Maps like the one of Missouri are available for other states; you can do an image search or search "FEMA fallout map <state>". The original 1987 document, the NAPB-90 study, is at
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/ . What makes the Missouri map above special is that the targets are identified; the other state maps just show blast symbols with no identification of why the location was targeted. The maps are hosted on various survivalist sites but that shouldn't be too shocking for anyone interested in nuclear issues.
IMO, it will never be possible to know what industrial targets the Soviets slated for destruction. The FEMA map assumes that industries in urban areas will be targeted (but not necessarily airports), but perhaps the USSR simply targeted the urban area itself. I would imagine that nuclear plants and probably hydroelectric plants were somewhere on the Soviet equivalent of the SIOP. They are more or less self contained and so a hard kill is required; coal, oil and gas plants require supplies of fuel that would be disrupted post-exchange.
For airports, note that Jefferson City with a 6,000 foot runway and Rosecrans Airport with a 8,000 foot runway and an ANG detachment (at present, anyway) were likely targets in MO. Six thousand feet is apparently shorter than a B-52 or KC-135 would like to have, though I saw reports that it could land at shorter runways. As mentioned, Lincoln Airport in NB has a 12,000 foot runway and an ANG refueling detachment (at present). So, if Jefferson City and Rosecrans were considered likely targets by FEMA, then Lincoln would be as well. Indeed, the NB map does show a "designated ground zero" north of the city that might be that airport. (Note only one blast on Omaha -- Offutt AFB certainly had more than one high-megaton warhead assigned to it.)
The NAPB-90 study had
6,139 targets and it states the USSR had
7,800 strategic (ICBM/SLBM) warheads available in 1985. That's 78% of the arsenal allocated to the US. Some of the warheads would have been allocated to European targets (although of course shorter-ranged missiles could target European assets, at least until the INF treaty) and, perhaps more significantly, some targets would be allocated multiple warheads. Also, as often brought up on here, post-Cold War assessments of Soviet weaponry predicted a ~30% failure rate
Airports are not a category in NAPB-90. Power plants were, and the methodology was as follows: the power plants were ranked by capacity and were targeted so as to knock out 75% of total generating capacity. 1,632 power plants were included, the second largest category after chemical plants. (Yes, the study includes only ~1,228 ICBM silos and LCCs, but 2,094 chemical plants.) 199 "other Air Force" targets probably includes ANG facilities and *may* include possible dispersal/landing sites.
Someone mentioned old SSB/SSBNs earlier -- at maximum the USSR had 24 Golf-class SSBs and 8 Hotel-class SSBNs, each with only three missiles, and not all of those would have been on alert. Discounting the delay required for the subs to surface, and discounting the Navy's ability to destroy them, SSB(N)s in bastions off the US coast would offer some of the fastest 'delivery times', and so it's hard to say whether they were really allocated to less-important targets. They might have been allocated to the most important coastal targets, with other SLBM/ICBMs slated to follow up later on.
Maybe someday we'll have something of an idea of what targets the US or USSR had in mind in the 80s. I don't believe there is anything other than "Seven Days to the River Rhine" from the Soviet side, and that is a limited war scenario where the UK and France are explicitly not targeted for nuclear weapons. The bottom line, though, is that Lincoln, NB's airport was almost certainly targeted. And so were the hydroelectric plants near me, at Niagara Falls.