SWAG

American Avalanche Association
and
USDA Forest Service National Avalanche Center
Snow, Weather, and Avalanches:

Observation Guidelines for Avalanche
Programs in the United States
© American Avalanche Association, 2010

ISBN-13: 978-0-9760118-1-1
Snow, Weather, and Avalanches:
Observation Guidelines for Avalanche Programs in the United States
Prepared by the Working Group on Observation Guidelines:
Ethan Greene (chair), Colorado Avalanche Information Center

Dale Atkins, Recco AB
Karl Birkeland, USDA Forest Service National Avalanche Center
Kelly Elder, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station
Chris Landry, Center for Snow and Avalanche Studies
Brian Lazar, American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education
Ian McCammon, Snowpit Technologies
Mark Moore, USDA Forest Service Northwest Avalanche Center
Don Sharaf, Valdez Heli-Ski Guides/National Outdoor Leadership School
Craig Sterbenz, Telluride Ski Company
Bruce Tremper, USDA Forest Service Utah Avalanche Center
Knox Williams, Colorado Avalanche Information Center
Issued by:
The American Avalanche Association
P.O. Box 2831
Pagosa Springs, CO 81147
[email protected]
www. americanavalancheassociation.org
Citation: Greene, E., D. Atkins, K. Birkeland, K. Elder, C. Landry, B. Lazar, I. McCammon, M. Moore,
D. Sharaf, C. Sternenz, B. Tremper, and K. Williams, 2010. Snow, Weather and Avalanches:
Observation Guidelines for Avalanche Programs in the United States. American Avalanche Association,
Pagosa Springs, CO, Second Printing Fall 2010.
Front cover photographs by Karl Birkeland, Kelly Elder, Dave Dellamora, Dave Madara, Mark Moore, Mt. Shasta Avalanche
Center, Mt. Washington Avalanche Center, Mark Mueller, Ben Pritchett, Billy Rankin, Don Sharaf, John Spitzer, John
Stimberis, John Talbott, and Bruce Tremper.
Back cover photograph by Craig Sterbenz.
ii
Preface
In 2004 the American Avalanche Association, in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service National Avalanche
Center, published the inaugural edition of Snow, Weather and Avalanches: Observational Guidelines for Avalanche
Programs in the United States. Getting to that point was a long and somewhat painful process taking several years,
numerous individuals, and many organizations working to find common ground. In the end, the guidelines reflected
our community’s best effort at merging the Westwide data standards (which had been widely used in the United
States since 1968) and the guidelines published by our friends north of the border at the Canadian Avalanche
Association. The CAA generously offered their guidelines as a template for ours in the hopes that our two
avalanche communities can eventually move toward a common document.
The trepidation we felt with the release of the first edition of these guidelines, which quickly became known as
SWAG, was unnecessary. It gained immediate acceptance by the U.S. avalanche community, as well as by
avalanche workers in many other countries. SWAG is now integrated into operations, handed out in avalanche
classes, and can be found in most patrol rooms and on most forecaster’s desks around the country.
SWAG aims to capture the techniques and tools currently being used by U.S. avalanche programs. Since these tools
are constantly evolving and being updated, so too must this document. Originally we aimed to update SWAG every
5 to 10 years. The fact that we are now producing an updated document only five years after the first edition
demonstrates the dynamic nature of our profession. In some sections of this edition you will find mostly minor
changes in the form of small corrections, additions, or clarifications. In other sections you’ll find more significant
changes, such as the addition of increasingly popular block tests that aim to index the fracture propagation
propensity of the snowpack. This edition also includes the new international snow classification scheme
(Appendix F) and avalanche danger scale (Appendix G).
The goal of SWAG remains the same. It is meant to be a professional reference that establishes common methods.
This benefits everyone by both increasing the ease of communication between operations, and by facilitating the
development of long term datasets that will provide future insights into avalanche processes. Despite the changes to
the current edition, we aimed to maintain the original tone of SWAG. As the late Ed LaChapelle pointed out nearly
thirty years ago, there is no one correct path to an accurate avalanche forecast. Similarly, there is not one set of
tools or one set methodology that must be used for avalanche operations. This document recognizes the unique
nature of many avalanche programs and their special needs, and strives to provide the flexibility necessary for them
to operate effectively while still providing a common language for all of us. Finally, this edition – like the first
edition – is not meant to inhibit creativity or innovation. We encourage experimentation and the development of
new tests and methods by practitioners and scientists alike, a fact emphasized in the major additions to Chapter 2.
Here you will find that some of the new sections came out of M.S. and Ph.D. theses, while others started with
discussions in a ski patrol shack.
Ron Perla provided extensive comments on the first edition of SWAG, and when he received his copy he wrote to
us that “I believe it's much more than just ‘Guidelines for Observations’. It's a valuable reference for a wide variety
of avalanche studies. I'll keep it close to my desk together with my very limited collection of references which I
expect to consult often.” We hope this edition also merits such high praise and that you will find it to be a valuable
and useful reference for your avalanche work.
Karl Birkeland
USDA Forest Service National Avalanche Center
Bozeman, Montana
September, 2009
iii
Acknowledgements
This document is a collection of protocols and common practices developed during more than 60 years
of avalanche work in the United States. Common practice in the United States, in turn, developed
through fruitful collaborations with scientists and practitioners in Canada, Europe, Scandinavia, Asia,
and other parts of the world. Although the people that contributed to what is now common practice are
too numerous to mention here, their contribution to our field and the methods described within this
document is significant.
The first version of this document started with a publication of the Canadian Avalanche Association
(CAA) entitled Observational Guidelines and Recording Standards for Weather, Snowpack, and
Avalanches (OGRS). The CAA has devoted a tremendous amount of time and money towards creating
and maintaining that document, which has become a symbol of professional practice in North America.
The CAA periodically revises OGRS and we have tried to include some of the changes they instituted
during the 2007 revision. I sincerely appreciate the CAA’s past and present efforts to promote common
practice among avalanche programs, and for allowing the U.S. community to benefit from their effort.
Within the CAA, Clair Israelson (former CAA Executive Director) and Ian Tomm (CAA, Executive
Director) both provided us with support and encouragement. Cam Campbell (CAA, Technical
Committee) helped us with CAA materials and their experience during the last revision of OGRS. Bruce
Jamieson provided both material and insight from the work of the Applied Snow and Avalanche
Research group at the University of Calgary.
The American Avalanche Association (AAA) and the USDA Forest Service National Avalanche Center
(NAC) provided the majority of the funds and infrastructure to develop this document and complete the
first revision. Janet Kellam (AAA, President), Mark Mueller (AAA, Executive Director), and Doug
Abromeit (NAC, Director) all contributed to this effort.
A public and technical review process dramatically improved the content of the first version. Although
we did not seek assistance from as large a group during the revision, their contribution remains a part of
this document. They include: Pat Ahern, Jon Andrews, Don Bachman, Hal Boyne, Doug Chabot, Steve
Conger, Nolan Doesken, Dave Hamre, Bill Glude, Liam Fitzgerald, Ron Johnson, Chris Joosen, Art
Judson, Janet Kellam, Tom Kimbrough, Mark Kozak, Bill Lerch, Chris Lundy, Tom McKee, Art Mears,
Peter Martinelli Jr., Rod Newcomb, Ron Perla, and Nancy Pfeiffer. I apologize to anyone that I forgot.
There are some individual contributions that are worthy of mention. Ian McCammon provided the field
book figures snow profile reporting forms, and density nomogram. Dale Atkins was very helpful in
creating the incident forms in Appendix H and the metadata fields in Appendix C. Dan Judd provided
the sample programs in Appendix E. Joyce VanDeWater drew the illustrations in Chapter 2. Charles
Fierz allowed us to include the new snow classification (Appendix F) and snow symbol fonts. Ron
Simenhois contributed most of the material in the Extended Column Test and Propagation Saw Test
sections. Many photographers provided images for this publication and they are listed with their
contribution.
Lastly I would like to thank the members of the Working Group on Observation Guidelines for their
dedication and patience during the development and revision of this document.
Ethan Greene
Working Group on Observation Guidelines, Chairman
August, 2010
iv
Contents
Introduction 1
1.0 Manual Snow and Weather Observations 3
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 Objectives 3
1.3 Standard Morning Snow and Weather Observation 4
1.4 Manual versus Automated Observations 5
1.5 Time Periods for Manual Snow and Weather Observations 5
1.6 Equipment for Manual Standard Observations 5
1.7 Field Book Notes 6
1.8 Field Weather Observations 6
1.9 Location Ô 6
1.10 Date Ô 6
1.11 Time Ô 6
1.12 Sky Condition Ô 6
1.13 Precipitation Type, Rate, and Intensity Ô 7
1.14 Air Temperature Ô 9
1.14.1 Air Temperature Trend 9
1.15 Relative Humidity 11
1.16 Barometric Pressure at Station 11
1.16.1 Pressure Trend 12
1.17 20 cm Snow Temperature Ô 12
1.18 Surface Penetrability Ô 12
1.19 Form and Size of Surface Snow 13
1.20 Height of Snowpack Ô 14
1.21 Height of New Snow Ô 14
1.21.1 Snow Board Naming Conventions 15
1.22 Water Equivalent of New Snow Ô 16
1.23 Density of New Snow 16
1.24 Rain Ô 17
1.25 Accumulated Precipitation 18
1.26 Wind Ô 18
1.27 Blowing Snow at the Ridge Tops 19
2.0 Snowpack Observations 21
2.1 Introduction 21
2.2 Objectives 21
2.3 Standard Snowpack Observation 22
ÔSections that describe parameters included in a standard observation.
v
2.4 Snow Profiles 23
2.4.1 Location 24
2.4.2 Frequency of Observations 26
2.4.3 Equipment 27
2.4.4 Field Procedure 27
2.5 Snowpack Observations 28
2.5.1 Snowpack Temperature 28
2.5.2 Layer Boundaries 28
2.5.3 Snow Hardness 29
2.5.4 Grain Form 30
2.5.5 Grain Size 32
2.5.6 Liquid Water Content 32
2.5.7 Density 33
2.5.8 Strength and Stability Tests 33
2.5.9 Marking the Site 33
2.5.10 Graphical Snow Profile Representation 34
2.6 Characterizing Fractures in Column and Block Tests 36
2.6.1 Shear Quality 37
2.6.2 Fracture Character 38
2.7 Column and Block Tests 37
2.7.1 Site Selection 37
2.7.2 Shovel Shear Test 40
2.7.3 Rutschblock Test 42
2.7.4 Compression Test 45
2.7.5 Deep Tap Test 47
2.7.6 Stuffblock Test 48
2.7.7 Extended Column Test 51
2.7.8 Propagation Saw Test 53
2.8 Slope Cut Testing 55
2.9 Non-Standardized Snow Tests 57
2.9.1 Communicating the Results of Non-Standardized Snow Tests 57
2.9.2 Cantilever Beam Test 57
2.9.3 Loaded Column Test 58
2.9.4 Burp-the-Baby 59
2.9.5 Hand Shear Test 60
2.9.6 Ski Pole Penetrometer 60
2.9.7 Tilt Board Test 61
2.9.8 Shovel Tilt Test 61
2.10 Instrumented Methods 62
2.10.1 Ram Profile 62
2.10.2 Shear Frame 66
vi
3.0 Avalanche Observations 69
3.1 Introduction 69
3.2 Objectives 69
3.3 Identification of Avalanche Paths 69
3.4 Standard Avalanche Observation 70
3.5 Avalanche Path Characteristics 71
3.5.1 Area and Path Ô 71
3.5.2 Aspect Ô 71
3.5.3 Slope Angle Ô 71
3.5.4 Elevation Ô 72
3.6 Avalanche Event Characteristics 72
3.6.1 Date Ô 72
3.6.2 Time Ô 72
3.6.3 Avalanche Type Ô 72
3.6.4 Trigger Ô 73
3.6.5 Size Ô 76
3.6.6 Snow Properties 77
3.6.7 Avalanche Dimensions Ô 78
3.6.8 Location of Avalanche Start Ô 79
3.6.9 Terminus Ô 80
3.6.10 Total Deposit Dimensions 81
3.6.11 Avalanche Runout 81
3.6.12 Coding Avalanche Observations 81
3.6.13 Comments 81
3.7 Multiple Avalanche Events 82
3.8 Additional Observations 83
3.8.1 Avalanche Hazard Mitigation Missions 83
3.8.2 Road and Railway Operations 83
Glossary 85
Appendix A: References 93
Appendix B: Units 97
Appendix C: Metadata 103
Appendix D: Observational Sites for Meteorological Measurements 105
Appendix E: Automated Weather Stations 111
Appendix F: ICSI Classification for Seasonal Snow Cover on the Ground 119
Appendix G: Avalanche Danger, Hazard, and Snow Stability Scales 129
Appendix H: Reporting Avalanche Involvements 135
Appendix I: Symbols and Abbreviations 145
Snow Profile Forms and Conversion Charts 147
ÔSections that describe parameters included in a standard observation. vii

Snow, Weather, and Avalanches
Introduction
This document contains a set of guidelines for observing and recording snow, weather, and avalanche
phenomena. These guidelines were prepared for avalanche forecasting operations, but can be applied to
other programs as well. The guidelines are presented as a resource of common methods and are intended
to promote efficient and fruitful communication among professional operations and between research
and operational communities.
The observations presented in this manual were selected to support active avalanche forecasting
programs. Observing these parameters will help avalanche forecasters make informed and consistent
decisions, provide current and accurate information, and document methods and rationale for operational
decisions. Recording these parameters will assist program managers to document and analyze unusual
events, apply pattern recognition and statistical forecasting methods, and assist research into snow and
avalanche phenomena. In addition, there is often little snow and weather data collected in mountainous
areas and data collected by avalanche forecasting programs can be used in climatological and mountain
systems research. Our hope is that this manual will help forecasters carefully choose the observations
that support their programs, and that those observations will generate high quality and consistent data
sets.
It is unlikely that any one operation will make all of the observations outlined within this document.
Individual program managers should select a set of parameters that their staff can observe routinely.
Programs with specialized needs may have to look elsewhere for information on additional observations.
A set of references is listed in Appendix A as a starting point.
Structure of this Manual
This manual is divided into three chapters and nine appendices. Within each chapter, methods for
composing an observational scheme are presented first. A standard observation is presented next, and
the remainder of each chapter is devoted to describing detailed methods for observing and recording a
particular phenomenon. The appendices provide additional information without distracting from the
main topics within the manual.
Units
The avalanche community within the United States typically uses a combination of English and
International (SI) unit systems. In this document we have attempted to adhere to the SI system whenever
possible. In the United States, personnel of avalanche operations and users of their products may not be
familiar with all SI units. Individual programs should choose a unit system that suits their particular
application. A recommended system of units, an alternative system of English units, and methods for
converting values between the two systems are presented in Appendix B. The most noticeable deviation
from the SI system is the unit for elevation. In North America most topographic maps use feet as the unit
for elevation. Therefore the recommended unit for elevation remains the foot. Throughout the document
the recommended unit appears in the text with the common alternative unit adjacent in parentheses.
Long-term data records should be stored in the recommended system of units in Appendix B. Data
records submitted to a central database are assumed to be in the recommended system unless otherwise
stated in the accompanying metadata file (see Appendix C).
Data Codes and Symbols
Symbols and data codes for many of the observations in this document appear in tables within each
section. The use of these codes will save space in field books and on log sheets. Many of the codes in
Chapter 1 follow conventions from the meteorological community. The codes in Chapters 2 and 3 were
chosen to conform to common methods in the avalanche community and to promote efficient
communication.
1
Manual Snow and Weather Observations
1.1 Introduction
Manual observations of snow and weather conditions are an important part of an avalanche forecasting
operation. This chapter describes methods for making and recording these observations. Section 1.2
describes observation objectives. Section 1.3 outlines the recommended standard morning snow and
weather observation. Sections 1.4 through 1.6 give important background information for planning and
implementing observational schemes, Sections 1.7 and 1.8 discuss field observations, and Sections 1.9
through 1.27 describe how to observe and record individual parameters.
1.2 Objectives
Snow and weather observations represent a series of meteorological and snow surface measurements
taken at a properly instrumented study plot or in the field (refer to Appendix D - Observation Sites for
Meteorological Measurements). Observational data taken at regular intervals provide the basis for
recognizing changes in stability of the snow cover and for reporting weather conditions to a
meteorological office or regional avalanche center.
Sustained long-term data sets of snow and weather observations can be used to improve avalanche
hazard forecasts by statistical and numerical techniques. They also serve to increase climatic knowledge
of the area. Observations should be complete, accurate, recorded in a uniform manner, and made
routinely. Following an established protocol increases the consistency in the data record, reduces error,
and increases the potential for useful interpretation of the data.
Figure 1.1 Alpine weather station in the Colorado Rocky Mountains (photograph by Kelly Elder).
3
1.3 Standard Morning Snow and Weather Observation

Operations that include an avalanche forecasting program typically observe and record a set of weather
and snow parameters daily. These observations should be made at about the same time each day and
between 4 am and 10 am local standard time. Many operations will need to observe these parameters
more than once per day. A set of suggested fields to observe and record, and a brief explanation are
listed below. Detailed information on each of these parameters is available in the sections that follow.
Sections that are marked with a Ô contain information on the parameters listed below. An example
record sheet appears in Figure 1.2.
1) Observation Location– record the location of the observation site or nearest prominent
topographic landmark (mountain, pass, drainage, avalanche path, etc.), political landmark
(town, road mile, etc.), or geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude or UTM). If the
measurements are made at an established study site, record the site name or number.
2) Elevation (ASL)– record the elevation of the observation site in feet (meters) above sea
level.
3) Date – record the date on which the observation is being made (YYYYMMDD).
4) Time – record the local time on the 24-hour clock (0000 – 2359) at which the observation
began.
5) Observer – record the name or names of the personnel that made the observation.
6) Sky Conditions- record the sky conditions as Clear, Few, Scattered, Broken, Overcast, or
Obscured (Section 1.12).
7) Current Weather – record the precipitation type and rate using the scale and data codes in
Section 1.13.
8) Air Temperature – record the 24-hour maximum, minimum, and current air temperature to
the nearest 0.5 °C (or whole °F) (Section 1.14).
9) Snow Temperature 20 cm (or 8 in) – record the snow temperature 20 cm (or 8 in) below the
snow surface (Section 1.17).
10) Surface Penetration – record the surface penetration to the nearest whole centimeter (or 0.5
inch) as described in Section 1.18.
11) Total Snow Depth – record the total depth of snow on the ground to the nearest whole
centimeter (or 0.5 inch) (Section 1.20).
12) 24-hour New Snow Depth – record the depth of the snow that accumulated during the
previous 24-hours to the nearest whole centimeter (or 0.5 inch) (Section 1.21).
13) 24-hour New Snow Water Equivalent – record the water equivalent of the snow that
accumulated during the previous 24-hours to the nearest 0.1 mm (or 0.01 inch) (Section
1.22).
14) 24-hour Liquid Precipitation- record the depth of the liquid precipitation that accumulated
during the previous 24 hours to the nearest 0.1 mm (or 0.01 inch) (Section 1.24).
15) Wind Direction – observe the wind for at least two minutes and record the average wind
direction or use an automated measurement. Record wind direction as N, NE, E, SE, S, SW,
W, or NW. If an automated measurement is used, record to the nearest 10 degrees (Section
1.26).
16) Wind Speed – observe the wind for at least two minutes and record the average wind speed
using the indicators in Section 1.26, or use an automated measurement.
17) Maximum Wind Gust- observe the wind for at least two minutes and record the speed of the
strongest wind gust, or use an automated measurement. For an automated measurement
record the time that the wind gust occurred (Section 1.26).
4
1.4 Manual versus Automated Observations

Observation networks for avalanche forecasting programs usually involve at least one set of manual
observations and one or more automated weather stations. Manual observations can be used to maintain
a long-term record and observe and record data not amenable to sensing by automated systems.
Automated observations provide unattended continuous weather (and some snowpack) information
about a certain region or regions within a forecast or ski area. Automated weather stations can be co-
located at study sites where manual weather observations and/or snowpack observations are collected.
Programs that maintain a study plot should use data from automated weather stations to augment and not
replace manual observations. The following chapter discusses how to make and record manual
observations. Details regarding automated snow and weather observations appear in Appendix E.
1.5 Time Periods for Manual Snow and Weather Observations
Observations taken at regular daily times are called standard observations. Manual observations are
typically carried out in 24-hour, 12-hour, or 6-hour intervals. Data collected at 6-hour intervals
beginning at 0000 hours Greenwich Mean Time (also termed Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) or
Zulu time (Z)) will conform to climatic data sets. Avalanche forecasting operations typically make two
standard observations each day at 0700 and 1600 hours local time, when a 12-hour interval is not
possible. The type of operation and availability of observers may necessitate different frequencies and
times. In regions that observe Daylight Savings Time, schedules should be adjusted so that the
observation time does not change (i.e. use local standard time when recording observations). If
observations are made on a 24-hour interval, it is best to make that observation in the morning.
Observations taken between the standard times are referred to as interval observations. They are taken
when the snow stability is changing rapidly, for example, during a heavy snowfall. Interval observations
may contain a few selected observations or a complete set of observations.
Observations taken at irregular times are referred to as intermittent observations. They are appropriate
for sites that are visited infrequently; visits will typically be more than 24 hours apart and need not be
regular (i.e. in a heli-ski operation). Intermittent observations may contain a few selected observations or
a complete set of observations. In highway operations, intermittent observations often include shoot or
storm observations to coincide with timing of avalanche control missions or the start and end of
particular storm cycles (see Figure 1.2 for sample of field book entry).
It is common for avalanche forecasting operations to collect information for an individual storm event.
Observations of snowfall, temperature changes, wind direction and speed, and avalanche activity can be
observed for a particular storm unit. A storm unit is typically a qualitative increment based on
precipitation rates or meteorological events. Operations that choose to use a storm unit may also find it
useful to develop a quantitative storm unit definition.
1.6 Equipment for Manual Standard Observations
A snow and weather study plot usually contains the following equipment:
• Stevenson screen for housing thermometers (height adjustable)
• Maximum thermometer
• Minimum thermometer
• One or more snow boards with 1 m (~ 3 ft) rods and base plate with minimum dimensions of 40
cm x 40 cm (~ 15 in) and appropriate labels (Figure 1.4)
• Snow stake, depth marker (graduated in cm (in))
• Ruler (graduated in cm (in))
• Snow sampling tube and weighing scale (graduated in grams or water equivalent), or
precipitation gauge
• Large putty knife or plate for cutting snow samples
• Field book and pencil (water resistant paper)
5
The following additional equipment is useful:

