International Corporation Air Sciences

(Revised) 

FINAL 

LADCO NONROAD EMISSION INVENTORY PROJECT 

FOR LOCOMOTIVE, COMMERCIAL MARINE, 

AND RECREATIONAL MARINE EMISSION SOURCES 

Prepared for 

Michael Koerber 

Lake Michigan Air Director Consortium 

2250 E. Devon Ave., Suite 250 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Prepared by 

Christian E. Lindhjem 

ENVIRON International Corporation 

101 Rowland Way, Suite 220 

Novato, CA 94945-5010 

December 2004 

 101 Rowland Way, Suite 220, Novato, CA 94945 415.899.0700
December 2004 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 

 

2.0 LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION SOURCES .................................................................... 2-1 

3.0 COMMERCIAL MARINE EMISSIONS.................................................................... 3-1 

4.0 RECREATIONAL MARINE ....................................................................................... 4-1 

5.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 5-1 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Class I Railway System Descriptions and Maps 

Appendix B: Regressions Results Of Scaled Wisconsin Survey Results 

Appendix C: County Allocation Maps 

Appendix D: Geographic Allocation Comparison Tables (CD Rom) 

Appendix E: County Emission Estimates (CD Rom) 

TABLES 

Table 1-1. Summary of commercial marine activity categories and data source.................. 1-2 

Table 2-1. Rail categories...................................................................................................... 2-1 

Table 2-2. Emission factor estimates used in this work (grams per gallon). ........................ 2-2 

Table 2-3. National fuel consumption (AAR, 2003)............................................................. 2-3 

Table 2-4. Comparison of fuel consumption (gallons) allocation 

 method and railroad activity survey estimates..................................................... 2-3 

Table 2-5. Class II/III national summary activity rates......................................................... 2-4 

Table 2-6. AMTRAK Midwest operations............................................................................ 2-5 

Table 2-7. AMTRAK state fuel consumption estimates. ...................................................... 2-5 

Table 2-8. 2003 Fuel consumption for METRA rail............................................................. 2-6 

Table 2-9. METRA rail line mileage by county.................................................................... 2-8 

Table 2-10. METRA rail annual fuel consumption estimate by county. ................................ 2-9 

Table 2-11. Illinois Class I railroad fuel consumption estimates............................................ 2-9 

Table 2-12. Locomotive emissions in Illinois (tons per year)............................................... 2-10 

Table 2-13. Indiana Class I railroad fuel consumption. ........................................................ 2-10 

Table 2-14. Locomotive emissions in Indiana (tons per year).............................................. 2-10 

Table 2-15. Michigan Class I railroad fuel consumption...................................................... 2-11 

Table 2-16. Locomotive emissions in Michigan (tons per year)........................................... 2-11 

Table 2-17. Ohio Class I railroad fuel consumption. ............................................................ 2-11 
December 2004 

ii 

Table 2-18. Locomotive emissions in Ohio (tons per year).................................................. 2-12 

Table 2-19. Wisconsin Class I railroad fuel consumption. ................................................... 2-12 

Table 2-20. Locomotive emissions in Wisconsin (tons per year). ........................................ 2-12

Table 3-1. Commercial vessel types...................................................................................... 3-1 

Table 3-2. Marine engine categories. .................................................................................... 3-2 

Table 3-3. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines 

 (taken from Table 5-3, EPA 1999B).................................................................... 3-2 

Table 3-4. EPA (1999c, 2003) baseline emission factors for 

 category 2 and 3 engines...................................................................................... 3-3 

Table 3-5. Marine engine test cycles..................................................................................... 3-3 

Table 3-6. Fuel consumption (gallons of diesel) by river system. ........................................ 3-5 

Table 3-7. Example: activity apportionment along the Illinois River................................... 3-5 

Table 3-8. Emission factors (g/gallon) used for push boats.................................................. 3-6 

Table 3-9. Relative monthly freight transfers through selected locks in 1999...................... 3-7 

Table 3-10. Emission rates (g/ton-mile) for push boats assuming 549 

 (ton-mile/gallon) fuel consumption rate. ............................................................. 3-9 

Table 3-11. Relative activity of freight transfers. ................................................................... 3-9 

Table 3-12. Relative monthly activity of freight transfers. ................................................... 3-11 

Table 3-13. Ports with significant deep draft traffic in the LADCO States. ......................... 3-12 

Table 3-14. Summary emission estimates for the detailed ports 

 (tons/year). ENVIRON, 2002. .......................................................................... 3-13 

Table 3-15. Great Lakes freight tonnage (1000 tons) by port............................................... 3-14 

Table 3-16. Emission rate (gram per ton-mile) for deep draft vessels.................................. 3-16 

Table 3-17. Sample ferry runs in the LADCO area .............................................................. 3-17 

Table 3-18. Selected ferry-operating hours........................................................................... 3-17 

Table 3-19. Fish landings in 2002 (NMFS, 2003). ............................................................... 3-18 

Table 3-20. Five state emissions (tons/year) by vessel type for near 

 shore emissions .................................................................................................. 3-20 

Table 3-21. Mid-Lake deep-draft vessel activity by Lake (tons/yr)...................................... 3-21 

Table 3-22. Commercial marine emissions (tons/year) by state this work and NEI............. 3-21 

Table 4-1. List of Variables from the 1989-1990 Wisconsin Recreational Boating Study... 4-1 

Table 4-2. Month of year allocation of annual boating activity (WI DNR, 1991)................ 4-2 

Table 4-3. Day of week allocation of weekly boating activity (WI DNR, 1991). ................ 4-3 

Table 4-4. Time of day allocation (WI DNR, 1991)............................................................. 4-3 

Table 4-5. Sample comparison of relative state allocation of boating activity. .................... 4-4 

Table 4-6. Regression statistics for geographic allocation by boat and water type. ............. 4-7 

Table 4-7. Outboard population fractions by power level and fuel type............................... 4-8 

Table 4-8. Personal watercraft population fractions by power level..................................... 4-8 

Table 4-9. Inboard population fractions by power level and fuel type. ................................ 4-8 

Table 4-10. State boat registrations......................................................................................... 4-9 

Table 4-11. Annual emission estimates (tons) for 2002........................................................ 4-10 
December 2004 

iii 

FIGURES 

Figure 2-1. METRA rail system. ............................................................................................ 2-7 

Figure 3-1. Example push boat (Port of Milwaukee, http://www.port.mil.wi.us/)................. 3-4 

Figure 3-2. Great Lakes freight links...................................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3-3. Example of a tug. ............................................................................................... 3-10 

Figure 3-4. Cleveland harbor................................................................................................ 3-11 

Figure 3-5. Washington Island Ferry.................................................................................... 3-16 

Figure 3-6. Excursion vessel in Green Bay. ......................................................................... 3-16 

Figure 3-7. Coast Guard cutter ............................................................................................. 3-19 

Figure 3-8. Primary smaller vessels used by Coast Guard units .......................................... 3-20 

Figure 4-1. Wisconsin county allocation of boating activity (this work and EPA default).... 4-4 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 1_Introduction.doc 1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report outlines the results of the work to improve the emission inventories for the offroad emission categories: locomotives, commercial marine, and pleasure craft. This work 

identified the available sources of equipment activity information for local emission sources 

for overall and by county activity estimates. The emission inventory improvements outlined in 

this work resulted in revised county-level annual emissions estimates including background 

data on equipment ownership and activity. Section 2 describes the Locomotive estimates, 

Section 3 describes the Commercial Marine estimates, and Section 4 describes the 

Recreational Marine estimates. 

LOCOMOTIVE SUMMARY 

Because the LADCO area, and Chicago in particular, is an important rail center, all of the 

largest Class I railways [Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Union Pacific, CSXT, 

Norfolk Southern, Kansas City-Southern, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and 

AMTRAK] have significant operations. The four most important railways in the US (Union 

Pacific, BNSF, Norfolk Southern, and CSX) and the major passenger operations of AMTRAK 

and the local Chicagoland METRA provided estimates of their activity in the area. Other large 

and small railways were estimated using national activity estimates and national to county 

allocation methods described in Section 2 to provide regional estimates of their activity. The 

largest source of uncertainty in the emissions estimates rests with the three large Class I 

railroads that did not provide summary data, Kansas City Southern, Canadian Pacific, and 

Canadian National and their subsidiaries.

Locomotive activity is reported as two basic categories as fuel consumption of by either linehaul or switching engines. The reporting Class I railways provided line-haul activity by gross 

ton-miles (GTM) converted to fuel consumption using system-wide average fuel consumption 

rates. Switching engine activity was proportioned by number of locomotives at each yard with 

average annual usage and fuel consumption. Some Class I railroads, Norfolk Southern and 

CSX provided only line-haul activity and switching rail activity was apportioned according to 

the line-haul activity. Switching engine fuel consumption is usually less than 10% of Class I 

rail activity. However, for Class I railroads unable to supply activity estimates, fuel 

consumption was estimated using system-wide fuel consumption estimates provided by 

Association of American Railroad’s (AAR) “Analysis of Class I Railroads” or “Railroad 

Facts” and distributed across each State using the ratio of regional and national miles of road 

operation. 

The LADCO region also includes several dozen short line and regional railways, which do not 

maintain accessible records of activity. They may maintain total annual railway activity, 

which may span more than one State or County, but surveying each railway was impractical 

for this work. Nationally, the fuel consumption of regional and short line railroads have been 

responsible for well under 10% of all locomotive fuel consumption, so the regional and short 

line railroads are of less concern than the Class I rail activity. To estimate short line and 

regional railway activity, annual survey results conducted to date were used to estimate 

national average estimates of fuel consumption per employee for these short line and regional 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 1_Introduction.doc 1-2 

railroads. Data on the revenues and number of employees for each of the 75 short line and 

regional railways were purchased from Dun and Bradstreet or from the “Profiles of US 

Railroads” from the AAR, providing a basis for an estimate of overall activity for these 

railways without surveying each one. The regional and short line railways activity were 

allocated to the Counties of operation using system track mileage available from maps of the 

transportation network. 

The local Chicago METRA passenger rail company (http://www.metrarail.com/) locomotive 

activity were determined from annual activity estimates provided by METRA for each of their 

regular routes. AMTRAK estimates were provided by fuel consumption estimates for a sample 

set of their trains from which all routes were estimated based on the number of trains and 

mileage. 

COMMERCIAL MARINE EMISSION ESTIMATES 

Commercial marine emissions consist of several different categories of vessel types shown in 

the Table 1-1. Each category has its own unique operations and specific considerations. To 

estimate emissions from each category, each of several unique activity data sources and engine 

types and emissions rates were used to estimate regional emissions. Section 3 provides a 

detailed description of the revised emission estimates for commercial marine vessel activity 

and emissions. 

Table 1-1. Summary of commercial marine activity categories and data source. 

Commercial Marine 

Category Spatial Range 

Activity Estimation 

Data Source 

Large Deep Draft Near Port Ports and Army Corps of Engineers 

Large Deep Draft Mid-Lake Army Corps of Engineers 

Barge Traffic Inland Rivers Tennessee Valley Authority Fuel 

Consumption Estimation 

Barge Traffic Lake Traffic Army Corps of Engineers Freight 

Carried 

Tug Near Port Coast Guard Vessel List and Selected 

Surveys 

Ferries Regular Route Coast Guard Vessel List and Selected 

Surveys 

Excursion Near Home Port Coast Guard Vessel List 

Dredging Area by Contract Army Corps of Engineers Contracts 

Commercial Fishing Dock State Registration 

Military Near shore and 

Mid-Lake Coast Guard Fuel Purchases 

For deep draft vessels, ocean-going and large laker vessels, the activity estimates consisted of 

two spatially distinct areas of near port and mid-lake activity. The near port emission estimates 

were derived from earlier work by scaling the emission estimates provided in work performed 

for EPA. Mid-lake emissions from deep draft vessel traffic was estimated using the waterway 

link ton-mile freight activity provided by the Army Corps of Engineers. The emission rates 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 1_Introduction.doc 1-3 

per ton-mile were estimated using cruise condition emissions for the ports with specific vessel 

calls and freight transfers previously studied. 

For tug and tow vessels, those involved in barge traffic, the primarily activity was found along 

the river systems of the Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois rivers. The Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) provided estimates from their barge-costing model for the LADCO region by river 

system. The general waterway activity estimates from TVA was distributed along waterways 

using freight tonnage activity at locks provided by the Army Corps of Engineers and distance 

between locks to estimate relative ton-miles of freight transfers for different segments of the 

river activity. Less important but for completeness, lake barge (as distinguished from large 

ocean-going or “laker”) traffic was estimated using Army Corps freight transfers within 2 

miles of shore, where barges are limited by the Coast Guard, distinct of the mid-lake deep 

draft vessel activity. 

Ferries and excursion craft were identified through Coast Guard vessel catalogues available 

from the Army Corps of Engineers. Each vessel’s registered port was provided to spatially 

allocate the base emissions for vessels that provide day trips and other excursion activity. 

Dredge activity is also regulated and contracted by the Army Corps. Emission estimates per 

ton of dredged material were estimated by survey for the Houston State Implementation Plan 

and used in this work to convert emissions in the LADCO area with the Army Corps dredged 

material contracts. 

For commercial fishing vessels, State registrations for Michigan and catch tonnage were the 

primary sources of information to estimate vessel counts by State. Selected vessels were 

identified to estimate the annual operations. 

RECREATIONAL MARINE EMISSION ESTIMATES 

Recreational marine vessels represent an important category of off-road hydrocarbon 

emissions. The impact of these emissions depends upon both the overall emissions and the 

spatial and temporal allocation of those emissions. Section 4 provides a detailed description of 

the revised county-level estimates of recreational boating activity. 

EPA in its NONROAD emissions model has used national equipment population estimates 

distributed to each county through a modified water surface area method. This modified 

allocation reduced the impact of oceans and Great Lakes on water surface area by restricting 

the distance offshore used in the allocation, where a greater distance offshore was used for inboard vessels than for outboard or personal watercraft. 

This work improved the vessel population estimates using State registration data and developed 

an improved allocation method informed by an extensive survey conducted in Wisconsin. The 

boat population for each State was derived from State vessel registration and distributed among 

the equipment types (inboard, outboard, personal watercraft, and sailboat auxiliary and other 

types) and power level groupings used in EPA’s NONROAD model. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 1_Introduction.doc 1-4 

A spatial allocation method was developed using the results of the targeted survey conducted 

by Wisconsin in 1989 – 1990. The Wisconsin DNR surveys provided activity rates by county 

of operation and provided additional specificity to distinguish activity on the Mississippi and 

St. Croix border rivers, from Great Lakes, and all other inland lake and river activity. The 

Wisconsin survey results were used to identify and develop relationships for important 

variables to describe the attractiveness of water bodies. The relative rates of boating activity 

by water surface area (distinguishing Great Lakes from other water surface area), boating 

registration, and distance from point of registration to water body were found to be the 

important spatial allocation variables. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-1 

2.0 LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION SOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

Locomotives are usually the most important source of NOx, PM, and SOx emissions from offroad engines. Rail activity is especially important in the LADCO states, because the Chicago and 

other metropolitan areas in the LADCO states represent important rail centers. 

Rail activity is typically broken into 5 subcategories shown in Table 2-1 from the National 

Emission Inventory. (EPA, 2001) Class I railroad operations are the largest and most important 

railroads and have been split into two categories, which ENVIRON considered to be their linehaul (SCC 2285002006) and switching (SCC 2285002010) activity. Smaller rail (Class II and III; 

SCC 2285002007) include a large number of railroads and wide variety of operations including 

line-haul and switching operations. It was useful to separate switching activity from line-haul 

activity for both Class I and II/III because the emissions are usually specific to a given yard and 

such engines have different operating profiles. AMTRAK operates the only continuous 

passenger rail system (SCC 2285002008), though there may be small (weekend) excursion lines 

operating sporadically and largely unidentified. The only commuter line (SCC 2285002009) that 

operates in the LADCO area is the METRA system in and around the Chicago metropolitan area. 

Table 2-1. Rail categories. 

SCC Description Comment 

2285002006 Class I operations 

Union Pacific (UP), Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe (BNSF), Norfolk Southern (NS), CSX, 

Kansas City Southern (KCS), Canadian 

National1

, Canadian Pacific (CP)2

2285002007 Class II/III operations Regional and local railroads 

2285002008 Passenger Trains AMTRAK 

2285002009 Commuter lines METRA3

2285002010 Yard Operations Class I yard rail and small switching railroads 

1 – Illinois and Wisconsin Central also included in Canadian National Grand Trunk (CNGT) 

2 – Soo Line included 

3 – One other line operates an electric rail system only. 

The primary activity unit used to determine emissions is gallons of fuel consumed. To provide a 

perspective on emissions from different categories, Class I switching fuel consumption was on 

average less than 10% of line-haul fuel consumption nationwide in 2002. (AAR, 2003) Small 

regional and switching rail was just over 6% of Class I line-haul consumption for the same 

period. The passenger and commuter rail systems were easily identified for this study and 

provided activity data specific to the system. 

Emission rates used in this work were derived from EPA documents provided as support 

documentation for the 1997 locomotive emission standards. (EPA, 1997) The emission rates per 

gallon of fuel consumed are higher with switching engines because the duty cycle is on average 

lower power with a significant amount of idle, so the engine does not operate as efficiently as 

possible. Emission rates are higher for smaller rail systems than Class I railroad operations 

because they have been expected to convert more slowly to lower emissions engines. (EPA, 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-2 

2004a) EPA (2004b) provided the ammonia emission rates using the latest available data. The 

emission rates used in this work are shown in Table 2-2. 

Table 2-2. Emission factor estimates used in this work (grams per gallon).

Engine Type HC CO NOx PM SOx1 NH32

Precontrolled 1999 Line-haul 10 26.6 270 6.7 16.7 0.116 

Precontrolled 1999 Switching 21 38.1 362 9.2 16.7 0.116 

Including emission reductions expected with the EPA rulemaking (% Reduction) 

2002 Class I Line-haul 9.99 

(0.1%) 

26.6 238.3 

(11.8%) 

6.7 16.7 0.116 

2002 Class I Switching 21 38.1 355.8 

(1.7%) 

9.2 

(0.02%) 

16.7 0.116 

2002 Class II/III Line-haul 10 26.6 268.9 

(0.4%) 

6.7 16.7 0.116 

2002 Class II/III Switching 21 38.1 360.5 

(0.4%) 

9.2 16.7 0.116 

2002 Passenger 9.99 

(0.1%) 

26.6 253.0 

(6.3%) 

6.7 16.7 0.116 

1 – Reported as SO2 and derived from an average sulfur level of 2600 ppm. (EPA, 2004c) 

2 – EPA (2004b) 

The different emission rates do not match the SCC definitions exactly. The primary differences 

are that Class II/III switching has been treated with distinct emission factors compared to the 

Class II/III line-haul because of duty cycle differences, and commuter rail has the same emission 

factors as other passenger rail. 

CLASS I RAILROADS 

Because the Class I railroads were expected to be the most significant rail operations in most 

areas including the LADCO states, every Class I railroad was asked for information about their 

rail operation. A summary description of the Class I railroads’ operations is provided in 

Appendix A. 

Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) provided the most favorable 

responses. They supplied estimates of fuel consumption by rail line (using internal estimates of 

ton-mile freight movements) for line-haul engines, and the number of switching engines plus 

hours of operation specific to each yard in their system. Norfolk Southern (NS) and CSX were 

able to provide similar estimates for their line-haul freight movements, but were unable to detail 

their switching rail activity beyond the Cook County yards. These railroads provided activity by 

county in terms of ton-mile of freight movements and estimated fuel consumption using typical 

system-wide fuel consumption per ton-mile. 

For other Class I railroads (Canadian National, also called the Grand Trunk (CNGT) and 

includes the Illinois and Wisconsin Central railroads; Canadian Pacific (CP), includes the Soo 

Line; and Kansas City Southern (KCS)) who did not provide estimates of relative activity in the 

LADCO states, an alternative method was used to estimate state fuel consumption. The US 

national fuel consumption for each railroad was prorated against the relative system mileage 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-3 

within each state as a fraction of the railroad’s reported US national system. (AAR, 2003) A 

summary of the national fuel consumption and track miles estimates are shown in Tables 2-3. 

Table 2-3. National fuel consumption (AAR, 2003). 

Railroad Line-haul Switching Track Miles 

CNGT 108,013,647 15,135,382 9,831

CP 42,198,000 3,060,000 4,701

KCS 51,256,604 4,057,180 4,359

CSX 514,107,567 56,172,596 40,299

NS 433,678,710 38,810,939 38,515

UP 1,176,963,998137,902,327 54,901

BNSF 1,091,248,247 57,434,118 49,728

Total 3,417,466,773312,572,542 169,554

The method using track mileage to allocate national fuel consumption may in some cases 

misallocate activity because all track mileage does not carry the same average freight traffic. 

Shown in Table 2-4 is a comparison of the railroad submissions and the approximate method for 

those Class I railroads that provided information. It appeared that the method using track miles 

underestimated the travel of the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (the major states for eastwest rail transit) and overestimated the activity in Michigan. For Wisconsin, the over allocation 

of UP’s activity was compensated by an underestimate of the BNSF activity. 

Table 2-4. Comparison of fuel consumption (gallons) allocation method and railroad activity 

survey estimates. 

Track Mileage Method Railroad Submittal Comparison 

Railroad Line-Haul Switching Line-Haul Switching Line-Haul Switching

Illinois 

UP 48,706,985 5,706,892 65,872,943 2,549,894 74% 224%

BNSF 31,665,686 1,666,615 90,473,204 1,979,760 35% 84%

NS1 14,547,914 1,301,927 24,641,165 2,205,196 59% 59%

CSX1 13,382,437 1,462,196 16,342,788 1,785,651 82% 82%

Total of 4 108,303,022 10,137,630197,330,100 8,520,501 55% 119%

Wisconsin 

UP 20,773,358 2,433,969 7,291,797 940,654 285% 259%

BNSF 5,990,805 315,306 24,729,689 247,470 24% 127%

Total of 2 26,764,163 2,749,275 30,800,568 1,188,124 84% 231%

Indiana 

NS1 17,272,832 1,545,787 55,229,790 4,942,645 31% 31%

CSX1 24,353,739 2,660,947 41,506,808 4,535,131 59% 59%

Total of 2 41,626,571 4,206,734 96,736,598 9,477,776 43% 44%

Michigan 

NS1 7,240,177 647,941 4,757,649 425,773 152% 152%

CSX1 10,690,641 1,168,084 7,095,267 775,245 151% 151%

Total of 2 17,930,818 1,816,025 11,852,916 1,201,018 151% 151%

Ohio 

NS1 25,143,569 2,250,158 80,738,318 7,225,464 31% 31%

CSX1 29,124,980 3,182,263 76,181,371 8,323,755 38% 38%

Total of 2 54,268,549 5,432,421156,919,689 15,549,219 35% 35%

1 – Switching estimated as a % of line-haul total 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-4 

The results here are a function of the railways that submitted information. Canadian National and 

Canadian Pacific and their US subsidiaries are important operators in Wisconsin and Michigan, 

while Kansas City Southern primarily operates within Illinois of the LADCO states. In general, 

more rail activity was provided by surveys than was estimated using national to state allocation 

based on track mileage. 

CLASS II/III REGIONAL, SHORTLINE, AND SWITCHING RAILROADS 

In order to estimate potentially important small rail activity, the national fuel consumption per 

railroad employee was used and associated with local employment information. Benson (2004) 

prepared the national estimates of fuel consumption and employees shown in Table 2-5 from 

annual surveys conducted by ASLRRA (1999). Nationally, Class II/III rail is of lesser 

importance than the Class I rail, which consumed nearly 20 times the fuel that these smaller rail 

systems consume nationwide. The fuel consumption and employees estimates in Table 2-5 are 

national summary estimates, and correspond to 10,000 gallons per employee. By contrast, the 

Class I railroad fuel consumption per employee ranges from 16,000 to 31,000 gallons per 

employee, possibly due to longer haul trips where fewer employees are required per ton-mile of 

operation. 

Table 2-5. Class II/III national summary activity rates. 

Year Employees 

Fuel Consumption

(gallons) 

1993 24,000 200,000,000

1994 25,000 225,000,000

1995 24,000 225,000,000

1996 24,000 200,000,000

1997 No data available 

1998 23,000 210,000,000

1999 23,000 220,000,000

2000 22,000 220,000,000

2001 22,000 220,000,000

This estimate of fuel consumption per employee was used in this work to estimate the smaller 

rail fuel consumption rates using estimates of the number of employees for each company as 

provided from a purchased database of Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). The estimate of the number of 

employees was used to estimate the fuel consumption of each railroad in each state. The AAR 

and D&B data also indicated whether the railroad was considered a typical (line-haul) railroad or 

only provided switching services, so the appropriate emission factors for line-haul or switching 

operations were applied to the correct operation. 

PASSENGER RAIL 

AMTRAK provided an estimate of 2.35 gallons per train-mile of travel. AMTRAK 

(www.amtrak.com) provides the weekly schedules for all trains in the Midwest including track 

mileage on their web site. ENVIRON used the AMTRAK schedules to estimate the number of 

trains and mileage for each train (both ways). These trains are shown in Table 2-6. The 2.35 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-5 

gallons per train-mile fuel consumption figure was applied to the weekly mileage multiplied by 

52 for an annual estimate in Table 2-7. 

Table 2-6. AMTRAK Midwest operations. 

Route Miles Train 

(number) 

Weekly 

Trains 

(Both Ways)

Route to Terminus or 

Exit of LADCO IL IN MI OH WI 

Chicago Zephyr (5 & 6) 14 Chicago – Burlington IA 205 0 0 0 0 

Cardinal / Hoosier State 

(51 & 50) 6 Chicago – Cincinnati OH 9 266 0 24 0 

Cardinal / Hoosier State 

(317 & 318) 14 Chicago – Indianapolis IN 9 187 0 0 0 

City of New Orleans (58 & 

59) 14 Chicago – Cairo IL 365 0 0 0 0 

Empire Builder (7 & 8) 14 Chicago – La Crosse WI 18 0 0 0 263

Hiawatha (329 – 342) 96 Chicago – Milwaukee WI 18 0 0 0 68 

Illinois routes (347 & 348) 14 Chicago – Quincy IL 310 0 0 0 0 

Illinois routes (391 & 392) 14 Chicago – beyond 

Carbondale IL 333 0 0 0 0 

Lakeshore Ltd. (48 & 49) 14 Chicago – Erie PA 9 146 0 280 0 

Michigan (350 – 355) 42 Chicago – Pontiac MI 9 41 252 0 0 

Michigan (364 & 367) 14 Chicago – Port Huron MI 9 41 267 0 0 

Southwest Chief 14 Chicago – Keokuk IA 220 0 0 0 0 

Texas Eagle (21 & 22 or 

421 & 422) 14 Chicago – St. Louis MO 284 0 0 0 0 

Three Rivers (40 – 45) 28 Chicago – Youngstown OH 9 146 0 244 0 

AMTRAK communication 14 Chicago – Grand Rapids MI 9 41 126 0 0 

Table 2-7. AMTRAK state fuel consumption estimates. 

Fuel Consumption (gallons per year) Train (number) IL IN MI OH WI 

Chicago Zephyr (5 & 6) 350,714 0 0 0 0

Cardinal / Hoosier State (51 & 50) 6,599 195,031 0 17,597 0

Cardinal / Hoosier State (317 & 

318) 15,397 319,920 0 0 0

City of New Orleans (58 & 59) 624,442 0 0 0 0

Empire Builder (7 & 8) 30,794 0 0 0 449,940

Hiawatha (329 – 342) 211,162 0 0 0 797,722

Illinois routes (347 & 348) 530,348 0 0 0 0

Illinois routes (391 & 392) 569,696 0 0 0 0

Lakeshore Ltd. (48 & 49) 15,397 249,777 0 479,024 0

Michigan (350 – 355) 46,192 210,428 1,293,365 0 0

Michigan (364 & 367) 15,397 70,143 456,784 0 0

Southwest Chief 376,376 0 0 0 0

Texas Eagle (21 & 22 or 421 & 

422) 485,867 0 0 0 0

Three Rivers (40 – 45) 30,794 499,554 0 834,870 0

Chicago – Grand Rapids 15,397 70,143 215,561 0 0

Total 3,324,573 1,614,995 1,965,709 1,331,491 1,247,662
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-6 

To allocate AMTRAK activity by county, an approximate estimate of the relative mileage in 

each county was used to apportion the fuel consumption for each of the specific trains shown in 

Table 2-7. 

COMMUTER RAIL 

The largest and only diesel powered commuter line in the LADCO area is the METRA rail 

systems. METRA (2004) provided fuel consumption information by rail line as shown in Table 

2-8 and mileage along each line by county in Table 2-9. A sample of the schedule for the UP-N 

line is provided to show that all trains do not run to the end of each line and the relative weekday 

and weekend activity. Figure 2-1 shows the rail lines including county boundaries. 

Table 2-8. 2003 Fuel consumption for METRA rail. 

Fuel 

(gallons) 

Lines Comments 

4,219,993 BNSF Several trains predominately in Cook Co. 

10,516,523 UP (W, N, and 

NW) 

N – M through F; From Kenosha 9 trains 

N – M through F; From Waukegan 16 trains 

N – M through F; From Winnetka 3 trains 

N – M through F; From Highland Park 3 trains 

N – Saturday; Kenosha 5, Waukegan 6 

N – Sunday; Kenosha 3, Waukegan 5 

M-F; 31 per day, Sat = 11, Sun = 8 

5,415,909 MD (W and N) Line splits into two 

2,945,881 RI 

572,350 NCS 

549,761 SW 

268,564 HC 

0 ME All electric rail line merging with the South Shore Line 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-7 

Figure 2-1. METRA rail system.
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-8 

Table 2-9. METRA rail line mileage by county. 

Carrier/Line 

Additional 

Description 

Mile

post County

Mile 

post County

Mile

post County 

Mile

post County

Mile

post

Rock Island 

District Main Line 0.0 Cook 25.8 Will 40.2 

Rock Island 

District 

Beverly 

Branch 9.9 Cook 16.5 

Rock Island 

District 

LaSalle - 

Beverly 0.0 Cook 16.5 

SouthWest 

Service 0.0 Cook 28.9 

Heritage Corridor 0.0 Cook 26.7 Will 37.2 

Burlington 

Northern Santa 

Fe 0.0 Cook 16.2 DuPage 34.6 Kane 37.5 

Union Pacific West 0.0 Cook 14.7 DuPage 33.0 Kane 35.5 

Milwaukee District West 0.0 Cook 16.2 DuPage 26.2 Cook 34.0 Kane 39.8

Union Pacific Northwest 0.0 Cook 31.7 Lake 35.7 McHenry 63.1 

Union Pacific 

McHenry 

Branch 43.2 McHenry 50.6 

Union Pacific 

OTC to 

McHenry 0.0 Cook 31.7 Lake 35.7 McHenry 50.6 

Milwaukee District North 0.0 Cook 23.0 Lake 49.5 

North Central 

Service 0.0 Cook 31.1 Lake 52.8 

Union Pacific North 0.0 Cook 20.5 Lake 45.2 Kenosha, WI 51.6 

It was beyond the scope of this study to absolutely determine the emissions and fuel 

consumption by county for the METRA system given the large number of routes and train types. 

There are many issues that could affect relative fuel consumption including number of starts, 

weight (number of cars and passenger load) of each train, idle time, empty train runs (used for 

scheduling purposes), and range of each train (for instance, not all trains start\run to the end of 

line.). This is demonstrated in Table 2-8 for the sample of trains along the UP-N line where the 

number of trains varies widely by the route and last station north. 

However, it was necessary to provide the best estimate of relative activity by county to reflect 

greater activity in Cook County, rather than only using the prorated track mileage because all 

trains do not run to the end of the line. Because the number of trains running to the end of each 

line is a fraction of all trains along that line, in this work the commuter emissions were 

distributed to each county using the full mileage within Cook County, half the track mileage in 

adjoining counties, and one quarter the mileage for outlying counties. The one-quarter estimate 

was applied to Kenosha (WI) along the UP-N, McHenry (IL) along the UP-NW, and Lake (IL) 

along the MD-N and NCS lines shown above. This approximately reflects the relative activity in 

terms of number of trains on the outer reaches of each line based on the train schedules provided 

for the UP-North line where approximately one quarter of trains run to Kenosha and many trains 

stop at Waukegan only halfway through Lake County. The modified mileage for each county 

was used to apportion the fuel consumption as shown in Table 2-10. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-9 

Table 2-10. METRA rail annual fuel consumption estimate by county. 

Illinois Wisconsin Line Cook DuPage Kane Lake McHenry Kenosha 

UP (all) 6,895,776 947,885 127,451 1,481,942 898,350 165,119 

BNSF 2,546,141 1,442,027 231,825 0 0 0 

MD (all) 4,137,306 437,938 257,481 583,184 0 0 

NCS 487,113 0 0 85,237 0 0 

HC 224,434 0 0 0 0 0 

RI 2,410,266 0 0 0 0 0 

SWS 549,761 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 17,250,797 2,827,851 616,757 2,150,363 898,350 165,119 

It may be warranted to further investigate this allocation scheme if a specific local emission 

inventory is required, but it should also be realized that all freight traffic (well defined data was 

available for BNSF, UP, and NS-freight railways) is not as well understood as this commuter 

system. Therefore, any errors in the allocation method for the METRA commuter rail added 

considerably less uncertainty to overall emissions allocations than might be expected with such 

an approximate method. Also, a misallocation will not affect the overall emissions estimates, 

only to which county those emissions were allocated. And the allocation method used here is 

more accurate in apportioning METRA’s activity than using track mileage alone. 

The only other commuter rail line, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transit District (formerly the 

South Shore line) commuter rail, only runs an electric rail line. This operation only operates two 

small diesel locomotives and only to pick-up nonfunctioning electric trains during rare power 

problems. 

SUMMARY 

The fuel consumption activity estimates for the Class I railroads operating in Illinois are shown 

in Table 2-11. Because of the response from UP, BNSF, NS, CSX, AMTRAK and METRA, 

about 90% of the State’s locomotive activity was estimated to be determined through these 

survey responses. 

Table 2-11. Illinois Class I railroad fuel consumption estimates. 

Predicted Fuel Consumption

Company Supplied Fuel 

Consumption Estimates 

Railroad 

State Track 

Miles Line-haul Switching Line-haul Switching 

CNGT 1389 15,261,007 2,138,444 --- --- 

CP 356 3,195,594 231,729 --- --- 

KCS 128 1,505,126 119,137 --- --- 

CSX 1 1049 13,382,437 1,462,196 16,342,788 1,785,651

NS 1 1292 14,547,914 1,301,927 24,641,165 2,205,196

UP 1 2272 48,706,985 5,706,892 65,872,943 2,549,894

BNSF 1 1443 31,665,686 1,666,615 90,473,204 1,979,760

METRA --- --- 24,323,862 --- 

AMTRAK --- --- 3,324,573 --- 

Class II/III 6,180,000 8,840,000 --- --- 

1- Company fuel consumption estimates used for emissions estimates 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-10 

The emissions comparison with the NEI estimates is provided in Table 2-12. This work shows 

considerably more locomotive emissions than estimated by the NEI in Illinois due to the 

submissions by CSX, NS, UP, BNSF, AMTRAK, and METRA. It is possible that the estimates 

in Table 2-12 are still a significant underestimate because the other Class I railroads have rail 

activity rates per track mile within Illinois disproportional to the system-wide averages used 

here. 

Table 2-12. Locomotive emissions in Illinois (tons per year). 

Estimate THC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3 

NEI – EPA 2004 2,093 5,321 53,707 1,335 1,202 3,287 0

This work 3,225 8,196 74,448 2,056 1,850 4,988 35

Indiana is also a significant rail state where all major eastern railroads operate feeding primarily 

into the regional Chicago terminals. The largest unknown activity is from the Canadian railroads 

(CNGT and CP) that have significant operations primarily across northern Indiana within the 

State. The fuel consumption estimates used for Indiana are shown in Table 2-13. 

Table 2-13. Indiana Class I railroad fuel consumption. 

Predicted Fuel Consumption

Company Supplied Fuel 

Consumption Estimates 

Railroad 

State 

Track 

Miles Line-haul Switching Line-haul Switching 

CNGT 81 889,951 124,704 --- --- 

CP 291 2,612,129 189,419 --- --- 

KCS 0 0 0 --- --- 

CSX 1 1909 24,353,739 2,660,947 41,506,808 4,535,131

NS 1 1534 17,272,832 1,545,787 55,229,790 4,942,645

UP 1 6 --- --- --- --- 

BNSF 1 0 --- --- --- --- 

AMTRAK --- --- 1,614,995 --- 

Class II/III 2,330,000 6,293,500 --- --- 

Because the CSX and NS data was so much higher than would be predicted using the average 

national allocation, the emission estimates in this work were higher than the NEI as shown in 

Table 2-14. Because CSX and NS dominate the rail activity, the activity estimates in this work 

likely represent well over 90% of the rail activity in the State. 

Table 2-14. Locomotive emissions in Indiana (tons per year). 

Estimate THC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3 

1999 NEI 977 2,434 24,493 610 549 1,482 0

This work 1,520 3,730 33,813 933 840 2,214 15

Michigan has the least rail activity within the LADCO States and has significant activity from 

both of the Canadian railroads that did not supply activity estimates. In all, the survey results 

were responsible for less than 50% of the State’s rail activity estimates. The Canadian National 

railway would be the next largest railroad to obtain information to improve the State’s estimated 

railroad emissions inventory. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-11 

Table 2-15. Michigan Class I railroad fuel consumption. 

Predicted Fuel 

Consumption 

Company Supplied 

Fuel Consumption 

Estimates 

Railroad 

State 

Track 

Miles Line-haul Switching Line-haul Switching

CNGT 1012 11,118,890 1,558,031 --- --- 

CP 262 2,351,814 170,542 --- --- 

KCS 0 0 0 --- --- 

CSX 1 838 10,690,641 1,168,084 7,095,267 775,245

NS 1 643 7,240,177 647,941 4,757,649 425,773

UP 1 0 0 0 --- --- 

BNSF 1 0 0 0 --- --- 

AMTRAK --- --- 1,965,709 --- 

Class II/III 4,400,000 2,250,000 --- --- 

Table 2-16. Locomotive emissions in Michigan (tons per year). 

