DOCSLIB.ORG

Earthquakes in the United States, July-September 1980 ,.;{'•

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Earthquakes in the United States, July-September 1980 ,.;{'• GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 853-C Earthquakes in the United States, July-September 1980 ,.;{'• .~. ' ' :'.! ''"' Earthquakes in the United States July-September 1980 By J. H. Minsch, C. W. Stover, B. G. Reagor, and P. K. Smith GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 853-C 1981 United States Department of the Interior JAMES G. WATT, Secretary Geological Survey Doyle G. Frederick, Acting Director Free on application to Branch of Distribution, U.S .. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 CONTENTS Page Introduction••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• C1 Discussion of tables••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931.................................... 8 Acknowledgments... • • . • • • • • . • • . • • . • . • • • • . • • • . • • • . • . • . • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • 41 References cited............................................................. 42 ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1. "Earthquake Report" form.......................................... C2 2. Map showing standard time zones of the conterminous United States. 4 3. Map showing standard time zones of Alaska and Hawaii.............. 5 4. Map of earthquake epicenters in the conterminous United States for July-September 1980 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 s. Map of earthquake epicenters in Alaska for July-September 1980 •••• 7 6. Map of earthquake epicenters in Hawaii for July-September 1980 •••• 8 7. Isoseismal map for the Owens Valley area, California, earthquake of 1 August 1980 .•••••••••.••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21 8. Isoseismal map for the northern Kentucky earthquake of 27 July 1980 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26 9. Photograph of partial chimney collapse in Sherburne, Kentucky ••••• 27 10. Photograph of chimney damage near Sharpsburg, Kentucky •••••••••••• 28 11. Photograph of damage to a recently rebuilt chimney in Owingsville, Kentucky. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29 iii TABLES Page TABLE 1. Summary of U.S. earthquakes for July-September 1980: Alabama... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C 10 Alaska. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Arizona••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 California•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 California--Of£ the coast ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 Hawaii.... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 Maine.........................................................Kentucky. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 Montana.......................................................M1ssouri•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 Nevada.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 New Jersey.............. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 New Mexico.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 New York•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 Oregon•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 Oregon--of£ the coast ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 South Carolina •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 Utah•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 Was bing ton. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Wyoming....................................................... 17 Page 2. Summary of macroseismic data for u.s. earthquakes, July-September 1980: Alabama • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C17 Alaska •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 Arizona ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18 California•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18 California--Of£ the coast ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23 Georgia ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23 Hawaii •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •. •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Illinois •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24 Indiana ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24 Kentucky •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24 Michigan •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Mississippi ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Missouri•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Montana ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Nevada ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38 New Mexico •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 39 New York •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 39 North Carolina •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Ohio•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Oregon •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •. • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 Pennsylvania •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 South Carolina•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Tennessee ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Virginia •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Washington •••••••••••••••••••••• \ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 West Virginia ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41 Wisconsin•••••••••••••••••••••····~··••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41 Wyoming ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41 iv Earthquakes in the United States, July-September 1980 By J. H. Minsch, C. W. Stover, B. G. Reagor, and P. K. Smith INTRODUCTION from other Government agencies, State institu­ tions, local organizations, and individuals. The earthquake information in this publica­ (See "Acknowledgments" for a list of collabora­ tion supplements that