• Hygrothermograph located in a Stevenson screen (Figure 1.3)
• Recording precipitation gauge or rain gauge
• Additional snow boards
• First section of a Ram penetrometer
• Barograph (in the office) or barometer/altimeter
• Anemometer at a separate wind station with radio or cable link to a recording instrument
• Box (shelter) for the equipment
• Small broom
• Snow shovel
Note: In some cases the weather sensors listed above have been linked to data loggers where, in most
instances, comparable data may be obtained (see Appendix E). However, a broken wire or power outage
may render automated data useless, so manual observations are still preferred as a baseline.
1.7 Field Book Notes
There are many good and different methods for taking field notes. Following these general practices will
ensure that quality data are collected (see Figure 1.2 for example).
• Do not leave blanks. If a value was not observed, record N/O for not observed.
• Only write “0” when the reading is zero, for example, when no new snow has
accumulated on the new snow board.
• Only record values that are actually observed.
1.8 Field Weather Observations
Heli-ski guiding, ski touring and similar operations often observe general weather conditions in the field.
These observations may serve as an interval measurement, accompany a snow profile, or serve to
document conditions across a portion of their operational area. The records should describe some of the
parameters listed in this section, but field reports should be made as a series of comments so as not to be
confused with observations taken at a fixed weather station. Maximum and minimum temperatures
cannot be observed but a range in present temperatures can be reported. Field observations should
specify the elevation range and the time, or time range, from where the observations were taken.
Common field observations typically include: time, location, elevation, sky cover, wind speed and
direction, air temperature and precipitation type and rate. Field weather observations that are estimates
and not measurements should be recorded with a tilde (~) to denote that the value is approximate.
1.9 Location Ô
Record the location and elevation, or study plot name, at the top of the record book page.
1.10 Date Ô
Record the year, month and day. Avoid spaces, commas etc., i.e. December 5, 2001, is noted as
20011205 (YYYYMMDD). This representation of the date is conducive to automated sorting routines.
1.11 Time Ô
Record the time of observation using a 24-hour clock (avoid spaces, colons etc.) (i.e. 5:10 p.m. is noted
as 1710). Use local standard time (i.e. Pacific, Mountain, etc. as appropriate). Operations that overlap
time zones should standardize to one time.
1.12 Sky Condition Ô
Classify the amount of cloud cover and record it using the definitions in Table 1.1. Observers may select
a separate data code for each cloud layer or one code for the total cloud cover.
6
Table 1.1 Sky Condition
Class Symbol Data Code Definition

Clear CLR No Clouds
Few clouds: up to 2/8 of the sky is
Few FEW
covered with clouds
Partially cloudy: 3/8 to 4/8 of the sky
Scattered SCT
is covered with clouds
Cloudy: more than half but not all of

Broken BKN the sky is covered with clouds (more
than 4/8 but less than 8/8 cover)
Overcast: the sky is completely cov-

Overcast OVC
ered (8/8 cover)
A surface based layer (i.e. fog) or a
Obscured X non-cloud layer prevents observer
from seeing the sky
Valley Fog/Cloud
Where valley fog or valley cloud exists below the observation site, estimate the elevation of the top and
bottom of the fog layer in feet (meters) above sea level. Give the elevation to the nearest 100 ft (or 50
m). Data code: VF.
Example: Clear sky with valley fog from 7,500 to 9,000 ft is coded as CLR VF 7500-9000.
Thin Cloud
The amount of cloud, not the opacity, is the primary classification criterion. Thin cloud has minimal
opacity, such that the disk of the sun would still be clearly visible through the clouds if they were
between the observer and the sun, and shadows would still be cast on the ground. When the sky
condition features a thin scattered, broken or overcast cloud layer then precede the symbol with a dash.
Example: A sky completely covered with thin clouds is coded as -OVC.
1.13 Precipitation Type, Rate, and Intensity Ô
The amount of snow, rain, or water equivalent that accumulates during a time period will help
forecasters determine the rate and magnitude of the load increase on the snowpack. In this document,
Precipitation Rate refers to an estimate of the snow or rain rate. Precipitation Intensity is a measurement
of water equivalent per hour.
Procedure
Precipitation Type
Note the type of precipitation at the time of observation and record using the codes in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Precipitation Type
Data Code Description

NO No Precipitation
RA Rain
SN Snow
RS Mixed Rain and Snow
GR Graupel and Hail
ZR Freezing Rain
7
Precipitation Rate
Use the descriptors listed in Table 1.3 to describe the precipitation rate at the time of observation.
Record the estimated rate with the appropriate data code in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3 Precipitation Rate
Data Code Description Rate
Snowfall Rate (this system is open-ended; any appropriate rate may be specified)
S –1 Very light snowfall Snow accumulates at a rate of a trace to about 0.5 cm

(~ 0.25 in) per hour
S1 Light snowfall Snow accumulates at a rate of about 1 cm (~ 0.5 in) per
hour
S2 Moderate snowfall Snow accumulates at a rate of about 2 cm (a little less
than 1 in) per hour
S5 Heavy snowfall Snow accumulates at a rate of about 5 cm (~ 2 in) per
hour
S10 Very heavy snowfall Snow accumulates at a rate of about 10 cm (~ 4 in) per
hour
Rainfall Rate
RV Very light rain Rain produces no accumulation, regardless of duration
RL Light rain Rain accumulates at a rate up to 2.5 mm (0.1 in) of

water per hour
RM Moderate rain Rain accumulates at a rate between 2.6 to 7.5 mm (0.1
to 0.3 in) of water per hour
RH Heavy rain Rain accumulates at a rate of 7.5 mm (0.3 in) of water
per hour or more
Precipitation Intensity
Use measurements of rain or the water equivalent of snow to calculate the precipitation intensity with the
following equation:
⎛ mm ⎞ water equivalent of precipitat ion (mm )
PI ⎜ ⎟=
⎝ hr ⎠ duration of measuremen t period (hr)
Record the results with the data code PI and the measured value in millimeters (inches) of water.
Note: PI values are assumed to be in millimeters. Use the symbol " to signify when inches are
used
Example: A precipitation intensity of one half inch per hour would be coded as PI0.5".
8
1.14 Air Temperature Ô

Temperature is measured in degrees Celsius (abbreviated °C) (°F). The standard air temperature should
be observed in a shaded location with the thermometer 1.5 m above the ground or snow surface. At a
study site, thermometers should be housed in a Stevenson screen and the lower edge of the screen should
be 1.2 to 1.4 meters above the ground or snow surface (Figure 1.3).
Procedure
a) Read the maximum thermometer immediately after opening the Stevenson screen.
b) Read the present temperature from the minimum thermometer, and read the minimum
temperature from the minimum thermometer last.
c) Read temperature trend and temperature from the thermograph.
At the end of the temperature observation:
d) Remove any snow that might have drifted into or accumulated on top of the screen.
e) Reset the thermometers after the standard observations (refer to Appendix D).
f) If the Stevenson screen is fitted with a height adjustment mechanism ensure that the screen
base is in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 m above the snow surface. [Note: In heavy snow climates
where daily access of the site is not always possible, the Stevenson screen may be mounted
on top of a (chair) tower to prevent burial. However the height of the screen should be noted
in the metadata.]
g) Check that the screen door still faces north if any adjustments are made.
Note: Read all air temperatures from thermometers to the nearest 0.5 °C (or whole °F).
If there is snow on the thermometer it should be brushed off prior to reading the
instrument and noted in the comment section.
1.14.1 Air Temperature Trend
If available, read the air temperature from the thermograph and record to the nearest whole degree. Use
an arrow symbol to record the temperature trend shown on the thermograph trace over the preceding
three hours.
Table 1.4 Temperature Trend
Symbol Data Code Description
RR Temperature rising rapidly (> 5 degree increase in past 3 hours)

R Temperature rising (1 to 5 degree increase in past 3 hours)
S Temperature steady (< 1 degree change in past 3 hours)
F Temperature falling (1 to 5 degree decrease in past 3 hours)
FR Temperature falling rapidly (> 5 degree decrease in past 3 hours)
Note: Table 1.4 assumes the use of the Celsius temperature scale. Operations that use the
Fahrenheit temperature scale should use a threshold of 10-degrees (rather than 5-degrees)
for rapid temperature changes.
9
Location Never Summer Site #4, 8,300'
Observer MA EL BS NW RP BK
Date 20030210 20030211 20030212 20030213 20030214 20030215
Time, Type (Std, Int) 0530, S 2330, I 1130, I 1630, S 0530, S 1630, S
Sky - OVC CLR
Precip Type/Rate None S-1 S1 S3 RL None
Max Temp (°C) -2.5 -3.0 -3.0 -1.5 1.0 0.0
Min Temp (°C) -7.0 -6.0 -4.5 -4.0 -4.0 -11.0
Present Temp (°C) -6.5 -3.0 -4.0 -1.5 0.0 -10.0
Thermograph (°C) -7 -3 -4 -1 -0 -10
Thermograph Trend
20 cm Snow Temp (°C) -10 -6 -5 -4 -4 -6
Relative Humidity (%) 78 86 96 98 100 67
Interval (cm) HIN 0 T 10 12 4 0
Standard (cm) H2D 0 T 10 12 15 0
New (cm) HN24 0 T 10 12 15 14
Storm (cm), C=cleared HST 0 T 10 20 21 19,C
Snow depth (cm) HS 223 222 231 239 241 239
New water (g) N/O N/O 33.6 42 67 0
New water (mm) N/O N/O 8 10 16 0
Density (kg/m³) N/O N/O 80 83 106 0
Rain gauge (mm) N/O N/O N/O N/O 3 N/O
Precip gauge (mm) 60 60 67 77 82 82
Foot Pen (cm) 35 35 45 50 50 45
Ram Pen (cm) 40 39 47 55 55 48
Surface Form / Size (mm) PP/0.3 PP/0.3 PP/0.3 WG/0.3 DF/0.3
Wind Speed / Direction L, E Calm M, SE L, S L, SW M, E
Blowing Snow Extent / Dir None None None M, S Prev U
Barometric Pressure (mb) 852 847 817 813 833 843
Pressure Trend
Comments
Figure 1.2 An example of a record sheet of a standard observation.
10
Figure 1.3 Thermograph housed in a Stevenson

screen (photograph by Kelly Elder).
1.15 Relative Humidity (RH)

Read the relative humidity to the nearest one percent (1%) from the hygrograph or weather station
output.
Note: The accuracy of relative humidity measurements decreases at low temperatures.
Furthermore, the accuracy of any mechanical hygrograph is unlikely to be better than five
percent (5%) but trends may be important especially at high RH values. Refer to Appendix D
for information on exposure issues and relative humidity measurements.
Depending on location, humidity measurements may be more relevant from mid-slope or upper-
elevation sites than from valley-bottom sites.
Hygrographs should be calibrated at the beginning of each season, mid season, and after every
time the instrument is moved. Calibration is most important when data from multiple
instruments are compared with each other. The simplest calibration method is to make a
relative humidity measurement near the Stevenson screen with a psychrometer (aspirated or
sling). Calibration should be done midday or at a time when the air temperature is relatively
stable. Psychrometer measurements are easier to perform when the air temperature is near or
above freezing.
1.16 Barometric Pressure at Station
The SI unit for pressure is the pascal (Pa). For reporting weather observations, barometric pressure
should be recorded in millibars (1 mb = 1 hPa = 100 Pa, see Appendix B). The recommended English
unit for barometric pressure is inches of mercury (inHg). Conversions from other commonly used
pressure units to millibars and inches of mercury are listed in Appendix B.
11
A variety of instruments including barographs, barometers, altimeters, and electronic sensors can be
used to obtain a measure of the barometric pressure. Absolute pressures and/or pressure trends are
valuable for weather forecasting.
1.16.1 Pressure Trend
Use an arrow symbol to record the pressure tendency as indicated by the change of pressure in the three
hours preceding the observation.
Record the change in barometric pressure in the past three hours.
Table 1.5 Pressure Trend
Symbol Data Code Description

RR Pressure rising rapidly (>2 mb rise per hour)
R Pressure rising (<2 mb rise per hour)
S Pressure steady (<1 mb change in 3 hours)
F Pressure falling (<2 mb fall per hour)
FR Pressure falling rapidly (>2 mb fall per hour)
1.17 20 cm Snow Temperature (T20) Ô

Dig into the snow deep enough to allow access to an area 20 cm (or 8 in) below the surface. Cut a
shaded wall of the pit smooth and vertical. Shade the snow surface above the area where the sensor will
rest in the snow. Cool the thermometer in the snow at the same height, but a different location, at which
the measurement will be taken. Insert the thermometer horizontally 20 cm (or 8 in) below the snow
surface and allow it to adjust to the temperature of the snowpack. Once the sensor has reached
equilibrium, read the thermometer while the sensor is still in the snow.
Record snow temperature to the nearest degree or fraction of a degree based on the accuracy and
precision of the thermometer.
1.18 Surface Penetrability (P) Ô
An indication of the snowpack’s ability to support a given load and a relative measure of snow available
for wind transport can be gained from surface penetrability measurements. There are several common
methods for examining surface penetration. Ram penetration is the preferred method of observation
because it produces more consistent results than ski or foot penetration. When performing foot or ski
penetration on an incline, average the uphill and downhill depths of the track.
Procedure
Ram Penetration (PR)
Let the first section of a standard ram penetrometer (cone diameter 40 mm, apex angle 60° and mass
1 kg) penetrate the snow slowly under its own weight by holding it vertically with the tip touching the
snow surface and dropping it. Read the depth of penetration in centimeters.
Foot Penetration (PF)
Step into undisturbed snow and gently put full body weight on one foot. Measure the depth of the
footprint to the nearest centimeter (or whole inch) from 0 to 5 cm and thereafter, to the nearest increment
of 5 cm (or 2 in).
Note: The footprint depth varies between observers. It is recommended that all observers
working on the same program compare their foot penetration. Observers who consistently
produce penetrations more than 10 cm (or 4 in) above or below the average should not record
foot penetrations.
12
Ski Penetration (PS)

Step into undisturbed snow and gently put full body weight on one ski. Measure the depth of the ski
track from its centerline to the nearest centimeter (or whole inch) from 0 to 5 cm and thereafter, to the
nearest increment of 5 cm (or 2 in).
Note: Ski penetration is sensitive to the weight of the observer and the surface area of the ski.
1.19 Form (F) and Size (E) of Surface Snow
Record the form and size in millimeters of snow grains at the surface using the International
Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground, (Fierz and others, 2009) basic classification
(Table 1.6).
Experienced observers may use the crust subclasses (Table 1.7) to discriminate between various types of
surface deposits and crusts (refer to Appendix F for more detailed information about grain forms).
Table 1.6 Basic Classification of Snow on the Ground
Symbol Basic Classification Data Code

a Precipitation Particles (New Snow) PP
s Machine Made Snow MM
c Decomposing and Fragmented Particles DF
d Rounded Grains (monocrystalline) RG
e Faceted Crystals FC
f Depth Hoar DH
g Surface Hoar SH
h Melt Forms MF
i Ice Formations IF
Note: Modifications to Fierz and others, 2009:

The use of a subscript “r” modifier is retained to denote rimed grains in the Precipitation
Particles (PP) class and its subclasses except for gp, hl, ip, rm, and all of Decomposing and
Fragmented Particles (DF) class (Example: PP-r).
Subclasses for surface hoar are listed in Appendix F.
Table 1.7 Surface Deposits and Crusts Subclass
Symbol Classification Data Code
r Rime PPrm
S Rain crust IFrc
T Sun crust, Firnspiegel IFsc
y Wind packed RGwp
Oh Melt freeze crust MFcr
13
1.20 Height of Snowpack (HS) Ô

The height of the snowpack should be measured at a geographically representative site preferably within
100 meters (or 300 ft) of the weather study plot. A white stake graduated in centimeters (inches) should
be placed at the site. It is best to preserve an area with a radius of about 3 m (or 10 ft) around the snow
stake for measurements. Ideally the snow in this area is not disturbed during the winter. Try not to walk
through the area and leave naturally forming settlement cones and depressions in place.
Procedure
From a distance of about 3 m (or 10 ft) look across the snow surface at the snow stake. Observe the
average snow depth between your position and the stake to the nearest centimeter (or 0.5 inch). Try not
to disturb the snow around the stake during the course of a winter season.
Note: HS values are measured vertically (i.e. line of plumb).
1.21 Height of New Snow (HN24) Ô
The new snow measurement in the standard morning observation uses a 24-hour interval. Many
operations will find it useful to observe snow fall on more than one interval. However, the 24-hour
interval snow board should only be used for 24-hour observations. Additional snow boards should be
added for additional observations as necessary. It is highly recommended that both 24-hour and Storm
intervals be observed by operations that maintain a study plot. Other commonly used intervals appear in
the Snow Board Naming Convention Section 1.21.1.
New snow measurements should be made on a snow board (Figure 1.4). The base plate should have
minimum dimensions of 40 cm x 40 cm (or 15 in x 15 in), with an attached rod of 1 m (or 3 ft) in length.
Larger boards (60 cm x 60 cm) provide more room to make measurements. The base plate and rod
should be painted white to reduce the effects of solar heating.
Procedure
Use a ruler graduated in centimeters (or inches) to measure the depth of snow accumulated on the snow
board. Take measurements in several spots on the board. Calculate the average of the measurements and
record to the nearest cm (in). Record “T” (signifying a trace) when the depth is less than 1 cm (or 0.5
in), or when snow fell but did not accumulate. If there is no new snow record zero. Do not consider
surface hoar on the boards as snowfall; clear off hoar layer after observation. If both rain and snow fell it
should be noted in the remarks.
The sample on the snow board can also be used to measure the water equivalent of new snow (Section
1.22). Once the observations are complete, redeposit the snow in the depression left by the snow board,
adding additional snow if necessary to reposition the board level with the surrounding snow surface.
Note: If the snow board was not level the measurement should be made normal to the surface of
the board.
14
1.21.1 Snow Board Naming Conventions

The following convention can be used to identify snow boards used for different interval measurements.
HN24 – 24-hour Board: The HN24 board is used to measure snow that has been deposited over a
24-hour period. It is cleared at the end of the morning standard observation.
HST – Storm Board: Storm snowfall is the depth of snow that has accumulated since the
beginning of a storm period. The storm board is cleared at the end of a standard observation
prior to the next storm and after useful settlement observations have been obtained. The symbol
“C” is appended to the recorded data when the storm board is cleared.
H2D – Twice-a-Day Board: An H2D board is used when standard observations are made twice a
day. In this case both the HN24 and H2D boards should be cleared in the morning and then
the H2D board is cleared again in the afternoon.
HSB – Shoot Board: The shoot board holds the snow accumulated since the last time avalanches
were controlled by explosives. The symbol “C” is appended to the recorded data when the shoot
board is cleared.
HIN – Interval Board: An interval board is used to measure the accumulated snow in periods
shorter than the time between standard observations. The interval board is cleared at the end of
every observation.
HIT – Intermittent Board: Snow boards may be used at sites that are visited on an occasional
basis. Snow that accumulates on the board may result from more than one storm. The
intermittent snow board is cleared at the end of each observation.
a b
Figure 1.4 a) Snow board graduated in centimeters b) Automated snow board and snow board graduated in
inches (photographs by Tom Leonard).
15
1.22 Water Equivalent of New Snow (HN24W) Ô

The water equivalent is the depth of the layer of water that would form if the snow on the board melted.
It is equal to the amount of liquid precipitation. The standard morning observation includes the water
equivalent of the new snow on a 24-hour interval. The same snow board used for a 24-hour or other
interval measurement should be used to calculate the water equivalent. There are several suitable
methods for making this measurement. Three different methods are described in the following section.
Procedure
Use one of the following methods to calculate the water equivalent of the new snow. Record the value to
the nearest 0.1 mm (or 0.01 in). Make several measurements and report the average value. Record
“T” (signifying a trace) when the snow depth is less than 1 cm (or 0.5 in). If there is no new snow record
a zero. Do not consider surface hoar on the boards as snowfall; clear off hoar layer after observation.
Snow Board Tube and Weighing Scale
a) Cool the measurement tube in the shade prior to making the measurement
b) Hold the tube vertically above the surface of the snow on the snow board
c) Press the tube into the snow at a slow and constant rate until it hits the base plate of the
snow board
d) Record the height of the snow sample in the tube
e) Remove the snow next to one side of the tube with a large putty knife or scraper
f) Slide putty knife under the tube and remove the sample from the board
g) Weigh the sample and read the water content from the scale or use the equation listed
below
h) Repeat and record the average of several measurements to the nearest 0.1 mm
(or 0.01 in)
Melting the Snow Sample
The water equivalent of the new snow can be obtained by melting a sample of snow and measuring the
resulting amount of melt water. The height of the melt water in mm (in) is the water equivalent of the
sample. When using this method, the base area of the snow sample and the melted sample must remain
the same.
Indirect Method:
The water equivalent of snow can also be obtained by weighing a snow sample of known cross-sectional
area. Water equivalent is calculated by using the following equation.
mass of snow sample (g)
H2DW (mm) = × 10
area of sample tube (cm2 )
This method is commonly used by avalanche operations because of its ease (Note: 1 cm3 of water has a
mass of 1 g). The expanded equation is in Appendix B, Section B.5.
1.23 Density of New Snow (ρ)
Density is a measure of mass per unit volume; density is expressed in SI units of kg/m3. It is also
common for avalanche operations to discuss snow density in percent water content per volume.
Calculations of both quantities are described below. Data records of snow density should be recorded in
units of kg/m3. The Greek symbol ρ (rho) is used to represent density.
Calculate density as follows:
Divide the mass (g) of new snow by the sample volume (cm3) and multiply by 1000 to express the result
in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3). Record as a whole number (i.e. 120 kg/m3).
⎛ kg ⎞ mass of snow sample (g)

