TERESVA-II EARTHQUAKE on July 19, 2015 with KR=11.1, МSH=3.4, I0=6 (Transcarpathia, Ukraine)

The instrumental and macroseismic data of the Teresvа-II earthquake on July 19, 2015 with the energy class KR=11.1, МSH=3.4 are considered. The earthquake occurred in the seismically active Tyachevo-Sigetskaya zone of Transcarpathia in the upper part of the Earth's crust and caused shaking intensity of I0=6 in the epicentral zone near the village of Teresva. The data on the focal mechanism solution, intensity distribution, parameters of the strongest aftershocks are presented. The release of seismic energy continued for 35 days. During this time, 306 earthquakes were recorded in a wide energy range. The space-time and energy properties of the complex sequence of the Teresvа earthquakes in 2015 have been investigated. The tectonics and previous seismi-city of the area are described.

MIDDLE URAL EARTHQUAKE on October 18, 2015, ML=4.7, I0=6

Instrumental and macroseismic data on the earthquake of 18.10.2015 at 21h44m UTC, ML=4.7, I0=6 in the Sverdlovsk region, near the village of Sabik (Middle Urals) are presented. A significant amount of macroseismic data made it possible to build a map of the macroseismic field, taking into account the anisotropic nature of the propagation of the seismic effect. Taking into account the decision of the focal mechanism, the tectonic position of the source was substantiated.

MUYAKAN EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE in 2015 (Northern Baikal Region)

We present the results of studies of the seismic regime, focal mechanisms, and macroseismic data in the area of the largest Muyakan activation in 2015 (northern Baikal region). Due to the deployment of a network of temporary seismic stations, the number of registered earthquakes (KR≥3) increased significantly in 2015 and reached  30 thousand. Spatio-temporal development of the considered activation is characterized by stable low values of earthquake hypocenters and dividing the epicentral field into two clusters – eastern and north-western ones. Both clusters are connected with local stress-strain field (rift type and strike-slip, respectively), while the general regime of seismotectonic deformations of the crust in the activation area, calculated from the statistical analysis of 77 focal mechanisms of Muyakan earthquakes (KR≥9.2), demonstrates the predominance of submeri-dional horizontal extension. Macroseismic effects from the largest earthquakes of the Muyakan sequence were felt, predominantly, in Severomuysk settlement (=10–15 km, I=5). New data on strong motions, obtained from the records of the seismic station with the same name, have significantly complemented the database for the territory of the north-eastern flank of the Baikal rift zone. In general, the obtained results could be used to clarify the seismic hazard of the considered area and to improve the instrumental part of seismic scales.

TALDYK EARTHQUAKE on November 17, 2015 with KR=14.1, Mw=5.5 (Kyrgyzstan)

Information on the earthquake with KR=14.1, which occurred in Kyrgyzstan on November 17, 2015, is presented. Its epicenter is related to the South Fergana zone of the Osh region, in which felt earthquakes with intensity up to I=8–9 occurred repeatedly. This event was named Taldyk according to the settlement nearest to the epicenter. The earthquake was accompanied by numerous aftershocks: for the first day, 189 events were registered, for the second – 196, for the third – 84. Most part of the aftershocks is localized within the depth interval of 12–13 km, which is practically equal to the depth of the main shock (h=13 km). The focal mechanism of the main shock has a reverse type with strike-slip components. No serious investigation of the consequences of this earthquake carried out. Some macroseismic data are received from field reports of the station operators. For a more complete analysis of the possible impact of this earthquake and, first of all, for the needs of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Kyrgyzstan Republic, a map of theoretical isoseismals was created.

STRONG EARTHQUAKES in the NORTH of the LAKE BAIKAL REGION (Mw=4.6–4.7) in 2015

The paper considers three relatively strong earthquakes that occurred in 2015 in the northern Lake Baikal region: July 7 Upper Akuli earthquake (Mw=4.6) with the epicenter at the headwaters of the Akuli River, and September 25 Gulonga-I (Mw=4.7) and December 13 Gulonga-II earthquakes (Mw=4.6) with the epicenters near the mountain lakes Gulonga. Instrumental and macroseismic data on these seismic events are reported. A seismic moment tensor, calculated from surface wave records, shows normal fault focal mechanisms for Upper Akuli and Gulonga-II earthquakes and strike-slip movements in the source of the Gulonga-I seismic event. The results obtained could be used in further studies of seismic zoning and seismic hazard assessment in the northern Lake Baikal region.

THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2015, КR=14.0, Mw=5.1, I0=7–8 TALLAY EARTHQUAKE at the NORTH-EASTERN FLANK of the BAIKAL RIFT

We consider September 2, 2015, Mw=5.1 Tallay earthquake occurred in the previously aseismic area of the North-Muya Ridge adjoining to the Muya-Kuanda basin from the north. Instrumental and macroseismic data on this seismic event are presented. Its seismic moment tensor is calculated from surface wave amplitude spectra. New data on strong ground motions are obtained within the north-eastern flank of the Baikal rift. The Tallay earthquake is found to be connected with seismogenic renewal of the second-order multidirectional faults activated in the rift stress field.

