The recent, devastating landslide in Washington State continues to be in the news. It registers on my personal Richter Scale as well, as I've spent time in the area.
The Oso Landslide in the Stillaguamish River valley occurred on a landscape that, according to media reports, was forecast to fail, and do this in a way that would likely result in a catastrophic, large-magnitude event. Thus, it was not unlike Turtle Mountain (overlooking the 1903 Frank Slide), which is forecast to produce another rock avalanche. Turtle's future event, unlike Oso's latest landslide, is somewhere down the road.
An earlier landslide hit the Oso area in 2006. A reviewer, speaking of this event, and mirroring the comments from geologists in the wake of the 1903 Frank Slide, expressed amazement that new homes were being built within the danger zone defined by the forecast "second coming."
Society, in its headlong quest to "develop," tends to encroach upon areas that are known to be inherently dangerous. Ironically, the residents of Oso, Washington, worried incessantly about the threat of flooding from the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River while, according to media reports, giving little thought to the forecast landslide that, on March 22nd, killed no less than two dozen people.
Published images of the Oso Landslide appear to show that the event occurred on land that had recently been clear-cut logged. Therefore, I expect that logging, whatever its role, is likely to surface as a contributing, or influencing (secondary or tertiary), factor. Regardless of how this plays out, it's safe to bet that lawyers won't be walking far behind the coroners, engineers and geomorphologists.
It's logical to expect that land-use practices, past and present, will be examined as the investigation into the Oso Landslide continues. It's also reasonable to believe that timber harvest practices will be scrutinized. (I'm betting that the US Forest Service, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other federal and state agencies have already engaged in meetings to discuss this topic.)
How does society protect itself from natural and human-induced hazards? The most obvious answer is to deny requests that place infrastructure and activities in locations that, if approved, would place people in the path of known danger.
No comments:
Post a Comment