ρ⎜ 3 ⎟= × 1000
⎝m ⎠ sample volume (cm 3 )
16
For measurements from standard observations:

⎛ kg ⎞ H2DW (mm)
ρ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = × 100
⎝ m3 ⎠ H2D (cm)
The density of a snow sample is often communicated as a dimensionless ratio or percent. Calculate this
ratio by dividing the height of the water in a snow layer by the height of the snow layer and then
multiply by 100 (e.g. 10 cm of snow that contains 1 cm of water has a water content of 10%).
This ratio can also be calculated by dividing the density of the snow (kg/m3) by the density of water
(1000 kg/m3) and multiplying by one hundred. Using the density of water allows for an easy calculation
by moving the decimal one space to the left (i.e. 80 kg/m3 = 8%).
water equivalent of snow sample (mm)
% water = × 100
height of snow sample (mm)
water equivalent of snow sample (mm)

% water = × 10
height of snow sample (cm)
water equivalent of snow sample (in)
% water = × 100
height of snow sample (in)
1.24 Rain Ô
There are a variety of commercial rain gauges available. The standard rain gauge is made of metal and
has an 8-inch (~20 cm) orifice (Figure 1.5). However, good results can be obtained with commercially
manufactured 4-inch (~10 cm) diameter plastic gauges. The gauge should be mounted at the study site
(see Appendix D for site guidelines). If a mounted gauge is not available, an 8-inch (~20 cm) gauge may
be placed on the snow board prior to a rain event.
Procedure
Measure the amount of rain that has accumulated in the rain gauge with the length scale on the gauge or
a ruler. Record the amount to the nearest 0.1 mm (or 0.01 in). Empty the gauge at each standard
observation.
Figure 1.5 Precipitation gauge with Alter shield (photograph by

Tom Leonard).
17
1.25 Accumulated Precipitation

Accumulated precipitation gauges collect snowfall, rainfall and other forms of precipitation and
continuously record their water equivalent. There are a variety of commercial gauges (both manual and
automated) available.
Procedure
Record the amount of precipitation accumulated in the recording precipitation gauge to the nearest tenth
of a millimeter (0.1 mm) (or 0.01 of an inch). The amount of precipitation that fell during a single event
can be obtained by taking the difference between the present reading and the previous reading.
1.26 Wind Ô
Both estimates and measurements of wind speed and direction are useful to observe and record.
However, it is important to distinguish between the two types of observations. Measurements are made
with an instrument located at a fixed point. Estimates are made without instruments or with hand-held
instruments, and typically represent wind in a local area rather than at a fixed point.
Procedure
Estimated Wind Speed
For the standard morning observation, an estimate of the wind speed can be obtained by observing for
two minutes. Use the indicators in Table 1.8 to determine the categorical wind speed, and the data codes
to record average conditions during the observation period.
Estimated Maximum Wind Gust
Estimate the maximum wind speed during the observation period. Record the estimated speed to the
nearest 2 m/s (or 5 mi/hr).
Measured Wind Speed
The SI unit for wind speed is meters per second (miles per hour). Refer to Appendix B for unit
conversions.
Measured Maximum Wind Gust
Record the speed and time of occurrence of the maximum wind gust.
Table 1.8 Wind Speed Estimation
Class Data Code km/h m/s mi/hr Typical Indicator
Calm C 0 0 0 No air motion. Smoke rises vertically.
Light to gentle breeze; flags and twigs in

Light L 1-25 1-7 1-16
motion.
Fresh breeze; small trees sway. Flags
Moderate M 26-40 8-11 17-25
stretched. Snow begins to drift.
Strong S 41-60 12-17 26-38 Strong breeze; whole trees in motion.
Extreme X >60 >17 >38 Gale force or higher.
Note: The indicators used to estimate the wind speed are established by rule of thumb.
Observers should develop their own relationships specific to their area.
Wind estimates (speed and direction) should be averaged over a two-minute period prior to the
observation.
Since wind speed classes are determined by an estimate, mi/h categories can be rounded to the
nearest 5 mi/h.
18
Estimated Wind Direction

During a two-minute period, note the direction from which the wind blows. The wind direction can be
recorded using the compass directions listed in Table 1.9. Do not record a direction when the wind speed
is zero (calm).
Measured Wind Direction
Measured wind direction for standard observations should be rounded to the nearest 10 degrees (i.e. 184
degrees (just beyond south) is coded as 180). Forty-five degrees (northeast) is coded as 050. Archived
wind direction data from an automatic weather station can be stored as a three digit number.
Table 1.9 Wind Direction
Direction N NE E SE S SW W NW
Degrees 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
1.27 Blowing Snow

Estimate the extent of snow transport (Table 1.10) and note the direction from which the wind blows to
the closest octant of the compass (Table 1.11). The observer should also note the location and/or
elevation of the wind transport (e.g. valley bottom, study site, ridgetop, peaks, 11,000 ft, 3000 m, etc…).
Table 1.10 Extent of Blowing Snow

None No snow transport observed.
Prev Snow transport has occurred since the last observation but
there is no blowing snow activity at the time of observation.
L Light snow transport.
M Moderate snow transport.
I Intense snow transport.
U Unknown as observation is impossible because of darkness,

cloud, or fog.
Record wind direction as indicated by blowing snow.
Table 1.11 Direction of Blowing Snow
Degrees 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
19
Figure 1.6 Wind transport of snow along a mountain ridgeline (photography by

Andy Gleason).
20
Snowpack Observations
2.1 Introduction
Information on the structure and stability of the snowpack within an area is essential to assessing current
and future avalanche conditions. In certain applications, starting zones may be inaccessible and
snowpack properties can be estimated with careful analysis of past and present weather and avalanche
events. Snowpack parameters vary in time and space and observation schemes should address these
variations. Snowpack information is generally observed and recorded separately from the snow and
weather observations outlined in Chapter 1. However, some basic weather observations are typically
made in conjunction with snowpack observations.
Broad objectives are outlined in Section 2.2. A set of standard parameters to be collected with any
snowpack observation follows in Section 2.3. Snow profiles and snowpack measurements are described
in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. In Section 2.6 methods for observing and recording shear quality are discussed.
Section 2.7 presents column and block stability tests, slope cuts are described in Section 2.8, non-
standardized tests are described in Section 2.9, and instrumented measures are listed in Section 2.10.
2.2 Objectives
The primary objective of any observer working in avalanche terrain is safety. Secondary objectives may
include observing and recording the current structure and stability of the snowpack. Other objectives
will depend on the type of operation.
Specific measurements and observations will be dependent on the type of operation, but in general the
objective is to observe and record the current structure and stability of the snowpack. More specific
objectives are listed in the sections that follow.
Figure 2.1 There are many different approaches to observing snowpack properties.
(illustration by Sue Ferguson).
21
2.3 Standard Snowpack Observation

The snowpack parameters observed and the detail of those observations will depend on the particular
forecasting problem. This section presents an outline for daily snowpack observations. Parameters one
through five and seven will be useful for most avalanche forecasting programs. Individual programs and
field workers should select snow properties from those listed in this chapter (parameter six listed below)
to supply the information needed for their specific application.
1) Date – record the date on which the observation was made (YYYYMMDD).
2) Time – record the local time at which the observation was begun (24-hour clock).
4) Site Characteristics
a. Observation Location- record the nearest prominent topographic landmark
(mountain, pass, drainage, avalanche path, etc.), political landmark (town, road
mile, etc.), or geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude or UTM and datum). If
observing a fracture line profile, note the location within the avalanche path.
b. Aspect – record the direction that the slope faces where the observation was
made (i.e. N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW, or degrees azimuth).
c. Elevation – record the elevation of the observation site in feet (meters).
d. Slope Angle – record the incline of the slope where the observation was made
(degrees).
5) Current Weather
a. Sky Conditions- record the sky conditions as Clear, Few, Scattered, Broken,
Overcast, or Obscured (Section 1.12).
b. Air temperature – record the current air temperature to the nearest 0.5 °C
(or whole °F).
c. Precipitation Type and Rate – record the precipitation type and rate using the
scale and data codes in Section 1.13.
d. Wind – record the wind speed and direction (Section 1.26)
e. Surface Penetration – record the surface penetration using one of the methods
described in Section 1.18.
6) Snowpack Properties – observe and record the necessary snowpack properties as
described in this chapter.
7) Avalanche Potential – record one or more of the parameters as applicable to the
operation (see Appendix G). Avalanche conditions can be grouped by region, aspect,
slope angle range (i.e. 35°-40°), or obvious snow properties (such as recently wind
loaded or amount of new snow). In this case a separate stability, danger, or hazard rating
should be given for each group.
a. Snow Stability
i. Forecast – record the snow stability stated in the morning meeting or
current forecast.
ii. Observed – record the snow stability observed at this location
b. Avalanche Danger
i. Forecast – record the avalanche danger stated in the current avalanche
advisory.
ii. Observed – record the avalanche danger assessed at this location
c. Avalanche Hazard
i. Forecast – record the avalanche hazard currently stated by the program
ii. Observed – record the avalanche hazard assessed at this location.
22
2.4 Snow Profiles

Snow profiles are observed at study plots, study slopes, fracture lines and targeted sites. This section
outlines two types of snow profiles: full profiles and test profiles. A full profile is a complete record of
snow-cover stratigraphy and characteristics of individual layers. A test profile is a record of selected
observations.
Full Profiles
Full snow profiles are frequently observed at study plots or study slopes in time series to track changes
in the snowpack. They require that all, or most, snowpack variables be measured (Section 2.5). Full
profiles are time consuming and not always possible at targeted sites.
Test Profiles
Test profiles are the most common type of snow profile. There is no fixed rule about the type and
amount of information collected in a test profile. Each observer must select, observe and record the
parameters needed by their operation. These parameters may change in both time and space. Test
profiles are commonly observed at targeted sites and fracture lines.
a b
Figure 2.2 Different types of snow profiles:

a) Full Profile, b) Test Profile c) Fracture Line
Profile. Snow profiles will vary depending the
information needed to support a particular
application (photographs by Mount Shasta
Avalanche Center (a), Bruce Tremper (b), and
Ben Pritchett (c)).
23
The objectives of observing full profiles are to:

a) Identify the layers of the snowpack
b) Identify the hardness and/or density of the layers in the snowpack
c) Identify weak interfaces between layers and to approximate their stability
d) Observe snow temperatures
e) Monitor and confirm changes in snowpack stability
f) Determine the thickness of a potential slab avalanche
g) Determine the state of metamorphism in different snow layers
h) Observe and record temporal and spatial changes in snow properties
A test profile would address one or more of the above objectives.
In addition, this information can be used for climatalogical studies, forecasts of snow-melt runoff,
engineering applications, and studies of the effect of snow on vegetation and wildlife.
Typical Full Profile
A typical full profile may include the following observations:
• Total Depth
• Temperature by depth (Section 2.5.1)
• Identification of layer boundaries (Section 2.5.2)
• Hand hardness of each layer (Section 2.5.3)
• Grain type and size of each layer (Sections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5)
• Water content of each layer (Section 2.5.6)
• Density of each layer (Section 2.5.7)
• Stability tests (Sections 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.10)
• Comments
2.4.1 Location
Snow profiles can be observed at a variety of locations depending on the type of information desired.
Typical locations include study plots, study slopes, fracture lines, or targeted sites. Full profiles are
usually conducted at study plots, study slopes, and fracture lines; however, full profiles and test profiles
can be completed at any location.
Study Plot
Study plots are used to observe and record parameters for a long-term record. They are fixed locations
that are carefully chosen to minimize contamination of the observations by external forces such as wind,
solar radiation, slope angle, and human activity (See Appendix D). Study plots are typically flat sites and
can be co-located with a meteorological observing station.
Observations are carried out at a study plot by excavating each snow pit progressively in a line marked
with two poles. Subsequent observation pits should be at a distance about equal to the total snow depth,
but at least 1 m from the previous one. After each observation, the extreme edge of the pit is marked
with a pole to indicate where to dig the next pit (i.e. at least 1 m from that point). When the observations
are complete, the snowpit should be refilled with snow to minimize atmospheric influences on lower
snowpack layers.
Study plots and study slopes should be selected and marked before the winter and the ground between
the marker poles cleared of brush and large rocks. Some operations will require multiple study plots to
adequately track snowpack conditions.
Study Slope
The best snow stability information is obtained from snow profiles observed in avalanche starting zones.
Since starting zones are not always safely accessible, other slopes can be selected that are reasonably
representative of individual or a series of starting zones. Choosing a safe location for a study slope is
24
Figure 2.3 Possible locations for a fracture line profile. From left to right: undisturbed
snow in the flank, undisturbed snow in the crown, on the crown face.
critical. The study slope should be relatively uniform in aspect and slope angle, and with the exception
of the observations should remain undisturbed during the winter. The study slope may be pre-selected
and marked in the same manner as study plots; however, marker poles on slopes will be tilted by snow
creep and may have to be periodically reset. Some operations may find it advantageous to collect their
time series observations on a study slope in addition to, or in place of, a study plot. Multiple study slopes
may be useful.
Fracture Line
Observing snow profiles near an avalanche fracture line can provide valuable information about the
cause of the slide. Safety considerations are paramount when selecting a site for a profile. Before
approaching a site, observers must evaluate the potential for and consequences of further releases. Snow
profiles can be observed on a crown face or flank as well as areas where the weak layer did not fracture.
When possible, profiles should be observed at a fracture line and at least 1.5 m away from the crown
face or flank in undisturbed snow.
Fracture line profiles should be observed at as many locations as possible, including thick and thin
sections of the fracture line. In addition, use a sketch or camera to document the location of prominent
features and location of fracture line profiles. Carefully note terrain, vegetation, solar, and wind effects
on the snowpack. Note any evidence of past avalanche activity which may have influenced the structure
of the snowpack.
Note: The snow that remains following an avalanche can be either stronger than what slid or
dangerously weak. Care should also be taken to choose a location where average crown depth
is not exceeded. It is preferable to examine the snow along a fracture line at as many places as
possible as time allows.
25
Figure 2.4 A targeted site for a snow profile (photograph by Doug Richmond).
Targeted Site
A targeted site is selected to satisfy a particular observer’s objectives. The site should be selected to
target parameters of interest. Keep in mind that exposure to wind, solar radiation, elevation, and other
factors produce variations in snowpack characteristics.
General rules for choosing a targeted site include:
• Always evaluate the safety of a location prior to observing a snow profile.
• To minimize the effects of trees, dig the snow pit no closer to trees than the height of the
nearest tree (draw an imaginary line from the top of the tree at a 45 degree angle to the
snow surface). In high traffic areas, or when evaluating forested slopes this criterion
may not be practical.
• Avoid depressions such as gullies or other terrain traps.
• Avoid heavily compacted areas such as tree wells, canopy sluffs, and tracks made by
humans or other animals.
2.4.2 Frequency of Observations
No firm rules can be set on how frequently snow profiles should be observed. Frequency is dependent
on climate, terrain, access to starting zones, recent weather, current snow stability, type of avalanche
operation, and other considerations. Full profiles should be conducted at regular intervals at study plots
and study slopes. Profiles at fracture lines and targeted sites can be completed on an as-needed basis.
26
2.4.3 Equipment
The following equipment can be useful when observing snow profiles:
a) Probe
b) Snow shovel (flat bladed shovels are preferred)
c) Snow thermometer (calibrated regularly)
d) Ruler or probe graduated in centimeters
e) Magnifying glass (5x or greater)
f) Crystal card
g) Field book
h) Two pencils
i) Gloves
j) Snow saw
k) Inclinometer
l) Compass (adjusted for declination)
m) Density kit
n) Brush
o) Altimeter (calibrated regularly)
p) Topographic map
q) Global positioning system (GPS) unit
The thermometers should be calibrated periodically in a slush mixture after the free water has been
drained. Glass thermometers must be checked for breaks in the mercury or alcohol columns before every
use.
2.4.4 Field Procedure
Equipment
Equipment used to measure or observe snow properties should be kept in the shade and/or cooled in the
snow prior to use.
Observers should wear gloves to reduce thermal contamination of measurements.
Checking Snow Depth
Check the snow depth with a probe before digging the observation pit and make sure the pit is not on top
of a boulder, bush or in a depression. Careful probing can also be used to obtain a first indication of
snow layering. Probing prior to digging is not necessary in a study plot, or when the snow is much
deeper than your probe.
Digging the Snow Pit
Make the hole wide enough to facilitate all necessary observations and to allow shoveling at the bottom.
Remember to examine the snow as you dig the pit as valuable information can be obtained during this
process. In snow deeper than 2 m it may be advantageous to dig first to a depth of about 1.5 m, make the
observations (such as stability tests) and then complete excavation and observations to the necessary
depth. The pit face on which the snow is to be observed should be in the shade. Cut the observation face
in an adjacent sidewall vertical and smooth. On inclined terrain it is advantageous to make the
observations on a shaded sidewall that is parallel to the fall line
Recording
If there are two observers, the first observer can prepare the pit, while the second observer begins the
observations (see Figures 2.7 and 2.9 for examples of field notes):
a) Record date, time, names of observers, location, elevation, aspect, slope angle, sky condition,
precipitation, wind, surface penetrability (foot and ski penetration), and total snow depth.
27
b) Observe the air temperature to the nearest 0.5 degree in the shade about 1.5 m above the snow
surface. Use a dry thermometer, wait several minutes, and then make several readings about a
minute apart to see if the thermometer has stabilized. Record the temperature if there is no
change between the two or more readings.
c) Convention for seasonal snow covers is to locate the zero point on the height scale at the ground.
However, when the snow cover is deeper than about 3 m it is convenient to locate the zero point
at the snow surface. Setting 0 at the snow surface, for test pits, eases comparisons with other
snowpack observations made throughout the period. Observers should use whichever protocol
fits their needs. In either case the total depth of the snowpack should be recorded when possible.
2.5 Snowpack Observations

2.5.1 Snowpack Temperature (T)
Observe snow temperature to the nearest fraction of a degree based on the accuracy and precision of the
thermometers. Most field thermometers can measure snow temperature within 0.5 °C.
Measure the snow surface temperature by placing the thermometer on the snow surface; shade the
thermometer.
The temperature profile should be observed as soon as practical after the pit has been excavated.
Push the thermometer horizontally to its full length parallel to the surface into the snow (use the shaded
side-wall of the pit on a slope). Wait at least one minute, re-insert close by and then read the temperature
while the thermometer is still in the snow. Shade the thermometer in order to reduce influence of
radiation. One method is to push the handle of a shovel into the snow surface so that the blade casts a
shadow on the snow surface above the thermometer. Shading the snow above your thermometer is
important when you are making temperature measurements in the upper 30 cm of the snowpack.
Measure the first sub-surface snow temperature 10 cm below the surface. The second temperature is
observed at the next multiple of 10 cm from the previous measurement and from there in intervals of 10
cm to a depth of 1.4 m below the surface, and at 20-cm intervals below 1.4 m. Measure the snow
temperatures at closer intervals when needed, as may be the case when the temperature gradients are
strong, significant density variations exist, or when the temperatures are near to 0 °C. When measuring
relatively small temperature variations, as is common around a crust or density discontinuity, greater
accuracy and reliability in measurements may be possible by using a single thermometer/temperature
probe.
Begin the next observation while snow temperatures are being measured.
Note: Compare thermometers first when two or more are used simultaneously. Place side-by-
side in a homogenous snow layer and compare the measurements. If they do not agree, only one
of the thermometers should be used.
Punch a hole in the snowpack with the metal case or a knife before inserting the thermometer
into very hard snow and at ground surface.
It is important to regularly check the accuracy of all thermometers by immersing them in a slush
mixture after the free water has been drained; each should read 0°C. Prepare this mixture in a
thermos and recalibrate or note variation from 0°C on the thermometer.
2.5.2 Layer Boundaries
Determine the location of each major layer boundary. Brushing the pit wall with a crystal card or a soft
bristle paint brush will help to bring out the natural layering of the snowpack. Identify weak layers or
interfaces of layers where a failure might occur. Record the distance from the layer boundary to the
ground or snow surface depending on the convention being used.
28
Figure 2.5 The layered nature of a seasonal

snow cover (photograph by Bruce Tremper).
Many operations find it useful to track specific features within the snowpack. Persistent weak layers or
layers that are likely to produce significant avalanche activity (such as crusts, surface hoar, or near-
surface facets) can be named with the date that they were buried. Some operations also find it useful to
number each significant precipitation event and reference potential weak layers with these numbers or as
interfaces between two numbered events.
2.5.3 Snow Hardness (R)
Observe the hardness of each layer with the hand hardness test. Record under “R” (resistance) the object
that can be pushed into the snow with moderate effort parallel to the layer boundaries.
Note: Fierz and others (2009) suggests a maximum force of 10 to 15 newtons (1 to 1.5 kg-
force or about 2 or 3 pounds) to push the described object into the snow.
Wear gloves when conducting hand hardness observations.
Slight variations in hand hardness can be recorded using + and - qualifiers (i.e. P+, P, P-). A value of 4F+
is less hard than 1F-. Individual layers may contain a gradual change in hand hardness value. These
variations can be recorded in a graphical format (Figures 2.8 and 2.9), or by using an arrow to point from
the upper value to the lower value (i.e. a layer that is soft on top and gets harder as you move down
would read 4F+ → 1F).
Table 2.1 Hand Hardness Index