Estimate THC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3 

1999 NEI 2,357 2,237 8,583 220 198 520 0

This work 439 1,071 9,863 267 240 632 4

Ohio was estimated to be the second most activity LADCO State with respect to locomotive 

activity. From the actual CSX and NS data provided, it is clear that the allocation method would 

have significantly underestimated CSX and NS activity as shown in Table 2-17. These survey 

results represent over 90% of the rail activity within Ohio estimated in this work. 

Table 2-17. Ohio Class I railroad fuel consumption. 

Predicted Fuel 

Consumption 

Company Supplied 

Fuel Consumption 

Estimates 

Railroad 

State 

Track 

Miles Line-haul Switching Line-haul Switching

CNGT 0 0 0 --- --- 

CP 0 0 0 --- --- 

KCS 0 0 0 --- --- 

CSX 1 228329,124,980 3,182,26376,181,371 8,323,755

NS 1 223325,143,569 2,250,15880,738,318 7,225,464

UP 1 0 00 --- --- 

BNSF 1 0 00 --- --- 

AMTRAK --- --- 1,331,491 --- 

Class II/III 6,376,500 1,890,000 --- --- 

Emissions for Ohio prepared in this work are shown in Table 2-18 and were higher than the NEI 

estimates. This is a reasonable result given the major east-west routes across Ohio. The 

difference between the NEI and this work was due primarily to the data provided by CSX and 

Norfolk Southern. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 2_Locomotive Emission Sources.doc 2-12 

Table 2-18. Locomotive emissions in Ohio (tons per year). 

Estimate THC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3 

1999 NEI 1,384 3,403 34,178 851 766 2,052 0

This work 2,250 5,641 51,063 1,413 1,272 3,400 24

The Wisconsin estimates used survey results for less than half of the overall rail activity and was 

dependent largely upon the allocation method used to estimate the activity of the CNGT and CP 

railroads. The activity estimates for these two railroads represent half the locomotive activity 

estimated for this State. The major lines of activity for these two railroads in Wisconsin are 

located between Chicago and Duluth for CNGT and between Chicago and La Crosse for CP. 

Wisconsin Central, owned by CNGT, operates many miles of track in Wisconsin where not all 

lines are heavily used. From the available data, it is unclear if the estimates for CNGT and CP 

were under or overestimated because UP would have been overestimated but BNSF would have 

been underestimated using the relative track mileage to allocate national fuel consumption. 

Table 2-19. Wisconsin Class I railroad fuel consumption. 

Predicted Fuel 

Consumption 

Company Supplied Fuel 

Railroad Consumption Estimates 

State 

Track 

Miles Line-haul Switching Line-haul Switching 

CNGT 1655 27,975,366 3,920,040 --- --- 

CP 587 7,680,690 556,967 --- --- 

KCS 0 0 0 --- --- 

CSX 1 000 --- --- 

NS 1 000 --- --- 

UP 1 969 20,773,358 2,433,969 7,291,797 940,654

BNSF 1 273 5,990,805 315,306 24,729,689 247,470

METRA --- --- 165,119 --- 

AMTRAK --- --- 1,247,662 --- 

Class II/III 480,000 0 --- --- 

Table 2-20. Locomotive emissions in Wisconsin (tons per year). 

Estimate THC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3 

1999 NEI 439 1,117 11,287 278 250 743 0

This work 905 2,299 20,755 577 519 1,399 10

In conclusion, the emissions estimated here are higher than those currently estimated in the NEI, 

but are likely still lower than occurs within the LADCO States. The underestimates would most 

likely be more significant in Indiana and Ohio where the little survey data that exists shows the 

most dramatic underestimates. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-1 

3.0 COMMERCIAL MARINE EMISSIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and uses. Table 3-1 

describes the different types of data sources used to estimate commercial marine activity. In 

some cases, it was necessary to split the activity of similar vessels based on the available activity 

data. For instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, 2003) provided accurate fuel 

consumption estimates for push boats only on river systems while the same types of vessels that 

operate in the Great Lakes (primarily Lake Michigan between Milwaukee or Burn Harbor and 

Chicago) were estimated from other freight data by link as provided by the US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE, 2003). 

Table 3-1. Commercial vessel types. 

Source Definition Purpose Geographic 

Area Data Source 

River Traffic TVA and USACE Lock 

Push Boats Barge Freight Statistics 

Lake Traffic USACE Freight Links 

Tugs Vessel assist and 

support functions Near port USACE Vessel Lists 

Mid-Great Lakes USACE Freight Links 

Deep draft EPA Port Study Laker and oceangoing large vessels Near port EPA Port Study 

Ferries River or lake 

ferrying Regular routes USACE Vessel Lists 

Other Commercial 

Vessels 

Excursion boats 

primarily Near dock USACE Vessel Lists 

Dredges Dredging projects Varies USACE Dredging 

Contracts 

Commercial 

Fishing Market fishing Great Lakes State registration and catch tonnage 

Military Coast Guard and 

Navy Great Lakes Coast Guard Fuel Purchases 

It is necessary to define our vessel type terms especially for potentially confusing types. Push 

boats and tugs are typically vessels of similar design except push boats purpose are exclusive to 

pushing barges while tugs are self-propelled support vessels with a V-shaped bow designed for 

vessel assist and other general purposes usually near port rather than strictly in long-haul freight 

movements. Deep draft vessels are generally defined as those with drafts greater than 14 feet, 

and in the Great Lakes are ocean-going and ‘laker’, primarily freighter (such as bulk carriers or 

tankers), vessels with the ability to tolerate storm conditions mid-lake. (Push boats (tug and 

barge combinations) carry other freight, but these are restricted to within 5 miles of shore.) Other 

vessels include ferries, excursion boats (including such vessels that might be used for group day 

trips, dinner cruises, and casinos), dredges (of various types), and commercial fishing vessels. In 

other areas, such as in the U.S. gulf coast or near Naval ports, supply vessels (for off-shore oil 

wells or cable-laying) and military vessels are often found in high numbers. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-2 

EMISSION FACTORS 

EPA defines three categories of marine diesel engines in Table 3-2, those primarily used for 

commercial operations, by the cylinder displacement. The engines correspond primarily to those 

used for propulsion power on large deep draft vessels (Category 3), auxiliary engines on large 

vessels and propulsion power for mid-sized (larger ferries, tugs, and excursion) vessels 

(Category 2), and smaller vessels (Category 1). 

Table 3-2. Marine engine categories. 

Engine Category Displacement 

(l/cylinder) 

Category 1 < 5.0 

Category 2 5.0 < disp. < 30 

Category 3 >30 

EPA revised emission factor estimates in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and published a 

rulemaking for commercial marine vessels. (EPA, 1999a &1999b) In the RIA (EPA, 1999b), 

EPA estimated the emission factors in accordance with the defined engine categories. In Tables 

3-3 and Table 3-4 are the EPA-estimated base emission factors for marine engines for each 

category of engine. These emission factors were used for both propulsion and auxiliary engines. 

Table 3-3. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines (taken from Table 5-3, EPA 

1999B). 

Power Range 

[kW]

HC 

[g/kW-hr]

NOx 

[g/kW-hr]

CO 

[g/kW-hr]

PM 

[g/kW-hr]

Category 1 

37-75 0.27 11 2.0 0.90 

75-130 0.27 10 1.7 0.40 

130-225 0.27 10 1.5 0.40 

225-450 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 

450-560 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 

560-1000 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 

1000+ 0.27 13 2.5 0.30 

Category 2 

Category 2 0.13 13.4 2.5 0.32 

For Category 3 engines, EPA (2003) estimated emission rates as shown in Table 3-4. The SO2 

emissions for Category 3 engines relies on fuel sulfur content of 3 weight % sulfur fuel. But 

because Category 2 engines were assumed used for auxiliary power, a lower emission rate (0.83 

g/hp-hr emission rate translates to the 16.7 g/gallon emission rate, same as locomotives) was 

used to estimate emissions during hotelling (while vessel is at berth). 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-3 

Table 3-4. EPA (1999c, 2003) baseline emission factors for category 2 and 3 engines. 

Engine Category

HC 

[g/hp-hr]

NOx 

[g/hp-hr]

CO 

[g/hp-hr]

PM 

[g/hp-hr]

SO2 

[g/hp-hr] 

# 2 

(5-30 l/cylinder) 0.10 9.96 1.85 0.24 0.83 

# 3 Medium Speed 

(> 300 rpm) 

(> 30 l/cylinder) 

0.395 12.38 0.52 1.31 9.56 

# 3 Slow Speed 

(< 300 rpm) 

(> 30 l/cylinder) 

0.395 17.60 0.82 1.29 9.69 

Emission estimates will be determined either by multiplying engine power, load factor, and 

hours per year of operation or on the basis of the number of gallons of fuel consumed. The 

technique must be made flexible because activity data is available in many formats. 

The first method needs to have more information about each vessel. The vessel characteristic in 

terms of the installed engine power is often available from vessel registration information. 

However, the data for annual activity in hours and especially load factor is much more difficult 

to gather. Surveys can be conducted to gather this information, but usually vessel operators can 

only estimate the number of hours of operation. 

To estimate the engine load, there are two engine test cycles that EPA has used to represent 

engine duty cycles, the E-3 (and E-2 for constant speed engines typically with variable pitch 

propellers) and E-5 cycles described by the ISO (1996) as for heavy-duty and diesel craft less 

than 24 meters in length roughly corresponding to commercial and recreational use. In Table 3-5 

are the two potential test cycle load factors available; E5 for general-purpose smaller marine 

diesel engines and E3 for ship propulsion and other heavy-duty marine applications. The load for 

the E-3 and E-2 test cycle is 69% average in-use load, while the E-5 test cycle is 34% of 

propulsion load. If it could be determined that the vessels found in the Coast Guard list were 

used for commercial purposes including ferries or other commercial functions then the E-3 load 

factor was used. Else the lower E-5 load factor was used primarily for vessels that were obvious 

excursion vessels including casinos and other similar types. 

Table 3-5. Marine engine test cycles. 

Power E5 Cycle E3 Cycle 

100 0.08 0.2 

75 0.13 0.5 

50 0.17 0.15 

25 0.32 0.15 

0 0.3 0 

Avg. Load 34 69 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-4 

Often fuel consumption can be easier obtained which reflects the total activity (power, load 

factor, and hours) of a vessel or group of vessels. However, a fuel consumption estimate must be 

made to convert the specific emission factors provided in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The specific fuel 

consumption rate of 0.345 lb-fuel/gallon (and 7.1 lb/gallon diesel fuel density) was used for this 

work as taken from EPA (1997) used to convert locomotive specific emissions to gallons units. 

PUSH BOATS 

Tugs pushing barge traffic (Figure 3-1 is an example) is one of the primary vessel operation 

types producing commercial marine emissions in the LADCO region. Barges are usually pushed 

by tugs specifically designed for river movements, though in fair weather barges may be pushed 

near (within 5 miles) shore on the Great Lakes. The major river systems in the LADCO region 

are the Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois rivers. The freight movements and lock statistics (USACE, 

2004) are well documented through river lock systems down to the Mississippi – Ohio 

confluence. 

Figure 3-1. Example push boat (Port of Milwaukee, http://www.port.mil.wi.us/). 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, 2003) has been using freight movement data and lock 

performance data to estimate fuel consumption by river system in their ‘barge costing model’. 

There are many factors affecting the fuel consumption including the configuration of the barges 

(how many barges can be operated per tug, the numbers of empty barges, the wait (idle) time at 

each lock, and other factors used by TVA to estimate fuel consumption along each route. 

River Barge Traffic 

The fuel consumption by barge traffic on river systems was provided by TVA (2003) and are 

shown in the Table 3-6. The estimates provided here reflect only the river freight transfers and 

show the relative magnitude of activity along each river segment. The Calumet-SAG Channel, 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the South Branch of the Chicago River are all found 

exclusively within Cook County, while the other river systems reflect activity through multiple 

counties. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-5 

Table 3-6. Fuel consumption (gallons of diesel) by river system. 

River System 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Calumet-SAG Channel 573,518 517,008 274,349 187,364

Chicago Sanitary and Ship 

Canal 596,678 647,159 614,426 523,492

Chicago River, South Branch 19,789 39,889 27,606 26,655

Illinois 35,554,221 36,849,299 28,564,949 28,890,213

Ohio 84,238,537 83,085,263 94,373,783 93,529,533

Mississippi above the Missouri 51,261,419 64,649,042 52,607,979 44,360,390

Mississippi Between Missouri 

and Ohio 34,264,628 40,760,732 35,507,994 36,180,816

The geographic allocation of the fuel consumption was accomplished using lock freight statistics 

available from the Army Corp of Engineers (http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/lpms/lpms.htm). 

The latest (as of January 2004) final data available for these lock statistics was for calendar year 

1999. The freight statistics through each lock were used to estimate the ton-miles for river 

segments. The ton-miles between two locks were calculated using the average freight tonnage of 

two locks multiplied by the river mileage between the two locks as demonstrated for the Illinois 

River in Table 3-7. For river segments below or above the last available lock, the freight of the 

last lock was used if no other estimates were available. The ton-mile estimate for each river link, 

between each lock or at the end of the river system such as the Ohio-Mississippi confluence, was 

normalized across each river system to allocate the total fuel consumption by river system in 

Table 3-6. 

Table 3-7. Example: activity apportionment along the Illinois River. 

Illinois River 

Lock Miles 1999 k Ton kTon-mile Apportioned 

Thomas J. O’Brien1 326.5 7,372 

Cook Co. Line1 298 est. 

 110,669 1.3% 

Lockport 291.1 16,039 

 81,888 0.9% 

Brandon Road 286 16,074 

 245,202 2.8% 

Dresden Island 271.5 17,747 

 496,345 5.7% 

Marseilles 244.6 19,156 

 275,672 3.2% 

Starved Rock 231 21,384 

 1,924,601 22.2% 

Peoria 157.7 31,129 

 2,585,671 29.8% 

LaGrange 80.2 35,598 

 2,953,044 34.0% 

Mississippi2 0 38,044 est. 

Totals 8,673,094 100.0% 

1 – Lock above the SAG Channel confluence (confluence is roughly equivalent to the Cook Co. line shown here) so 

activity contained in Chicago – South Branch and Sanitary and Ship Canal activity estimates 

2 - Estimated based on added tonnage along Mississippi river
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-6 

The procedure used here to apportion the fuel consumption was developed because the freight 

tonnage typically increases as the river flows. So the fuel consumption and therefore emissions 

are better apportioned to the lower reaches of the river using this method. 

The fuel consumption for each between-lock river segment was apportioned to the county using 

the relative river mileage within each county for each segment. For the Illinois River, the fuel 

consumption and emissions were allocated to the county that encompassed or were split between 

two Illinois counties if they bordered the river. For the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, the fuel 

consumption and emissions were divided by two to reflect that these rivers form the borders of 

the LADCO states and states outside of the region of interest. 

Once the fuel consumption was estimated the emissions were predicted based on the typical 

engines installed on push boats. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Vessel Characteristics, 

2004) provides vessel characteristics for push boats. Because the emission factors depend 

primarily upon the power of the engines (as Table 3-3 shows, Category 1 engines above 1000kW 

had similar emission factors to Category 2 engines) the fraction of the power available in push 

boats registered in the LADCO states was divided into those with propulsion power above and 

below 2680 horsepower (assuming 2 engines with rated power of 1000 kW). Smaller engines 

provided only 20% of the push boat power and 80% by larger engines, so the average emission 

factor for push boats was determine using these fractions and the estimates in Table 3-3 for 

engines between 225 –1000 kW and those above 1000 kW. The emission factors in specific units 

(g/kW-hr or g/hp-hr) were converted gallon units using the specific fuel consumption estimate of 

0.345 lb/hp-hr and fuel density of 7.1 lb/gallon as used to convert specific emissions to gallons 

units in the EPA’s (1997) locomotive emissions estimates. The emission factors used in this 

work are shown in Table 3-8. 

Table 3-8. Emission factors (g/gallon) used for push boats. 

Engine\Pollutant HC NOx CO PM SO2 NH3 

<1000 kW 4.14 153.4 23.0 4.6

>1000 kW 4.14 199.4 38.3 4.6

Avg. 4.14 190.2 35.3 4.6 16.7 0.116

The lock freight statistics provide a measure of seasonal allocation of barge activity. A review of 

the locks where the Army Corps of Engineers (2004) presents summary results indicates that the 

latitude and the demand along each river system affect the seasonal activity. As shown in Table 

3-9, an Illinois River lock near Beardstown, IL and the lower Ohio River lock demonstrate very 

little monthly variability compared with the allocation using the number of days. The further 

north along the Mississippi River, the more seasonal variability is demonstrable as shown by the 

northern most lock in Table 3-9, lock #25 where little activity occurs in January and February. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-7 

Table 3-9. Relative monthly freight transfers through selected locks in 1999. 

Month 

# of 

Days 

LaGrange Lock 

Beardstown, 

Illinois 

Lock #25 on 

Mississippi 

North of Illinois 

River 

Lock #27 

on 

Mississippi 

St.Louis, 

MO 

Lock #52 

on Ohio 

Paducah, 

KY 

January 0.085 0.067 0.000 0.037 0.079 

February 0.077 0.117 0.000 0.061 0.085 

March 0.085 0.092 0.065 0.077 0.090 

April 0.082 0.074 0.099 0.084 0.082 

May 0.085 0.089 0.114 0.100 0.089 

June 0.082 0.085 0.115 0.098 0.083 

July 0.085 0.080 0.119 0.097 0.085 

August 0.085 0.082 0.125 0.100 0.080 

September 0.082 0.070 0.093 0.083 0.078 

October 0.085 0.072 0.109 0.092 0.082 

November 0.082 0.072 0.106 0.091 0.085 

December 0.085 0.101 0.055 0.079 0.083 

Great Lakes Barge Traffic 

For freight transfers on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard restricts barge traffic within 5 miles of 

shore (http://www.port.mil.wi.us/bargewebpage.html), so freight transfers within these limits 

were considered to be barge only. The links that are outlined by USACE (2004) and shown in 

Figure 3-2 where barge links roughly correspond to those blue links ringing the shore. Some 

freight transfers between the outlet of the Illinois River system (through the Chicago river, SAG 

Channel, or Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) to other Great Lakes ports such as Burns Harbor 

or Indiana Harbor may be more direct. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-8 

Figure 3-2. Great Lakes freight links. 

The tonnage along each freight link was provided by USACE (2004) with descriptions of each 

link. The links described as Lake “Spines,” and those described as “Access” links coming from 

large ports serving deep draft vessels were sorted out leaving only links around the lake rather 

than those in the middle of the lakes. The links described in this data include lengths and 

longitude and latitude where the links lengths and position are only approximate representations 

but the actual vessel movements may not be restricted to these specific positions. 