SEISMICITY of YAKUTIA in 2015

The results of monitoring the seismicity of the territory of Yakutia, based on observations of 23 digital seismic stations, are presented. A total of 607 earthquakes were recorded. A map of epicentres was compiled and their location was given in seismically active regions. The most active areas are Olekminsk in the south, Verkhoyansk and Chersky Ridge in the northeast and the Arctic part of the region. A significant decrease (19 times) in the amount of released seismic energy continued in comparison to its level in 2014. Instrumental and macroseismic data, focal mechanisms and seismotectonic connections are analyzed. The characteristics of the shaking South-Verkhoyansk earthquake occurring at the junction of the Verkhoyansk and Sette-Daban Ridges are considered.

Reply to “Comment on ‘Which Earthquake Accounts Matter?’ by Susan E. Hough and Stacey S. Martin” by David J. Wald

We thank David Wald (Wald, 2021; henceforth, W21) for his interest in our recent article (Hough and Martin, 2021; henceforth, HM21). Although different perspectives are vital in science, we are concerned that W21 misrepresents HM21 as an oblique criticism of the U.S. Geological Survey “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system, calling for HM21 to be retracted. Readers who are interested in the issues raised by HM21 and the statements made by us therein are referred to that article. In this brief reply, we respond to specific accusations made by W21 and return to the focus of HM21, calling attention to the extent to which macroseismic data sets and inferences drawn from them can be shaped by a lack of representation among individuals whose observations are available to science. HM21 never questioned the benefits of the community science DYFI project to science. HM21 noted, however, and we reiterate here, that community science also potentially benefits the community. Whether or not it matters for science, if participation in community science projects is unrepresentative across socioeconomic groups, it underscores the need for the scientific community to be proactive in its efforts to reach out to groups that have been underserved by current outreach and education programs. We appreciate this opportunity to continue the important conversation about representation.

Comment on “Which Earthquake Accounts Matter?” by Susan E. Hough and Stacey S. Martin

In their analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) data Hough and Martin (2021) claim, among other assertions, that the following: Socioeconomic and geopolitical factors can introduce biases in the USGS’ characterization of earthquakes and their effects, especially if online data collection systems are not designed to be broadly accessible;These biases can, in turn, potentially cascade in myriad ways, potentially shaping our understanding of an earthquake’s impact and the characterization of seismic hazard; andCaution should be urged when relying on data from the DYFI system to characterize the distribution of shaking from large earthquakes in India and other parts of the world (outside of the United States). Claims of inequity in access, systematic data biases, or urging caution in the usage of data from critical governmental earthquake information systems should not be made, nor taken, lightly. Several assertions made by Hough and Martin (hereafter, H&M) about the nature of DYFI contributors—and the data they provide—leave a false narrative concerning DYFI system accessibility and quality that H&M have not adequately substantiated. I describe several shortcomings of H&M’s demographic statistics and methodology, focusing on four main concerns. First, DYFI has revolutionized and greatly facilitated access to reporting intensities, in contrast to H&M claims to the contrary. Second, because DYFI does not directly collect demographic data other than the observer’s location, any demographic analyses require extraordinary inferences, well outside the normal bounds of sociodemographic analyses. Third, independent of accessibility and the geographic distribution of contributions from the public, the macroseismic data collected are nonetheless representative of the shaking and impact at each location, of quality, rapid, and thus extremely useful. Lastly, H&M fail to cite critical and pertinent prior, highly relevant scholarly studies, and as such, they misrepresent the novelty of their own work as well as miss key practical matters detailed in those prior studies. Prior to rebutting what H&M claim DYFI does not do, I will remind the reader the ways in which DYFI excels.

Source reconstruction of the 1969 Majene, Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami: A preliminary study

We studied the February 23rd, 1969 M7.0 Majene, Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami. It was followed by tsunami reported at five locations. At least 64 people were killed and severe damage on infrastructures were reported in Majene region. Based on damage data, we estimated that the maximum intensity of the earthquake was MMI VIII. Focal mechanisms, derived using first motion polarity analysis, indicated that the earthquake had a thrust mechanism. Furthermore, we built hypothetical earthquake scenarios based on a rectangular fault plane of 40 km × 20 km with a homogeneous slip model of 1.5 m. We run the Open Quake and the JAGURS code to validate the macroseismic and tsunami observation data, respectively. Our best-fitted earthquake model generates maximum intensity of 8+ which is in line with the reported macroseismic data. However, the maximum simulated tsunami height from all scenario earthquakes is 2.25 m which is smaller than the 4 m tsunami height observed at Pelattoang. The possibility of contribution of another mechanism to tsunami generation requires further investigation.