USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70207968

Ribbon Cliff landslide Washington, and the earthquake of 14 December 1872

Abstract

Estimates of the epicentral location and maximum intensity of the earthquake of 14 December 1872, the largest and oldest historic earthquake documented in the Pacific Northwest, are controversial largely because the estimates are based on ground effects. The Ribbon Cliff landslide is one of the more critical ground effects used to argue that the epicenter was in the vicinity of Lake Chelan in central Washington. Sketchy historical accounts link the Ribbon Cliff landslide to the 1872 earthquake, but a subsequent study disputed the historical accounts and, on the basis of dendrochronology, concluded that the landslide occurred more than 100 yr prior to the earthquake. However, Quaternary stratigraphic relations and the results of multiple dating techniques reported here indicate that the main Ribbon Cliff landslide probably occurred within a 14-yr period that includes the time of the 1872 earthquake. Although our study supports the historical accounts that link the landslide to the December 1872 earthquake, it does not prove that seismic shaking triggered the landslide.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 47.537601245618134° to 47.9329065912321° latitude; -120.640869140625° to -119.8004150390625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard F. Madole, Robert L. Schuster, Andrei M. Sarna-Wojcicki. 1995. Ribbon Cliff landslide Washington, and the earthquake of 14 December 1872. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0850040986

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