The tonnage and link lengths were multiplied to estimate ton-miles of freight movements. The 

fuel consumption associated with these vessel movements was assumed to be 548.8 ton-miles per 

gallon, the same as the lower Mississippi between the Missouri and Ohio rivers and the most fuel 

efficient push boats freight transfers within the LADCO region. The best estimate of fuel 

consumption was used because the Lake transfers have no significant locks, turns, passing 

traffic, or current to contend with, as opposed to river movements, which reduce the fuel 

efficiency of these freight movements. The fuel consumption estimate was then used to convert 

the Table 3-8 emission rates to units useful for estimating emissions with ton-mile as the activity 

indicator and shown in Table 3-10. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-9 

Table 3-10. Emission rates (g/ton-mile) for push boats assuming 549 (ton-mile/gallon) fuel 

consumption rate. 

HC CO NOx PM – 10 SO2 NH3 

0.0075 0.0643 0.3465 0.0084 0.0304 0.0002

The monthly allocation of Great Lakes barge traffic will depend upon a number of factors 

associated with ice management and freight carried in the barges. Two sources of data were used 

to estimate the monthly allocation of activity, lock statistics from the Army Corps of Engineers 

(2004) at the St. Marys River Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, and the barge freight transfers at Burns 

Harbor. In Table 3-11, are shown the relative activity at these two sites demonstrating either little 

(Burn Harbor) or significant (Sault Ste. Marie) monthly variability. The monthly Burns Harbor 

(Arcadis, 1999) barge activity mimics that of the northern Illinois River activity both of which do 

not demonstrate much month-to-month activity variation though with slightly lower transfers in 

August and September and higher transfers in March and April. The northern activity is affected 

by ice and other navigational challenges affecting transfers during January, February, and March. 

Table 3-11. Relative activity of freight transfers. 

Month # of Days 

1999 Sault 

Ste. Marie 

1996 Burns 

Harbor 

Barge-only 

January 0.085 0.019 0.073

February 0.077 0.000 0.054

March 0.085 0.013 0.196

April 0.082 0.092 0.121

May 0.085 0.116 0.099

June 0.082 0.111 0.067

July 0.085 0.115 0.075

August 0.085 0.112 0.040

September 0.082 0.111 0.038

October 0.085 0.111 0.060

November 0.082 0.104 0.058

December 0.085 0.097 0.119

OTHER TUGS 

Tugs, as defined here with an example shown in Figure 3-3, are working vessels other than those 

push boats used to transport freight. These tugs are used in a variety of other activities such as 

providing assist to larger deep draft vessels near ports, short movements of barges in and around 

ports, and as supply vessels or other sundry needs throughout the Great Lakes area or along the 

major river systems. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-10 

Figure 3-3. Example of a tug. 

The Coast Guard provides through the Army Corps (USACE, Vessel Characteristics, 2004) the 

number of vessels and their characteristics, installed power and other data, for a wide variety of 

boats and distinguishes tugs from push boats. The vessels, identified as tugs, were associated 

with emissions in the county of the port of registry as provided through the Army Corps 

information. It is likely that some or all of the boats also operate outside the county of the port 

listed for a significant fraction of their time. 

The activity of these vessels is unknown, so a small survey of vessel operators in the LADCO 

states was undertaken to identify a reasonable hour per year estimate. The survey response from 

five operators included activity estimates for a total of 35 tugs of which 6 were no longer in 

service. The average annual usage, including those no longer in service, was 1831 hours and 

used for emissions estimates. It is possible that this was an underestimate because newer vessels 

may have replaced those tugs that are no longer in service and are not yet in the Army Corps 

data. The annual usage estimate of 2309 hours for eliminating the responses from those tugs no 

longer in service may be more appropriate. Because these vessels are workboats, the E3 test 

cycle load factor of 0.69 was used to estimate emissions. 

DEEP DRAFT VESSELS 

Estimates for the deep draft vessel relied on port call information available for the ports of 

Cleveland, shown in Figure 3-4, and Burns Harbor. (Arcadis, 1999) This port call information 

was used to estimate the near port emissions and was used to estimate emission rates during 

cruise conditions to estimate the emission rates for mid-Lake traffic. The mid-Lake traffic 

activity estimates were available only in terms of ton-miles of freight movements, so the 

emission rates under cruise conditions were divided by the tons moved by deep draft vessels at 

Cleveland and Burns Harbor. The mid-Lake traffic was distinguished only by State, so the 

county designation was left off. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-11 

Figure 3-4. Cleveland harbor.

The monthly activity of deep draft vessels was taken from three sources, which all showed 

similar patterns in Table 3-12. The Sault Ste. Marie (USACE, 2004) and St. Lawrence Seaway 

(2003) at Welland Canal (between the Lakes Erie and Ontario) data did not distinguish between 

barge and deep draft vessel freight but showed similar relative monthly activity to the Burns 

Harbor (Arcadis, 1999) freight transfers to and from only deep draft vessels. The January – 

March activity was significantly reduced or non-existent due to ice and other navigational 

barriers in the winter. Burns Harbor data showed increased activity before (November) and after 

(April and May) the winter slack period. 

Table 3-12. Relative monthly activity of freight transfers. 

Month 

# of 

Days 

1999 

Sault Ste. Marie

1996 Burns 

Harbor 

Deep draftonly 

1996-7 Port 

of Cleveland 

Deep Draftonly 

St. Lawrence 

Seaway 2002 

January 0.085 0.019 0.000 0.007 0.000

February 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

March 0.085 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.009

April 0.082 0.092 0.121 0.072 0.082

May 0.085 0.116 0.141 0.088 0.112

June 0.082 0.111 0.081 0.088 0.111

July 0.085 0.115 0.101 0.239 0.107

August 0.085 0.112 0.101 0.121 0.110

September 0.082 0.111 0.071 0.085 0.112

October 0.085 0.111 0.081 0.098 0.132

November 0.082 0.104 0.202 0.176 0.127

December 0.085 0.097 0.101 0.026 0.099
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-12 

Near Port Activity 

The ports studied by EPA (ENVIRON, 2002 and Arcadis, 1999) are shown in the Table 3-13. 

Each of the ports was associated with either Cleveland or Burns Harbor in order to use similar 

vessel characteristics (vessel power, speed, time at berth, and other activity parameters). The 

number of vessel calls by vessel type (though bulk carriers were the primary vessel type) at each 

port was determined from information available from the USACE (Army Corps) and reported by 

Arcadis (1999) for the in-use year 1996. 

Table 3-13. Ports with significant deep draft traffic in the LADCO States. 

Cleveland Harbor, OH Burns Waterway Harbor, IN

Duluth-Superior, MN & WI Port of Chicago, IL 

Indiana Harbor, IN Stoneport, MI 

Port of Detroit, MI Calcite, MI 

Lorain Harbor, OH Port Inland, MI 

Toledo Harbor, OH Marblehead, OH 

Presque Isle Harbor, MI Milwaukee Harbor, WI 

Ashtabula Harbor, OH Port Dolomite, MI 

Gary Harbor, IN Fairport Harbor, OH 

Taconite Harbor, MN Alpena Harbor, MI 

Escanaba, MI Green Bay Harbor, WI 

Two Harbors, MN Monroe Harbor, MI 

St. Clair, MI Muskegon Harbor, MI 

Conneaut Harbor, OH Drummond Island, MI 

Silver Bay, MN Charlevoix Harbor, MI 

Marine City, MI Buffington Harbor, IN 

Sandusky Harbor, OH Huron Harbor, OH 

Ludington Harbor, MI Erie Harbor, PA 

 Grand Haven Harbor, MI 

The emissions in ENVIRON (2002) were calculated by associating and summing the product of 

the vessel trips or calls, vessel power, average load factor by mode of operation and time in 

mode for all modes of operation. The equation used for calculating emissions from vessels is 

shown below. The vessel and engine types were kept as distinct as possible to allow subtotals by 

vessel, mode, and engine type for each port. 

Emissions = Trips * Power * LF in mode * Time in mode * EF

 Trips - number of trips or vessel calls by vessel and engine type 

 Power - rated power of propulsion engine by vessel and engine type 

 LF - load factor (fraction of rated power) by mode 

 Time - average time for each mode by vessel and engine type per call or trip 

 EF - emission factor in mode and by engine type 

The vessel power was assumed to have a load factor of 10% for hotelling and 80% at cruise, 

following the estimates provided in BAH (1991). The 10% load figure for hotelling is usually 

supplied by smaller on board auxiliary engines operating at a higher fractional load, but 10% was 

associated with the installed power of vessel, the only available for this work. The hotelling load 

varies according to the type of unloading that occurs at berth, whether the vessel self unloads or 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-13 

shore-based equipment performs the unloading. The load for modes (reduced speed and 

maneuvering) was estimated using the average speed during those modes and the hydrodynamic 

theory that relates the engine load to the cube of speed. 

The emission factors for transit modes were those for Category 3 medium or slow speed engines 

as defined for this work and Category 2 engines for hotelling modes. The PM emission rate 

depends in large measure upon the fuel sulfur level. For this work, fuel sulfur of 3% was used 

for transit modes and a lower value of about 3000 ppm for the marine diesel for the hotelling 

mode. Using these activity and emission factors, emission estimates were made for each Great 

Lakes port with significant deep draft vessel activity and shown in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-14. Summary emission estimates for the detailed ports (tons/year). ENVIRON, 2002. 

Port Emissions (tons/year) 

HC CO NOx PM SO2 

Cleveland 9 36 243 16 111 

Burns Harbor 2 10 82 5 36 

Duluth-Superior, MN & WI 15 67 449 28 191 

Indiana Harbor, IN 5 20 139 10 68 

Port of Detroit, MI 6 24 168 12 79 

Lorain Harbor, OH 6 26 176 12 80 

Toledo Harbor, OH 7 31 209 13 90 

Presque Isle Harbor, MI 3 14 95 6 44 

Ashtabula Harbor, OH 4 17 114 8 53 

Gary Harbor, IN 2 8 54 4 26 

Taconite Harbor, MN 2 8 52 4 24 

Escanaba, MI 3 12 80 5 37 

Two Harbors, MN 2 7 48 3 23 

St. Clair, MI 2 11 75 5 31 

Conneaut Harbor, OH 2 12 78 5 31 

Silver Bay, MN 2 7 47 3 22 

Marine City, MI 1 4 25 2 12 

Sandusky Harbor, OH 4 18 121 8 52 

Ludington Harbor, MI 1 2 16 1 8 

Port of Chicago, IL 4 18 146 9 65 

Stoneport, MI 3 16 136 9 60 

Calcite, MI 3 17 138 9 61 

Port Inland, MI 2 10 87 6 38 

Marblehead, OH 2 8 69 4 31 

Milwaukee Harbor, WI 2 9 75 5 33 

Port Dolomite, MI 1 7 58 4 26 

Fairport Harbor, OH 3 19 136 7 46 

Alpena Harbor, MI 2 11 95 6 42 

Green Bay Harbor, WI 1 5 38 2 17 

Monroe Harbor, MI 1 3 23 1 10 

Port of Buffalo, NY 1 5 37 2 14 

Muskegon Harbor, MI 1 4 33 2 15 

Drummond Island, MI 1 3 27 2 12 

Charlevoix Harbor, MI 1 3 28 2 12 

Buffington Harbor, IN 0 2 16 1 7 

Huron Harbor, OH 1 3 21 1 9 

Erie Harbor, PA 3 19 134 7 43 

Grand Haven Harbor, MI 1 3 25 2 11 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-14 

The emission estimates described in this report were adjusted to 2002 using freight tonnage 

available from the USACE (2004) Waterborne Commerce reports. The ratio of 2002 and 1996 

freight tonnage, shown in Table 3-15 for all ports in the LADCO states including many not in 

Table 3-14, for each port was used to adjust the 1996 emission estimates from the EPA report. 

Table 3-15. Great Lakes freight tonnage (1000 tons) by port. 

PORTS 1996 2002 2002/1996

Total (Great Lakes) 181,773 167,226 

Waukegan Harbor, IL 469 552 1.18

Chicago River (Main And North Branch), IL 700 1269 1.81

Chicago River, South Branch, IL 1088 2197 2.02

Lake Calumet, IL 2327 1,078 0.46

Calumet Harbor And River, IL And IN 20167 11,034 0.55

Port Of Chicago, IL 27886 20,403 0.73

Indiana Harbor, IN 16893 13,839 0.82

Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 9848 8,621 0.88

Two Harbors (Agate Bay), MN 10662 14,895 1.40

Duluth-Superior Harbor, MN And WI 41398 44,161 1.07

Taconite Harbor, MN 8,408 645 0.08

Presque Isle Harbor, MI 8959 10,592 1.18

Marquette Harbor, MI 1,598 923 0.58

Drummond Island, MI 1682 1,221 0.73

St. Mary’s River, MI 78,939 80,330 1.02

St. Mary’s Falls Canal, MI 75,353 73,968 0.98

Grays Reef Passage, MI 8,152 11,799 1.45

Charlevoix Harbor, MI 1,666 1,343 0.81

Manistee Harbor, MI 460 1,457 3.17

Ludington Harbor, MI 1,237 492 0.40

Muskegon Harbor, MI 2,172 2,187 1.01

Grand Haven Harbor And Grand River, MI 971 883 0.91

Holland Harbor, MI 407 621 1.53

St. Joseph Harbor, MI 447 602 1.35

Cheboygan Harbor, MI 276 272 0.99

Milwaukee Harbor, WI 2,858 3,127 1.09

Port Washington Harbor, WI 546 354 0.65

Manitowoc Harbor, WI 312 421 1.35

Green Bay Harbor, WI 2,176 2,078 0.95

Alpena Harbor, MI 2,345 3,218 1.37

Menominee Harbor And River, MI And WI 191 429 2.25

Saginaw River, MI 5,264 5,819 1.11

St. Clair River, MI 78,546 79,341 1.01

Port Huron, MI 581 299 0.51

Marysville, MI 1,068 1,323 1.24

St. Clair, MI 5,427 4,506 0.83

Marine City, MI 4,116 3,713 0.90

Channels in Lake St. Clair 67,111 68,697 1.02

Detroit River, MI 75,023 74,653 1.00

Detroit Harbor, MI 8,224 5,810 0.71

Rouge River, MI 9,307 10,018 1.08

Ecorse, MI 797 1,105 1.39

Port Of Detroit, MI 18,604 17,306 0.93
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-15 

PORTS 1996 2002 2002/1996

Monroe Harbor, MI 1,794 1,008 0.56

Calcite, MI 8,669 8,575 0.99

Escanaba, MI 9,253 4,645 0.50

Stoneport, MI 7,990 7,455 0.93

Toledo Harbor, OH 13,032 11,115 0.85

Kelley’s Island, OH 371 1,289 3.47

Sandusky Harbor, OH 3,408 4,455 1.31

Lorain Harbor, OH 15,978 6,672 0.42

Cleveland Harbor, OH 16,721 11,412 0.68

Fairport Harbor, OH 2,770 2,326 0.84

Ashtabula Harbor, OH 9,523 9,838 1.03

Conneaut Harbor, OH 5,714 10,474 1.83

Erie Harbor, PA 1,434 1,362 0.95

Dunkirk Harbor, NY 398 450 1.13

Buffalo Harbor, NY 1,590 1,288 0.81

Niagara River, NY 274 398 1.45

Port Of Buffalo, NY 1,864 1,686 0.90

Oswego Harbor, NY 511 324 0.63

Illinois River, IL 39,679 40,204 1.01

Calumet-Sag Channel, IL 12,636 6,749 0.53

Chicago Sanitary And Ship Canal, IL 20,493 17,059 0.83

Illinois Waterway, IL 46,236 43,032 0.93

Mid-Lake Traffic 

To estimate the mid-lake deep draft vessel activity, USACE (2004) freight links (links shown in 

Figure 3-2) tonnage data was used to provide estimates of activity. The USACE uses text 

descriptions, and the links for the deep draft vessel in the middle of each lake are labeled 

“spines” with “access” links to each of those spines. The freight links along the “spine” of each 

lake and the “access” to each spine were defined as those associated with deep draft vessels 

because these shipping lanes are outside of the area designated as barge traffic. In the ENVIRON 

(2002) port emission estimates, the port emissions activity as outlined by Arcadis (1999) extends 

out 10 miles from port, so the length of each access link was reduced by 10 miles. Multiplying 

the freight tonnage by the length of each link provides an activity indicator for deep draft vessels 

away from port. 

In order to estimate emissions, the emission per ton-mile was estimated based on the cruise mode 

emission estimates for ports calls to Cleveland and Burn Harbor. The cruise mode was defined as 

7 miles each way (14 miles both ways) and together with the tonnage for each port in 1996 a tonmile estimate for the cruise mode emission was made. The emissions in gram per ton-mile during 

the cruise mode were estimated and these estimates are shown in Table 3-16. The average of the 

two ports was used to estimate mid-Lake emissions using the 2002 freight tonnage data from 

USACE (2004). 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-16 

Table 3-16. Emission rate (gram per ton-mile) for deep draft vessels. 

Port 

1996 

Tonnage HC CO NOx PM SO2 

Cleveland 14,138,830 0.0085 0.0164 0.3535 0.0309 0.2311

Burns Harbor 8,942,979 0.0058 0.0115 0.2486 0.0196 0.1459

Avg. 0.0071 0.0140 0.3101 0.0253 0.1885

FERRIES, EXCURSION CRAFT, AND OTHER VESSELS 

Ferries (Figure 3-5), excursion craft (Figure 3-6), and other vessels were taken from a list of 

vessels provided by the Coast Guard to the USACE (2004). The list includes the push boats, 

tugs, and other self-propelled craft. The other self-propelled craft includes a wide variety of 

vessels registered in the U.S. including freight, passenger vessel of all types, and a very few 

support vessels. The freight vessels were excluded from review because the freight transfers 

were either covered under the categories of deep draft or push boats. The remaining vessels were 

primarily ferries and excursion vessels. 

Figure 3-5. Washington Island Ferry. 

Figure 3-6. Excursion vessel in Green Bay. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-17 

Ferries are used for either transportation or excursion and many are operated only seasonally. 

The ferries in the LADCO states are shown in Table 3-17 to confirm that the Coast Guard lists 

provided the operating ferries and to estimate operating times to estimate engine loads over the 

course of the year. 

Table 3-17. Sample ferry runs in the LADCO area. 

State Port 1 Port 2 Other Ports & 

Comments 

Bayfield La Point Madeline Island 

Sauk Columbia Merrimac Free Ferry 

Cassfield Iowa 

Washington 

Island 

Gills Rock Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Muskegon New after 2002 

Golden Eagle Iowa 

Illinois Grafton Calhoun Co. 

Brussels 

Ludington, MI Manitowoc, WI Badger Steamship 

Mackinac St. Ignace Mackinac City 

Beaver Island Charlevoix 

Manitou Islands Leland 

Algonac, MI Canada 

Michigan 

Munising Grand Island 

Port Clinton Put-in-Bay \ 

Bass Islands 

Sandusky Pelee Island 

Canada 

Ohio 

Marblehead Kelley’s Island 

Some sample ferry runs were use to estimate the annual activity where the annual activity of a 

specific vessel could be estimated. These sample ferries shown in Table 3-18 produce a range of 

operating hours and are likely higher than typical for all vessels. Because these vessels are those 

operating at a higher rate than other ferry runs and excursion craft, and these schedules are likely 

maximum operating hours, an estimate of 1500 hours per year was used for all vessels in the 

USACE list. By contrast the survey data for tugs indicated an annual usage of 1831 hours per 

year, so the reduced estimate of 1500 hours is reasonable for these seasonal operators. 

Table 3-18. Selected ferry-operating hours. 

Ferry 

Activity 

Description 

Operating Hours 

(per crossing 

estimate) 

Annual Activity 

Estimate 

(hours/year) 

Badger (WI, MI) 

http://www.ssbadger.com/scheduleFares.asp 

60 days 2 

crossings 

80 days of 4 

crossings 

4 hours running 

1.5 hours at dock 

1,840 running 

690 at dock 

2,530 total 

Beaver Island (MI) 

http://www.bibco.com/ 

706 crossings 

April –Dec. 

2 hours running 

1 hours at dock 

1,412 running 

706 at dock 

2,118 total 

Jet Express (OH) (Maybe more than one boat) 

http://www.jet-express.com/schedules.html

5091 crossings 

May – Oct. 

0.5 hours per 

crossing 

2,546 total 

Cassville (WI) 

http://www.cassville.org/ferry.html#Schedule 

132 days 6 hours running per 

day 

789 total 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-18 

The load factor for ferries (labeled “Other Carriers (Specialized)” or “Other Carriers 

(Specialized)”) and other vessels including those labeled “Offshore Support” and “General 

cargo” were assumed to be workboats, so the 0.69 load factor was used to estimate emissions for 

these vessels. For “Passenger (Cruise)” and “Passenger (Other)” (which include excursion craft 

such as found at the Wisconsin Dells) vessels, a lower load factor of 0.34 was used to estimate 

emissions. 

COMMERCIAL FISHING 

Commercial fishing has a long tradition in the Great Lakes, but commercial fishing boats are a 

very small contribution to air emissions over the Great Lakes. Commercial fishing boats were 

provided in the State registration databases for Michigan and Wisconsin. As shown in Table 3-19 

these two states have the most important commercial fisheries. The emission estimate for Ohio 

was determined from a ratio of the fish landings and emissions estimates for the other two States. 

There are relatively few commercial fishing vessels with 299 boats registered in Michigan and 

74 in Wisconsin. 

Table 3-19. Fish landings in 2002 (NMFS, 2003). 

State Landings (tonnes) Value (million $) 

Illinois 0 0 

Indiana 0 0 

Ohio 1,555 3.1 

Michigan 4,291 7.4 

Wisconsin 2,019 4.8 

The number of boats and operations are rather small compared with other commercial marine 

emission sources. However for completeness, commercial marine vessels were identified from 

the boat registrations in the Wisconsin and Michigan and associated with recreational boats 

powered by engines greater than 100 horsepower, an arbitrary lower power estimate of installed 

power among these 300 – 400 commercially operated boats. 

An approximate estimate of the annual usage for these boats was taken from information from an 

old commercial fishing vessel, the Barney Devine, purchased by the Wisconsin DNR 

(http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/lakemich/Barney%20Devine.htm) as a research vessel, 

which indicate that the engine had 10,000 hours on 1972 engine in 2004 averaging 476 hours per 

year. (The engine is a 1972, 235hp Cummins.) 

These boat totals, separated by diesel and gasoline inboard and outboard types based on the 

Michigan commercial fishing boats data, were used to create NONROAD commercial vessel 

NONROAD input files. The NONROAD activity file was modified to use the 476 hours per year 

estimate instead of the lower recreational hours estimate. With the modified NONROAD input 

files, the emissions were then estimated for these boats. The geographic allocation of the 

registration county was available for Michigan, and the Great Lakes counties inboard allocation 

for the Wisconsin information. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-19 

MILITARY VESSELS 

The primary military vessels operating the Great Lakes are those of the Coast Guard 9th District. 

The Coast Guard vessels include both larger cutters using diesel fuel (shown in Figure 3-7) and 

gasoline-fueled inboard and outboard engines (shown in Figure 3-8). The Coast Guard (2004) 

supplied fuel purchases for 2002 for the 9th District; 766,505 gallons of diesel and 209,216 

gallons of gasoline. 

The larger cutters of 140 feet or longer shown in Figure 3-7, typically use Category 2 or larger 

Category 3 engines for propulsion (installed power typically 2500 hp; 

http://www.uscg.mil/d9/grumil/unit/sturgeonbay/cgcmobilebay/cgcmobilebay1.html) and other 

smaller engines for auxiliary power. So the large (>1000kW) Category 1 engine emission factors 

were used because they were approximately equivalent to the Category 2 emission factors. These 

emission factors were converted to emission in terms of grams per gallon using the fuel 

consumption assumption used by EPA in developing locomotive emission factors, where 

locomotive engines are similar to the reported make and model of the marine engines used in 

these cutters. 

Figure 3-7. Coast Guard cutter. 

The gasoline-fueled engines used by the Coast Guard include both inboard and outboard engine 

types as shown in Figure 3-8. The average emission factors in units of gram per gallon were 

developed using the average emissions and fuel consumption estimates from the 

NONROAD2004 emissions model summing together the inboard and outboard categories. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-20 

Figure 3-8. Primary smaller vessels used by Coast Guard units. 

The 9th District (http://www.uscg.mil/d9/uscgd9.html) encompasses the shores of the Great 

Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New 

York. The emissions for the 9th District activity were apportioned to each county using the 

shoreline length for the Great Lakes including parts of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

Therefore only part of the 9th District’s activity occurs within the LADCO states. 

EMISSION RESULTS 

There are a number of ways to present summary emission results for the Great Lakes region. The 

results presented here include two types of reporting; one for vessels where activity could be 

place into individual counties, and the other for the mid-Lake traffic where barge and deep draft 

vessels move along shipping lanes in the Great Lakes. (One rare exception was the ferry SS 

Badger, which travels between Ludington, MI and Manitowoc, WI, but emissions were placed in 

Mason County, MI, which was labeled the homeport for the Badger.) 

The first type of emission category reported here includes push boats along river systems, deep 

draft vessels near (within 10 nautical miles) of the port of call, tugs other than push boats, other 

self-propelled, and dredging. These are shown as a total in Table 3-20 for the 5-state LADCO 

area. 

Table 3-20. Five state emissions (tons/year) by vessel type for near shore emissions. 

Vessel Type HC CO NOx PM SO2 

Deep Draft Vessels at Ports 171 777 5,670 364 2,495

Deep Draft Vessels (mid-Lake) 555 1,094 24,221 1,976 14,723

Push Boats on Rivers 527 4,492 24,219 586 2,127

Push Boats in Lakes 38 327 1,763 43 155

Tugs 164 1,519 7,900 182 662

Other self-propelled 25 164 1,045 40 259

Dredges 0 6 29 1 1

Commercial Fishing 18 120 9 1 1

Military vessels (Coast Guard) 100 312 151 4 17
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 3_Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 06.doc 3-21 

The second type of emission category is that associated by Great Lake of interest and loosely 

associated to the LADCO state emission totals. The emission results occur some distance from 

shore, so associating these emissions by county is misleading. In Table 3-21 are the emission 

totals by Lake subtracting the Lake Superior traffic labeled as Minnesota, the Lake Erie traffic 

labeled as Pennsylvania and New York, and Lake traffic labeled in Canadian waters. 

Table 3-21. Mid-Lake deep-draft vessel activity by Lake (tons/yr). 

Vessel Type HC CO NOx PM SO2 

Deep Draft Vessels 

Lake Erie 62 122 2,693 220 1,637

Lake Huron 178 350 7,756 633 4,715

Lake Michigan 121 238 5,272 430 3,205

Lake Superior 195 384 8,499 693 5,166

Subtotal 555 1,094 24,221 1,976 14,723

Push Boats 

Lake Michigan 12 102 549 13 48

Lake Erie 10 88 472 11 41

Lake Huron 9 75 402 10 35

Lake Superior 7 63 340 8 30

Subtotal 38 327 1,763 43 155

Lastly, a summary of commercial marine emission estimated by State is shown in Table 3-22 

including both county-specific emissions from Table 3-20 and mid-Lake traffic in Table 3-21. In 

Table 3-22, it is helpful to keep in mind where the emissions are generated. So for instance, 

while most of the emissions occur along rivers in Illinois, they occur in the Great Lakes for 

Michigan. 

Table 3-22. Commercial marine emissions (tons/year) by state this work and NEI. 

State 

Totals HC CO NOx PM – 10 SO2 

This work for 2002 

IL 424 3,520 19,430 513 2,112

IN 143 1,172 6,363 173 741

MI 609 1,886 22,839 1,675 12,175

OH 263 1,542 10,568 489 3,032

WI 159 691 5,805 347 2379

National Emission Inventory Estimates for 1999 

IL 979 4,121 31,333 1,388 5,721

IN 754 3,175 24,130 1,056 4,172

MI 808 1,785 9,231 1,553 5,807

OH 1,376 5,795 44,020 1,911 7,326

WI 174 730 5,556 250 1,083
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-1 

4.0 RECREATIONAL MARINE 

INTRODUCTION 

Recreational marine boating activity is an important source of VOC and CO emissions from offroad engine activity. While statewide emissions may be reasonably estimated using boating 

registration coupled with EPA NONROAD default average annual usage, the geographic and 

temporal allocation could be an important consideration of the impact of these emissions on air 

quality. 

For this work, ENVIRON gathered boating registration data from the LADCO States to prepare 

revised NONROAD model input files that estimate typical annual activity. Survey data collected 

in Wisconsin (WI DNR, 1991) was used to provide temporal and geographic allocation within 

the Great Lakes states. The temporal allocations were taken directly from the survey results 

report and were provided by month, day, and hour to estimate temporal distributions. The 

greatest effort in this work, however, was given to the geographic allocation of boating activity, 

where the survey data provided a means to test and determine a geographic allocation method 

that could be used for other LADCO states. The default NONROAD geographic allocation used 

an allocation method based directly on water surface area where, for the Great Lakes, 0.25 miles 

was used for outboards and 2 miles for inboards was used as the distance from shore to calculate 

the water surface area. This work estimated the geographic allocation through the use of a 

proximity (of the boat registration address to water surface area) and water surface area indicator 

to correlate the geographic allocation. 

WISCONSIN BOATING SURVEY 

In the summer and fall of 1989 and spring of 1990, the Department of Natural Resources of 

Wisconsin (WI DNR, 1991) conducted a survey of recreational boats in the state. The goal of 

the study was to assess the boating pressure on the lakes and inland waters, to allocate resources 

for boating safety and other enforcement, and generally to assist in planning and understanding 

recreational boating. The survey collected responses for several two-week periods of boating 

activity in 1989 and 1990. Respondents were asked the county in which they boated, how much 

fuel was used, the county of their residence, and the type of boat used. This data was used to 

generate a relationship between the gallons of fuel burned, the water surface area, and the 

distance from the county of residence and the county where the boating activity took place. The 

complete list of variables from the survey is listed below in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. List of Variables from the 1989-1990 Wisconsin Recreational Boating Study. 

Type of Boat Hull 

Type of propulsion (inboard, outboard, inboard/outboard, other powered, sail, sail with power, 

other non-powered) 

Horsepower 

Boat length 

Boat width 

Was the boat used in Wisconsin during the two week period 

Which days during the two week period was the boat used 

Gallons of gasoline used during the two week period 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-2 

Type of Boat Hull 

Amount of money spent on gasoline 

Was the boat used on inland lakes, rivers, or streams during the two week period 

List of the counties where the boat was used on inland water 

The number of days spent boating in each of these counties 

Name of the body of water where most of the boating occurred 

Was the boat used on any of the Wisconsin sections of Lake Michigan or Lake Superior 

coastline during the two week period 

List of the counties off the Great Lakes shores where the boating occurred 

The number of days spent boating in each of these counties 

Kind of activity involved while boating (fishing, cruising/sailing, water skiing, swimming, 

etc.) 

While boating, was there contact with a DNR warden or other law enforcement 

Did others interfere with the respondents boating activity 

How crowded was the boating 

How satisfied was the respondent with the boating experience 

On the last day of boating, how many hours was the respondent on the water 

How many people were in the boating party 

How much money was spent on food, restaurants, auto, etc. 

In what state does the respondent live 

In what county does the respondent live 

The zip code of the respondent 

Area code and phone number of the respondent 

First name of the respondent 

The report (WI DNR, 1991) of the survey results provided summary estimates of the relative 

temporal activity of recreational boating. The data provided in this report were prorated for use in 

allocating emissions by month (Table 4-2), day of week (Table 4-3), and time of day (Table 4-4). 

Exact allocations can be used in NONROAD input files only for the month of year allocation 

provided in Table 4-2. The day of week allocations in the NONROAD model are only separated 

between weekday and weekend day. Seven distinct days are provided in the Wisconsin results 

shown in Table 4-3; though it should be noted that the weekdays and weekend days each had 

very similar weekly activity relative to one another with weekend days having more than twice 

the relative activity of weekdays. The NONROAD model does not provide time of day emission 

estimates, but these could be useful in air quality modeling and so are reported here in Table 4-4. 

Table 4-2. Month of year allocation of annual boating activity (WI DNR, 1991). 

Month Boating Days Prorated 

April 245325 4% 

May 936915 14% 

June 1251969 18% 

July 1692314 24% 

August 1326508 19% 

September 919134 13% 

October 565316 8% 

Total 6937481 100% 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-3 

Table 4-3. Day of week allocation of weekly boating activity (WI DNR, 1991). 

Day of Week % Responding Prorated 

Sunday 42 24% 

Monday 19 11% 

Tuesday 17 10% 

Wednesday 16 9% 

Thursday 16 9% 

Friday 20 11% 

Saturday 44 25% 

Total 174 100% 

Table 4-4. Time of day allocation (WI DNR, 1991). 

Last Hour of 

Period 

Fraction of 

Boating Starts 

Fraction of 

Boating 

Finishes 

Average 

Prorated

6 8.7% 3.8% 6.3% 

9 23.6 0.9 12.3% 

12 29.5 9.6 19.6% 

15 19.1 16.7 17.9% 

18 13.2 31.7 22.5% 

21 5.9 28.7 17.3% 

24 0 8.8 4.4% 

The raw database of survey results was provided to ENVIRON to perform county allocations of 

boating activity. Using the zip code of the respondent, the county of registration was determined 

and used as the county of origin for each boat. Note that it is possible for a boat to be registered 

in a different county from where it is used. A small percentage (less than 2%) of the responses 

were Wisconsin registrations with addresses outside of Wisconsin. 

In the survey, some of the respondents boated in more than one county, but the number of gallons 

reported was for the whole two-week period. So for each boat, the total number of gallons was 

prorated to each county boated in by the number of days spent in that county. The activity in 

gallons of fuel consumed off the Great Lakes shores were distinguished from the activity on 

inland waters in the survey and were modeled separately. All subsequent analysis was conducted 

on these two datasets independently of one another. 

The boats were separated into four type categories: inboards, outboards, powered sail, and other. 

The inboards category included the types “inboard” and “inboard/outboard” from the survey, the 

outboards category included just the “outboard,” the powered sail category included the “sail 

with power” category from the survey, and the other category included “other powered” from the 

survey. All boats labeled “other non-powered” or “sail” were dropped. For the analysis, 

inboards and outboards were examined both separately and together. The reason for these 

distinctions is that inboard engines have historically been 4-stroke while outboard engines were 

2- stroke, and each type will continue to have engine designs unique for their use. The larger 

inboard and inboard\outboard engines may also be associated with larger boats. Eventually all 

boat types were collapsed into only two categories, inboard and outboard. Personal watercraft 

(aka “JetSkis”) was allocated using the outboard allocation derived and described below. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-4 

The geographic allocations of the Wisconsin survey results were used to determine the relative 

activity in each county for outboards and inboards. EPA has provided, in the most recent 

NONROAD model (NONROAD2002), county allocations for outboards (and jet boats) and 

inboards using a modified water surface area, restricting the water surface area assigned to Great 

Lakes, in allocating the boating activity to the county. In Figure 4-1 is the comparison of the 

outboard and inboard allocations found from the Wisconsin boating survey and default estimates 

used in the NONROAD model. There were significant differences between the default allocation 

and those from the survey results, best observed when looking at the counties with the largest 

shoreline length (Door County, FIPS – 55029) and highest inland water surface area (Winnebago 

County, FIPS – 55139). Table 4-5 demonstrates that Door County had much less activity than 

has been modeled while Winnebago County had considerably more relative activity. More 

complete emissions allocation information for all States is available in the Appendix C, D, and E. 

Table 4-5. Sample comparison of relative state allocation of boating activity. 

Inboard Outboard 

County Survey Data NONROAD 

Default 

Survey Data NONROAD 

Default 

Door 10.8 % 17.8 % 3.3% 17.0% 

Winnebago 8.3% 1.1% 4.6% 1.2% 

Figure 4-1. Wisconsin county allocation of boating activity (this work and EPA default).

WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067 55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

0.80

0.46

0.25

1.93

4.67

0.68

0.08

0.77

1.53

0.32

1.10

0.29

5.30

0.23

10.76

2.01

0.03

0.02

0.28

1.60

0.10

0.41

0.11

0.65

0.00

0.23

0.22

0.45

0.94

2.41

0.93

4.19

0.00

0.20 0.53

2.66

0.32

1.05

0.00

0.08

8.88

0.00

0.24

3.39

0.85

1.26

0.14

0.86

0.33

0.65

0.09

2.81

0.00

0.83

0.04

1.74

0.47

1.41

1.03

2.54

0.03

0.33

0.56

1.49

3.80

0.37

0.85

6.08

1.44

0.60 8.25

0.05

WI 2002 REC MARINE

INBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.09

0.09 to 0.32

0.32 to 0.65

0.65 to 1.05

1.05 to 2.54

2.54 to 11.00

WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067 55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

0.33

10.80

0.22

5.96

1.32

0.21

0.48

0.63

0.25

0.03

0.18

0.22

0.29

0.20

17.76

1.92

0.09

0.06

0.08

0.35

0.26

0.29

0.00

0.21

0.04

1.44

0.10

0.21

0.30

4.15

6.54

0.22

0.01

0.12 0.19

7.95

0.25

1.50

0.07

0.06

8.20

0.06

1.66

0.91

0.03

7.24

0.13

0.12

0.32

0.13

0.21

3.98

0.03

0.04

0.15

0.11

0.09

0.77

0.14

6.62

0.08

0.06

0.17

1.19

0.17

0.35

0.04

0.20

0.11

0.09 1.14

0.14

WI REC MARINE

INBOARDS: DEFAULT

0.00 to 0.07

0.07 to 0.14

0.14 to 0.21

0.21 to 0.35

0.35 to 2.00

2.00 to 18.00

WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067 55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

1.22

0.67

1.56

2.07

1.97

1.06

1.13

0.60

2.76

0.31

1.58

0.63

3.50

1.29

3.34

0.87

0.42

0.58

0.30

1.05

1.46

0.72

0.02

1.25

0.33

1.81

0.34

0.97

0.53

1.20

0.55

2.15

0.28

0.85 1.39

0.73

1.79

2.19

0.86

0.42

0.78

0.04

2.05

7.05

0.43

0.20

0.08

0.18

1.72

1.19

0.77

1.75

0.04

1.26

0.68

0.24

1.32

3.74

1.83

1.22

0.34

0.60

0.47

8.35

1.84

1.41

1.16

4.95

2.12

0.87 4.56

0.03

WI 2002 REC MARINE

OUTBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.34

0.34 to 0.68

0.68 to 1.00

1.00 to 1.40

1.40 to 2.00

2.00 to 12.00

WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067 55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

0.36

11.11

0.24

5.18

0.85

0.22

0.52

0.68

0.27

0.03

0.19

0.23

0.32

0.22

17.01

1.58

0.10

0.06

0.08

0.38

0.28

0.31

0.00

0.23

0.05

1.45

0.11

0.23

0.32

4.29

6.63

0.24

0.01

0.13 0.21

8.06

0.27

1.35

0.08

0.06

8.45

0.06

1.39

0.98

0.03

7.82

0.14

0.13

0.35

0.14

0.23

4.09

0.03

0.05

0.16

0.12

0.09

0.83

0.15

6.76

0.08

0.07

0.19

1.28

0.18

0.38

0.04

0.22

0.12

0.10 1.24

0.15

WI REC MARINE

OUTBOARDS: DEFAULT

0.00 to 0.08

0.08 to 0.15

0.15 to 0.23

0.23 to 0.38

0.38 to 1.60

1.60 to 18.00
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-5 

ESTIMATION OF FACTORS AFFECTING GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF 

BOATING ACTIVITY 

The EPA NONROAD default county allocation for Wisconsin is significantly different than the 

results calculated from the Wisconsin boating survey. This argues that a better allocation method 

should be derived for the other 4 LADCO states. The Wisconsin boating survey was used to 

compare geographical allocation methods for use in States where such survey data is unavailable. 

