ SU~FACE' GU~ST I COUNCIL BLUF'F'S \ I I I

+-1

I i _c_j -Ll : . i

--- ---t--IL l L?--r--L : I I I I I I I I I I I

--- --- I ' I ___ j ..,...,-~'l~VL I ' I ... ,_~ I ... f\ ... ~,

I I I I I I : )

I I 1 I --- ----t----c- J ,

I I --1 I I I

I

--~

J I )

I I I

L---+ I l I

____ .,., ;r----

4- 5 NT PREssu~c c:o~TouRS - suR.FAc£ 13URn

DAVENPORT

- ---,--

1

I

I I

I I I

... ......r--- _..,..._...... _ ... __

I I I ___ t ___ .... '-....- "'- i

I I I \ ~ I I a \\ 1 i

--J-----+---~ /// I ~-t--: I I r--/ L__,_J I

I I I I

I I I --r----- ---,----, ----J-----..__ __ I I I I

I 4- sMr : PR&S'SU!leE L~TOUR~- .S~RFACe BI.IR..STI II

: DES MO«Wf i I I

_ ... 1',

:"' I ...... _

I 1 I

I I I --+----~ -- ~t-1-1-r--~,

I I

I I --t----f-

1 I I

I I I --1----4---- ---~~

I I : I ' I I I : I \

--r----------+-------L----t---+---1 I . I I \ I : I t

1

1 \

I I I \ --t--- ----r-----+---+---y---1 I I I I I I . I I I I

I 4-SMT : PRiissu~e ~tN-rt~uRs _:_sukrAc.E_ mJ~s~ ___ _j_ __ ----+--' DUBUQUE-~- - I 1 r ,

,-----~ I I I l I [ I I i

',, I 1 I I I

"" I I 1 I I _I I 1 I t

~\~ ~---,---r--i---t I I I

---M---- I -------r l

I I . I I

----, -- j_ I I I - ---r ___L

I 1 I -s I 1 I

t----- ---' +-' I . +---- ---z' I I

I I I I I I

~----+---~--~-\ l I I

) I I I 4- 5MT p~e.ssu~E c• ... Tor SU!!':!'=f 6U ... '>T __ L _l __

Siou~~; Ci~

--t----~---r----t----+----+--1 : I I I l

I -----1 I I _T ___ l L~--~---~---:

I ._ ____ / I I I

I I 1 -+---- --- -+-------i---

1 I

I I -t--- -+--.f--

1

I I I

---t--I

• I _J,_ I I I