published in the NEIS tors.) Figure 1 is the questionnaire in use by (National Earthquake Information Service) publi­ the NEIS. Other types of questionnaires are used cations, PDE ("Preliminary Determination of Epi­ by State agencies, engineering firms, and other centers") and "Preliminary Determination of Epi­ Government agencies to collect intensity data. centers Monthly Listing," by providing detailed Anyone wishing to submit felt or damage informa­ felt and intensity data for U.S. earthquakes. tion on earthquakes for inclusion in future The purpose of this circular is to provide a reports should send it to the National Earth­ complete listing of macroseismic effects of quake Information Service, Stop 967, Box 25046, earthquakes, which can be used in risk studies, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Copies nuclear power plant site evaluations, seismicity of the current "Earthquake Report" questionnaire studies, and to answer inquiries by the public. can be obtained at this address. This publication contains two major sec­ The NEIS uses the postal questionnaire as tions. The first part (table 1), which is the primary source of macroseismic data to carry mainly concerned with data obtained by seismo­ out an intensity survey; however, on-site field graphs, is a tabular listing of earthquakes in investigations are made following earthquakes chronological order by State, consisting of the that do significant damage. The "Earthquake following basic information: date, origin time, Report" forms are mailed to postmasters within hypocenter, magnitude, maximum intensity, and the area affected by the earthquake. The com­ computational source of the hypocenter. The pleted forms are returned to the NElS, where second section, which concerns intensity infor­ they are evaluated and intensity values are mation, consists of two maps, three photographs, assigned to individual locations. In the case and table 2. This section also contains informa­ of large or significant earthquakes, the inten­ tion on events that were felt but were not sity observations are plotted and isoseismal listed in the PDE because there was not enough maps are prepared. It should be pointed out instrumental data to obtain a solution. The that the isoseismals represent a general inten­ list of earthquakes in table 1 was compiled from sity level and that they do not necessarily those located in the United States or nearby agree with every individual observation. offshore areas that were published in the PDE; from aftershock studies carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey and other organizations; from DISCUSSION OF TABLES hypocenters in California above magnitude 3.0 supplied by the California Institute of Technol­ The parameters for the earthquakes in table ogy, Pasadena, the University of California, and table 2 include the date, origin time, Berkeley, and other offices of the U.S. Geologi­ hypocenter (epicenter and focal depth), magni­ cal Survey; from hypocenters in Hawaii supplied tude, intensity, and source of the computed by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory; and from solution. The origin time and date are listed other institutions as listed in the acknowledg­ in Universal Coordinated Time (UTC) and local ments. Known or suspected explosions are also
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 770 ISI September 1980
    Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 770 ISI September 1980 Obsoletes RFCs: 762, 758, 755, 750, 739, 604, 503, 433, 349 Obsoletes IENs: 127, 117, 93 ASSIGNED NUMBERS This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the currently assigned values from several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. This RFC will be updated periodically, and in any case current information can be obtained from Jon Postel. The assignment of numbers is also handled by Jon. If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, etc. please contact Jon to receive a number assignment. Jon Postel USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90291 phone: (213) 822-1511 ARPANET mail: POSTEL@ISIF Most of the protocols mentioned here are documented in the RFC series of notes. The more prominent and more generally used are documented in the Protocol Handbook [1] prepared by the Network Information Center (NIC). In the lists that follow a bracketed number, e.g. [1], off to the right of the page indicates a reference for the listed protocol. Postel [Page 1] RFC 770 September 1980 Assigned Numbers Network Numbers ASSIGNED NETWORK NUMBERS This list of network numbers is used in the internet, the field is 8 bits in size. Assigned Network Numbers Decimal Octal Name Network References ------- ----- ---- ------- ---------- 0 0 Reserved 1 1 BBN-PR BBN Packet Radio Network 2 2 SF-PR-1 SF Bay Area Packet Radio Network (1) 3 3 BBN-RCC BBN RCC Network 4 4 SATNET Atlantic Satellite Network 5 5 SILL-PR Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY VOLUME 18 0 NUMBER 3 * SEPTEMBER 1980 EDITORIAL BOARD LEON H. SCHMIDT, Editor-in-Chief (1985) ROBERT L. HAMILL, Editor (1985) University ofAlabama in Birmingham, Eli Lilly & Company, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama Indianapolis, Indiana HERBERT L. ENNIS, Editor (1982) EDWARD W. HOOK, Editor (1981) Roche Institute ofMolecular Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Nutley, New Jersey GEORGE A. JACOBY, JR., Editor (1985) JOEL G. FLAKS, Editor (1981) Massachusetts General Hospital University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia Boston, Massachusetts Vincent T. Andriole (1981) Milton Huppert (1980) Ian M. Rolo (1982) John P. Anhalt (1981) George Gee Jackson (1980) Richard Root (1980) Donald Armstrong (1980) George A. Jacoby, Jr. (1982) Jon E. Rosenblatt (1982) Robert Austrian (1980) Thomas Jones (1980) Milton R. J. Salton (1981) Arthur L. Barry (1980) William J. Jusko (1980) Merle Sande (1982) John E. Bennett (1981) Donald Kaye (1982) Jay Sanford (1980) Lawrence E. Bryan (1982) Jerome 0. Klein (1982) Arthur K. Saz (1982) Robert E. Brummitt (1982) Vernon Knight (1980) F. C. Sciavolino (1982) D. Buyske (1980) George S. Kobayashi (1982) Oldrich K. Sebek (1980) Yves Chabbert (1980) Jordan Konisky (1980) William M. Shannon (1980) Royston C. Clowes (1980) Matthew E. Levison (1981) Jerome J. Schentag (1982) C. Glenn Cobbs (1980) Friedrich C. Luft (1981) John C. Sherris (1980) Paul S. Cohen (1980) Joan Lusk (1980) Charles Shipman, Jr. (1982) Naomi Datta (1981) R. Luthy (1980) Robert W. Sidwell (1981) Julian Davies (1980) Gerald L. Mandell (1980) Walter Siegenthaler (1980) Lawrence E. Day (1980) Gerald Medoff (1980) Sigmund S. Socransky (1980) R. Gordon Douglas, Jr. (1980) Barbara Minshew (1982) P.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Détente* a Case Study of the 1980 Moscow Olympics