The Wisconsin survey data results were used to determine the proper geographic allocation for 

Wisconsin. For other states where only registration and geographic information data (water 

surface area, proximity to population regions, and other information) is available, an allocation 

method was developed using correlations from the Wisconsin data. Described below are the 

procedures that were used to test allocation variables and approaches. 

For each boat category (inboards and outboards), the number of gallons consumed was totaled 

for each county of origin from the survey results. The survey responses indicated the ZIP code of 

the registration, so the number of boats in each county could be identified. This provided an 

estimate of the number of gallons consumed paired with the number of boats surveyed. 

A proximity variable was defined to describe where the boats were housed compared to the 

county where they were used. It was of interest to demonstrate if the distance to the boating site 

influenced the relative activity per water surface area; for instance, to determine if the EPA 

NONROAD model default information that rural water surface area gets equivalent boating 

activity as urban water surface area. The distance from the origin county (where boats are 

registered) to the destination county (where the fuel was consumed) was calculated, where the 

centroid of each county was used in determining these distances. Where the boating activity 

occurred in the same county as the county of origin, the distance was calculated as one half the 

radius of the county, determined by assuming the county was shaped like a circle. (The half 

radius was calculated by dividing the land area by the circumference of the county.) One half the 

radius was used because the assumption is that the distance is always calculated from the 

centroid (or center of the circle) of the origin. With this assumption, the expected travel distance 

within the county would be, on average, one half the radius. Note that for this analysis, the only 

records used were those for which we were able to calculate a distance (records with zip codes or 

county designations) and for which the gallons used were not missing (though some boats had no 

activity during the survey period). If a respondent did not provide the gallons consumed (zero 

was an acceptable response), or if the county of origin was unknown or outside of the state of 

Wisconsin, the data was not used. There were 20.7% of inland boating events that did not meet 

these criteria, and 21.5% of Great Lakes boating events that did not meet these criteria, primarily 

because gallons consumed were not reported.

The variable “boats over distance” was calculated by taking the total number of boats for which 

there were valid data from an origin county and dividing this total by the distance from the origin 

to the destination. For a given destination county, the sum of all “boats over distance” fractions 

was taken over all the counties in the state “BoatsOverDistance” was calculated as: 

BoatsOverDistancej = 3 [no. of boats in county i]/[distance from county i to destination county j] 

where the sum is conducted over all counties for each ‘destination’ county 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-6 

A correlation of county activity was conducted to produce relative county-level activity 

estimates. The correlation was conducted on the gallons of fuel consumed in each county by boat 

type, either outboard or inboard. The correlation method, using the logarithmic transformation as 

shown in the equation below, minimized the influence of counties with extraordinarily large 

water surface area (or shoreline length) or proximity (“boatsoverdistance”) variable magnitudes. 

It also does not assume a priori that the proximity variable and water surface area are of equal 

importance, as the combination of the two variables would and as was originally proposed for 

this work. 

Ln (gallonsj) = a + b Ln{3[boatsoverdistance] j} + c Ln {water surfacej or shoreline lengthj} 

To determine the relative activity allocation by county, the correlation of gallons of fuel 

consumed in the Great Lakes needed to be comparable to that consumed on inland waters. 

Because the water surface area and the shoreline length variables could not be normalized in a 

similar manner to produce a relative variable, the total number of registered boats by type and 

annual gallons consumed in Wisconsin as calculated by the NONROAD model using the number 

of registered boats as the NONROAD input population was used to scale the survey results. The 

scaled gallons consumed in Wisconsin counties in 2002 were used to produce correlations using 

the total boating population and water surface area (or shoreline length) as the explanatory 

variables. Using this technique, we could total the estimated gallons consumed in counties with 

both shoreline along the Great Lakes and inland water due to activity occurring on both. These 

2002 scaled regression results were then applied directly to Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio 

to produce gallons estimates for activity on both Great Lakes shores and inland waters. 

The results of the regressions in Table 4-6 show that both the water surface area and the 

proximity (sum of boats/distance) were significant explanatory variables of the geographic 

distribution of boating activity. Scatter plots of the regression results are provided in Appendix B, 

and demonstrate that the fit was better leaving in outlier counties (Door and Winnebago) with 

high water surface areas. One exception was that the proximity variable was not statistically 

significant in the relative boating activity in the Great Lakes model for outboards, but it was left 

in the final regression because it was significant for the other situations (for inboards on both 

inland and Great Lakes waters, and inland water for outboards), and because it provided the best 

explanation of the results. The correlations, as evidenced by the low R2

, were not perfect 

explanations of the results, but do a good job explaining the trends of the data as the scatter plots 

in Appendix B show. It is helpful to note that EPA has apportioned activity using only a modified 

(only by restricting the distance off-shore of the Great Lakes that is counted) water surface area 

indicator without any correlation with allocation data. So this method was still considered 

superior to the EPA method in that it was based upon survey data to test the hypothesis. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-7 

Table 4-6. Regression statistics for geographic allocation by boat and water type. 

Inland – Inboards R2 = 0.379 

Coefficient of Value Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) 

(Intercept) 2.1374 2.5333 0.8437 0.4020 

LogWaterSurfaceArea 0.9026 0.1712 5.2711 0.0000 

LogBoatsOverDistance 1.5780 0.3960 3.9846 0.0002 

Inland – Outboards R2 = 0.462 

Coefficient of Value Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) 

(Intercept) 4.9979 3.1763 1.5735 0.1202 

LogWaterSurfaceArea 0.7971 0.1085 7.3471 0.0000 

LogBoatsOverDistance 1.0986 0.4131 2.6590 0.0097 

Lakes – Inboards R2 = 0.716 

Coefficient of Value Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) 

(Intercept) 0.0380 3.1576 0.0120 0.9906 

LogShoreLineLength 1.3910 0.3005 4.6290 0.0006 

LogBoatsOverDistance 1.8453 0.4404 4.1905 0.0013 

Lakes – Outboards R2 = 0.447 

Coefficient of Value Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) 

(Intercept) 9.4384 4.3602 2.1647 0.0513 

LogShoreLineLength 0.7846 0.2526 3.1057 0.0091 

LogBoatsOverDistance 0.4558 0.5193 0.8776 0.3974 

The magnitude of the coefficients in Table 4-6 also provides an estimate of the relative 

importance of each variable in explaining the geographic distribution. (However because the 

variables have not been normalized, the coefficient magnitudes can only be compared within a 

model rather than from one model to another.) For instance, the magnitude of the coefficient of 

proximity variable for inboard boats correlations was higher than the coefficient for the same 

variable in the outboard correlations. This result appear to be realistic in that outboard boats are 

likely smaller than inboard boats, and therefore should be more easily moved from one location 

to another. This would indicate that outboard activity allocation is affected less by the travel 

distance from the point of origin to the destination water than by the availability of water surface 

area. Also the proximity variable was less important for explaining Great Lakes outboard 

activity, as well as not being statistically significant. 

These regression results were used to describe the relative activity of counties in the States of 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The county boat population for each state, the county-tocounty distances, and the water surface area or shoreline length was used to estimate the number 

of gallons of fuel consumed in each county by each boat type. The estimated gallons of fuel 

consumed calculated in this manner were then summed for inland and Great Lakes waters to 

provide a total estimate of the county activity. (Because the regressions were developed for 

Wisconsin, the fuel consumption estimates calculated here were only used to allocate the State 

total activity rather than used directly to estimate emissions.) This fuel consumption estimate was 

then normalized to produce a relative magnitude estimate to rewrite the NONROAD allocation 

input file for each State. The raw (not regressions of the data) survey results were used for the 

Wisconsin NONROAD allocation input file. The outboard allocation correlation was used to 

describe personal watercraft allocation using the county registrations of personal watercraft in the 

correlations. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-8 

STATE REGISTRATIONS 

The state boating registrations were mapped into NONROAD model input files using the 

national default allocation of power level grouping. The boating population from the registration 

data was typically separated into outboard, inboard (including sterndrive), and personal 

watercraft (jet boats) but grouped across fuel type (either gasoline or diesel). (The NONROAD 

model accounts for 2-stroke and 4-stroke gasoline types through the use of a technical type 

description.) Summaries of the power distributions are shown in Tables 4-7 – 4-9. One exception 

to this distribution was the Michigan registration data where vessels were also segregated by fuel 

type. 

Table 4-7. Outboard population fractions by power level and fuel type. 

SCC Description HP min HP max HP avg

Fraction 

of Total 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 1 3 2.412 1.6% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 3 6 5.337 19.0% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 6 11 8.76 16.3% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 11 16 14.99 5.9% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 16 25 21.54 15.6% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 25 40 36 10.2% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 40 50 49.34 5.3% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 50 100 78.17 9.7% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 100 175 139.4 12.0% 

2282005010 2-Str Outboard 175 300 217.9 4.2% 

2282020010 Dsl – Outboard 25 40 32.25 0.1% 

Table 4-8. Personal watercraft population fractions by power level. 

SCC Description HP min HP max HP avg

Fraction 

of Total 

2282005015 2-Str Personal Water Craft 16 25 18.41 0.6% 

2282005015 2-Str Personal Water Craft 25 40 36.75 7.2% 

2282005015 2-Str Personal Water Craft 40 50 43.95 7.2% 

2282005015 2-Str Personal Water Craft 50 100 73.46 66.0% 

2282005015 2-Str Personal Water Craft 100 175 116.3 19.0% 

Table 4-9. Inboard population fractions by power level and fuel type. 

SCC Description HP min HP max HP avg

Fraction 

of Total 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 3 6 5 0.04% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 6 11 10 0.03% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 11 16 15 0.02% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 25 40 30.47 0.07% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 50 100 59.55 0.62% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 100 175 149.7 62.11% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 175 300 211.1 28.94% 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 300 600 380.8 1.20% 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-9 

SCC Description HP min HP max HP avg

Fraction 

of Total 

2282010005 4-Str Inboard/Sterndrive 600 750 630 0.00% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 6 11 9.74 0.38% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 11 16 14.92 0.20% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 16 25 21.41 0.43% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 25 40 31.2 0.24% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 40 50 42.4 0.05% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 50 100 73.63 0.35% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 100 175 144.9 1.18% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 175 300 223.1 2.37% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 300 600 387.1 1.50% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 600 750 677 0.08% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 750 1000 876.5 0.11% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 1000 1500 1233 0.06% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 1500 2000 1577 0.00% 

2282020005 Dsl – Inboard 2000 3000 2289 0.02% 

The state registrations were collected and apportioned according the boat type is shown in Table 

4-10 for each of the five states. The boat types were apportioned into each of the three general 

types described above. 

Table 4-10. State boat registrations. 

State Inboards Outboards PWC Total 

Illinois 50,992 227,098 30,663 308,753

Indiana 73,324 155,689 11,315 240,328

Michigan 101,161 gasoline

7,586 diesel

483,756 gasoline

545 diesel 65,395 658,443

Ohio 67,329 299,854 40,489 407,672

Wisconsin 87,635 500,313 Lumped with 

Outboards 587,948

The geographic allocation was mapped into NONROAD allocation input files (such as 

Wi_wib.alo and Wi_wob.alo for inboard and outboard allocation for Wisconsin). The 

NONROAD model prorates the allocation values in these input files, so the numbers can be 

entered in any form (%, gallons, or fractions) as long as the values are appropriately relative to 

one another. 

RESULTS 

The revised population and allocation input files were used when running the NONROAD2004 

model to estimate annual emission totals. State total emission estimates and NEI default 

estimates are shown in Table 4-11 using the year 2002 boat registrations for each state. The 

estimates in Table 4-11 put together inboard, outboard, and personal watercraft. Because 

inboards only used 4-stroke diesel and gasoline engines, these vessels have higher NOx 

emissions and lower VOC emissions compared with the 2-stroke gasoline engines most often 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec-4 LADCO Recreational Marine 10_5_04.doc 4-10 

used in outboard and personal watercraft engines. Therefore the relative mix of inboards, 

outboards, and personal watercraft can affect the emission estimates in addition to the total 

number of boats.

Table 4-11. Annual emission estimates (tons) for 2002. 

State Type VOC CO NOx PM SO2 

Revised 17,182 53,172 2,541 833 234 Illinois Default 19,607 51,747 1,477 961 129

Revised 12,420 41,654 2,206 590 203 Indiana Default 8,295 21,892 625 407 55

Revised 53,485 185,854 4,607 2,371 259 Michigan Default 41,814 110,357 3,149 2,049 275

Revised 20,831 64,081 3,034 990 283 Ohio Default 25,889 68,327 1,949 1,269 170

Revised 34,588 89,087 3,051 1,740 285 Wisconsin Default 19,953 52,662 1,501 978 131

The more significant effort in this work is that of the county allocation estimates. The figures in 

Appendix C demonstrate the relative state to county allocation used in this work compared with 

the default allocation. Numeric tables of the graphical results in Appendix C are provided in and 

Excel file as Appendix D. Annual emission estimates for recreational marine engines by county 

are provided in five Excel files labeled Appendix E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, and E-5. 

The revisions to the geographic allocations show two main features. The importance of the 

proximity of the boat registration to the water surface area has the effect of pulling more inboard 

activity to counties with larger population centers where the boats are registered than the default 

allocation. The second feature is the outboard activity was pulled away from the Great Lakes 

toward inland water surface area and partially, though less than for inboards, affected by the 

proximity of the registration address. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 5_References.doc 5-1 

5.0 REFERENCES 

AAR 2003. “Analysis of Class I Railroads, 2002,” and RR Industry Info: Railroad and States, 

http://www.aar.org/AboutTheIndustry/StateInformation.asp, Association of American 

Railroads, 2003. 

AMTRAK 2003. Personal communication from Ellen Jurczek, September 4, 2003. 

Arcadis 1999. “Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the 

United States.” Prepared for EPA by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., EPA420-R-99-

019, September. 

ASLRRA 1999. “1999 Annual Data Profile of the American Short Line & Regional Railroad 

Industry.” Developed by the American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association and 

the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University. 

(Available online at: http://www.shortlinedata.com/) 

BNSF 2003. Personal communication from Lyle Staley, September 10. 

BTS 2002. 2002 National Transportation Atlas Data Shapefile Download Center. Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Internet address: 

http://websas.bts.gov/website/ntad02/. 

Benson, Doug. 2004. Personal communication, February 19, 2004. See also ASLRRA 1999. 

CSX 2004. Personal communications from Rick Nath, CSX Transportation Inc., August 4. 

Coast Guard 2004 Personal communication with Renee Sykora, May 24. 

ENVIRON 2002. “Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development.” Prepared 

for the Environmental Protection Agency, April. 

ERG 2001. “Documentation For The Draft 1999 Base Year Aircraft, Commercial Marine 

Vessel, And Locomotive National Emission Inventory For Criteria And Hazardous Air 

Pollutants.” Prepared by: Eastern Research Group, Inc. Prepared for: Emission Factor 

and Inventory Group (MD-14) Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, October 29. 

EPA 1997. “Locomotive Emission Standards.” Regulatory Support Document, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April. And EPA 1997, 

Emission Factors for Locomotives,” Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-F-97-

051, December. 

EPA 1997 “Emission Factor for Locomotives.” Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-F97-051, December. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 5_References.doc 5-2 

EPA. 1999a. “Control Of Air Pollution From Marine Compression-Ignition Engines.” Part 94, 

Code of Federal Regulations, December, 1999. Published in the Federal Register 

December 29. 

EPA. 1999b. “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from CompressionIgnition Marine Engines.” EPA420-R-99-026, November. 

EPA. 1999c. Michael Samulski. Personal communication, April 5. 

EPA. 2001. Procedures Document For National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 

1985-1999.” EPA-454/R-01-006, March. 

EPA. 2004a. Personal communication with Charles Moulis, March 4. 

EPA. 2004b. Personal communication with Craig Harvey, March 10. 

EPA. 2004c. Personal communication with Lester Wyborny, March 11. 

ISO 1996. “Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines – Exhaust Emission Measurement” 

Part 4 Test Cycles for Different Engine Applications.” International Standards 

Organization Regulations 8178, 1996 Edition. 

Ladd, H. 1999 “U.S. Railroad Traffic Atlas.” Altamont Press, Modesto, CA. 

METRA 2004. Personal communication with METRA staff, Mary McDonnell, 312-322-6939, 

Chris Wilson, 312-322-8024, John Gottlieb, 312-322-8978, March. 

http://metrarail.com/schedule.html

NMFS 2003. “Annual Landings.” National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Available Online at: 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html last updated 

September 2003. 

Norfolk Southern 2004. Personal communication from Gibson Barbee, March 8. 

RPO Data Exchange Format 

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/protocol/protocol.html

St. Lawrence Seaway 2003. “2002 Traffic Report.” Prepared by The St. Lawrence Seaway 

Management Corporation and The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. 
December 2004 

G:\LADCO-nonroad\Report\RevFinal\Sec 5_References.doc 5-3 

TVA 2003. “River Efficiency, Fuel Taxes, and Modal Shifts.” Bray, L.G., Dager, CA., Henry, 

R.L., Koroa, C., TR News, Transportation Research Board, July – August 2002. Fuel 

Consumption Update, personal communication with C.A. Dager, July 2003. 

Union Pacific 2003. Personal communication from Jon Germer. October 30. 