Symbol Hand Test Term Graphic Symbol
F Fist in glove Very low
4F Four fingers in glove Low 2
1F One finger in glove Medium 3
P Sharp end of pencil High 4
K Knife blade Very high 5
I Too hard to insert knife Ice i
N/O Not observed N/A 29
2.5.4 Grain Form (F)

The International Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground (Fierz and others, 2009) presents a
classification scheme composed of major and minor classes based on grain morphology and formation
process. This scheme is used throughout this document. Primary classes are listed in the table below.
Subclasses are listed in Appendix F.
Table 2.2 Basic Classification of Snow on the Ground
Symbol Basic Classification Data Code

a Precipitation Particles (New Snow) PP
s Machine Made snow MM
u Decomposing and Fragmented Particles DF
d Rounded Grains RG
e Faceted Crystals FC
f Depth Hoar DH
g Surface Hoar SH
h Melt Forms MF
i Ice Formations IF
Note: Modifications to Fierz and others, 2009:

The use of a subscript “r” modifier is retained to denote rimed grains in the
Precipitation Particles (PP) class and its subclasses except for gp, hl, ip, rm, and all
of Decomposing and Fragmented Particles (DF) class (Example: PP-r).
Subclasses for surface hoar are listed in Appendix F.
The major class of Precipitation Particles can be divided into minor classes that represent different
forms of solid precipitation according to the International Classification for Seasonal Snow on the
Ground. Commonly, the Precipitation Particles class (graphic symbol “+”) may be replaced by one of
the following symbols. Snow layers often contain crystals from more than one class or that are in
transition between classes. In this case the observer can select primary and secondary classes for a single
layer and place the secondary class in parentheses (e.g. a new snow layer composed of mostly plates
with some needles could be listed as l(k)).
Table 2.3 Basic Classification of Snow in the Atmosphere

Symbol Description Data Code
j Columns cl
k Needles nd
l Plates pl
m Stellars and dendrites sd
n Irregular crystals ir
o Graupel gp
p Hail hl
q Ice pellets ip
In warm weather the crystals may melt and their shape may change rapidly on the crystal card. In this
case, a quick decision must be made and repeated samples taken from various depths of the same layer.
30
Snow layers often contain crystals in different stages of metamorphism. The classification should refer
to the predominant type, but may be mixed when different types are present in relatively equal numbers.
A maximum of two grain forms may be displayed for any single layer. The sub-classification in Fierz,
and others, 2009 has “mixed forms” classes that can be used by experienced observers who recognize
grains that are in a transition stage between classes.
Illustrations of the various types of crystal shapes may be found in the following publications:
LaChapelle, 1992; Perla, 1978; Colbeck and others, 1990; McClung and Schaerer, 2006, and Fierz and
others, 2009.
Refer to the International Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground (Fierz and others, 2009) for
complete descriptions of the grain forms listed here.
a b
c d
e f
Figure 2.6 Snow crystal formations found in seasonal snow covers. a) Partially rimed new snow (a),
b) Faceted grains formed near the snow surface (B), c) Depth hoar (f), d) Rounded snow grains (d),
e) Faceted snow grains (e), f) Clustered melt forms (L) (photographs by Kelly Elder (a,c), Joe Stock (b),
courtesy of John Montagne (d), Ethan Greene (e), and Sam Colbeck (f)).
31
2.5.5 Grain Size (E)

Determine the grain size in each layer with the aid of a crystal card. In doing so, disregard the small
particles and determine the average greatest extension of the grains that make up the bulk of the snow.
Record the size or the range of sizes in millimeters in column “E”. Record size to the nearest 0.5 mm,
except for fine and very fine grains which may be recorded as 0.1, 0.3 or 0.5mm.
Where two distinct grain forms exist in a layer, list the size of the primary crystal form first followed by
the size of the secondary class in parentheses.
Example: 0.3 (2.5)
Where a range in sizes exists for any single grain form, specify the average and maximum size with a
hyphen.
Example: 0.5-1.5
The above notations can also be combined.
Example: 0.5-1.0 (2.5)
2.5.6 Liquid Water Content (θ)
Classify liquid water content by volume of each snow layer that has a temperature of 0 °C. Gently
squeeze a sample of snow with a gloved hand and observe the reaction; record in the column headed
“θ” (theta).
Table 2.4 Liquid Water Content of Snow (adapted from Fierz and others, 2009)
Class Water Content

Definition Symbol Data Code
(by volume)
Usually the snow temperature (T) is below 0 °C but

dry snow can occur at any temperature up to 0 °C.
Dry Disaggregated snow grains have little tendency to 0% D
adhere to each other when pressed together. Difficult
to make a snowball.
T = 0 °C. Water is not visible even at 10 x

magnification. When lightly crushed, the snow has a
Moist <3 % | M
distinct tendency to stick together. Snowballs are
easily made.
T = 0 °C. Water can be recognized at 10x

magnification by its meniscus between adjacent
Wet snow grains, but water cannot be pressed out by 3-8% || W
moderately squeezing the snow in the hands
(Pendular regime).
T = 0 °C. Water can be pressed out by moderately

Very Wet squeezing the snow by hand, but there is some air 8 – 15% ||| V
confined within the pores (Funicular regime)
T = 0 °C. The snow is flooded with water and

Slush >15% |||| S
contains a relatively small amount of air.
32
2.5.7 Density (ρ)

Measure density of the snow in layers that are thick enough to allow insertion of the snow sampling
device. Small samplers are more suitable for measuring the density of thin layers and larger samplers are
better suited for depth hoar.
Insert the sample cutter into the pit wall, compacting the sample as little as possible. On angled slopes,
sampling on the pit sidewall will make it easier to sample a single layer. Samples used for bulk density
calculations can contain more than one snow layer, otherwise be sure to sample one layer if possible.
Trim the excess snow off the cutter and weigh. Either write down the mass under comments and
calculate density later, or calculate density on site and note it in the column headed “ρ” (rho).
Calculate density as follows: Divide the mass (g) of the snow sample by the sample volume (cm3) and
multiply by 1000 to express the result in kg/m3. The nomogram included on the final page automates
this calculation. Record as a whole number.
⎛ kg ⎞ mass of snow sample (g)
ρ⎜ 3 ⎟= × 1000
⎝m ⎠ sample volume (cm 3 )
Practical methods for calculating snow density can be established based on the snow volume sampled.
For example, when using a 500 cm3 snow sampling tube multiply the mass of snow sample in the tube
by 2, with a 250 cm3 sampler, multiply the snow sample mass by 4, etc.
2.5.8 Strength and Stability Tests
Perform tests of strength and stability as appropriate (see Sections 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.10 for details on
individual tests). It may be advantageous to perform multiple tests or iterations of a test.
2.5.9 Marking the Site
If additional observations are to be made at this site, fill the pit and place a marker pole at the extreme
edge. Pits dug in areas open to the public should be filled back in with snow.
Figure 2.7 Example of field notes from

a test profile.
33
2.5.10 Graphical Snow Profile Representation

Snow profiles can be represented graphically in a standard format for quick reference and permanent
record (Figures 2.8 and 2.9).
a) Plot the snow temperatures as a curve; mark the air temperature above the snow surface and use
a dashed line to connect the two.
b) Plot the height of the snow layers to scale.
c) Use graphic symbols for the shape of grains and liquid water content. Record N/O when the
hardness or liquid water content can not be determined (a blank implies fist hardness or dry
snow respectively). Use of graphic symbols for hardness is optional.
d) Tabulate grain size and density with the values observed in the field.
e) Include written comments where appropriate. If possible, label important layers by their date of
burial.
f) Include the results of appropriate strength and stability tests in the comments column.
g) Document grain form and size of the failure layer. Draw an arrow at the height of each observed
failure and use a shorthand notation to describe the test. When multiple tests are performed the
results of every test should be included.
Examples:
STE (Q1) SH 2.5 (shovel shear test, easy shear, quality 1, on 2.5 mm surface hoar)
RB6 (Q2) FC 1.5 (rutschblock score six, quality 2, on 1.5 mm faceted crystals)
CT8 (Q1) DH 2.0 (compression test, on 8th tap, quality 1, on 2.0 mm depth hoar)
CT12 (Q1x2) o(two compression tests on 12th tap, quality 1, on graupel)
SB30 (Q2,Q2) e (two stuff block tests both 30 cm drop, quality 2, faceted grains)
SB20, 30 (Q2) ( two stuff block tests, one on 20 cm drop, one on 30 cm drop, both quality 2)
h) Plot the hand hardness test results as a horizontal bar graph (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). If a
snowpack layer has variable hand hardness, the length of the upper or lower ends of the bar
can be shortened or lengthened and the connecting line angled or curved to reflect the
variation (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). Changes in hardness category can be emphasized by using
the bar lengths in Table 2.5. In regions where both weak layers and slabs are composed of
very soft snow (1F or softer), it may be beneficial to plot the hard hardness index using the
same distance to represent each category.
Table 2.5 Graphical Representation of Hand Hardness Index
Object in Hand Test Length of Bar
Fist in glove Base Length
Four fingers in glove 2 x Base Length
One finger in glove 4 x Base Length
Blunt end of pencil 8 x Base Length
Knife blade 16 x Base Length
Ice 20 x Base Length
34
Figure 2.8 Hand drawn full snow profile. Snow profile forms are provided at the end of this manual.
35
Figure 2.9 Two different methods for recording field notes from a full profile.
2.6 Characterizing Fractures in Column and Block Tests

Many of the stability tests described in the following sections yield some indication of the load required
to produce a fracture. In addition to the magnitude of the load, observing the nature of the fracture can
improve estimations of snow stability and can, in particular, reduce false-stable results (Johnson and
Birkeland, 1998; Birkeland and Johnson, 1999; Johnson and Birkeland 2002; Birkeland and Johnson
2003; van Herwijnen and Jamieson, 2002; van Herwijnen, 2003). Both methods described below can be
included with the results of a column or block test (see Section 2.7) and provide additional information
about the stability of the snow slope. All the research with these methods has been conducted using
compression-type tests such as the compression, stuffblock and rutschblock tests.
36
The methods described in this section provide a qualitative assessment of the fracture propagation
potential. Although the definitions and approach differ, the phenomena they describe are essentially
identical (Table 2.6). Both methods require experienced observers to make somewhat subjective
assessments, especially when trying to determine whether a planar fracture is sudden (SP/Q1) or
resistant (RP/Q2). Members of an operational program should select the method that works best for their
application and periodically compare their ratings to ensure consistency.
Table 2.6 A comparison of the categories in the Fracture Character and Shear Quality scales
(after van Herwijnen and Jamieson, 2003 and Birkeland, 2004).
Fracture Character Data Code

Fracture Character Typical Shear
Category Quality
Subclass Major class
Sudden planar SP
SDN Q1
Sudden collapse SC
Resistant planar RP Q2
RES
Progressive compression PC Q2 or Q3
Break BRK BRK Q3
2.6.1 Shear Quality

Shear Quality was developed by avalanche workers at the Gallatin National Forest Avalanche Center
(southwest Montana). It can be used with any of the stability tests in this chapter, but was developed
primarily for use with the rutschblock, compression, and stuffblock tests.
Procedure
a) Conduct any of the stability tests described in this chapter.
b) Carefully observe how the fracture occurs and examine the nature of the fracture plane.
c) Record the results in accordance with the shear quality definitions (Table 2.7).
Recording
The results can be included at the end of any shear test result. Example: A rutschblock score of 2 with a
shear quality of 1 would be recorded as RB2(Q1). A compression test that fractured with 5 taps from the
elbow producing a rough shear plane would be recorded as CT15(Q3). A stuffblock test that fractured on
the static loading step and produced a moderately clean shear would be recorded as SB0(Q2).
37
Table 2.7 Shear Quality Ratings
Description Data Code
Unusually clean, planar, smooth and fast shear surface; weak layer may collapse during
fracture. The slab typically slides easily into the snow pit after weak layer fracture on
slopes steeper than 35 degrees and sometimes on slopes as gentle as 25 degrees.
Q1
Tests with thick, collapsible weak layers may exhibit a rougher shear surface due to
erosion of basal layers as the upper block slides off, but the initial fracture was still fast
and mostly planar.
“Average” shear; shear surface appears mostly smooth, but slab does not slide as
readily as Q1. Shear surface may have some small irregularities, but not as irregular as
Q2
Q3. Shear fracture occurs throughout the whole slab/weak layer interface being tested.
The entire slab typically does not slide into the snow pit.
Shear surface is non-planar, uneven, irregular and rough. Shear fracture typically does
not occur through the whole slab/weak layer interface being tested. After the weak
Q3
layer fractures the slab moves little, or may not move at all, even on slopes steeper than
35 degrees.
2.6.2 Fracture Character

Fracture Character was developed by the Applied Snow and Avalanche Research Group at the
University of Calgary. It can be used with any of the stability tests in this chapter and other tests that
load a small column of snow until a fracture appears.
Fracture character is best observed in tests performed on a small isolated column of snow where the
objective is to load the column until a fracture (or no fracture) occurs. The front face and side walls of
the test column should be as smooth as possible. The observer should be positioned in such a way that
one side wall and the entire front face of the test column can be observed. Attention should be focused
on weak layers or interfaces identified in a profile or previous snowpack.
Procedure
a) Conduct any of the stability tests described in this chapter.
b) Carefully observe how the fracture occurs in the target weak layer. For tests on low-angled terrain
that produced planar fractures, it may be useful to slide the two fracture surfaces across one another
by carefully grasping the two sides of the block and pulling while noting the resistance.
c) Record the results in accordance with the definitions in Table 2.8.
Recording
The results can be included at the end of any stability test result. Example: A sudden fracture in a
rutschblock test with a score of 2 would be recorded as RB2(SDN). A compression test that fractured
with 5 taps from the elbow producing a resistant planar fracture would be recorded as CT15(RP). A
stuffblock test that fractured on the static loading step and produced a sudden collapse would be
recorded as SB0(SC).
38
Table 2.8 Fracture Character Ratings
Fracture Characteristics Subclass Data Code Major Class Data Code
A thin planar* fracture suddenly crosses column in one

Sudden
loading step AND the block slides easily** on the weak SP Sudden SDN
planar
layer.
Fracture crosses the column with a single loading step

Sudden
and is associated with a noticeable collapse of the weak SC Sudden SDN
collapse
layer.
A fracture of noticeable thickness (non-planar fractures

often greater than 1cm), which usually crosses the column Progressive
PC Resistant RES
with a single loading step, followed by step-by-step com- compression
pression of the layer with subsequent loading steps.
Planar or mostly planar fracture that requires more than

Resistant
one loading step to cross column and/or the block does RP Resistant RES
planar
NOT slide easily** on the weak layer.
Non-planar
Non-planar; irregular fracture. BRK Break BRK
break
Note: * “Planer” based on straight fracture lines on front and side walls of column.
** Block slides of column on steep slopes. On low-angle slopes, hold sides of
the block and note resistance to sliding.
2.7 Column and Block Tests

2.7.1 Site Selection
Test sites should be safe, geographically representative of the avalanche terrain under consideration, and
undisturbed. For example, to gain information about a wind-loaded slope, find a safe part of a similarly
loaded slope for the test. The site should not contain buried ski tracks or avalanche deposits. In general,
the site should be further than about one tree length from trees where buried layers might be disturbed
by wind action or by clumps of snow which have fallen from nearby trees (imagine a line drawn
between a tree top and the snow surface, the acute angle between that line and the horizontal should be
at most 45°). Föhn (1987a) recommends slope angles of at least 30º for rutschblock tests, but stability
tests done on 25º - 30º slopes can yield some useful information. Be aware that near the top of a slope,
snowpack layering and hence test scores may differ from the slope below.
Recently, interest in understanding and documenting spatial variations in the physical properties of snow
has increased in both the research and applied communities (Schweizer et al., 2008). The general
guidelines outlined in the paragraph above remain part of good field practice. However, there is
increasing evidence that making more observations is an effective strategy for avalanche operations and
can help minimize the frequency of false-stable situations (Birkeland and Chabot, 2006). Both scientists
and field workers should maintain a high level of curiosity and continue to search for signs and areas of
instability, even during periods when the snow appears to be stable.
39
2.7.2 Shovel Shear Test

Objective
The shovel shear test provides:
a) information about the location where the snow could fail in a shear; and
b) a qualitative assessment of weak layer strength. It is best applied to identify buried weak
layers, and it does not usually produce useful results in layers close to the snow surface.
Equipment
A shovel is the only equipment required for the Shovel Shear Test. However, a snow saw will
make cutting the snow column easier and more precise.
Note: Observers are cautioned that identification of the location of weak layers is the primary
objective of the shovel shear test. The ratings of effort are subjective and depend on the strength
and stiffness of the slab, dimensions of the shovel blade and handle, and the force applied by the
tester.
Figure 2.10 a) Schematic and b)

photograph of the shovel shear test
(photograph by Kelly Elder).
40
Procedure
a) Expose a fresh pit wall by cutting back about 0.2 m from the wall of a full snow profile or
test profile.
b) Observers can remove very soft snow (fist hardness) from the surface of the area where the
test is to be carried out if necessary.
c) On the snow surface mark a cross section of the column to be cut, measuring 30 cm wide
and 30 cm in the upslope direction (approximately the width of the shovel blade to be used).
d) Cut a chimney wide enough to allow the insertion of the saw on one side of the column and
a narrow cut on the other side.
e) Make a vertical cut at the back of the column and leave the cutting tool (saw) at the bottom
for depth identification. The back-cut should be 0.7 m deep maximum and end in medium
hard to hard snow if possible.
f) Carefully insert the shovel into the back-cut no farther than the heel of the shovel. Hold the
shovel handle with both hands and apply an even force in the down-slope (slope parallel)
direction. Be careful not to pry the column away from the snow pit wall.
g) When the column breaks in a smooth shear plane above the low end of the back-cut, mark
the level of the shear plane on the rear (standing) wall of the back-cut.
h) After a failure in a smooth shear layer or an irregular surface at the low end of the back-cut,
or when no failure occurs, remove the column above the bottom of the back-cut and repeat
steps e) to g) on the remaining column below.
i) Repeat the test on a second column with the edge of the shovel 0.1 m to 0.2 m above the
suspected weak layer.
j) Measure and record the depth of the shear planes if they were equal in both tests. Repeat
steps c) to h) if the shear planes were not at the same depth in both tests.
k) If no break occurs, tilt the column and tap (see Section 2.9.4).
l) Use Table 2.9 to classify the results of the test.
l) Observe and classify the crystal shape and size at the shear planes. (Often a sample of the
crystals is best obtained from the underside of the sheared block.)
i) Record the results of the test with the appropriate data code from Table 2.9 along with the
height, and grain type and size of the weak layer (i.e. “STE@125cm↑A 1mm” would be an
easy shear on a layer of 1 mm faceted grains 125 cm above the ground).
Table 2.9 Loading Steps and Shovel Shear Test Scores
Term Equivalent Shear

Strength (Pa)
Collapse Block collapses when cut STC
Fails during cutting or insertion

Very Easy <100 STV
of shovel
Easy Fails with minimum pressure 100 – 1000 STE
Moderate Fails with moderate pressure 1000 – 2500 STM
Fails with firm sustained

Hard 2500 - 4000 STH
pressure
No Shear No shear failure observed STN
41
2.7.3 Rutschblock Test