    The End of Détente* A Case Study of the 1980 Moscow Olympics By Thomas Smith After the election of autonomous and must resist all pressure of any Jimmy Carter as US kind whatsoever, whether of a political, religious President, Prime or economic nature.”1 With British government Minister Margaret documents from 1980 recently released under the Thatcher flew to Thirty Year Rule, the time seems apt to evaluate the Washington on 17th debate about the Olympic boycott, and to ask the December 1979 for question: to what extent was the call by the British her first official visit. government for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Five days later NATO Olympics an appropriate response to the invasion of announced the de- Afghanistan? ployment of a new Before the argument of the essay is established, it generation of American is first necessary to provide a brief narrative of the rockets and Cruise main events. Thatcher’s government began discussing missiles in Western the idea of a boycott in early January 1980; however, Europe. On the 25th their first action was to call for the Olympics to be December Soviet moved to a different location. Once the IOC declared troops marched into that relocating the Olympics was out of the question, Afghanistan. Thatcher told the House of Commons that she was now advising athletes not to go to Moscow and wrote Photo: U.S. Government to Sir Denis Follows, Chairman of the BOA, informing Introduction him of the government’s decision. The BOA, which was Britain’s NOC and the organisation that could During the 1970s, relations between the West and the accept or decline the invitation to the Olympics, Soviet Union were marked by an era of détente.
    [Show full text]
  • SSI: Trends and Changes, 1974–80
    SSI: Trends and Changes, 1974-80 byLennaKennedy* By the end of 1980, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program was making monthly cash assistance payments, aver- aging $170, to almost 4.2 million aged, blind, and disabled per- sons. When SSI payments began in January 1974, the number of recipients was 3.2 million and the average payment was $117. Since 1975, both SSI payments and Social Security bene- fits have been automatically adjusted each year to correspond with increases in the Consumer Price Index. A number of other trends in addition to growth can be discerned in the size of the population served, as well as in their categorical, geographic, and age distributions. This article discusses some of these trends and changes, using program data for the end of each cal- endar year through 1980. It also presents a brief summary of the program at the end of that period. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program differed from State to State. In addition, payments provides cash assistance to residents of the 50 States, the within a State varied depending on criteria such as District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands special living arrangements-for instance, a recipient who are categorically eligible-aged 65 and older, blind, sharing an apartment or living in a domiciliary care fa- or disabled-and whose income and resources are with- cility. A few States also made higher supplementary in the limitations imposed by law and regulations. The payments to persons residing in metropolitan areas. maximum Federal SSI payment, originally $140 * per Although SSI has been affected by a number of legis- month for an individual without countable income and lative changes, the program has experienced little net ex- $210 for a couple, had risen by mid-1980 to $238 for an pansion since its beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreign Service Journal, September 1980
    When you’re going overseas, you have enough to worry about without worrying about your insurance,too. Moving overseas can be a very traumatic time if you Moving overseas is simplified by the AFSA-sponsored don’t have the proper insurance. The fact is, the government insurance program for AFSA members. Our insurance will be responsible for only $15,000 worth of your belongings. program will take care of most of your worries. If any of your personal valuables such as cameras, jewelry, With our program, you can purchase as much property furs and fine arts are destroyed, damaged or stolen, you insurance as you feel you need at only 75tf per $100, and it would receive not the replacement cost of the goods, but only covers you for the replacement cost of household furniture a portion of what you’d have to pay to replace them. and personal effects that are destroyed, damaged or stolen, Claims processes are another headache you shouldn’t with no depreciation. You can also insure your valuable have to worry about. The government claims process is articles on an agreed amount basis, without any limitation. usually lengthy and requires investigation and AFSA coverage is worldwide, whether on business or documentation. pleasure. Should you have a problem, we provide simple, If you limit yourself to the protection provided under the fast, efficient claims service that begins with a simple phone Claims Act, you will not have worldwide comprehensive call or letter, and ends with payment in either U.S. dollars personal liability insurance, complete theft coverage or or local currency.