USACE 2004. Data available online at: for River Barge, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/lockchar/lockchar.htm, Vessel Characteristics, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/veslchar/veslchar.htm, Waterborne Commerce, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm, Dredging, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/dredge.htm. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1991. “Boating Pressure on Wisconsin’s Lakes 

and Rivers, Results of the 1989-1990 Wisconsin Recreational Boating Study, Phase 1,” 

Technical Bulletin 174. 
APPENDIX A 

CLASS I RAILWAY SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS AND MAPS 
CLASS I RAILWAY SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS AND MAPS 

The largest source of uncertainty in this study was the lack of specific data Canadian National, 

and Canadian Pacific railways. Given below are descriptions of each Class I railway system and 

systems maps where available. 

In estimating state emissions using the proportion of track miles in each state to the US totals, the 

largest uncertainty would be experienced when track miles are used disproportional to the 

system-wide averages. 

Canadian National 

(Including Grand Trunk, Illinois Central, and Wisconsin Central) 

There are two main Canadian National (CN) freight routes in terms of GTW (Ladd, 1999) in the 

US where Gross Tons are greater than 20. The first one is from the Port Huron – Detroit 

Michigan area through to Junction City, WI. The second route is the old Illinois Central line 

from Chicago to Louisiana. However, there are many slightly less busy routes in Wisconsin, 

Northern Michigan, Iowa, and Illinois. These are shown schematically in Figure 2-1. Not all CN 

lines are shown, especially in Wisconsin and Illinois where the tracks originally acquired by the 

Wisconsin Central and Illinois Central railroads are now owned by CNGT. 

The most likely route undercounted is the very high activity line through Indiana where track 

miles is low yet the freight traffic is high. In Illinois, the track mileage from Indiana through 

Appleton, WI and from Chicago south splitting near Effingham and passing on through Cairo 

and Metropolis are the busiest CN lines; originally the Illinois Central. These are the main areas 

where emissions will be underestimated under the current method. 

Figure A-1. Canadian National main US operations. 
Canadian Pacific 

Canadian Pacific’s (CP) main route in the US operates from Detroit through Glenwood, 

Minnesota and on through North Dakota or north into Canada. A less important line runs from 

Chicago through Illinois and Indiana to Louisville. This is shown in Figure 2-2, however not all 

lines are shown in this figure, only the major operations. 

Because the route from Chicago through Minnesota is the most heavily traveled, the most likely 

area for underestimation in this work would be found along this line. This line runs from 

Chicago to Milwaukee, west to La Crosse, WI and on through Minnesota. Another area of 

misallocation is the northern Indiana track that has more activity than the southern Indiana track. 

So while the Indiana state totals may be accurate, the CP activity in Indiana may be misallocated. 

Figure A-2. Canadian Pacific’s main US operations. 

CSX 

CSX is the third largest railroad operating in the US and is of similar size to Norfolk Southern, 

the fourth largest railroad. CSX operates in almost all states (except Wisconsin) east of the 

Mississippi and none to the west as is shown in their system map in Figure 2-3. The main routes 

are widely and evenly dispersed throughout its system. There are several main routes in the 

LADCO area including (1) Chicago to Evansville, IN, (2) Chicago to Youngstown, OH, (3) St. 

Elmo, IL to Ashtabula, OH, (4) Detroit to Cincinnati, and (5) Toledo to Huntington, WV. 
 

Figure A-3. System map for CSX (Blue) and shortlines (Red) with which CSX does business. 

Kansas City Southern 

Kansas City Southern (KCS) operates only in Illinois among the LADCO states on trackage 

rights from Springfield, IL to Chicago and on tracks it acquired in the purchase of Gateway 

Western from Springfield passing into Missouri at Pike, IL. A spur track from Roodhouse, IL to 

East St. Louis is also operated by KCS. The schematic of the main KCS operations in Figure 2-4 

shows clearly that Illinois operations are less important in the overall activity of Kansas City 

Southern. 
Figure A-4. Kansas City Southern’s main US operations. 

Norfolk Southern 

Norfolk Southern’s operations are shown in their system map in Figure 2-5. Norfolk Southern is 

largely an east coast railroad but operates across Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois handling east-west 

traffic with key transfer points for the LADCO states in Cincinnati, Columbus, OH, Detroit, 

Toledo, near St. Louis and Louisville, KY. 

Figure A-5. Norfolk Southern system map. 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

BNSF operates three main east-west lines radiating from Chicago as shown in Figure 2-6. One 

runs across northern Illinois and skirts east of the Mississippi toward Minneapolis. Two run 

across northern Illinois crossing into Iowa at Burlington and Ft. Madison. One main north-south 

route runs from Paducah, KY to Galesburg, IL. However, there are many smaller routes in 

Illinois as well as a short run into Superior, WI at Duluth. The survey data reflects the relative 

activity along each of these lines. 

Figure A-6. BNSF System Map. 

Union Pacific 

The UP system map is shown below in Figure 2-7. The more significant UP operations in 

LADCO states occur in and across Illinois where the Wisconsin operations are less significant 

than it might appear from this map. Union Pacific does not operate in Indiana, Michigan, or 

Ohio. 
Figure A-7. Union Pacific System Map. 
APPENDIX B

REGRESSIONS RESULTS OF SCALED 

WISCONSIN SURVEY RESULTS 
1

13 14 15 16 17 18

Fitted Values

12 14 16 18

ln(Gallons)

2.14 + 0.903*LogWaterSurfaceArea + 1.58*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.379

Inland -- Inboards

13 14 15 16

Fitted Values

12 14 16 18

ln(Gallons)

2.37 + 0.886*LogWaterSurfaceArea + 1.55*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.339

Inland -- Inboa rds without Winnebago County

Figure B - 1 Scatter plot of inboard activity on inland water.
2

14 15 16 17 18

Fitted Values

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ln(Gallons)

5 + 0.797*LogWaterSurfaceArea + 1.1*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.462

Inland -- Outboards

14 15 16 17 18

Fitted Values

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ln(Gallons)

4.73 + 0.806*LogWaterSurfaceArea + 1.13*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.444

Inland -- Outboards without Winnebago County

Figure B - 2 Scatter plot of outboard activity on inland water. 
3

14 15 16 17 18

Fitted Values

14 15 16 17 18

ln(Gallons)

0.038 + 1.39*LogShoreLineLength + 1.85*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.716

Lakes -- Inboards

14 15 16 17

Fitted Values

14 15 16 17 18

ln(Gallons)

0.392 + 1.31*LogShoreLineLength + 1.83*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.662

Lakes -- Inboards without Door County

Figure B - 3 Scatter plot of inboard activity on Great Lakes. 
4

15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0

Fitted Values

14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5

ln(Gallons)

9.44 + 0.785*LogShoreLineLength + 0.456*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.447

Lakes -- Outboards

15.0 15.2 15.4 15.6 15.8 16.0

Fitted Values

14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5

ln(Gallons)

10.1 + 0.509*LogShoreLineLength + 0.498*LogBoatsOverDistance

R-Squared: 0.246

Lakes -- Outboards without Door County

Figure B - 4 Scatter plot of outboard activity on Great Lakes. 
APPENDIX C

RECREATIONAL MARINE COUNTY ALLOCATION MAPS 
IL RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

17001

17003

17005

17007

17009

17011

17013

17015

17017

17019

17021

17023

17025

17027

17029

17031

17033

17035

17037

17039

17041

17043

17045

17047

17049

17051

17053

17055

17057

17059

17061

17063

17065

17067

17069

17071

17073

17075

17077

17079

17081

17083

17085

17087

17089

17091

17093

17095

17097

17099

17101

17103

17105

17107

17109

17111

17113

17115

17117

17119

17121

17123

17125

17127

17129

17131

17133

17135

17137 17139

17141

17143

17145

17147

17149

17151

17153

17155

17157

17159

17161

17163

17165

17167

17169

17171

17173

17175

17177

17179

17181

17183

17185

17187

17189 17191

17193

17195

17197

17199

17201

17203

0.07

0.04

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.07

0.11

0.16

0.04

0.01

0.08

0.02

0.00

0.19

0.02

46.59

0.02

0.00

0.07

0.08

0.01

0.34

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.06

0.00

0.10

0.18

0.01

0.02

0.24

0.00

0.09

0.01

0.09

0.01

0.02

0.08

0.02

0.08

0.04

0.12

0.01

0.24

0.09

0.02

0.05

45.90

0.19

0.02

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.40

0.03

0.09

0.05

0.20

0.02

0.12

0.16

0.02

0.01

0.07

0.06

0.04

0.03 0.06

0.08

0.17

0.04

0.00

0.07

0.01

0.01

0.13

0.09

0.01

0.21

0.14

0.03

0.08

0.02

0.02

0.06

0.00

0.03

0.13

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.00

0.02 0.02

0.02

0.12

0.71

0.09

0.20

0.17

IL 2002 REC MARINEINBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.010.01 to 0.020.02 to 0.040.04 to 0.080.08 to 0.160.16 to 50.00
IL RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARD

S

17001

17003

17005

17007

17009

17011

17013

17015

17017

17019

17021

17023

17025

17027

17029

17031

17033

17035

17037

17039

17041

17043

17045

17047

17049

17051

17053

17055

17057

17059

17061

17063

17065

17067

17069

17071

17073

17075

17077

17079

17081

17083

17085

17087

17089

17091

17093

17095

17097

17099

17101

17103

17105

17107

17109

17111

17113

17115

17117

17119

17121

17123

17125

17127

17129

17131

17133

17135

17137 17139

17141

17143

17145

17147

17149

17151

17153

17155

17157

17159

17161

17163

17165

17167

17169

17171

17173

17175

17177

17179

17181

17183

17185

17187

17189 17191

17193

17195

17197

17199

17201

17203

0.59

0.65

0.10

0.02

0.06

0.19

1.23

0.88

0.32

0.00

0.27

0.13

0.02

1.20

0.06

31.27

0.08

0.03

0.03

0.30

0.02

0.10

0.02

0.00

0.05

0.35

0.02

0.80

0.69

0.19

0.13

0.41

0.02

0.81

0.13

0.67

0.10

0.06

0.59

0.14

0.51

0.32

0.72

0.11

0.13

0.16

0.08

0.13

40.02

0.53

0.08

0.16

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.29

0.10

0.19

0.16

0.62

0.13

0.51

1.00

0.11

0.03

0.32

0.38

0.24

0.14 0.35

0.18

0.46

0.24

0.00

0.76

0.14

0.10

0.51

0.76

0.06

1.00

0.41

0.14

0.35

0.16

0.06

0.38

0.00

0.02

0.37

0.24

0.11

0.18

0.02

0.05 0.06

0.27

0.49

0.49

0.83

0.22

0.61

IL REC MARINEINBOARDS: DEFAULT

0.00 to 0.020.02 to 0.100.10 to 0.160.16 to 0.320.32 to 0.600.60 to 50.00
IL RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARD

S

17001

17003

17005

17007

17009

17011

17013

17015

17017

17019

17021

17023

17025

17027

17029

17031

17033

17035

17037

17039

17041

17043

17045

17047

17049

17051

17053

17055

17057

17059

17061

17063

17065

17067

17069

17071

17073

17075

17077

17079

17081

17083

17085

17087

17089

17091

17093

17095

17097

17099

17101

17103

17105

17107

17109

17111

17113

17115

17117

17119

17121

17123

17125

17127

17129

17131

17133

17135

17137 17139

17141

17143

17145

17147

17149

17151

17153

17155

17157

17159

17161

17163

17165

17167

17169

17171

17173

17175

17177

17179

17181

17183

17185

17187

17189 17191

17193

17195

17197

17199

17201

17203

0.40

0.35

0.16

0.12

0.05

0.32

0.66

0.69

0.26

0.04

0.44

0.16

0.02

1.04

0.12

31.88

0.14

0.03

0.21

0.38

0.06

0.56

0.05

0.00

0.10

0.41

0.03

0.79

0.96

0.14

0.13

0.73

0.03

0.50

0.13

0.51

0.09

0.10

0.62

0.16

0.60

0.25

0.56

0.13

0.52

0.32

0.07

0.27

34.15

0.66

0.17

0.25

0.18

0.10

0.07

0.74

0.16

0.42

0.31

0.87

0.17

0.54

0.84

0.16

0.04

0.38

0.36

0.27

0.18 0.34

0.32

0.81

0.33

0.03

0.43

0.11

0.10

0.56

0.62

0.10

0.97

0.66

0.28

0.42

0.15

0.13

0.34

0.03

0.13

0.65

0.26

0.20

0.15

0.02

0.16 0.13

0.16

0.53

1.45

0.76

0.65

0.72

IL 2002 REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.100.10 to 0.150.15 to 0.300.30 to 0.500.50 to 0.650.65 to 50.00
IL RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARD

S

17001

17003

17005

17007

17009

17011

17013

17015

17017

17019

17021

17023

17025

17027

17029

17031

17033

17035

17037

17039

17041

17043

17045

17047

17049

17051

17053

17055

17057

17059

17061

17063

17065

17067

17069

17071

17073

17075

17077

17079

17081

17083

17085

17087

17089

17091

17093

17095

17097

17099

17101

17103

17105

17107

17109

17111

17113

17115

17117

17119

17121

17123

17125

17127

17129

17131

17133

17135

17137 17139

17141

17143

17145

17147

17149

17151

17153

17155

17157

17159

17161

17163

17165

17167

17169

17171

17173

17175

17177

17179

17181

17183

17185

17187

17189 17191

17193

17195

17197

17199

17201

17203

0.62

0.68

0.10

0.02

0.07

0.20

1.28

0.92

0.33

0.00

0.28

0.13

0.02

1.25

0.07

30.08

0.08

0.03

0.03

0.32

0.02

0.10

0.02

0.00

0.05

0.37

0.02

0.83

0.72

0.20

0.13

0.43

0.02

0.85

0.13

0.70

0.10

0.07

0.62

0.15

0.53

0.33

0.75

0.12

0.13

0.17

0.08

0.13

39.93

0.55

0.08

0.17

0.07

0.03

0.02

0.30

0.10

0.20

0.17

0.65

0.13

0.53

1.05

0.12

0.03

0.33

0.40

0.25

0.15 0.37

0.18

0.48

0.25

0.00

0.80

0.15

0.10

0.53

0.80

0.07

1.05

0.43

0.15

0.37

0.17

0.07

0.40

0.00

0.02

0.38

0.25

0.12

0.18

0.02

0.05 0.07

0.28

0.52

0.52

0.87

0.23

0.63

IL REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: DEFAULT

0.00 to 0.050.05 to 0.110.11 to 0.180.18 to 0.380.38 to 0.700.70 to 50.00
IN RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARD

S

18001

18003

18005

18007

18009

18011

18013

18015

18017

18019

18021

18023

18025

18027

18029

18031

18033

18035

18037

18039

18041

18043

18045

18047

18049

18051

18053

18055

18057

18059

18061

18063

18065

18067

18069

18071

18073

18075

18077

18079

18081

18083

18085

18087

18089

18091

18093

18095

18097

18099

18101

18103

18105

18107

18109

18111

18113

18115

18117

18119

18121

18123

18125

18127

18129

18131

18133

18135

18137

18139

18141

18143

18145

18147

18149

18151

18153

18155

18157

18159

18161

18163

18165

18167

18169

18171

18173

18175

18177

18181 18179

18183

0.05

1.22

0.29

0.00

0.00

0.16

0.55

0.70

0.55

0.38

0.52

0.24

0.26

0.33

0.33

0.09

0.32

0.70

0.41

1.10

0.09

0.10

0.18

0.54

0.55

0.56

0.25

0.62

1.75

0.09

0.33

0.09

0.33

0.34

0.94

0.33

0.23

0.16

0.20

0.21

0.59

0.56

4.88

1.55

25.78

3.74

0.28

0.33

3.74

1.15

0.26

0.58

2.23

0.13

0.62

0.30

1.76

0.09

0.51

0.50

0.37

0.45

0.35

20.68

0.55

0.12

0.54

0.08

0.29

0.00

0.57

0.13

0.07

0.15

0.61

2.62

0.71

0.26

0.58

0.00

0.27

0.31

0.23

0.84

0.95

0.14

0.50

0.13

0.23

0.69 0.24

0.64

IN 2002 REC MARINEINBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.120.12 to 0.250.25 to 0.350.35 to 0.560.56 to 0.900.90 to 50.00
IN RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARD

S

18001

18003

18005

18007

18009

18011

18013

18015

18017

18019

18021

18023

18025

18027

18029

18031

18033

18035

18037

18039

18041

18043

18045

18047

18049

18051

18053

18055

18057

18059

18061

18063

18065

18067

18069

18071

18073

18075

18077

18079

18081

18083

18085

18087

18089

18091

18093

18095

18097

18099

18101

18103

18105

18107

18109

18111

18113

18115

18117

18119

18121

18123

18125

18127

18129

18131

18133

18135

18137

18139

18141

18143

18145

18147

18149

18151

18153

18155

18157

18159

18161

18163

18165

18167

18169

18171

18173

18175

18177

18181 18179

18183

0.06

0.44

0.37

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.68

0.44

0.31

0.12

0.44

0.00

0.50

0.93

0.25

0.12

0.12

0.37

0.81

0.62

0.00

0.00

0.31

0.81

0.44

1.62

0.12

0.56

0.75

0.06

0.25

0.06

0.31

0.12

0.81

0.68

0.19

0.00

0.25

0.12

0.19

1.31

2.68

1.12

27.90

4.11

0.50

0.12

1.06

0.87

0.68

0.25

2.68

0.12

0.44

0.25

1.00

0.06

1.37

0.37

0.81

0.75

0.75

21.86

1.74

0.12

0.31

0.00

0.25

0.00

0.56

0.37

0.06

0.37

0.44

2.18

1.06

0.37

0.50

0.00

0.56

0.19

0.44

1.12

1.25

0.25

1.06

0.31

0.12

0.56 0.06

0.37

IN REC MARINEINBOARDS: DEFA

0.00 to 0.120.12 to 0.240.24 to 0.400.40 to 0.700.70 to 1.201.20 to 30.0
IN RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

18001

18003

18005

18007

18009

18011

18013

18015

18017

18019

18021

18023

18025

18027

18029

18031

18033

18035

18037

18039

18041

18043

18045

18047

18049

18051

18053

18055

18057

18059

18061

18063

18065

18067

18069

18071

18073

18075

18077

18079

18081

18083

18085

18087

18089

18091

18093

18095

18097

18099

18101

18103

18105

18107

18109

18111

18113

18115

18117

18119

18121

18123

18125

18127

18129

18131

18133

18135

18137

18139

18141

18143

18145

18147

18149

18151

18153

18155

18157

18159

18161

18163

18165

18167

18169

18171

18173

18175

18177

18181 18179

18183

0.09

1.46

0.47

0.00

0.00

0.21

0.78

0.92

0.79

0.64

0.86

0.35

0.56

0.70

0.51

0.17

0.52

0.91

0.84

1.60

0.16

0.21

0.32

0.79

0.81

1.09

0.38

1.09

1.23

0.13

0.65

0.13

0.47

0.48

1.25

0.60

0.40

0.27

0.36

0.38

0.69

1.13

4.47

2.27

15.44

3.08

0.56

0.42

2.53

1.49

0.55

0.82

2.70

0.21

0.79

0.52

2.43

0.18

0.99

0.78

0.61

0.90

0.75

13.52

1.10

0.21

0.75

0.16

0.48

0.00

0.92

0.25

0.10

0.35

0.90

2.72

1.27

0.45

0.81

0.00

0.42

0.56

0.44

1.39

1.26

0.26

0.95

0.29

0.36

0.88 0.38

0.91

IN 2002 REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.200.20 to 0.400.40 to 0.700.70 to 0.890.89 to 1.251.25 to 50.00
IN RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARD

S

18001

18003

18005

18007

18009

18011

18013

18015

18017

18019

18021

18023

18025

18027

18029

18031

18033

18035

18037

18039

18041

18043

18045

18047

18049

18051

18053

18055

18057

18059

18061

18063

18065

18067

18069

18071

18073

18075

18077

18079

18081

18083

18085

18087

18089

18091

18093

18095

18097

18099

18101

18103

18105

18107

18109

18111

18113

18115

18117

18119

18121

18123

18125

18127

18129

18131

18133

18135

18137

18139

18141

18143

18145

18147

18149

18151

18153

18155

18157

18159

18161

18163

18165

18167

18169

18171

18173

18175

18177

18181 18179

18183

0.07

0.50

0.43

0.00

0.00

0.07

0.78

0.50

0.35

0.14

0.50

0.00

0.57

1.06

0.28

0.14

0.14

0.43

0.92

0.71

0.00

0.00

0.35

0.92

0.50

1.84

0.14

0.64

0.85

0.07

0.28

0.07

0.35

0.14

0.92

0.78

0.21

0.00

0.28

0.14

0.21

1.49

3.05

1.28

24.75

2.98

0.57

0.14

1.21

0.99

0.78

0.28

3.05

0.14

0.50

0.28

1.13

0.07

1.56

0.43

0.92

0.85

0.85

19.72

1.99

0.14

0.35

0.00

0.28

0.00

0.64

0.43

0.07

0.43

0.50

2.48

1.21

0.43

0.57

0.00

0.64

0.21

0.50

1.28

1.42

0.28

1.21

0.35

0.14

0.64 0.07

0.43

IN REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: DEF

0.00 to 0.120.12 to 0.300.30 to 0.500.50 to 0.900.90 to 1.401.40 to 30.00
MI RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

26001

26003

26005

26009 26007

26011

26013

26015

26017

26019

26021 26023

26025

26027

26029 26031

26033

26035

26037

26039

26041

26043

26045

26047

26049

26051

26053

26055

26057

26059

26061

26063

26065

26067

26069

26071

26073

26077 26075

26079

26081

26083

26085

26087

26089

26091

26093

26095

26097

26099

26101

26103

26105

26107

26109

26111

26113

26115

26117

26119

26121

26123

26125

26127

26129

26131

26133

26135

26137

26139

26141

26143

26145

26147

26149

26151

26153

26155

26157

26159 2616126163

26165

0.60

0.62

1.25

0.86 1.13

1.61

0.53

0.22

2.63

0.60

1.82 0.11

0.11

0.11

0.51 0.86

3.04

0.10

0.07

0.04

2.66

0.02

0.05

1.71

0.34

0.08

0.16

2.39

0.05

0.08

0.73

4.38

0.05

0.06

1.24

0.06

0.05

0.19 0.27

0.06

0.31

0.47

0.03

0.24

3.38

0.11

0.44

0.26

2.97

9.09

0.87

0.71

0.89

0.12

0.52

0.11

0.05

4.63

0.15

0.06

3.35

0.14

2.06

0.99

0.10

0.26

0.04

0.03

0.06

3.32

1.21

0.34

0.17

9.79

0.13

2.21

0.61

0.06

1.26

0.49 0.29 16.20

0.07

MI 2002 REC INBOARDS: R

0.00 to 0.06 to 0.12 to 0.34 to 0.86 to 22.40 to 2
MI RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

26001

26003

26005

26009 26007

26011

26013

26015

26017

26019

26021 26023

26025

26027

26029 26031

26033

26035

26037

26039

26041

26043

26045

26047

26049

26051

26053

26055

26057

26059

26061

26063

26065

26067

26069

26071

26073

26077 26075

26079

26081

26083

26085

26087

26089

26091

26093

26095

26097

26099

26101

26103

26105

26107

26109

26111

26113

26115

26117

26119

26121

26123

26125

26127

26129

26131

26133

26135

26137

26139

26141

26143

26145

26147

26149

26151

26153

26155

26157

26159 2616126163

26165

2.64

9.71

2.39

0.40 2.76

0.87

0.68

0.05

0.58

1.33

2.48 0.03

0.02

0.04

2.31 0.53

3.29

0.02

0.01

0.01

2.53

0.02

0.01

1.22

0.02

0.02

0.98

0.55

0.00

0.02

1.41

3.32

0.00

0.02

3.20

0.10

0.01

0.04 0.04

0.02

0.04

12.66

0.02

0.02

5.38

0.02

0.04

2.43

3.05

0.32

1.82

3.94

1.84

0.03

0.85

0.01

0.02

0.49

0.03

0.03

2.38

0.04

0.08

1.87

0.02

5.75

0.02

0.01

0.03

2.59

4.62

0.13

0.01

0.49

0.04

1.59

1.80

0.00

0.31

1.15 0.03 0.31

0.02

MI REC MARINEINBOARDS: DE

0.00 to 0.00.02 to 0.00.04 to 0.60.60 to 1.81.80 to 3.03.00 to 20
MI RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

26001

26003

26005

26009 26007

26011

26013

26015

26017

26019

26021 26023

26025

26027

26029 26031

26033

26035

26037

26039

26041

26043

26045

26047

26049

26051

26053

26055

26057

26059

26061

26063

26065

26067

26069

26071

26073

26077 26075

26079

26081

26083

26085

26087

26089

26091

26093

26095

26097

26099

26101

26103

26105

26107

26109

26111

26113

26115

26117

26119

26121

26123

26125

26127

26129

26131

26133

26135

26137

26139

26141

26143

26145

26147

26149

26151

26153

26155

26157

26159 2616126163

26165

1.07

1.01

1.72

2.46 1.18

0.45

0.82

1.69

1.05

1.45

2.18 0.97

0.90

1.05

1.48 2.79

1.76

0.95

0.52

0.42

1.37

0.38

0.47

1.51

1.68

0.74

0.90

2.12

0.39

0.67

0.95

1.43

0.38

0.54

1.44

0.88

0.43

1.49 1.82

0.60

1.95

0.64

0.39

1.17

2.15

0.81

2.08

0.96

2.13

1.22

1.13

1.76

1.29

1.12

0.60

0.87

0.51

1.16

1.18

0.66

1.45

1.26

5.65

0.80

0.91

0.66

0.47

0.38

0.68

1.59

1.31

2.86

1.13

1.18

1.20

0.47

1.65

0.41

1.03

1.31 1.53 1.46

0.74

MI 2002 REC OUTBOARD

0.00 to 0.50 to 0.80 to 1.20 to 1.40 to 2.00 to 
MI RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

26001

26003

26005

26009 26007

26011

26013

26015

26017

26019

26021 26023

26025

26027

26029 26031

26033

26035

26037

26039

26041

26043

26045

26047

26049

26051

26053

26055

26057

26059

26061

26063

26065

26067

26069

26071

26073

26077 26075

26079

26081

26083

26085

26087

26089

26091

26093

26095

26097

26099

26101

26103

26105

26107

26109

26111

26113

26115

26117

26119

26121

26123

26125

26127

26129

26131

26133

26135

26137

26139

26141

26143

26145

26147

26149

26151

26153

26155

26157

26159 2616126163

26165

2.78

10.26

2.50

0.32 2.80

0.80

0.45

0.05

0.48

1.35

2.52 0.03

0.02

0.04

2.42 0.44

2.91

0.02

0.01

0.01

2.12

0.03

0.01

1.06

0.02

0.02

0.95

0.37

0.00

0.02

1.25

3.27

0.00

0.02

3.34

0.11

0.01

0.04 0.04

0.02

0.04

13.46

0.02

0.02

5.46

0.03

0.04

2.52

2.75

0.24

1.84

4.01

1.87

0.04

0.75

0.02

0.02

0.35

0.03

0.04

2.38

0.05

0.09

1.91

0.02

6.05

0.02

0.02

0.03

2.66

4.77

0.14

0.02

0.30

0.04

1.57

1.77

0.00

0.26

1.19 0.03 0.17

0.02

MI REC MARINOUTBOARDS: D

0.00 to 0.0.02 to 0.0.21 to 1.1.20 to 2.2.00 to 5.5.00 to 20
OH RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

39001

39003 39005

39007

39009

39011

39013

39015

39017

39019

39021

39023

39025

39027

39029

39031

39033

39035

39037

39039

39041

39043

39045

39047

39049

39051

39053

39055

39057

39059

39061

39063

39065

39067

39069

39071

39073

39075

39077

39079

39081 39083

39085

39087

39089

39091

39093

39095

39097

39099

39101

39103

39105

39107

39109

39111 39113

39115

39117

39119

39121

39123

39125

39127

39129

39131

39133

39135

39137

39139

39141

39143

39145

39147

39149

39151

39153

39155

39157

39159

39161

39163

39165 39167

39169

39171

39173

39175

0.03

0.04 0.08

6.23

0.04

0.07

0.08

0.07

0.10

0.07

0.03

0.10

0.13

0.02

0.13

0.09

0.02

26.22

0.01

0.05

0.31

12.91

0.07

0.01

0.24

0.03

0.05

0.13

0.02

0.11

0.23

0.06

0.01

0.10

0.05

0.07

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.10 0.06

13.76

0.04

0.07

0.14

10.62

7.70

0.02

0.24

0.00

0.12

0.04

0.17

0.05

0.03 0.08

0.06

0.04

0.16

0.07

14.67

0.03

0.03

0.09

0.04

0.49

0.05

0.02

0.11

0.08

1.02

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.23

0.34

0.30

0.12

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.18 0.07

0.14

0.02

0.06

0.03

OH 2002 REC MARINEINBOARDS: REVISED

0.00 to 0.030.03 to 0.050.05 to 0.080.08 to 0.130.13 to 0.300.30 to 50.00
OH RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

39001

39003 39005

39007

39009

39011

39013

39015

39017

39019

39021

39023

39025

39027

39029

39031

39033

39035

39037

39039

39041

39043

39045

39047

39049

39051

39053

39055

39057

39059

39061

39063

39065

39067

39069

39071

39073

39075

39077

39079

39081 39083

39085

39087

39089

39091

39093

39095

39097

39099

39101

39103

39105

39107

39109

39111 39113

39115

39117

39119

39121

39123

39125

39127

39129

39131

39133

39135

39137

39139

39141

39143

39145

39147

39149

39151

39153

39155

39157

39159

39161

39163

39165 39167

39169

39171

39173

39175

0.03

0.05 0.05

16.38

0.03

0.01

0.09

0.07

0.06

0.10

0.02

0.08

0.12

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.01

19.14

0.01

0.06

0.30

10.76

0.06

0.01

0.07

0.01

0.05

0.10

0.03

0.14

0.12

0.04

0.00

0.16

0.07

0.10

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03 0.05

18.38

0.03

0.03

0.18

10.75

6.11

0.01

0.18

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.22

0.04

0.03 0.05

0.09

0.03

0.17

0.12

11.63

0.05

0.05

0.10

0.05

0.33

0.03

0.00

0.07

0.10

1.01

0.08

0.03

0.03

0.10

0.16

0.41

0.09

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.16 0.10

0.02

0.03

0.07

0.04

OH REC MARINEINBOARDS: DEFA

0.00 to 0.020.02 to 0.040.04 to 0.070.07 to 0.100.10 to 0.230.23 to 30.0
OH RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

39001

39003 39005

39007

39009

39011

39013

39015

39017

39019

39021

39023

39025

39027

39029

39031

39033

39035

39037

39039

39041

39043

39045

39047

39049

39051

39053

39055

39057

39059

39061

39063

39065

39067

39069

39071

39073

39075

39077

39079

39081 39083

39085

39087

39089

39091

39093

39095

39097

39099

39101

39103

39105

39107

39109

39111 39113

39115

39117

39119

39121

39123

39125

39127

39129

39131

39133

39135

39137

39139

39141

39143

39145

39147

39149

39151

39153

39155

39157

39159

39161

39163

39165 39167

39169

39171

39173

39175

0.12

0.15 0.23

9.54

0.17

0.24

0.31

0.21

0.23

0.28

0.11

0.29

0.34

0.08

0.40

0.33

0.07

20.53

0.06

0.18

0.70

9.42

0.21

0.04

0.55

0.09

0.23

0.32

0.07

0.40

0.44

0.17

0.03

0.38

0.15

0.24

0.13

0.13

0.12

0.09

0.37 0.20

13.61

0.19

0.24

0.41

10.77

6.91

0.06

0.59

0.00

0.28

0.18

0.52

0.16

0.14 0.22

0.25

0.13

0.55

0.26

8.23

0.09

0.13

0.28

0.18

1.09

0.16

0.07

0.31

0.30

0.76

0.21

0.10

0.08

0.63

0.72

0.73

0.43

0.09

0.05

0.11

0.44 0.29

0.39

0.07

0.15

0.11

OH 2002 REC MARINOUTBOARDS: REVIS

0.00 to 0.100.10 to 0.160.16 to 0.250.25 to 0.400.40 to 0.700.70 to 50.00
OH RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

39001

39003 39005

39007

39009

39011

39013

39015

39017

39019

39021

39023

39025

39027

39029

39031

39033

39035

39037

39039

39041

39043

39045

39047

39049

39051

39053

39055

39057

39059

39061

39063

39065

39067

39069

39071

39073

39075

39077

39079

39081 39083

39085

39087

39089

39091

39093

39095

39097

39099

39101

39103

39105

39107

39109

39111 39113

39115

39117

39119

39121

39123

39125

39127

39129

39131

39133

39135

39137

39139

39141

39143

39145

39147

39149

39151

39153

39155

39157

39159

39161

39163

39165 39167

39169

39171

39173

39175

0.04

0.06 0.06

17.14

0.04

0.01

0.10

0.08

0.07

0.11

0.02

0.09

0.14

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.01

20.24

0.01

0.07

0.33

9.78

0.07

0.01

0.08

0.01

0.06

0.11

0.03

0.16

0.14

0.05

0.00

0.18

0.08

0.11

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.03

0.03 0.06

19.31

0.04

0.04

0.21

11.10

5.76

0.01

0.21

0.00

0.04

0.07

0.25

0.05

0.04 0.06

0.10

0.04

0.20

0.14

9.77

0.06

0.06

0.12

0.06

0.37

0.03

0.00

0.08

0.11

0.33

0.09

0.04

0.04

0.12

0.18

0.46

0.10

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.18 0.12

0.02

0.03

0.08

0.05

OH REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: DEF

0.00 to 0.020.02 to 0.040.04 to 0.070.07 to 0.100.10 to 0.230.23 to 30.00
WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067

55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

0.80

0.46

0.25

1.93

4.67

0.68

0.08

0.77

1.53

0.32

1.10

0.29

5.30

0.23

10.76

2.01

0.03

0.02

0.28

1.60

0.10

0.41

0.11

0.65

0.00

0.23

0.22

0.45

0.94

2.41

0.93

4.19

0.00

0.20

0.53

2.66

0.32

1.05

0.00

0.08

8.88

0.00

0.24

3.39

0.85

1.26

0.14

0.86

0.33

0.65

0.09

2.81

0.00

0.83

0.04

1.74

0.47

1.41

1.03

2.54

0.03

0.33

0.56

1.49

3.80

0.37

0.85

6.08

1.44

0.60 8.25

0.05

WI 2002 REC MARININBOARDS: REVISE

0.00 to 0.090.09 to 0.320.32 to 0.650.65 to 1.051.05 to 2.542.54 to 11.00
WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR INBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067

55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

0.33

10.80

0.22

5.96

1.32

0.21

0.48

0.63

0.25

0.03

0.18

0.22

0.29

0.20

17.76

1.92

0.09

0.06

0.08

0.35

0.26

0.29

0.00

0.21

0.04

1.44

0.10

0.21

0.30

4.15

6.54

0.22

0.01

0.12

0.19

7.95

0.25

1.50

0.07

0.06

8.20

0.06

1.66

0.91

0.03

7.24

0.13

0.12

0.32

0.13

0.21

3.98

0.03

0.04

0.15

0.11

0.09

0.77

0.14

6.62

0.08

0.06

0.17

1.19

0.17

0.35

0.04

0.20

0.11

0.09 1.14

0.14

WI REC MARINEINBOARDS: DEFAUL

0.00 to 0.070.07 to 0.140.14 to 0.210.21 to 0.350.35 to 2.002.00 to 18.00
WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: 2002 REVISED ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067

55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

1.22

0.67

1.56

2.07

1.97

1.06

1.13

0.60

2.76

0.31

1.58

0.63

3.50

1.29

3.34

0.87

0.42

0.58

0.30

1.05

1.46

0.72

0.02

1.25

0.33

1.81

0.34

0.97

0.53

1.20

0.55

2.15

0.28

0.85

1.39

0.73

1.79

2.19

0.86

0.42

0.78

0.04

2.05

7.05

0.43

0.20

0.08

0.18

1.72

1.19

0.77

1.75

0.04

1.26

0.68

0.24

1.32

3.74

1.83

1.22

0.34

0.60

0.47

8.35

1.84

1.41

1.16

4.95

2.12

0.87 4.56

0.03

WI 2002 REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: REVIS

0.00 to 0.340.34 to 0.680.68 to 1.001.00 to 1.401.40 to 2.002.00 to 12.00
WI RECREATIONAL MARINE: DEFAULT ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR OUTBOARDS

55001

55003

55005

55007

55009

55011

55013

55015

55017

55019

55021

55023

55025

55027

55029

55031

55033

55035

55037

55039

55041

55043

55045

55047

55049

55051

55053

55055

55057

55059

55061

55063

55065

55067

55069

55071

55073

55075

55077

55078

55079

55081

55083

55085

55087

55089

55091

55093

55095

55097

55099

55101

55103

55105

55107

55109

55111

55113

55115

55117

55119

55121

55123

55125

55127

55129

55131

55133

55135

55137 55139

55141

0.36

11.11

0.24

5.18

0.85

0.22

0.52

0.68

0.27

0.03

0.19

0.23

0.32

0.22

17.01

1.58

0.10

0.06

0.08

0.38

0.28

0.31

0.00

0.23

0.05

1.45

0.11

0.23

0.32

4.29

6.63

0.24

0.01

0.13

0.21

8.06

0.27

1.35

0.08

0.06

8.45

0.06

1.39

0.98

0.03

7.82

0.14

0.13

0.35

0.14

0.23

4.09

0.03

0.05

0.16

0.12

0.09

0.83

0.15

6.76

0.08

0.07

0.19

1.28

0.18

0.38

0.04

0.22

0.12

0.10 1.24

0.15

WI REC MARINEOUTBOARDS: DEFAU

0.00 to 0.080.08 to 0.150.15 to 0.230.23 to 0.380.38 to 1.601.60 to 18.00
APPENDIX D 

GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION COMPARISON TABLES 

(CD ROM) 

APPENDIX E 

COUNTY EMISSION ESTIMATES 

(CD ROM)