The Rutschblock (or glide-block) test is a slope test that was developed in Switzerland in the 1960s. This
section is based on analysis of rutschblock tests in Switzerland (Föhn, 1987a; Schweizer, 2002) and
Canadian (Jamieson and Johnston, 1993a and 1993b).
Equipment
Ski pole mounted saws or rutschblock cutting cords (eight meters of 3 to 4 mm cord with overhand
knots tied every 20 or 30 cm) are great time savers for isolating the block in soft or medium hard
snowpacks. However, it is often difficult to see the entire length of a cut made by these methods and
extra care is needed to ensure the block has straight edges. Large rutschblock saws are useful to cut knife
-hard crusts. The Rutschblock Test can be performed with either skis or a snowboard.
Figure 2.11 Stepping onto

the block during a
rutschblock test
(photograph by Kelly Elder).
Figure 2.12 Schematic of the

rutschblock test (after Jamieson
and Johnston, 1993a).
42
Procedure
a) Select a safe site that has undisturbed snow and is geographically representative of the slopes of
interest.
b) Observe a snow profile and identify weak layers and potential slabs.
c) Excavate a pit wall, perpendicular to the fall line, that is wider than the length of the tester’s skis
(2 m minimum)
d) Mark the width of the block (2 m) and the length of the side cuts (1.5 m) on the surface of the
snow with a ski, ruler, etc. The block should be 2 m wide throughout if the sides of the block are
to be dug with a shovel. However, if the side walls are to be cut with a ski, pole, or saw, the
lower wall should be about 2.1 m across and the top of the side cuts should be about 1.9 m apart.
This flaring of the block ensures it is free to slide without binding at the sides
e) Dig out the sides of the block, or make vertical cuts down the sides using the lines marked on
the snow surface.
f) Cut the downhill face of the block smooth with a shovel.
g) Using a ski or snow saw make a vertical cut along the uphill side of the block so that the block
is now isolated on four sides.
h) Rate any fractures that occur while isolating the block as RB1.
i) Conduct loading steps as described in Table 2.10, and record the results with the appropriate
rutschblock score as well as the release type that occurred during the test (Table 2.11). A field
book notation for recording rutschblock results is shown in Figure 2.13.
j) Rate any identified weak layers that did not fracture as no failure (RB7).
Record rutschblock results in a field book, along with pertinent site information using the method shown
in Figure 2.13 or the data codes in Tables 2.10 and 2.11.
Table 2.10 Rutschblock Loading Steps and Scores
Field
Score Loading Step that produces a Clean Shear Fracture Data Code
1 The block slides during digging or cutting. RB1
The skier approaches the block from above and gently steps down onto the upper
2 RB2
part of the block (within 35 cm of the upper wall).
Without lifting the heels, the skier drops once from straight leg to bent knee
3 RB3
position (feet together), pushing downwards and compacting surface layers.
4 The skier jumps up and lands in the same compacted spot. RB4
5 The skier jumps again onto the same compacted spot. RB5
6 • For hard or deep slabs, remove skis and jump on the same spot.
• For soft slabs or thin slabs where jumping without skis might penetrate through RB6
the slab, keep skis on, step down another 35 cm (almost to mid-block) and push
once then jump three times.
7 None of the loading steps produced a smooth slope-parallel failure. RB7
43
Figure 2.13 A field notebook method for recording a

rutschblock score, release type, shear quality (center of
box) along with the slope angle, elevation, crystal form and
size, depth of weak layer, and aspect (clockwise from top).
Arrows can be used to indicate whether the depth of the
weak layer was measured from the snow surface or the
ground (i.e. 68 cm below the snow surface).
Interpretation
No single measure is enough to determine the stability of a particular slope. The results of any stability
test must be coupled with snowpack and weather histories, shear quality, snow structure, and other
observations before the stability can be assessed.
Research in the Canadian Rocky Mountains has shown that:
Field score of 1, 2, or 3: The block fails before the first jump. The slope is unstable. It is likely
that slopes with similar snow conditions can be released by a skier.
Field score of 4 or 5: The block fails on first or second jump. The stability of the slope is
suspect. It is possible for a skier to release slab avalanches on slopes
with similar snow conditions. Other observations or tests must be used
to assess the slab stability.
Field score of 6 or 7: The block does not fail on the first or second jump. There is a low (but
not negligible) risk of skiers triggering avalanches on slopes with
similar snow conditions. Other field observations and tests, and safety
measures remain appropriate.
Schweizer, McCammon and Jamieson (2008) found that rutschblock scores combined with release type
correlated well with observed avalanche occurrence. Johnson and Birkeland (2002) found that
combining rutschblock scores with shear quality ratings reduced the number of false-stable results.
Limitations
The rutschblock is a good slope test but it is not a one-step stability evaluation. The test does not
eliminate the need for snow profiles or careful field observations nor does it, in general, replace other
slope tests such as slope cutting and explosive tests.
The rutschblock only tests layers deeper than ski penetration. For example, a weak layer 20 cm below
the surface is not tested by skis that penetrate 20 cm or more. Higher and more variable rutschblock
scores are sometimes observed near the top of a slope where the layering may differ from the middle and
lower part of the slope (Jamieson and Johnston, 1993b). Higher scores may contribute to an incorrect
decision. The rutschblock may not effectively test weak layers deeper than about 1 m below ski
penetration.
Table 2.11 Release Type Ratings for the Rutschblock Test
Term Description Data Code

Whole block 90 — 100% of the block WB
Most of block 50 — 80% of the block MB
Edge of block 10 — 40% of the block EB
44
2.7.4 Compression Test

The compression test was first used by Parks Canada Wardens working in the Canadian Rockies in the
1970s. The following procedure was developed by the University of Calgary avalanche research project
in the late 1990s. Similar tests have been developed elsewhere.
Objectives
The compression test identifies weak snowpack layers and is most effective at finding weak layers in the
upper portion of the snowpack (~1 m). The tester taps a shovel blade placed on top of an isolated snow
column causing weak layers within the column to fracture. These fractures can be seen on the smooth
walls of the column. Compression test are typically performed on sloping terrain. Tests of distinct,
collapsible weak layers can be performed on level study plots.
Equipment
A shovel is the only piece of equipment required for the Compression Test. However, a snow saw will
make cutting the column of snow easier and more precise.
a b
Figure 2.14 a) Schematic and b) photograph of the compression test (photograph by Bruce Tremper).
45
Procedure
a) Select a safe site that has undisturbed snow and is geographically representative of the slopes of
interest.
b) Isolate a column of snow 30 cm wide and with a 30 cm upslope dimension that is deep enough
to expose potential weak layers on the smooth walls of the column. Field tests have indicated
that the size of the shovel blade to be used has minimal impact on test outcome (Jamieson,
1996). A depth of 100-120 cm is usually sufficient since the compression test rarely produces
fractures in deeper weak layers. Also, taller columns tend to wobble during tapping, potentially
producing misleading results for deep weak layers (Jamieson, 1996).
c) Rate any fractures that occur while isolating the column as very easy.
d) If the snow surface slopes, remove a wedge of snow to level the top of the column.
e) Place a shovel blade on top of the column. Tap 10 times with fingertips, moving hand from wrist
and note the number of taps required to fracture the column (1 to 10).
f) If during tapping the upper part of the column slides off or no longer “evenly” supports further
tapping on the column; remove the damaged part of the column, level the new top of the column
and continue tapping.
g) Tap 10 times with the fingertips or knuckles moving forearm from the elbow, and note the total
number of taps required to fracture the column (11 to 20). While moderate taps should be harder
than easy taps, they should not be as hard as one can reasonably tap with the knuckles.
h) Finally, hit the shovel blade moving the arm from the shoulder 10 times with open hand or fist
and note the total number of taps required to fracture the column (21 to 30). If the moderate taps
were too hard, the operator will often try to hit the shovel with even more force for the hard taps
– and may hurt his or her hand.
i) Rate any identified weak layers that did not fracture as no failure (CTN).
j) Record the depth of the snowpack that was tested. For example, if the top 110 cm of a 200 cm
snowpack was tested (30 taps on a column, 110 cm tall) and the only result was a failure on the
15th tap, 25 cm below the surface, then record “CT15 @↓25 cm; Test depth 110 cm, or TD
110”. This clearly indicates that no fracture occurred from 25-110 cm below the surface and that
the snowpack between 110 cm and 200 cm was not tested with the Compression Test.
Operations that always test the same depth of the snowpack, (e.g. top 120 cm) may omit the test
depth.
Table 2.12 Loading Steps and Compression Test Scores
Very Easy Fractures during cutting CTV
Fractures within 10 light taps using

Easy CT1 to CT10
finger tips only
Fractures within 10 moderate taps

Moderate CT11 to CT20
from the elbow using finger tips
Fractures within 10 firm taps from

Hard CT21 to CT30
whole arm using palm or fist
No Fracture Does not fracture CTN
46
Interpretation
The objectives of the compression test are to locate weak layers in the upper snowpack (approximately
1 m) and provide an indication of their triggering potential on nearby slopes with similar snowpack
conditions. Deeper weak layers are generally less sensitive to the taps on the shovel resulting in higher
ratings. Similarly, deeper weak layers are less sensitive to human triggering. Experience and research in
the Rocky and Columbia Mountains of Western Canada indicates that human-triggered avalanches are
more often associated with “easy” (1 to 9 taps) fractures than with “hard” (20 to 30 taps) fractures or
with layers that do not fracture (Jamieson 1996). Sudden fractures ( SC, SP, Q1) that show up on the
column walls as straight lines identify the failure layers of nearby slab avalanches more often than non-
planar or indistinct fractures (BRK, Q3) (van Herwijnen and Jamieson, 2003). The results of any
stability test should be interpreted in conjunction with snowpack and weather histories, fracture type,
and other snowpack and avalanche information
Limitations of the compression test include sampling a relatively small area of the snowpack and a
variation in force applied by different observers. A greater understanding of these limitations can be
gained by conducting more than one compression test in a snow profile and performing side by side
tests with other observers at the beginning of the season.
2.7.5 Deep Tap Test
The Deep Tap Test was developed by the Applied Snow and Avalanche Research group at the
University of Calgary. The test was developed to address very deep weak layers that are difficult to
assess with other column and block tests.
Objective
The primary objective of the deep tap test is to determine the type of fracture that occurs in a weak layer
that is too deep to fracture consistently in the Compression Test. In addition, it is possible to observe the
tapping force required for fracture to occur.
Equipment
A shovel is the only piece of equipment required for the Deep Tap Test. However, a snow saw will
make cutting the column of snow easier and more precise.
Table 2.13 Loading Steps and Deep Tap Test Scores
Very Easy Fractures during cutting DTV
Fractures within 10 light taps using

Easy DT1 to DT10
finger tips only
Fractures within 10 moderate taps

Moderate DT11 to DT20
from the elbow using finger tips
Fractures within 10 firm taps from

Hard DT21 to DT30
whole arm using palm or fist
No Fracture Does not fracture DTN
47
Procedure
a) Using a profile or other means, identify a weak snowpack layer, which is overlaid by 1F or
harder snow and which is too deep to fracture consistently in the Compression Test.
b) Prepare a 30 cm x 30 cm column as for a Compression Test (note that the same column can
be used after a Compression Test of the upper layers, provided the Compression Test did not
disturb the target weak layer). To reduce the likelihood of fractures in weak layer below the
target layer, such as depth hoar at the base of the snowpack, it may be advantageous not to
cut the back wall more than a few centimeters below the target weak layer.
c) Remove all but 15 cm of snow above the weak layer, measured at the back of the sidewall.
This distance should be constant, regardless of the slope angle.
d) Place the shovel blade (facing up or facing down) on top of the column. Tap 10 times with
fingertips, moving hand from wrist and note the number of taps required to fracture the
column (1 to 10).
e) Tap 10 times with the fingertips or knuckles moving your forearm from the elbow, and note
the total number of taps required to fracture the column (11 to 20). While moderate taps
should be harder than easy taps, they should not be as hard as one can reasonably tap with
the knuckles.
f) Finally, hit the shovel blade moving arm from the shoulder 10 times with open hand or fist
and note the total number of taps required to fracture the column (21 to 30). If the moderate
taps were too hard, the operator will often try to hit the shovel with even more force for the
hard taps – and may hurt his or her hand.
g) Record the results as described in Table 2.13. Observers may also include the total depth of
the weak layer below the snow surface at the location of the test.
h) Use one of the methods in Section 2.6 to describe the type of fracture observed during the
test. This information is important for deep, persistent weak layers.
Limitations
While very effective for testing deeper weak layers, the number of taps required to initiate a fracture in
the Deep Tap Test has not been correlated with human-triggered avalanches or avalanches on adjacent
slopes.
2.7.6 Stuffblock Test
The Stuffblock test was developed at the Gallatin National Forest Avalanche Center (southwest
Montana) during the mid 1990’s. The test has become a popular forecasting tool that can be conducted
with minimal additional equipment.
Table 2.14 Loading Steps and Stuffblock Test Scores
Very Easy Fractures during column isolation SBV
Easy Fractures during static load SB0
Easy (drop height of 10 or 20 cm)
SB drop height number (SB10,

Moderate (drop height of 30 or 40 cm) Fractures during dynamic load
SB20, etc.)
Hard (drop height of 50 cm to 70 cm)
No Fracture Does not fracture SBN
48
Objective
The test identifies weak snowpack layers and is most effective at finding weak layers near the snow
surface. A known mass is dropped from a known height to produce a dynamic load on a snow column.
The fracture can be seen on the sides of the column. The stuffblock test is generally performed on
sloping terrain steeper than about 25 degrees (Birkeland and Johnson, 1999).
Equipment
a) Snow shovel (a flat-bladed shovel works best)
b) Snow saw
c) Stuff sack with graduated cord (10 cm (~ 4 in) increments) attached to the bottom. The stuff
sack diameter should be no larger than the width of the shovel blade.
d) Weighing scale capable of measuring 4.5 kg (~ 10 lb)
Procedure
a) Select a safe site that has undisturbed snow and is geographically representative of the
slopes of interest.
b) Pack 4.5 kg (10 lb) of snow into a stuff sack.
c) Isolate a column of snow 30 cm wide and with a 30 cm upslope dimension that is deep
enough to expose potential weak layers on the smooth walls of the column. The test column
is generally no more than 100-120 cm (~ 50 in) in height, although the Stuffblock Test can
be used to test deeper weak layers. Taller columns tend to wobble during loading,
potentially producing misleading results for deep weak layers.
d) Rate any fractures that occur while isolating the column as very easy (record as SBV).
e) Place the shovel blade on top of the column so that the blade is horizontal and the handle
points upwards (Figure 2.15). Support the handle with one hand.
f) Gently place the filled stuff sack onto the shovel blade, and record any resulting fractures.
g) Raise the stuff sack 10 cm above the shovel blade and drop it onto the shovel.
h) Continue to drop the stuff sack onto the shovel blade incrementing the drop height by 10 cm
each time (ie: 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, etc.). After each drop examine the column for a
fracture. If a fracture occurs, record the depth of the sliding plane and stuff sack drop height.
Then remove the loose block of snow and continue the test on the sliding surface. The depth
of snow removed at each fracture should be recorded. Test results from the shortened
column will not accurately reflect the absolute strength of weak layers deeper than the initial
fracture.
i) Any identified weak layers that did not fracture after a drop of 70 cm should be rated as
SBN.
j) Test results should be recorded with the test identifier and the drop height that produced the
fracture (example: If the column fractured with a static load, record as SB0. If the column
fractured after a drop from 10 cm, record as SB10).
k) Record the depth of the snowpack that was tested. For example, if the top 110 cm of a 200
cm snowpack was tested and the result was a fracture 25 cm below the surface produced by
a 20 cm drop, then record “SB20 @↓25 cm; Test depth 110 cm, or TD 110”. This clearly
indicates that no fracture occurred from 25-110 cm below the surface and that the snowpack
between 110 cm and 200 cm was not tested with the stuffblock test. Operations that always
test the same depth of the snowpack (e.g. top 120 cm) may omit the test depth.
Interpretation
The objectives of the stuffblock test are to locate weak layers in the upper snowpack (approximately
1 m) and provide an indication of the potential for human triggered avalanches on nearby slopes with
similar snowpack conditions. Deeper weak layers are generally less sensitive to drops of the stuff sack,
which results in higher test scores. Similarly, deeper weak layers are less sensitive to human triggering.
Research conducted in the United States has shown that stuffblock test scores correlate to rutschblock
49
Figure 2.15 a) Schematic and b) photograph of the

stuffblock test (photograph courtesy of the USDA
Forest Service).
50
test scores in a variety of snow climates (Birkeland and Johnson, 1999). The results of any stability test
should be interpreted in conjunction with snowpack and weather histories, shear quality and other
snowpack and avalanche information.
2.7.7 Extended Column Test

The Extended Column Test (ECT) was developed in Colorado and New Zealand in 2005 and 2006. The
ECT has been tested in the continental and intermountain snow climates of the U.S. (Simenhois and
Birkeland 2007; Hendrikx and Birkeland, 2008;Birkeland and Simenhois 2008), the Swiss Alps
(Winkler and Schweizer 2009), the Spanish Pyrenees (Moner et al. 2008) and New Zealand’s Southern
Alps (Simenhois and Birkeland 2006, Hendrikx and Birkeland 2008).
Objective
The Extended Column Test (ECT) is a snowpack test that aims to test the fracture propagation
propensity of slab/weak layer combinations in the upper portion of the snowpack (< 1m). The tester
dynamically loads the snowpack by tapping on a shovel blade placed at one end of an isolated extended
column in order to initiate a fracture (Figure 2.16). Once initiated, the key observation in the test is
whether or not the fracture immediately propagates across the entire column.
Equipment
The equipment required for the ECT includes:
a) A snow shovel.
b) One or two collapsible probes or ski poles, 2 meters of 3-4 mm cord with knots every 20-30
cm or a snow saw with extension.
Procedure
a) Select a safe site that has undisturbed snow and is geographically representative of the slope
of interest.
b) Isolate a column of snow 90 cm wide in the cross slope dimension and 30 cm deep in the
upslope dimension that is deep enough to expose potential weak layers. Depth should not
exceed 100 – 120 cm since the loading steps rarely affect deeper layers.
c) Rate any fractures that cross the entire column, while isolating it, as ECTPV.
d) If the snow surface slopes and the surface snow is hard, remove a wedge of snow to level
the top of the column at one edge.
e) Place the shovel blade on one side of the column. Tap 10 times moving hand from the wrist
and note the number of taps it takes to initiate a fracture and whether or not the fracture
immediately propagates across the entire column on that or the next loading step (1 to 10).
f) Tap 10 times with the fingertips or knuckles moving forearm from the elbow and note the
number of taps it takes to initiate a fracture and whether or not the fracture immediately
propagates across the entire column on that or the next loading step (11 to 20).
g) Finally, hit the shovel blade moving arm from the shoulder 10 times with open hand or fist.
Note the number of taps it takes to initiate a fracture and whether or not the fracture
immediately propagates across the entire column on that or the next loading step (21 to 30).
h) If no fractures occurred within all loading steps, rate the test as ECTX.
i) If a fracture initiated on a weak layer on the ## tap but did not propagate across the entire
column on the same or the next loading step, rate that layer as ECTN##.
j) If a fracture initiated and propagated across the entire column on the ## tap or it initiated on
the ## tap and propagated on the ## + 1 tap, rate that layer as ECTP##.
Recording and Results
51
ECT recording describes if fractures initiated during the loading steps and whether or not those fractures
immediately propagated across the entire column.
Interpretation
Test interpretation is straightforward. ECTPV and ECTP## results suggest unstable conditions, while
ECTN## or ECTX are generally indicative of stable conditions. However, the objective of this test is to
assess the propagation potential of the snowpack, therefore, ECTX should not necessarily be considered
a sign of stability. In these cases other stability tests should be conducted to assess snowpack stability.
Strengths and Limitations
Two strengths of the ECT are its ease of interpretation (does the fracture propagate or not?) and the low
false-stability ratio for the test, which is generally less than that for other typical tests. It is limited in
that it is not a good tool to assess weaknesses in soft (F+ or less) upper layers of the
snowpack or in mid-storm shear layers. In these cases the shovel edge tends to cut those soft
layers. Further, the ECT is not a good tool to asses fracture propagation potential on a weak layer
deeper than 100 – 120 cm because fracture initiation in these cases can be difficult or impossible
(ECTX). In cases where a fracture is not initiated, other stability tests should also be conducted or a
snowpit in different location should be considered.
Table 2.15 Extended Column Test Scores
Fracture propagates across the entire column during isolation ECTPV
Fracture initiates and propagates across the entire column on the ## tap or the fracture initiates on
ECTP##
the ## tap and propagates across the column on the ## + 1 tap
Fracture initiates on the ## tap, but does not propagate across the entire column on either ## or the
##+1 tap. It either fractures across only part of the column (observed commonly), or it initiates but
ECTN##
takes more than one additional loading step to propagate across the entire column (observed rela-
tively rarely).
No fracture occurs during the test ECTX
a b
Figure 2.16 a) Schematic and b) photograph of the Extended Column Test (photograph courtesy of Ron Simenhois)
52
2.7.8 Propagation Saw Test

The Propagation Saw Test (PST) was simultaneously developed in Canada (Gauthier and Jamieson,
2007) and in Switzerland (Sigrist, 2006). The PST has been tested in Canada since 2005 – mostly in the
Columbia Mountains, in the Swiss Alps and in Colorado’s continental snowpack (Birkeland and
Simenhois, 2008). The PST has been shown to indicate propagation propensity in persistent weak layers
(PWL) buried 30 cm to over 100 cm and occasionally up to 250 cm deep.
Objective
The Propagation Saw Test is a snowpack test that aims to indicate the tendency (propensity) of a pre-
identified slab and a PWL combination to propagate a fracture. The tester uses an isolated column and
initiates a fracture by dragging a snow saw along the weak layer in the uphill direction.
Equipment
The equipment required for the PST includes:
A snow shovel.
A snow saw with a blade at least 30 cm long and approximately 2 mm thick.
For layers much deeper than the saw is long, the following are recommended:
One or two collapsible probes.
Three to five meters of four to 3-4 mm cord with knots every 20 – 30 cm.
Procedure
The PST procedure involves three main steps (after Gauthier and Jamieson, 2007): Identifying the weak
layer of interest within the snowpack, isolating and preparing the test column, performing the test, and
noting the results.
a) Select a safe site that has undisturbed snow and is geographically representative of the slope
of interest.
b) Isolate a column 30 cm wide across the slope and 100 cm long upslope when the weak layer
is less than 100 cm deep. (For layers deeper than the saw is long, two adjacent walls can be
cut with a cord between probes.) When the weak layer is >100 cm deep the column length
is equal to the weak layer depth in the upslope direction. The column should be isolated to a
depth greater than the tested layer’s depth.
c) To identify the weak layer clearly, mark the weak layer with a glove, a brush or a crystal
card along the exposed column wall.
d) Drag the blunt edge of the saw upslope through the weak layer at a 10-20 cm/s speed until
the fracture propagates (jumps) ahead of the saw, at which point the tester stops dragging
the saw and marks the spot along the layer where propagation began.
e) After observations are complete, remove the column and check that the saw scored the weak
layer in the wall behind the test column. If the saw deviated from the weak layer, the test
should be repeated.
Results
Once the fracture propagates ahead of the saw, one of three results can be observed as noted in Table
2.16.
Interpretation
Fracture propagation is considered to be likely only if the fracture propagates to the end of the column,
along the same layer and when the length of the saw cut is less then 50% of the column length when
propagation begins (Gauthier and Jamieson, 2008). Otherwise, fracture propagation is considered
unlikely (i.e. the propagating fracture fails to reach the end of the column or propagation begins when
saw cut is greater than 50% of the column length).
53
(a)
Figure 2.17 Schematic showing the PST column (a) and the observable results of propagation to
end (b), slab fracture (c), and self arrest (d) (after Gauthier and Jamieson, 2007).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.18 The PST process: (a) isolating the column with probes and cord; (b) identifying the weak
layer and preparing to cut; (c) dragging the saw along the weak layer until the onset of propagation.
Lightly brushing the weak layer with a glove or brush before cutting helps the operator follow the
layer along the column (photo: ASARC).
54
Table 2.16 Propagation Saw Test Description and Data Codes

Observed Result Description Data code
The fracture propagates in the weak layer in front of the saw uninterrupted
Propagation to end End
to end of column.
The fracture propagates in the weak layer in front of the saw and stops
Slab fracture SF
where it meets a fracture through the overlying slab
The fracture propagates in front of the saw but self-arrests somewhere