    [Show full text]
  • September 1980 Record
    THE FEDERAL ELECTION • COMMISSION 1325 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 Volume 6, Number 9 September 1980 sian. The Manual provides information on uniform methods of bookkeeping and reporting to assist Congres­ sional candidates and their authorized committees in J keeping records and preparing reports required under the Act. Additional copies of these publications are available free of NEW PUBLICATIONS FOR charge through the FEC's Office of Public Communica­ CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES tions, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or by AND PARTY ORGANIZATIONS calling 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530. During August 1980, the Commission distributed three new publications designed to assist Congressional candidate committees and party organizations in complying with the Act. All three publications reflect the 1979 Amendments to the Act. 1. A Record Supplement for State and Local Party Organi­ zations was sent to all registered party committees. It provides general information on sections of the Act which directly affect party political committees and • other party organizations. The Supplement covers such activities by state and local parties as: coordinated party expenditures (expenditures covered by 2 U.S.C. §441a (dl): activities that benefit candidates for federal office but which are exempt from the definition of "contribu­ FEC APPOINTS tion" and "expenditure"; volunteer activity; and record­ NEW STAFF DIRECTOR keeping and reporting requirements. The Supplement is On August 21, 1980, the Commission unanimously not, however, comprehensive. named B. Allen Clutter, III, as FEC Staff Director. Mr. 2. A revised edition of the Campaign Guide for Congres­ Clutter, who is currently serving as Executive Director of sional Candidates and Committees was distributed to the Minnesota Ethical Practices Board, will assume the the authorized campaign committees of all Congressional position in mid-September.
    [Show full text]
  • 128 a Resolution Authorizing the Negotiation And
    RESOLUTION NO. 80- 128 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A SECOND AMENDATORY AGREEMENT WITH TURNER, COLLIE &BRADEN, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RENOVATION OF THE POLK STREET BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY. WHEREAS, the MTA entered into an Agreement dated February 7, 1979 with Turner, Collie &Braden, Inc. for professional engineering and design services in connection with the design and construction of the renovation of the Polk Street Maintenance Facility; and WHEREAS, additional A &E services are required to revise drawings and specifications; and WHEREAS, as a result of the design changes, it is estimated that there will be a net reduction in construction costs of $723,400. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY THAT: Section 1: The Executive Director be authorized to negotiate and execute and the Assistant Secretary to attest to a Second Amendatory Agreement with Turner, Collie &Braden, Inc., for additional A &E services in connection with the renovation construction of the Polk Street Maintenance Facility. Section 2: Maximum amount payable for Additional Services shall be increased by $222,500.00, including a contingency limit of $231,500. Section 3: This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage. RESOLUTION NO. 80- 128 (Page 2) PASSED this 24th day of September, 1980. APPROVED this 24t ay of September, 1980. Daniel C. ATTEST: f:]~~;~ ~)~'Secf~ APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE: .- . ./ J~ . '»U.($:;/~ Wa1ter AddiEon, Executive Director FORM: .. --1) ___~~71 RESOLUTION NO, 80 1_29 _ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL CARSHARE PROGRAM FUNDING PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL RIDESHARING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal No. 2224 - Donald Eugene Hughes V
    Appeal No. 2224 - Donald Eugene Hughes v. US - 24 July, 1980. ________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES COAST GUARD vs. LICENSE NO. 494 226 and MERCHANT MARINER'S DOCUMENT Issued to: Donald Eugene Hughes Z-593-142 DECISION OF THE VICE COMMANDANT ON APPEAL UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 2224 Donald Eugene Hughes This appeal has been taken in accordance with Title 46 United States Code 239(g) and Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations 5.30-1 By order dated 14 November 1979, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at San Francisco, California, suspended Appellant's documents outright for three months, plus three additional months for violation of probation imposed in a prior proceeding, upon finding him guilty of negligence. The specifications found proved alleged that while serving as Pilot on board the M/V CHIGUSA MARU under authority of the license above captioned, on or about 6 July 1979, while said vessel was enroute from San Francisco Bay to Pittsburgh, California, Appellant: (1) failed to maintain control of said vessel, resulting in its grounding; and (2) failed to maintain control of said vessel, resulting in a collision with and destruction of an established U.S. aid to navigation. The hearing was held at San Francisco on 27 September and 3, 4, 5, and 31 October 1979. At the hearing, Appellant was represented by professional counsel and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge and file:////hqsms-lawdb/users/KnowledgeManagementD...20&%20R%201980%20-%202279/2224%20-%20HUGHES.htm (1 of 4) [02/10/2011 9:52:50 AM] Appeal No.
