USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr03267

Catalog of earthquake hypocenters at Alaskan volcanoes: January 1 through December 31, 2002

Abstract

The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), a cooperative program of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, has maintained seismic monitoring networks at historically active volcanoes in Alaska since 1988 (Power and others, 1993; Jolly and others, 1996; Jolly and others, 2001; Dixon and others, 2002). The primary objectives of this program are the seismic monitoring of active, potentially hazardous, Alaskan volcanoes and the investigation of seismic processes associated with active volcanism. This catalog presents the basic seismic data and changes in the seismic monitoring program for the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Appendix G contains a list of publications pertaining to seismicity of Alaskan volcanoes based on these and previously recorded data. The AVO seismic network was used to monitor twenty-four volcanoes in real time in 2002. These include Mount Wrangell, Mount Spurr, Redoubt Volcano, Iliamna Volcano, Augustine Volcano, Katmai Volcanic Group (Snowy Mountain, Mount Griggs, Mount Katmai, Novarupta, Trident Volcano, Mount Mageik, Mount Martin), Aniakchak Crater, Mount Veniaminof, Pavlof Volcano, Mount Dutton, Isanotski Peaks, Shishaldin Volcano, Fisher Caldera, Westdahl Peak, Akutan Peak, Makushin Volcano, Great Sitkin Volcano, and Kanaga Volcano (Figure 1). Monitoring highlights in 2002 include an earthquake swarm at Great Sitkin Volcano in May-June; an earthquake swarm near Snowy Mountain in July-September; low frequency (1-3 Hz) tremor and long-period events at Mount Veniaminof in September-October and in December; and continuing volcanogenic seismic swarms at Shishaldin Volcano throughout the year. Instrumentation and data acquisition highlights in 2002 were the installation of a subnetwork on Okmok Volcano, the establishment of telemetry for the Mount Veniaminof subnetwork, and the change in the data acquisition system to an EARTHWORM detection system. AVO located 7430 earthquakes during 2002 in the vicinity of the monitored volcanoes. This catalog includes: (1) a description of instruments deployed in the field and their locations; (2) a description of earthquake detection, recording, analysis, and data archival systems; (3) a description of velocity models used for earthquake locations; (4) a summary of earthquakes located in 2002; and (5) an accompanying UNIX tar-file with a summary of earthquake origin times, hypocenters, magnitudes, and location quality statistics; daily station usage statistics; and all HYPOELLIPSE files used to determine the earthquake locations in 2002. The AVO seismic network was used to monitor twenty-four volcanoes in real time in 2002. These include Mount Wrangell, Mount Spurr, Redoubt Volcano, Iliamna Volcano, Augustine Volcano, Katmai Volcanic Group (Snowy Mountain, Mount Griggs, Mount Katmai, Novarupta, Trident Volcano, Mount Mageik, Mount Martin), Aniakchak Crater, Mount Veniaminof, Pavlof Volcano, Mount Dutton, Isanotski Peaks, Shishaldin Volcano, Fisher Caldera, Westdahl Peak, Akutan Peak, Makushin Volcano, Great Sitkin Volcano, and Kanaga Volcano (Figure 1). Monitoring highlights in 2002 include an earthquake swarm at Great Sitkin Volcano in May-June; an earthquake swarm near Snowy Mountain in July-September; low frequency (1-3 Hz) tremor and long-period events at Mount Veniaminof in September-October and in December; and continuing volcanogenic seismic swarms at Shishaldin Volcano throughout the year. Instrumentation and data acquisition highlights in 2002 were the installation of a subnetwork on Okmok Volcano, the establishment of telemetry for the Mount Veniaminof subnetwork, and the change in the data acquisition system to an EARTHWORM detection system. AVO located 7430 earthquakes during 2002 in the vicinity of the monitored volcanoes. This catalog includes: (1) a description of instruments deployed in the field and their locations; (2) a description of earthquake detection, recording, analysis, and data archival systems; (3) a description of velocity models used for earthquake locations; (4) a summary of earthquakes located in 2002; and (5) an accompanying UNIX tar-file with a summary of earthquake origin times, hypocenters, magnitudes, and location quality statistics; daily station usage statistics; and all HYPOELLIPSE files used to determine the earthquake locations in 2002.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 50.792047064406844° to 66.26685631430843° latitude; -180° to -141.15234374999997° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James P. Dixon, Scott D. Stihler, John A. Power, Guy Tytgat, Seth C. Moran, John Sánchez, Steve Estes, Stephen R. McNutt, John Paskievitch. 2003. Catalog of earthquake hypocenters at Alaskan volcanoes: January 1 through December 31, 2002. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr03267

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona