It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

State Allowed Logging on the Plateau Above Landslide in Oso, Washington

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:32 PM
State allowed logging on plateau above slope

Geologists had warned that logging on these slopes often lead to landslides occurring about 10 years after harvesting... and like clockwork, this deadly landslide occurred 10 years after logging.

"Lee Benda, a geologist with the University of Washington, wrote a report that said harvesting can increase soil water “on the order of 20 to 35 percent” — with that impact lasting 16 to 27 years, until new trees matured. Benda looked at past slides on the hill and found they occurred within five to 10 years of harvests."

"The remnant of one clear-cut operation is visible in aerial photographs of Saturday’s monstrous mudslide. A triangle — 7½ acres, the shape of a pie slice — can be seen atop the destruction, its tip just cutting into where the hill collapsed."

"Grandy Lake has done selective logging on the plateau in more recent years. Following the approval of a 2009 permit that also included an area abutting the sensitive zone, the company reported to the state that it removed 20 percent of the area’s trees. It returned in 2011 and got approval to take 15 percent more."

A number of scientists warned that this would be the exact outcome if logging were permitted there;

Paul Kennard, a geologist for the Tulalip Tribes, warned regulators that harvesting holds “the potential for a massive and catastrophic failure of the entire hillslope.”

But as usual, greed trumps public safety. Expect the logging companies to immediately declare bankruptcy and vanish into the night...

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:39 PM
That used to be common knowledge around here but it is now not considered as bad anymore. The old people knew not to take too many trees off of hillsides. We live in areas with lots of hills by rock outcrops, meaning there is a lot of rock base in the area with limited topsoils. The trees break up the rock and stabalize any soils on the hills.

This thread is an example of a case where someone did not listen to people who knew of the risk involved. The person who allowed this to be done should be held accountable somehow. We have to consider risk in our ventures.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Too bad the people responsible got the state to sign off on the logging, meaning their butts are covered.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:44 PM
No tree roots, expect landslides, it is common sense.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:34 PM
No doubt someones palm was greased in state government and people died! BASTARDS!!!

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:59 PM
Many older loggers knew not to log off of steep hillsides yet they let their greed overpower their knowledge. Three quarters of the time nothing will happen, but in this case it did. You need the right conditions for problems to occur, if there was no rain this probably would not have happened after the roots rotted away.

Mother Nature does not have to play host to our excuses and idiotic practices and keep it from raining.
edit on 26-3-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:04 PM
So in other words there are over a hundred dead people now because of some company's greed.To me that says company's now are legal serial killers.Lovely...

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:05 PM
Despite the fact that he point of the triangle covers maybe 1/20th of the collapsed hillside, with the rest covered in trees, you may be right. Perhaps logging was a contributing factor in the collapse. Indeed, perhaps it was THE MAJOR factor in the collapse of the hillside. But there are several other things to notice:

1. There is a river, the Stillaguamish, running beside the hill. It is uncontrolled, i.e.: no levies there.
2. The valley beside the river was made by the river flooding over time.
3. Houses were built on or near the banks of this river.
4. In 1999 a report commissioned by the Army Corps of Engineers warned of a slide hazard.
5. A few years ago there was another similar slide a little further off.
6. The hillside was made of dirt. No basalt. No big rock outcropping.
7. All this was known by Snohomish County.
8. The majority of the hillside and plateau beyond was covered with 100 year old fir and hemlock.
9. Fir and hemlock have VERY shallow roots. A 100' tree might have a 5 foot root ball.
10. Logging is a normal activity. All the houses are made of wood--not brick.

Now, after the fact, the Blame Game begins. WHO is at fault here! Knowing ATS, the usual culprits are government, and if not government, then private industry, and if not them, the Army, and of not them then any organization that is within operational distance and could remotely be conceived of having some sort of interest in the issue. It's never the victims' fault by definition. We lament their loss as innocents caught in a deadly trap not of their making.

So who decided it would be a smart idea to build a house on a flood plain of an uncontrolled river beneath an unstable hillside that had been pointed out as such over 15 years ago? (Some of the houses were older than that and quite a few were much newer.) Who insisted on building there because it was their "right" as a landowner to be free of government interference?

It is well known that if you step on the railroad tracks in front of an onrushing locomotive that the likelihood of you getting killed approaches 100%. These people built beneath a known unstable hill on the banks of a wild river. They gambled and lost.

I'm sorry for their loss.

edit on 3/26/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:01 AM
So will it be the government's fault too if and when there is another massive set of quakes on the New Madrid, and Memphis, for example, goes down in flames? I mean people living in that whole area KNOW that there is a risk. And what if Yellowstone blew? What if Mount Rainier exploded? Is it all the government's fault for letting people build and live in these areas? What if the Cumbre Viejo volcano DOES collapse and a 100 ft wave slams the east coast?

I mean just how far does government bear the responsibility? Yes, I understand there were studies, and the area was at risk for collapse. But there are associated risks for every one of the above scenarios I mentioned too. It poses questions that aren't easily answered. A degree of risk can't just change all of a sudden when the event actually happens- to suit either the government- or the victims. It's a tragic situation, no doubt. And I'm not sure either, seriously. Just thinking out loud, really.

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:12 AM
Is it my imagination or does it look like there was a slide in the same spot before in this picture on the left?


posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by schuyler

I grew up very close to the Oso area and am still close to people near the area, today while discussing this post with a friend who lost friends there, she had this to say:

is this Agenda 21 or greed. now that Fema and national guard are here everything is f_____d up.

I have seen many references to the people living there knew the dangers. This I can see as a possible media spin towards Agenda 21, we should live in cities where it is safe and we can be controlled easier.

top topics


log in