    [Show full text]
  • Enactment and Effective Dates of Sales and Use Tax Rates Use This Publication to Determine the Enactment and Effective Rate
    Publication 718-A (7/21) Enactment and Effective Dates of Sales and Use Tax Rates Use this publication to determine the enactment and effective rate. Refer to Publication 718, New York State Sales and Use dates of sales and use tax rates imposed, increased, or Tax Rates by Jurisdiction, for the combined rates. Any items decreased by the various localities. The rates indicated cannot changed from the previous version appear in boldface italics. be added to determine the combined state, county, and city tax Jurisdiction % Enacted Effective Jurisdiction % Enacted Effective New York State 2 14 Apr. 1965 1 Aug. 1965 Erie County 2 27 July 1965 1 Aug. 1965 3 29 Mar. 1969 1 Apr. 1969 3 30 Nov. 1971 1 Mar. 1972 4 2 Apr. 1971 1 June 1971 4 10 Dec. 1984 1 Mar. 1985 4¼ 15 May 2003 1 June 2003 4 18 Dec. 1986 1 Jan. 1987 F4 15 May 2003 1 June 2005 3 Effective 1 Jan. 1988– 9 Jan. 1988 4 7 Jan. 1988 10 Jan. 1988 County G 4¼ 23 June 2005 1 July 2005 Jurisdiction % Enacted Effective C 4¾ 10 Jan. 2006 15 Jan. 2006 Albany County 2 11 Dec. 1967 1 Mar. 1968 Essex County 3 4 Dec. 1967 1 Mar. 1968 3 15 Dec. 1969 1 Mar. 1970 3¾ 19 July 2004 1 Sep. 2004 C 4 31 July 1992 1 Sep. 1992 C 4 26 Aug. 2013 1 Dec. 2013 Allegany County 2 16 Nov. 1967 1 Mar. 1968 Franklin County 2 22 Aug. 1967 1 Dec. 1967 3 14 Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Maps Cited by Congress When Designating Wilderness
    Maps Summary Table In 2003 long-time NPS Wilderness Coordinator Wes Henry prepared this table that was intended for inclusion in the updated Reference Manual 41 – Wilderness Management. Wes died soon thereafter. PEER has updated the table to reflect information through 2014. RM 41: Section F: DRAFT January 21, 2003 Maps Cited by Congress when Designating Wilderness. The table lists in: Column 2: maps cited by Congress when designating NPS wilderness (in chronological order by date of enactment); Column 3: date of an official legal description prepared after designation, and Column 4: whether a post-enactment official boundary map was prepared. NPS AREA – CONGRESSIONAL DATE OF DATE OF WILDERNESS MAP NUMBER OFFICIAL OFFICAL MAP DATE AND DATE, CITED LEGAL IN LAW DESCRIPTION Craters of the 131-91,000 December 1970 NPS cited Moon – Oct. 1970 March 1970 legislative map Petrified Forest - NP-PF-3320-O December 1970 NPS cited October 1970 November 1967 legislative map Lava Beds – NM-LB-3227H December 1972 NPS cited October 1972 August 1972 legislative map Lassen Volcanic – NP-LV-9013C June 1973 NPS cited October 1972 August 1972 legislative map Point Reyes – 612-90,000-B May 1978 February 1977 October 1976 September 1976 Bandelier – 315-20,014-B August 1978 August 1978 October 1976 May 1976 Black Canyon of 144-20,017 January 1977 January 1977 the Gunnison – May 1973 October 1976 Chiricahua - 145-20,007-A May 1978 January 1977 October 1976 September 1973 Great Sand Dunes 140-20,006-C December 1976; January 1980 October 1976 February 1976 Revised:
    [Show full text]
  • Country Term # of Terms Total Years on the Council Presidencies # Of
