## 1 Introduction
Considering the high cost of field work, which determines this level of a priori information, we can talk about a natural tendency to assess the seismic hazard based on a family of indirect signs related to individual engineering structures [6]. At the stage when these structures are only being planned, attempts to find a correlation between the characteristics of the landscape observed in remote sensing images and the characteristics of seismicity recorded in some databases can be called obvious. The methodological basis for detecting this correlation is rather modest, since it relies on particular cases of landscape anomalies and does not contain a fundamental concept. For example, the method of localizing seismogenic hazardous areas based on mapping the lineament density maxima [7] can be called quite popular. As another example, we can point to the study of the empirical relationship of individual faults, manifested in the system of lineament structures on remote sensing images, on the one hand, and earthquake epicenters, on the other hand [8]. There is an interesting work on the assessment of the variability of the directional rose of lineaments under conditions of high-intensity seismogenic disturbances [9]. Summarizing publications and works similar to this, it can be argued that there is a direct functional relationship between the characteristics of seismicity and the characteristics of landscape variability: our earlier work confirms this [10] and allows us to apply quantitative estimates of this variability in a systemic form in this study. At the initial stages of geophysical engineering and ecological engineering support of (road and house) building, when the known data are limited only by coordinates of the area of interests, reliable mapping of geodynamic zones and their quantitative parameterization using free-of-charge data can form the essence of the primary forecast of seismically hazardous areas for their subsequent verification with standard and more expensive approaches. Actually, the processing of remote sensing data and digital elevation models in engineering problems is the standard work for geomorphologists. The advantage of our approach in comparison to classical decoding of remote sensing data is in using quantitative and quantitative interpretation, similar to assessments applied in geophysics, while geomorphology operates with empirical classifications and visual expert estimations. Turning to the choice of area of interest, one can note from the point of view of macrosicnisc assessment and seismic microzonation that this area was not anything remarkable. It was a commonplace district with a relatively smoothed relief of the Earth's surface, intended for construction of greenhouses and located far from any significant endogenous seismic manifestations--in the central part of ancient Russian plate, in the north of the Central Russian Upland. Thus, the requirements of regulatory documents for geophysical engineering support of building would be purely formal ones, if one does not take into account the peculiarities of geological structures both at small-scale and large-scale levels. The investigated area is located on the joint of two structures--the northern slope of the Voronezh massif and the southern slope of the Moscow depression (Central Russian syneclise). In addition, it is mapped within the periphery of a large circular geological structure being 250 km in diameter. This circular structure is observed in the territory of the Tula and Oryol regions (Tula dome-ring structure) and coincides with a significant part of Central Russian Upland (Figure 1a) [11]. Hypothetically, dome-shaped formations are the result of generation of a hot spot or, in other words, the impact of endogenous plumes. On the Earth's surface, similar vertical motion of plumes is often correlated with elevations, and along their periphery, they are limited by ring and concentric faults, including deep ones.