Reply to, “Comment on ‘The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake: Relic railroad offset reveals rupture,’ by Roger Bilham and Susan E. Hough”

Abstract

We welcome this opportunity to respond to Pratt et al. (2024) (hereinafter P24). Bilham and Hough (2023) proposed a “first-cut” elastic deformation model for the 1886 earthquake, a quantitative source model constrained by identified coseismic constraints. A key observation was the measurement of a lateral offset of a railroad line south of Summerville, leading to a model with predominately dextral slip and minor convergence, from which we concluded that active faulting had raised the Penholoway Marine Terrace >6 m since ∼770 ka. P24 questioned these constraints and proposed an alternative rupture model with predominantly reverse slip. This alternative model is neither consistent with coseismic constraints nor with other geophysical data. In a revised model presented here, we recognize that uplift of the Penholoway Terrace is confined to the eastern edge of the terrace, which we conclude results from active folding and tectonic transpression centered on the dextral fault that offset the railroad in 1886.