Self-arrest Arr
along the weak layer before reaching the end of the column.
Recording
The recording standard for the PST is as follows: ‘PST x/y (Arr, SF or End) down z on yymmdd’
where x is the length of the saw cut when propagation starts, y is the length of the isolated column, z is
the depth to the tested weak layer, and yymmdd is the weak layer identification typically dated by when
the layer was buried. All lengths are given in centimetres (cm). An example of a result that indicates
high propagation propensity is ‘PST 34/100 (End) down 56 cm on 080223’. It is recommended to
comment on slope angle at the test site if it is not done on a 30-40° slope, as the cut distance (x) may
depend on slope angle.
Strengths and Limitations
Because the PST is not dependent on surface loading, it is capable of assessing the propagation
propensity of deeply buried weak layer and slab combination (deep instability). The PST is limited in
that it has been shown to indicate a higher number of false-stable results than other common snowpack
tests (around 30% for the PST versus approximately 10% for CTs, RBs and SBs), particularly for soft
shallow slabs and when the weak layer is too hard to cut with the saw’s blunt edge (Birkeland and
Simenhois, 2008; Gauthier, D., Jamieson, J.B., 2008). Pre-selecting and identifying the layer of concern
for testing can be challenging. Propagation to End occurs on flats as well as on incline slopes; however,
as mentioned above, the cut distance (x) may depend on the slope angle.
2.8 Slope Cut Testing
Slope cutting can provide valuable information on snowpack stability. Safety must be the primary
concern when attempting slope cuts, and inexperienced observers should not conduct this type of testing.
Slope cut testing is typically applied to weak layers fairly near the snow surface, and soft snow slabs.
Deeply buried weak layers and hard slab conditions often produce dangerous avalanches that break in
less predictable locations and could prove dangerous, or fatal, to the tester.
There are many different approaches and “tricks of the trade” that can be applied to slope cutting. All of
them are beyond the scope of this discussion. Slope cutting techniques should only be taught in the field
or as “on the job training”. More information on slope cuts can be found in Tremper (2008), McClung
and Schaerer (2006) and Perla and Martinelli (1976).
Table 2.17 Slope Cut Testing Scores
No release No result SCN
Whumpfing Slope cut produces a collapse in the snowpack SCW
Cracking Slope cut produces shooting cracks SCC
Avalanche Slab Slope cut produces a slab avalanche SCS
Slope cut produces a loose snow or sluff

Avalanche Loose SCL
avalanche
55
Figure 2.19 Slope cut producing a small

slab avalanche (photograph by Bruce
Tremper).
Procedure
• Choose a relatively small slope that is representative of the starting zones you wish to learn
about.
• Place one or more people in zones of safety that allow them to observe the entire cut and
avalanche path if possible.
• Begin from a zone of safety.
• Examine the starting zone and choose a line that crosses relatively high on the slope and
ends in a zone of safety.
• Travel along the line chosen maintaining enough speed to cross the slope in one fast motion.
The tester can bounce or jump during the cut to increase the load on the slope.
• Record the results of the test as described in the following section.
Recording Slope Cuts
Record the results of the test using the data codes listed in Table 2.17 along with the aspect and slope
angle of the slope. When a ski cut produces a slab avalanche the Avalanche Size (Relative and/or
Destructive) can be included in the data code. Additional information about the terrain and resulting
avalanche can be recorded in comments as needed.
Example:
SCW35NE—Test produced a collapse (whumpf) on a 35° northeast facing slope
SCL40S—Test produced a sluff on a 40° south facing slope
SCN30N—Test produced no result on a 30° north facing slope
SCS45NWR3D2—Test produced a slab avalanche on a 45° slope that faces to the
northwest. The avalanche was only medium in size, for the size of the path, but was
large enough to injure or kill a person.
56
2.9 Non-Standardized Snow Tests

All of the stability tests described in chapter two were developed from many years of work by many
observers. Each test went through several iterations before a standard procedure was established. Field
practitioners and researchers eventually wrote protocols and conducted research on these tests to provide
information on their response and suitability.
In addition to the standardized tests, there are many other tests that do not have specific field protocols.
In this section, some of the more common non-standardized snow tests and suggested methods for
communicating their results are presented. Field workers who are not satisfied with the standardized tests
are encouraged to seek additional methods for determining physical properties of the snowpack. As new
methods evolve and we learn more about their response and limitations, those methods may become
standard practice.
2.9.1 Communicating the Results of Non-Standardized Snow Tests
There is no standard method for communicating the results of non-standardized tests. A common method
is to rate the amount of energy required to produce a fracture using the descriptors Easy, Moderate, or
Hard (with easy being the smallest amount), and note the height of the resulting fracture. Suggestions for
communicating specific tests are presented below.
2.9.2 Cantilever Beam Test
Most of the standardized snow tests examine a weak snow layer or interface between snow layers. This
type of information is critical for determining the snow stability. However, the weak layer is only one
component of a slab avalanche and knowing more about the mechanical properties of the slab is also
useful.
Several investigators have used cantilever beam tests to examine mechanical properties of snow beams
and snow slabs (Johnson and others, 2000; Mears, 1998; Sterbenz, 1998; Perla, 1969). Sterbenz (1998)
describes a cantilever beam test developed for avalanche forecasting in the San Juan Mountains of
Colorado and that test is presented below.
Procedure
a) Select a geographically representative site and dig a test profile.
b) Collect snowpack data as needed and conduct stability tests as desired.
c) Identify weak layer or interface and potential snow slab.
d) Above a smooth pit wall, mark a horizontal section of the slab 1 m (or 40") in length on the
snow surface.
e) Mark 1 m (or 40") lengths perpendicular to the pit wall so a 1 m x 1 m square block is
outlined on the snow surface.
f) At the identified weak layer, remove the supporting snow from below the slab to be tested (1
m x 1 m square block).
g) Using a snow saw, make a vertical cut 0.5 m (or 20") along one side of the block.
h) Using a snow saw, make a vertical cut 0.5 m (or 20") along the other side of the block.
i) Using a snow saw, extend the first cut an additional 0.5 m (or 20") so that one side of the
1 m x 1 m square block is isolated.
j) Using a snow saw, extend the second cut an additional 0.5 m (or 20") so that the other side
of the 1 m x 1 m square block is isolated.
k) At this point the block should be suspended, with its only connection point along the uphill
edge of the block. Place a shovel along the downhill side of the block and strike it with
successive blows until the beam breaks.
l) Record with the data codes in Table 2.18.
57
Cantilever Beam Test References

Johnson, B.C., J.B. Jamieson, and C.D. Johnston. 2000: Field studies of the cantilever beam test. The
Avalanche Review, 18, 8-9.
Mears, A., 1998: Tensile strength and strength changes in new snow layers. Proceedings of the
International Snow Science Workshop, Sunriver, Oregon, 574-576.
Perla, R.I., 1969: Strength tests on newly fallen snow. Journal of Glaciology, 8, 427-440.
Sterbenz, C., 1998: The cantilever beam or “Bridgeblock” snow strength test. Proceedings of the
International Snow Science Workshop, Sunriver, Oregon, p. 566-573.
Table 2.18 Cantilever Beam Test from Sterbenz (1998)
Loading Step Block Breaks When
0 Removing snow from below the block.
1 0.5 m cut along one side.
2 0.5 m cut along the second side.
3 1 m cut along the first side.
4 1 m cut along the second side.
5 Loading the block that is isolated on three sides.
2.9.3 Loaded Column Test

The loaded column test (Figure 2.20) allows an observer to estimate how much additional mass a weak
layer might support before it will fracture. Although this test can produce a finite mass that will produce
fracture, the results of this test should be regarded only as a general indicator of the additional load 90
that the snowpack can sustain. As stated previously, operational decisions should not be made on a
single number or test.
Procedure
a) Select a geographically representative site and dig a test profile.
b) Collect snowpack data as needed and conduct stability tests as desired.
c) Identify weak layer or interface and potential snow slab
d) Using a snow saw isolate a column 30 cm wide and 30 cm in the upslope direction.
e) Excavate blocks of snow and stack them on the column until the column fractures.
f) Note the level of the fracture, shear quality, and amount of load that caused the test column
to fail.
g) The mass of each block can be measured and a total load calculated.
58
2.9.4 Burp-the-Baby
This test is generally used to identify shear layers missed by the shovel shear test. Buried thin weak
layers (often surface hoar) gain strength over time and their presence may be obscured or missed by the
shovel shear test.
Procedure
When an isolated column remains intact after it breaks on a deeply buried layer, pick it up and cradle it
in your arms. Burp the reclining column across your knee or with a hand. Clean shear planes can often
be located above the original shovel shear plane.
a b
Figure 2.20 Two non-standardized snow tests: a) the shovel tilt test (photograph by Howie Garber)
b) the loaded column test (photograph by Andy Gleason).
59
2.9.5 Hand Shear Tests

These tests can be used to quickly gain information about snow structure. They should not be used to
replace stability tests, but can be used to estimate the spatial extent of a relatively shallow weak layer
(Figure 2.22).
Procedure
a) With your hand or a ski pole make a hole in the snow deeper than the layer you wish to test.
b) Carve out an isolated column of snow.
c) Tap on the surface or pull on the column of snow in the down slope direction.
d) Record your results with the name of the test, weak layer depth, and rate the result as Easy,
Moderate, or Hard (example: Hand Easy or Hand-E). Also include pertinent terrain
parameters such as slope angle, aspect, and elevation.
e) Use other methods to investigate the weak layer or interface as needed.
2.9.6 Ski Pole Penetrometer
The ski pole can be used like a penetrometer to look for or estimate the spatial extent of distinct weak
layers or significant changes in layer hardness (Figure 2.21). In harder snow, an avalanche probe can be
used.
Procedure
a) Place the ski pole perpendicular to the snow surface and push it into the snow (Basket end
down for soft snow, handle down for harder snow).
b) Feel for changes in resistance as the ski pole moves through the snowpack.
c) Feel for more subtle layers as the pole is removed from the snowpack by tilting it slightly to
the side.
d) Record the depth, thickness and spatial extent of buried layers.
e) Use other methods to investigate the snowpack as needed.
Figure 2.21 The ski pole poke, aka ski pole penetrometer (photograph by Bruce Tremper).
60
2.9.7 Tilt Board Test

This description follows material published in McClung and Schaerer (2006). The Tilt Board Test is
typically used to identify weaknesses in new snow or storm snow layers. The test is generally conducted
at an established study plot. It can be used to identify weak layers that will be tested with a shear frame.
Equipment
• Thin metal plate 30 cm x 30 cm
• Tilt Board – a board painted white and mounted on a frame. The frame is mounted to a joint
that allows it to rotate in the vertical plane. The Tilt Board can be locked in the horizontal
position or tilted about 15 degrees. This allows the test block to fracture in shear without
sliding off the lower portion of the block.
Procedure
a) Cut a block of snow that is deeper than the suspected weak layer or that contains all of the
new or storm snow. McClung and Schaerer (2006) recommend using a block no deeper than
0.4 m.
b) Using a thin metal plate, lift the block on to the Tilt Board.
c) Tap the bottom of the board until the snow fractures.
d) Record your results with the name of the test and rate the result as Easy, Moderate, or Hard
(example: Tilt Board Easy or Tilt Board-E).
e) Use other methods to investigate the weak layer or interface as needed.
2.9.8 Shovel Tilt Test
The shovel tilt test is the field worker’s version of the Tilt Board Test but requires no additional
equipment be taken into the field (Figure 2.20).
Procedure
a) Isolate a column of snow of similar dimensions to your shovel blade.
b) Insert the shovel blade horizontally into the side of the column below the layers you wish to
test (limited to about 0.4 m from the surface).
c) Lift the shovel and snow sample into the air and hold the shovel handle and bottom of the
snow column in one hand,
d) Tilt the shovel blade about 5 to 15 degrees steeper than the slope angle of the sample.
e) Tap the bottom of the shovel blade with increasing force until fracture is observed.
f) Record the force required to produce the fracture as Easy, Moderate, or Hard.
g) Shovel tilt may be increased and angle recorded if no fracture occurs at 15 degrees.
h) Use other methods to investigate the weak layer or interface as needed.
Figure 2.22 A hand shear test

(photograph by Bruce Tremper).
61
2.10 Instrumented Methods

2.10.1 Ram Penetrometer
Objectives
The ram penetrometer is used to obtain a quantifiable measure of the relative hardness or resistance of
the snow layers. It can be applied on its own as an index of snow strength, but it is not recommended as
the sole tool for determining snow stability. When used in combination with a snow profile, a ram
profile should be taken about 0.5 m from the pit wall after observation of the snow profile, but before
any shovel shear tests are performed. It is a valuable tool for tracking changes in relative hardness over
time at study plots and slopes, or for measuring many hardness profiles over an area without digging
pits.
Note: The ram profile describes the hardness of layers in the snowpack. However, it often fails
to identify thin weak layers in the snowpack. Surface hoar layers or other weak layers that are
one centimeter or less are difficult to detect. Its sensitivity is dependent on the hammer weight,
particularly when used in soft or very soft snow. The magnitude of this problem may be reduced
by using a lightweight hammer (500 g or less), or by using a powder or “Alta” ram
(Perla, 1969).
Refer to Chapter 7 of The Avalanche Handbook (McClung and Schaerer, 2006) for a complete
discussion on ram profiles.
Equipment
The standard ram penetrometer, also called ramsonde, consists of:
a) 1 m lead section tube with 40 mm diameter cone and an apex angle of 60°.
b) Guide rod and anvil.
c) Hammer of mass 2 kg, 1 kg, 0.5 kg, 0.2 kg or 0.1 kg.
d) One or two (1.0 m each) extension tubes.
Figure 2.23 Schematic of the ram penetrometer

(after Perla and Martinelli, 1976).
62
The powder ram, also called an Alta Ram (Perla, 1969), consists of:
a) 0.50 m to 1.0 m lead section and guide rod and anvil weighing 100 g
b) A hammer of mass 0.1 kg
c) Lead section cone has the same dimensions as a standard ram
The mass of hammer chosen depends on the expected hardness of the snow and desired sensitivity.
Unit of Measure
A ram profile depicts the force required to penetrate the snow with a ram penetrometer. The mass of the
tubes, the mass of the hammer, and the dynamic load of the falling hammer all contribute to the applied
force. Ram profiles can display two different quantities: ram number (RN), which is a mass (kg), and
ram resistance (RR), which is a force (N).
Weight is a gravity force that is calculated by multiplying mass by the acceleration due to gravity (9.81
m/s2). Although not strictly correct, most practitioners multiply by 10 to simplify the calculations. Since
the ram number is an index of hardness, there is little danger in rounding this value. Force, and
consequently the ram resistance, are measured in newtons. A mass of 1 kg has a gravity force (weight)
of 1 kg x acceleration which is approximately 10 N (1kg x 10m/s2 =10N).
Procedure
Record the location, date, time, observers, slope angle, aspect, and ram type at the head of the data sheet.
Also record any notes that will be pertinent to data analysis after leaving the field.
Work in pairs if possible. One person holds the ram penetrometer in a vertical (plumb) position with the
guide rod attached. This person drops the hammer, counts the number of blows, and observes the depth
of penetration. The other person records the information. The person holding the ram and dropping the
hammer calls three numbers to the recorder: the drop number, drop height and penetration. For example,
“5 from 20 is 143”, means 5 drops from a drop height of 20 cm penetrated to 143 cm (Figure 2.24).
a) Hold the first sectional tube with the guide rod attached directly above the snow surface
with the point touching the snow. Let the instrument drop and penetrate the snow under its
own weight without slowing it down with your hand. You will need to guide it in many
cases so it does not fall over. Record its mass in column T + H. Read the penetration (cm)
and record in column p (see Figure 2.24 for field data sheet example). Note that many
people carry out this first step without attaching the guide rod first. However, since the tube
weight T is 1.0 kg with the guide rod, it should be attached before the surface measurement
is taken. Sometimes a greater sensitivity of the surface layer is desired. Dropping only the
lead section without the guide rod will reduce the weight and may cause less of an initial
plunge through the surface layers since the total mass will be lighter. If this method is used,
then the weight of the lead section alone should be recorded for the T value, not the
combined lead section and guide rod value of 1.0 kg.
b) Carefully add the hammer, or guide rod and hammer if using the lead section only for the
surface measurement. Record the mass of the tube + hammer under T + H. Read the new
penetration and record under p. If the ram does not penetrate further, as is often the case in
this step, record the previous p value again.
c) Drop the hammer from a height between 1 cm and 5 cm; record the penetration. The low
drop height (1-5 cm) is appropriate for near-surface layers. Larger drop heights (20-60 cm)
and increased hammer weights may be desired as depth, and therefore, resistance increases.
Continue dropping the hammer from the same height until the rate of penetration changes.
Record fall height f, number of blows n, and penetration p up to the point. Some experience
will allow the user to anticipate changes in the structure of the snow and record
measurements before the rate of penetration changes. Continue with another series of blows;
choose a fall height that produces a penetration of about 1 cm per blow. Do not change fall
height or hammer weight within a series of measurements. Record the series then adjust fall
63
height or change hammer weight if desired before beginning another series. Resolution of
the profile depends on the frequency of recorded measurements and the snowpack structure.
Many recorded measurements in a homogeneous layer will provide no more resolution than
fewer measurements since the calculated RN will be the same for both. However, resolution
will be lost in varied layers if too many drops are made between recordings as the layer will
receive a single RN over the entire range of p for that layer.
c) Add another section of tube when necessary and record the new T + H.
d) Repeat the measurements (b and c) until the ground surface is reached.
RAM DATA SHEET

Location: Glory Bowl, Teton Pass, Wilson, WY
Date: 19930312 Time: 0750 MST
Observer: Newcomb/Elder
Total depth: 239 cm Equipment: Standard Ram
Slope: 28o Aspect E 80º
Notes: 30 m south of GAZEX 1
Snowing 3cm/hr - wind SW 10m/s
Number Fall Location

Tube and hammer wt of falls height of point
T + H (kg) n f (cm) L (cm) Comments
tube & guide rod only, new snow deposited last
1+0 0 0 23 18 hr
1 + 0.5 0 0 25 add 0.5 kg hammer - no drop
6 1 32
1+1 0 0 32 change to 1 kg hammer
4 5 37
11 10 49
7 20 52 crust
5 10 64
15 10 87
2+1 0 0 87 add 2nd tube section
10 20 108
13 30 141
6 30 148
3+1 0 0 148 add 3rd tube section
25 30 181
22 30 209
1 30 215
3 10 239
Figure 2.24 Sample field book page for Ram profiles.
64
Calculation
a) Calculate the increment of penetration p for each series of blows by subtracting the previous
p value from the present p value (Figure 2.25).
b) Calculate ram number (RN) or ram resistance (RR) with the following equations:
nfH
RN =T + H +
p
RR = RN × 10
where:
RN = ram number (kg)
RR = ram resistance (N)
n = number of blows of the hammer
f = fall height of the hammer (cm)
p = increment of penetration for n blows (cm)
T = mass of tubes including guide rod (kg)
H = mass of hammer (kg)
c) Plot on graph paper the ram number or resistance vs. depth of snow (see Figure 2.26).
RAM CALCULATION SHEET

Location: Glory Bowl, Teton Pass, Wilson, WY
Date: 19930312 Time: 0750 MST
Observers: Newcomb/Elder
Total depth: 239 cm Equipment: Standard Ram
Slope: 28o Aspect: E 80o
Notes: 30 m south of GAZEX 1 RN = T + H + (nfH)/p (kg)
Snowing 3cm/hr - wind SW 10m/s
RR = RN x 10 (N)
Height
Location
Tube and hammer Number Fall height Penetration (nfH)/p above
of point RN (kg) RR (N)
wt T + H (kg) of falls n f (cm) p (cm) (kg) ground
L (cm)
(cm)
239
1+0 0 0 23 23 0.0 1.0 10 216
1 + 0.5 0 0 25 2 0.0 1.5 15 214
6 1 32 7 0.4 1.9 19 207
1+1 0 0 32 0 207
4 5 37 5 4.0 6.0 60 202
11 10 49 12 9.2 11.2 112 190
7 20 52 3 46.7 48.7 487 187
5 10 64 12 4.2 6.2 62 175
15 10 87 23 6.5 8.5 85 152
2+1 0 0 87 0 152
10 20 108 21 9.5 12.5 125 131
13 30 141 33 11.8 14.8 148 98
6 30 148 7 25.7 28.7 287 91
3+1 0 0 148 0 91
25 30 181 33 22.7 26.7 267 58
22 30 209 28 23.6 27.6 276 30
1 30 215 6 5.0 9.0 90 24
3 10 239 24 1.3 5.3 53 0
Figure 2.25 Sample work sheet page for calculating Ram profiles.
65
Figure 2.26 Graphical representation of a ram profile

from data listed in Figures 2.22 and 2.23.
2.10.2 Shear Frame Test

The shear frame test is used to measure the shear strength of snow layers and interfaces between snow
layers. The shear frame test requires experience, but provides useful information when done correctly
and consistently. The test combined with a stability ratio is a useful tool for assessing the strength of
snow layers. Discussions of shear frame methods can be found in Jamieson, 2001; Jamieson, 1995;
Fohn, 1987b, Perla and Beck, 1983, and Roch, 1966.
Equipment
The shear frame test requires the following equipment:
1) Putty knife
2) Metal cutting plate about 30 cm x 30 cm
3) Shear frame, usually 100 cm2 or 250 cm2
4) Force gauge, maximum capacity 10 to 250 N (1 to 25 kg).
If you are calculating the stability ratio, you will also need the following equipment:
5) Sampling tube, 50 to 80 cm
6) Weighing scale
Procedure
The shear frame test can be performed on storm snow layers and persistent weak layers. Typically
100 cm2 frames are used for storm snow layers and 250 cm2 are used for persistent weak layers.
Observers generally perform 7 to 12 consecutive tests and average the results. Once a series of
measurements is started it is important to not switch frame sizes.
1) Identify weak layer using tilt board or other method.
2) Remove the overlying snow to within 4 or 5 cm of the layer or interface being measured.
3) Carefully insert the shear frame into the snow so the bottom of the frame is 2 to 5 mm above the
layer.
4) Pass a thin blade (putty knife) around the shear frame to remove snow that was in contact with
the frame.
5) Attach an appropriate force gauge and pull so that fracture occurs within 1 second. This method
ensures brittle fracture. It is essential that the operator loads the force gauge at a constant rate
and is consistent between all measurements.
66
Figure 2.27 Measuring the shear strength of a surface hoar layer with a 250 cm2
shear frame and force gauge (photograph by Greg Johnson).
Shear Strength Calculation