    Country Term # of Total Presidencies # of terms years on Presidencies the Council Elected Members Algeria 3 6 4 2004 - 2005 December 2004 1 1988 - 1989 May 1988, August 1989 2 1968 - 1969 July 1968 1 Angola 2 4 2 2015 – 2016 March 2016 1 2003 - 2004 November 2003 1 Argentina 9 18 15 2013 - 2014 August 2013, October 2014 2 2005 - 2006 January 2005, March 2006 2 1999 - 2000 February 2000 1 1994 - 1995 January 1995 1 1987 - 1988 March 1987, June 1988 2 1971 - 1972 March 1971, July 1972 2 1966 - 1967 January 1967 1 1959 - 1960 May 1959, April 1960 2 1948 - 1949 November 1948, November 1949 2 Australia 5 10 10 2013 - 2014 September 2013, November 2014 2 1985 - 1986 November 1985 1 1973 - 1974 October 1973, December 1974 2 1956 - 1957 June 1956, June 1957 2 1946 - 1947 February 1946, January 1947, December 1947 3 Austria 3 6 4 2009 - 2010 November 2009 1 1991 - 1992 March 1991, May 1992 2 1973 - 1974 November 1973 1 Azerbaijan 1 2 2 2012 - 2013 May 2012, October 2013 2 Bahrain 1 2 1 1998 - 1999 December 1998 1 Bangladesh 2 4 3 2000 - 2001 March 2000, June 2001 2 Country Term # of Total Presidencies # of terms years on Presidencies the Council 1979 - 1980 October 1979 1 Belarus1 1 2 1 1974 - 1975 January 1975 1 Belgium 5 10 11 2007 - 2008 June 2007, August 2008 2 1991 - 1992 April 1991, June 1992 2 1971 - 1972 April 1971, August 1972 2 1955 - 1956 July 1955, July 1956 2 1947 - 1948 February 1947, January 1948, December 1948 3 Benin 2 4 3 2004 - 2005 February 2005 1 1976 - 1977 March 1976, May 1977 2 Bolivia 3 6 7 2017 - 2018 June 2017, October
    [Show full text]
  • Gc(28)/Inf/220
    GC(XXVIII)/INF/220 29 August 1984 International Atomic Energy Agency GENERAL Distr. GENERAL CONFERENCE Original: ENGLISH Item 12 of the provisional agenda (GC(XXVIII)/711) THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL Report of the Director General 1. In October 1983, at its twenty-seventh regular session, the General Conference adopted resolution GC(XXVII)/RES/415, in which it: (a) ex­ pressed the hope that the International Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material would enter into force at the earliest possible date and that it would obtain the widest possible adherence; and (b) requested the Director General to report to the General Conference at its next regular session on the signature and ratification status of the Convention. This report is being submitted to the Conference in response to that request. 2. By 31 August 1984, the Convention had been signed by 37 States and one international organization (EURATOM) and ratified by ten States (see Annex); since the twenty-seventh regular session of the General Conference, the Convention has been signed by Australia and ratified by Bulgaria and Hungary. For the Convention's entry into force 21 ratifications, acceptances or approvals are necessary. 3. On 15 June 1984, the Director General addressed a note verbale (N5.92.21 Circ.) to those Member States which had not yet become parties 84-04002 GC(XXVIII)/INF/ 220 page 2 to the Convention requesting information regarding the action which those Governments might take or were already taking with respect to the Convention. From the replies to the note verbale so far received, it is evident that a number of Governments are taking steps in accordance with their internal laws towards becoming parties to the Convention.
    [Show full text]