Once you have obtained the average shear force for the weak layer or interface, calculate the shear
strength from the formula:
F average
Τ frame =
A frame
where Faverage is the average shear force in newtons (N), Aframe is the area of the shear frame in m2, and
Τframe is the shear strength of the layer in pascals (Pa). This calculation produces a shear strength that is
dependent on the shear frame size (Τframe= Τ250 or Τ100). For a value of shear strength that is independent
of frame size use the following equations (Föhn, 1987b; Jamieson, 1995):
Τ ∞ = 0 . 65Τ 250
Τ ∞ = 0 . 56 Τ 100
where Τ∞ is the shear strength independent of shear frame size and Τ250 and Τ100 are the shear strengths
measured with a 250 cm2 and 100 cm2 shear frame respectively.
Stability Ratios
The stability ratio is the shear strength of a layer divided by the overlying slab’s weight per unit area.
The stability ratio has a complex relationship with avalanche occurrence, but in general the lower the
ratio the greater the likelihood of avalanches.
shear strength
Stability Ratio (SR) =
weight per unit area
67
To determine the slab’s weight per unit area, slide a small plate such as a putty knife or crystal card
horizontally into the pit wall at a depth equal to the sampling tube length. Now slide the sampling tube
vertically down through the surface until it strikes the plate. Excavate the sampling tube, taking care not
to lose any snow out of the end of the tube. Transfer the contents of the sampling tube to a plastic bag
for weighing. Divide the sample weight by the cross sectional area of the tube to calculate the slab
weight per unit area. For weak layers deeper than the sampling tube length, use a stepped sampling
method.
Limitations
The shear frame works best for thin weak layers or storm snow interfaces. Thick weak layers (i.e. depth
hoar) tend not to produce consistent fracture planes. The shear frame works poorly in situations where
very hard layers (i.e. wind slabs and crusts) are directly above weak layers. The problem is inserting the
shear frame into the hard layer without fracturing the weak layer below. In addition, there is little
operational experience and literature on the use of shear frames with wet snow. The shear frame is also
sensitive to user variability.
Shear Frame References
Föhn, P.M.B., 1987: The stability index and various triggering mechanisms. Avalanche Formation,
Movement, and Effects, In: B. Salm and H. Gubler, (eds.), IAHS-AISH Publication No. 162,
195-211.
Jamieson, J.B., 1995: Avalanche prediction for persistent snow slabs, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 53-58.
Jamieson, J.B., and C.D. Johnston, 2001: Evaluation of the shear frame test for weak snowpack
layers. Annals of Glaciology, 32, 59 - 66.
Perla, R.I., and T.M.K. Beck, 1983: Experience with shear frames. Journal of Glaciology, 29, 485-491.
Roch, A., 1966: Les variations de la resistence de la neige. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Scientific aspects of Snow and Ice Avalanches. Gentbrugge, Belgium,
IAHS Publication, 182-195.
68
Avalanche Observations
3.1 Introduction
Observations of past and present avalanche activity are of the utmost importance for any avalanche
forecasting operation. These data should be recorded and organized in a manner that allows personnel to
visualize temporal and spatial patterns in recent avalanche activity. Objectives for observing avalanches
are presented in Section 3.2. A standard avalanche observation is presented in Section 3.4. The
remainder of this chapter provides methods for observing a wide variety of avalanche related
phenomena. Parameters are divided into avalanche path characteristics and avalanche event
characteristics. Parameters in the standard avalanche observation are marked with a Ô symbol.
Individual operations can chose to observe and record parameters beyond those included in the standard
observation. The parameters collected will depend on the type of operation and the snow climate of the
forecast area.
3.2 Objectives
Observations and records of avalanche occurrences have the following applications:
• Information about avalanche occurrences and non-occurrences is used in association with other
observations in evaluating snow stability.
• Observations identify areas where avalanches released earlier in the winter or storm/avalanche
cycle. Snow stability may vary between these sites and nearby undisturbed slopes.
• Avalanche observation data are essential when protective works and facilities are planned, when
the effectiveness of control measures is assessed, and when forecasting models are developed by
correlating past weather and snow conditions with avalanche occurrences.
• Understanding the avalanche phenomenon through research.
All avalanches that are significant to an operation should be recorded. Noting the non-occurrence of
avalanches is also important for snow stability evaluation and during hazard reduction missions.
3.3 Identification of Avalanche Paths
Avalanche paths should be identified by a key name, number, aspect, or a similar identifier which should
be referred to on lists, maps, or photographs. For roads, railway lines and power lines it is convenient to
refer to avalanche paths by the running mile or kilometer. Every effort should be made to retain
historical names. Changing historical names creates confusing records and decreases the usefulness of
past data records. Historical paths that have multiple starting zones can be reclassified with subcategories
of the original name. Any reclassification should be clearly explained in the metadata (see Appendix C).
Avalanche paths with multiple starting zones are often divided into sub zones. Separate targets for
explosive placement may be identified within each starting zone.
Figure 3.1 A slab avalanche

(photograph by Jim Woodmencey).
69
3.4 Standard Avalanche Observation

This section outlines a standard avalanche observation for single avalanche events. Suggestions for
summarizing multiple avalanche events are discussed in Section 3.7. Storm cycles and access to starting
zones may make it difficult to observe every parameter for every avalanche that occurs within a forecast
area. In this case the avalanche size characteristics should be estimated, and some of the snow specific
parameters can be marked N/O for not observed.
The parameters have been separated into avalanche path characteristics and avalanche event
characteristics. Operations that deal with a “fixed” number of paths documented in an avalanche atlas
replace the path specific parameters with path name or number.
1) Date – record the date on which the avalanche occurred (YYYYMMDD).
2) Time – record the local time at which the avalanche occurred to the hour or minute if possible.
Time codes of 2405 and 2417 can be used for avalanches that released at an unknown time
during the AM and PM respectively. Time ranges or start and end times of control missions can
also be used.
4) Path Characteristics (Section 3.5)
a. Observation Location – record the name or number of the path where the avalanche
occurred, the latitude and longitude, or the nearest prominent topographic landmark
(mountain, pass, drainage, etc.) or political landmark (town, road mile, etc.).
b. Aspect – record the direction the slope faces where the avalanche occurred (i.e. N, NE, E,
SE, S, SW, W, NW).
c. Slope Angle in Starting Zone – record the average slope angle in the starting zone where
the avalanche released. When possible, a number of locations in the starting zone should
be measured so that a maximum, minimum, and average value can be reported.
d. Elevation – record the elevation of the crown face in feet (meters).
5) Event Characteristics (Section 3.6)
a. Type – record the avalanche type.
b. Trigger – record the event that triggered the avalanche.
c. Size – record the size of the avalanche.
d. Snow Properties
i. Bed Surface – record the location of the bed surface as: In new snow, New/old
interface, in Old snow, or Ground. If the site was visited, record the hand
hardness, grain type, and grain size.
ii.Weak Layer – record the grain type and date of burial if known. If the site was
visited record the hand hardness, grain type, and grain size.
iii. Slab – record the hand hardness, grain type, and grain size.
e. Dimensions
i. Slab Thickness – record the average (and maximum) height of the crown face to
the nearest 0.25 m (or whole foot).
ii.Width – record the width (horizontal distance) of the avalanche to the nearest 10
m (or 25 feet).
iii. Vertical Fall – record the vertical fall of the avalanche to the nearest 50 m (or
100 ft).
f. Location of Start Zone – record the location of the crown face, as viewed from below,
within the starting zone as top (T), middle (M), or bottom (B).
g. Terminus – record the location of the debris within the avalanche path.
70
3.5 Avalanche Path Characteristics

3.5.1 Area and Path Ô
Enter the name of the operation or avalanche area where the avalanche path is located.
Note: It is not necessary to note the area in every entry of a field notebook if that book is not
taken from area to area.
Enter the identifier (name or number) of the avalanche path.
Some road operations may name their paths by the running mile or kilometer. In this case two decimal
places may be used to identify paths within a whole mile or kilometer.
3.5.2 Aspect Ô
Use the eight points of compass to specify the avalanche’s central aspect in the starting zone. Compass
degrees or the sixteen major points (i.e. NNE, ENE, etc.) can be used to convey greater detail. A range
in aspect can be specified for large or highly curved starting zones.
Table 3.1 Slope Aspect
Degrees 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
3.5.3 Slope Angle Ô

Record the average slope angle in the starting zone where the avalanche released. When possible, a
number of locations in the starting zone should be measured so that a maximum, minimum and average
value can be reported.
Figure 3.2 Measuring the

slope angle of a slab
avalanche (photograph by
Bruce Tremper).
71
3.5.4 Elevation Ô
Record the elevation of the starting zone or crown face in feet (or meters) above sea level (ASL).
3.6 Avalanche Event Characteristics

3.6.1 Date Ô
Record year, month and day of the avalanche occurrence (avoid spaces, commas, etc.) i.e. December 15,
2001, is noted as 20011215 (YYYYMMDD).
3.6.2 Time Ô
Estimate the time of occurrence and record it by hour and minute in local standard time.
Record the time of occurrence on the 24-hour clock (avoid spaces, colons etc.) i.e. 5:10 p.m. is noted as
1710.
Use local standard time (i.e. Pacific, Mountain, etc.). Operations that overlap time zones should
standardize to one time.
When the precise time of occurrence is unknown, use 2405 and 2417 for avalanches that released during
the AM and PM respectively. Time ranges or start and end times of control missions can also be used.
3.6.3 Avalanche Type Ô
Record the type of avalanche as described in Table 3.2.
Note: A hard slab has an average density equal to or greater than 300 kg/m3. Informal
distinctions can be made between hard and soft slab avalanches based on the form of the
deposit and the hand hardness of the slab. Hard slab avalanches generally have a slab hardness
of one finger or greater. Debris piles from hard slab avalanches are typically composed of
angular blocks of snows.
Table 3.2 Avalanche Type
Data Code Type
L Loose-snow avalanche
WL Wet loose-snow avalanche
SS Soft slab avalanche
HS Hard slab avalanche
WS Wet slab avalanche
I Ice fall or avalanche
SF Slush flow
C Cornice fall (w/o additional avalanche)
R Roof avalanche
U Unknown
72
a b
d
Figure 3.3 Avalanche types:
a) debris from a hard slab
avalanche, b) wet slab, c) soft
slab avalanche, d) point
release avalanche or sluff
(photographs by Karl Birkeland
c (a,b) and Bruce Tremper (c,d))
3.6.4 Trigger Ô
Indicate the mechanism that caused avalanche release with a primary code, secondary code when
possible, and modifier when appropriate. The secondary codes have been separated into two categories
with separate modifiers for each. Operations may devise other trigger sub-classes that apply to their
specific conditions in consultation with the American Avalanche Association. Guidelines for reporting
avalanche involvements are listed in Appendix H. Examples of coding structure are given in Section
3.6.12.
Table 3.3 Avalanche Trigger Codes - Primary
Data Code Cause of Avalanche Release
N Natural or Spontaneous
A Artificial
U Unknown
73
Table 3.4 Avalanche Trigger Codes – Secondary-Natural and Explosive Releases
Natural Triggers
N Natural trigger
NC Cornice fall
NE Earthquake
NI Ice fall
NL Avalanche triggered by loose snow avalanche
NS Avalanche triggered by slab avalanche
NR Rock fall
NO Unclassified natural trigger (specify in comments)
Artificial Triggers: Explosive
AA Artillery
AE An explosive thrown or placed on or under the snow surface by hand
AL Avalauncher
AB An explosive detonated above the snow surface (air blast)
AC Cornice fall triggered by human or explosive action
AX Gas exploder
AH Explosives placed via helicopter
AP Pre-placed, remotely detonated explosive charge
Artificial Triggers: Miscellaneous
AW Wildlife
AU Unknown artificial trigger
AO Unclassified artificial trigger (specify in comments)
Table 3.5 Avalanche Trigger Codes – Modifiers for Natural and Explosive Caused Releases
r A remote avalanche released by the indicated trigger
y An avalanche released in sympathy with another avalanche
Note: For remote and sympathetic avalanches the distance between the trigger and the
avalanche should be recorded in the comments.
74
Table 3.6 Avalanche Trigger Codes – Secondary-Human Triggered Avalanches
Artificial Triggers: Vehicle
AM Snowmobile
AK Snowcat
AV Vehicle (specify vehicle type in comments)
Artificial Triggers: Human
AS Skier
AR Snowboarder
AI Snowshoer
AF Foot penetration
AC Cornice fall produced by human or explosive action
Artificial Triggers: Miscellaneous
AU Unknown artificial trigger
AO Unclassified artificial trigger (specify in comments)
Table 3.7 Avalanche Trigger Codes – Modifiers for Human Triggered Avalanches
A controlled or intentional release by the indicated trigger (i.e.

c
slope cut, intentional cornice drop, etc.).
u An unintentional release.
r A remote avalanche released by the indicated trigger
y An avalanche released in sympathy with another avalanche
Note: For remote and sympathetic avalanches the distance between the trigger and the
avalanche should be recorded in the comments.
Avalanches that start when a helicopter or other aircraft flies overhead should be considered
natural if the aircraft is a significant distance above the ground.
Avalanches triggered by helicopters when in “ground effect” should be considered artificially
triggered. Ground effect can be observed when significant rotor wash (blowing snow) is noticed
on the snow surface below the helicopter. Use your best judgment.
75
3.6.5 Size Ô
The two commonly used avalanche size classification schemes are: Relative to Path and Destructive
Force. Both systems use a scale that varies from 1 to 5. These guidelines recommend observing and
recording avalanche size in both systems. Using both systems will maintain long-term data sets and
provide the most useful information to active forecasting programs. However, forecasting program
managers should decide whether to use one or both schemes. Each system provides different and useful
information, but the numerical categories of each scale are often not comparable.
3.6.5.1 Size – Destructive Force
Estimate the destructive potential of the avalanche from the mass of deposited snow, and assign a size
number. Imagine that the objects on the following list (people, cars, trees) were located in the track or at
the beginning of the runout zone and estimate the harm the avalanche would have caused.
Table 3.8 Avalanche Size – Destructive Force (after CAA, 2007; Perla, 1980)
Data Code Avalanche Destructive Potential Typical Mass Typical Path Length
D1 Relatively harmless to people <10 t 10 m
D2 Could bury, injure, or kill a person. 102 t 100 m
Could bury and destroy a car, damage a truck, destroy a

D3 103 t 1,000 m
wood frame house, or break a few trees.
Could destroy a railway car, large truck, several
D4 104 t 2,000 m
buildings, or a substantial amount of forest.
Could gouge the landscape. Largest snow avalanche
D5 105 t 3,000 m
known.
Note: The use of half-sizes may be used to signify an avalanche that is on the high end of a
single class.
The destructive potential of avalanches is a function of their mass, speed and density as well as
the length and cross-section of the avalanche path.
Typical impact pressures for each size number are given in McClung and Schaerer (1981).
The number “0” may be used to indicate no release of an avalanche following the application of
mitigation measures.
sluff Figure 3.4 Slab avalanche triggered by a loose-snow

avalanche (photograph by Andy Gleason).
slab
76
3.6.5.2 Size – Relative to Path

The size—relative to path classification is a general measure and takes into account many factors,
including the horizontal extent and vertical depth of the fracture, the volume and mass of the debris, and
the runout distance of the avalanche. The observer estimates the size of the avalanche relative to the
terrain feature or avalanche path where it occurred. A “small” avalanche is one that is relatively small
compared to what that particular avalanche path could produce, while a “large” avalanche is, or is close
to, the largest avalanche that the particular avalanche path could produce.
Table 3.9 Avalanche Size – Relative to Path
Data Code Avalanche Size
R1 Very small, relative to the path.
R2 Small, relative to the path
R3 Medium, relative to the path
R4 Large, relative to the path
R5 Major or maximum, relative to the path
Note: Half-sizes should not be used for the size-relative to path scale.
The number “0” may be used to indicate no release of an avalanche following the application
of mitigation measures.
The size classification pertains to both the horizontal extent and the vertical depth of the
fracture, as well as the volume and runout distance of the avalanche.
3.6.6 Snow Properties

3.6.6.1 Bed Surface Ô
Level of Bed Surface
Record the level of the bed surface (the upper surface of the layer over which a slab slid) in the
snowpack. If the avalanche involved more than one bed surface, all applicable codes should be included.
Table 3.10 Avalanche Bed Surface
Data Code Bed Surface
S The avalanche released within a layer of recent storm snow.
I The avalanche released at the new snow/old snow interface.
O The avalanche released within the old snow.
G The avalanche released at the ground, glacial ice or firn.
U Unknown
Note: Storm snow is defined here as all snow deposited during a recent storm.
77
Form and Age of Fracture Plane

Record the predominant grain form observed in the layer below the fracture plane using the
International Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground (refer to Appendix F). Where possible
identify the failure plane by its probable date of burial. Use the comments section to note the occurrence
of a fracture that steps down to other layers.
3.6.6.2 Weak Layer Ô
Record the grain type using the International Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground (see
Appendix F), grain size (mm), and hand hardness of the weak layer.
3.6.6.3 Slab Ô
Record the grain type using the International Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground (see
Appendix F), grain size (mm), and hand hardness of the slab directly above the weak layer.
3.6.6.4 Liquid Water Content in Starting Zone and Deposit
Determine the liquid water content of the avalanche snow in the starting zone and deposit at the time of
failure and deposition. The liquid water content can be different in the starting zone and deposit.
Although these observations use the same data code, they can be recorded as two separate items to
include more information.
Table 3.11 Liquid Water Content of Snow in Avalanche Starting Zone
Data Code Liquid Water Content

D Dry snow
M Moist snow
W Wet snow
U Unknown
Note: See Table 2.4 for water content definitions.
3.6.7 Avalanche Dimensions

3.6.7.1 Slab Thickness Ô
If practical, estimate or measure the average and maximum thickness of the slab normal to the slope to
the nearest 25 centimeters (or whole foot), the average thickness of the slab at the fracture line. Add “M”
when thickness is actually measured. If only one value is reported it should be the average dimension.
3.6.7.2 Slab Width Ô
In a slab avalanche, record the width (horizontal distance) in meters (feet) of the slab between the flanks
near the fracture line. Add “M” when width is actually measured.
3.6.7.3 Vertical Fall Ô
Using an altimeter or contour map, calculate the elevation difference in feet (meters) between the
fracture line and the toe of the debris.
78
3.6.7.4 Length of Path Run

Some operations may wish to record the estimated distance an avalanche ran along a slope. Record the
distance between the fracture line and the toe of the debris. Up to a distance of 300 m (~ 1000 ft)
estimate the distance traveled to nearest 25 m (~ 100 ft). Beyond a distance of 300 m estimate the
distance run to nearest 100 m (~ 300 ft).
Note: All dimensions are assumed to be estimates unless the values are followed with the letter
M (measured).
Dimensions are assumed to be in meters. Measurements or estimates in feet should be indicated
with a ' after the number (i.e. 3').
3.6.8 Location of Avalanche Start Ô

Position in Starting Zone
Describe the location of the avalanche fracture with one of the following code letters, physical features
or elevation and, when applicable, add the data code for the starting sub-zone or the target.
Note: For this code gunner’s left and right should be used. Gunner’s perspective is looking up
at the starting zone (opposite of skier’s perspective).
Figure 3.5 An avalanche remotely triggered by a skier (SS-ASr-R2/D2-O) in the Wasatch Mountains, Utah
(photograph by Bruce Tremper).
79
3.6.9 Terminus Ô
Describe the location of the tip of the avalanche deposit with a code letter.
Table 3.12 Location of Avalanche Start
Data Code Vertical Location within Starting Zone from Gunner's Perspective
T (L, R, C) At the top of the starting zone (left, right, or center)
M (L, R, C) In the middle of the starting zone( left, right, or center)
B (L, R, C) At the bottom of the starting zone (left, right, or center)
U Unknown
Note: The codes TP, MP and BP are applicable for short paths where the starting zone, track
and runout zone cannot be easily separated.
Table 3.13 Terminus of Avalanche Debris
Data Code Terminus for long paths

SZ The avalanche stopped in the starting zone.
TK The avalanche stopped in the track
TR The avalanche stopped at the top part of the runout zone
MR The avalanche stopped in the middle part of the runout zone
BR The avalanche stopped in the bottom part of the runout zone
U Unknown
Data Code Terminus for short paths

TP The avalanche stopped near the top of the path
MP The avalanche stopped near the middle part of the path
BP The avalanche stopped near the bottom part of the path
Operations that have large avalanche paths with well-defined features may apply additional codes (See
Table 3.14).
Table 3.14 Detailed Terminus Codes
Data Code Terminus

1F Stopped on top ¼ of the fan
2F Stopped halfway down the fan
3F Stopped ¾ of way down the fan
80
3.6.10 Total Deposit Dimensions

Record the average width and length of the deposited avalanche snow in meters (feet).
Record the average deposit depth in meters and tenths of a meter. Add an “M” after each value if
measured by tape or probe.
3.6.11 Avalanche Runout
The angle between the horizontal and a line drawn from the highest portion of the crown face and the toe
of the debris can be used as a relative measure of avalanche runout. This angle, known as the alpha
angle (α), has been used by landslide investigators since the late 1800’s and has been applied to
avalanche studies to describe extreme (~100 year) events. Although in avalanche research α has
generally been reserved for very large events, guide services, engineers, scientists, and forecasters may
find the subcategories defined in Table 3.15 useful.
Table 3.15 Alpha Angle Subcategories
αi The measured alpha angle for any individual avalanche.
The alpha angle of an extreme event. The smallest alpha angle (furthest avalanche
αe runout) observed in a specific avalanche path, determined by historical records,
tree ring analysis, or direct observation.
A calculated value of the smallest alpha angle (furthest avalanche runout) in a

αnumber specific avalanche path during a defined time period. Where the designated time
period (return period) in years is listed in the subscript (α10, α50, α100).
Statistical studies suggest that alpha angles in a specific mountain range can cluster around a
characteristic value. This value may be governed by terrain and snowpack conditions characteristic of
the range (McClung and Schaerer, 2006; Mears, 1992; McClung and others, 1989; Lied and Bakkehøi,
1980).
3.6.12 Coding Avalanche Observations
Avalanche observations can be recorded in tabular format with a separate column for each data code.
Common data codes can also be recorded in one string.
Example:
HS-AA-R2-D2: a hard slab avalanche triggered artificially by artillery
SS-AE-R4-D3: a soft slab avalanche triggered artificially by a hand charge
L-N-R1-D1: a small loose snow avalanche triggered by a natural event
HS-ASr-R3-D3-O: a hard slab avalanche triggered remotely by a skier and broke into
old snow layers (see Section 3.6.4)
HS-ACu-R4-D3: a hard slab avalanche triggered by an unintentional artificial cornice
fall
HS-ACc-R2-D3: a hard slab avalanche triggered by an intentional artificial cornice fall
HS-AC-R2-D3: a hard slab avalanche triggered by a cornice drop produced by
explosives
WS-NS-R4-D3: a wet slab triggered by a natural slab avalanche.
AC-0: An intentionally triggered cornice that did not produce an avalanche.
3.6.13 Comments
Enter information about damage and accidents caused by the avalanche and any other significant
information. Note when the avalanche was triggered artificially. Use as much space as required.
81
Table 3.15 Multiple Avalanche Events – Recording Example
Parameter Criteria Examples

Record beginning of cycle and end of cycle when 20010212 or
Date or date range
possible. 20010212 – 20010214
Time range Digits 0000 – 1000
Area (location) Text (80 characters max.) Mt. Timpanogos
Attempt to limit the size range to 2 classes.

D1.5 – D2.0 R2
Size Significant or very large avalanches should be
-R3
recorded as individual events.
Data code (do not mix natural and artificial
Trigger AE, U
triggers in this report)
Data code (group slab and loose avalanches
Type HS, SS, U or WL, U
separately)
A single, range, or a combination of compass
Aspect (of starting zone) All, W, SW – NW
directions.
Group events by elevation range. Use separate
5,000 – 6,500 and 8,000
Elevation (at fracture) reports for significant elevation ranges as
–10,000 ft
applicable to forecast area.
Record range in average starting zone angle and
Slope Angle (at fracture) 32–42, 30, 45
max and min
Key letter (do not mix storm snow, old snow, and
Level of bed surface S, O, G, or U
ground)
Hardness of bed surface Hand hardness scale 1F
Weak layer grain form Grain form abbreviation (Fierz et al., 2009) SH
Hardness of weak layer Hand hardness scale 4F
Age of failure plane Probable date of burial 20011204
Slab width Range (in meters) 60 – 110 m

Slab thickness Range (in centimeters) 10 – 30 cm
Hardness of slab Hand hardness scale P

Vertical Fall Range (in meters) 500 – 1500 m
Comments Max. of 5 lines by 80 characters per line
3.7 Multiple Avalanche Events

An operation may wish to group large numbers of similar avalanche events (avalanche cycle) into one
record or report, especially if that information is to be sent to a central information exchange. Grouping
is achieved by allowing certain fields to hold a range of values (i.e. by specifying lower and upper
bounds, separated by a dash). The report should be repeated for different types of activity (i.e. natural
versus artificially released avalanches).
Note: Significant avalanches (larger than size D3 or R3), and events involving incident, damage
or injury should be described individually.
82
3.8 Additional Observations

Additional observations may be selected as applicable from those listed in this section. Certain
additional observations are valuable in areas where avalanches are either controlled or affect traffic and/
or communication lines.
3.8.1 Avalanche Hazard Mitigation Missions
3.8.1.1 Number of Explosive Charges / Number of Detonations
Record the number of projectiles or explosive charges applied to a target.
Record the number of confirmed detonations.
Note: The difference in the two values gives a dud count.
3.8.1.2 Size of Explosive Charge
Note the mass (kg) of the explosive charge used at each shot location.
3.8.2 Road and Railway Operations
3.8.2.1 Deposit on Road or Railway
Record in meters (feet) the length of road, railway line, ski run, power line, or other facility buried in
avalanche snow.
Record average depth at center line and maximum depth of avalanche snow on the road, etc., in meters
and tenths of a meter (feet/inches). Add “M” when length and depth are measured.
3.8.2.2 Distance to Toe of Deposited Mass
Measure or estimate the distance between the uphill edge of the road, or other development, and the
farthest point reached by the mass of avalanche. Negative values are used when the deposited mass
failed to reach the road or facility.
Note: Some operations may also wish to document the occurrence of snow dust on the road.
Dust results from the fallout of an avalanche’s powder cloud. Its main impact is on driver
visibility.
3.8.2.3 Road / Line Status
Transportation operations should record the status (open or closed) and danger rating (Appendix G) in
effect for any roads or railway lines at the time when the avalanche occurred. During closures due to
control missions or avalanche activity, the start and end time of the closure should be recorded.
Figure 3.6 An avalanche

triggered by glide of the
snowpack (photograph by Bruce
Tremper).
83
84
Glossary
Glossary
Accuracy—The difference between the measured value and the actual or true value. A property of a
measurement method and instruments used. Also see precision.
Alpha Angle—The angle between the horizontal and a line drawn from the highest point of the crown
face to the toe of the debris. Alpha can be measured for an individual avalanche (αi). Extreme
values of alpha (αe) can be determined from historical records, tree ring data, or direct
observation. Minimum values of alpha (longest runout length) can also be calculated for a
specific return period (α10, α50, α100). Also termed the angle of reach.
Anemometer—An instrument that measures the pressure exerted by, or the speed of wind.
Aspect—The exposure of the terrain as indicated by compass direction of the fall line (relative to true
north). A slope that faces north has a north aspect.
Atmospheric Pressure—The pressure due to the weight of air on the surface of the earth or at a given
level in the atmosphere. Also called barometric pressure.
Avalanche, Snow—A mass of snow sliding, tumbling, or flowing down an inclined surface that may
contain rocks, soil, vegetation, or ice.
Avalanche Danger Scale—A categorical estimation of the avalanche danger. In the U.S., a five level
scale is used for backcountry recreational users. See Appendix G.
Avalanche Path—A terrain feature where an avalanche occurs. An avalanche path is composed of a
starting zone, track, and runout zone.
Avalauncher—A compressed gas delivery system for explosives. Designed for avalanche hazard
mitigation.
Barometer —An instrument that measures atmospheric pressure. Barometers typically express this
measure in millibars (mb) or inches of mercury (inHg).
Barometric Pressure—The pressure exerted by a column of air on the surface of the earth or at a given
level in the atmosphere. Also called atmospheric pressure.
Bed Surface—The surface over which fracture and subsequent avalanche release occurs. The bed
surface is often different than the running surface over which the avalanche flows through the
track. A bed surface can be either the ground or a snow/ice surface.
Calibrate—To ascertain the error in the output of a measurement method by checking it against an
accepted standard.
Caught—A category of the avalanche toll for an accident. A person is caught if they are touched and
adversely affected by the avalanche. People performing slope cuts are generally not considered
caught in the resulting avalanche unless they are carried downhill.
Collapse—When fracture of a lower layer causes an upper layer to fall, producing a displacement at the
snow surface. The displacement may not always be detectable with the human eye. A collapse in
the snowpack often produces a whumpfing sound.
Completely Buried—A category of the avalanche toll for an accident. A person is completely buried if
they are completely beneath the snow surface when the avalanche stops. Clothing or attached
equipment is not visible on the surface.
Concave Slope—A terrain feature that is rounded inward like the inside of a bowl (i.e. goes from more
steep to less steep).
85
Condensation—The process of a gas being converted to a liquid due to changes in temperature and/or
pressure. Also see definition of evaporation.
Convex Slope—A terrain feature that is curved or rounded like the exterior of a sphere or circle (i.e.
goes from less steep to more steep).
Cornice—A mass of snow that is deposited by the wind, often overhanging, and usually near a sharp
terrain break such as a ridge.
Creep—The time-dependent permanent deformation (strain) that occurs under stress. In the snow cover
this includes deformation due to settlement and internal shear.
Crown—The snow that remains on the slope above the crown face of an avalanche.
Crown Face—The top fracture surface of a slab avalanche. Usually smooth, clean cut, and angled 90
degrees to the bed surface. Also see fracture line.
Crystal—A physically homogenous solid in which the internal elements are arranged in a repetitive
three-dimensional pattern. Within an ice lattice the internal elements are individual water
molecules held together by hydrogen bonds. Usually synonymous with grain in snow
applications (see definition for grain), although the term grain can be used to describe multi-
crystal formation.
Danger, Avalanche—The potential for an avalanche(s) to cause damage to something of value. It is a
combination of the likelihood of triggering and the destructive size of the avalanche(s). It
implies the potential to affect people, facilities or things of value, but does not incorporate
vulnerability or exposure to avalanches. Avalanche danger and hazard are synonymous and are
commonly expressed using relative terms such as high, moderate and low.
Debris, Avalanche—The mass of snow and other material that accumulate as a result of an avalanche.
Deformation, Solid—A change in size or shape of a solid body.
Density—A mass of substance per unit volume. The International System of Units (SI) uses kg/m3 for
density.
Deposition, Vapor—The process of a gas being converted directly to a solid due to changes in
temperature and/or pressure. Also see definition for sublimation.
Deposition, Wind—The accumulation of snow that has been transported by wind.
Dew Point —The temperature at which water vapor begins to condense and deposit as a liquid while
the pressure is held constant.
Equilibrium Vapor Pressure—The partial pressure at which evaporation and condensation are
occurring at the same rate. Also see saturation vapor pressure.
Error—The difference between the output of a measurement method and the output of a measurement
standard.
Evaporation—Strictly defined as the conversion of mass between liquid and gas phases due to changes
in temperature and/or pressure. Commonly used to describe mass conversion from liquid to
gas, with condensation describing a phase change in the opposite direction.
Exposure— An element or resource (person, vehicle, structure, etc…) that is subject to the impact of a
specific natural hazard.
86
Glossary
Failure—A state of stress or deformation that meets a specific criterion. Many criteria for failure exist,
but the most commonly used criteria for snow are: 1) the point at which shear stress in a weak
layer equals the shear strength, 2) the point at which shear deformation increases while the
strength of the weak layer decreases, 3) sudden excessive plastic deformation, 4) during a
stability test, the loading step at which the test column fractures. Failure is a precursor to
fracture, but fracture (and slab release) may or may not occur after failure. To avoid confusion,
the criterion should always be specified when discussing failure.
Fall line—The natural downhill course between two points on a slope.
Flank—The snow to the sides of a slab avalanche, which remains after the release.
Force—An agent that causes acceleration or deformation of a particular mass. Often expressed by
Newton’s Second Law, F = ma, where the force acting on a given object is the product of its
mass and its acceleration.
Fracture—The separation or fragmentation of a solid body into two or more parts under the action of
stress. A discussion of fracture often encompasses two physical processes: crack initiation and
crack propagation. Snow fracture can occur at different scales, from the rupture of ice bonds to
the fracturing of a weak layer. Fracturing is a prerequisite for slab avalanche release, which
occurs when the initial shear fracture, at the weak layer or interface at the bed surface,
propagates to the crown face, flanks and stauchwall.
Fracture Line—The remaining boundary of a slab after an avalanche has occurred. Also see definitions
for crown face, flank and stauchwall.
Fracture Mechanics - A branch of materials physics that is concerned with the initiation and
propagation of fractures. The field generally utilizes three variables: applied stress, flaw size,
and fracture toughness (a material property), to characterize crack energetics or crack stresses.
Full Profile—A complete snow profile observation where grain size, grain type, interval temperature,
layer density and layer hardness are measured and recorded in addition to stability information.
Funicular, Wet Snow Regime—When discontinuous air spaces and continuous volumes of water exist
in a snow cover. In a funicular snow cover only water-ice and air-liquid connections exist. It is
generally assumed that snow with a liquid water content (by volume) of 8 - 15 % is in the
funicular regime. Also see the definition for the pendular regime.
Glide—Downhill slip of the entire snowpack along the ground or firm interface.
Grain—The smallest distinguishable ice component in a disaggregated snow cover. Usually
synonymous with crystal in snow applications. The term grain can be used to describe
polycrystal formations when the crystal boundaries are not easily distinguishable with a field
microscope.
Hang Fire—Snow adjacent to an existing fracture line that remains after avalanche release. Hang fire
typically has a similar aspect and incline to the initial avalanche.
Hard Slab—A snow slab having a density equal to, or greater than 300 kg/m3 prior to avalanching.
Hazard, Avalanche—The potential for an avalanche(s) to cause damage to something of value. It is a
combination of the likelihood of triggering and the destructive size of the avalanche(s). It
implies the potential to affect people, facilities or things of value, but does not incorporate
vulnerability or exposure to avalanches. Avalanche danger and hazard are synonymous and are
commonly expressed using relative terms such as high, moderate and low.
87
Heat—A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules that is capable of being
transmitted through a solid by conduction, through fluid media by conduction and/or convection
and through empty space by radiation.
Humidity—The amount of water vapor contained in air. Also see relative humidity.
Hysteresis— 1) The history dependence of physical systems. When the outcome of a physical process
depends on the history of the element or the direction of the process. 2) The properties of an
instrument that depend on approaching a point on the scale during a full-scale traverse in both
directions.
Hysteretic Error—The difference between the upscale reading and downscale reading at any point on
the scale obtained during a full-scale traverse. Also see hysteresis.
Incline—The steepness of a slope. The acute angle measured from the horizontal to the plane of a slope.
Also termed slope angle.
Induced Errors—Errors that stem from equipment quality or deviation from a standard measurement
technique.
Inherent Errors—Errors due to natural variations in the process of measurement and will vary in sign
(+/-) and magnitude each time they occur.
Injured—A category of the avalanche toll for an accident. A person is considered injured if they require
medical treatment after being caught, partially buried-not critical, partially buried-critical,
or completely buried in an avalanche.
Isothermal—The state of equal temperature. In an isothermal snow cover there is no temperature
gradient. Seasonal snow covers that are isothermal are typically 0°C.
Latent Heat—The quantity of heat absorbed or released by a substance undergoing a change of state,
such as ice changing to water or water to steam, at constant temperature and pressure.
Layer, Snow—An element of a snow cover created by a weather, metamorphic, or other event.
Loose-Snow Avalanche—An avalanche that releases from a point and spreads downhill entraining
snow. Also termed a point-release avalanche or a sluff.
Mitigation, Avalanche Hazard—To moderate the frequency, timing, force, or destructive effect of
avalanches on people, property, or the environment through active or passive methods.
Mixing Ratio—The ratio of the mass of water vapor to the mass of dry air in a volume of air. The
mixing ratio is dimensionless, but usually expressed as g/kg.
Partially Buried—Critical—A category of the avalanche toll for an accident. A person is partially
buried–critical if their head is below the snow surface when the avalanche stops but equipment,
clothing and/or portions of their body are visible.
Partially Buried—Not Critical—A category of the avalanche toll for an accident. A person is partially
buried–not critical if their head was above the snow surface when the avalanche stops.
Partial Pressure—The pressure a component of a gaseous mixture would exert if it alone occupied the
volume the entire mixture occupies.
Pendular, Wet Snow Regime—When continuous air spaces and discontinuous volumes of water exist
in a snow cover. In a pendular snow cover: air-ice, water-ice and air-liquid connections exist
simultaneously. It is generally assumed that snow with a liquid water content (by volume) of
3 – 8% is in the pendular regime. Also see the definition for the funicular regime.
Point-Release Avalanche—See loose snow avalanche or sluff.
88
Glossary
Precipitation Intensity—A measurement of the water equivalent that accumulated during a defined
time period (usually 1 hour).
Precipitation Rate—An estimate of the amount of snow and/or rain that accumulated during a defined
time period (usually 1 hour).
Precision—The level of detail that a measurement method can produce under identical conditions.
Precision is a property of a measurement method and a measure of repeatability. The precision
of a measurement method dictates the degree of discrimination with which a quantity is stated
(i.e. a three digit numeral discriminates among 1,000 possibilities). Also see accuracy.
Pressure—The force applied to or distributed perpendicular to a surface, measured as force per unit
area. The International System of Units (SI) uses N/m2 or a pascal (Pa) for pressure.
Relative Humidity—A dimensionless ratio of the vapor pressure to the saturation vapor pressure, or
the mixing ratio to the saturation mixing ratio. Relative humidity is reported as percent (i.e.
vapor pressure/ saturation vapor pressure x 100 = % relative humidity).
Remote Trigger—When an avalanche releases some distance away from the trigger point.
Repeatability—The difference between consecutive measurements obtained by the same measurement
method under the same conditions.
Resolution—The smallest interval between two adjacent, discrete measured values that can be
distinguished from each other under specified conditions.
Return Period—The average time interval between occurrences of an event of given or greater
magnitude. Usually expressed in years.
Risk— The chance of something happening that will have an impact on an element (person, vehicle,
structure, etc…). A risk is often specified in terms of an event or circumstance and the
consequences that may follow. Risk can be evaluated in terms of a combination of the
consequences of an event and its likelihood.
Running Surface—The surface over which an avalanche flows below the stauchwall. This surface can
extend from the stauchwall, through the track, and into the runout zone. The running surface
can be composed of one or more snowpack layers.
Runout Zone—The portion of an avalanche path where the avalanche debris typically comes to rest
due to a decrease in slope angle, a natural obstacle, or loss of momentum.
Saturation Mixing Ratio—The mixing ratio of a parcel of air that is at equilibrium. See definitions of
vapor pressure, saturation vapor pressure and equilibrium vapor pressure.
Saturation Vapor Pressure—The partial pressure of a vapor when evaporation and condensation
are occurring at the same rate over a flat surface of pure substance (i.e. water). The saturation
vapor pressure is a special case of the equilibrium vapor pressure.
Sensitivity—The response of a measurement method to a change in the parameter being measured. The
sensitivity of a measurement method is usually expressed as a ratio. Example: For a mercury
thermometer the sensitivity equals the change in length of the column of mercury per degree of
temperature (m/°C).
Settling, Settlement—The slow, internal deformation and densification of snow under the influence of
gravity. A component of creep.
SI Units—Système International d´Unités. An international system of units. See Appendix B.
Slab—A cohesive snowpack element consisting of one or more snow layers.
89
Slab Avalanche—An avalanche that releases a cohesive slab of snow producing a fracture line.
Slope Angle —The acute angle measured from the horizontal to the plane of a slope.
Sluff—A loose snow avalanche or point release avalanche.
Snow Profile—A pit dug vertically into the snowpack where observations of snow cover stratigraphy
and characteristics of the individual layers are observed. Also used to describe data collected by
this method at an individual site.
Soft Slab—A snow slab with a density less than 300 kg/m3.
Spatial Variability—The variation of physical properties across the physical extent, or various spatial
scales, of a material. Typical scales in snow avalanche research and practice include the
continental scale (defining variations in snow and avalanche climates), the regional scale (such
as regions covered by backcountry avalanche advisories), the scale of individual mountain
ranges (of various sizes), and the scale of individual slopes. Physical properties investigated
vary, but include weak layer shear strength, stability test scores, penetration resistance,
microstructural parameters, layer continuity, snow water equivalent, snow depth, and other
characteristics.
Stability—1) A property of a system where the effects of an induced disturbance decrease in magnitude
and the system returns to its original state. 2) For avalanche forecasting stability is the chance
that avalanches do not initiate. Stability is analyzed in space and time relative to a given
triggering level or load.
Starting Zone—The portion of an avalanche path from where the avalanche releases.
Stauchwall—The downslope fracture surface of a slab avalanche.
Strain—The deformation of a physical body under an external force represented by a dimensionless
ratio (m/m).
Strength—1) The ability of a material to resist strain or stress. 2) The maximum stress a snow layer
can withstand without failing or fracturing.
Stress—The distribution of force over a particular area. Expressed in units of force per area (N/m2).
Study Plot—A fixed location where atmospheric and snow properties are measured and recorded. Study
plot locations are chosen to limit the effects of external influences (i.e. wind, sun, slope angle)
and are typically close to level.
Study Slope—A fixed, normally inclined location where snow properties and snow stability are
measured and recorded. Atmospheric fields can also be recorded at a study slope. Study slope
locations are chosen in relatively uniform areas, so that snow properties can be monitored over
time and extrapolated to starting zones.
Sublimation—Strictly defined as the conversion of mass between solid and gas phases due to changes
in temperature and/or pressure. Commonly used to describe mass conversion from solid to
gas, with deposition describing a phase change in the opposite direction.
Sympathetic Trigger—When an avalanche triggers another avalanche some distance away. The second
avalanche releases due to the disturbance of the first.
Targeted Site—A location where a targeted observation is conducted. A targeted site is chosen to
investigate parameters of interest to a particular observer at a particular location. Data from
targeted sites complements data from study plots and study slopes.
90
Glossary
Temperature—Often defined as the condition of a body that determines the transfer of heat to or from
other bodies. Particularly, it is a manifestation of the average translational kinetic energy of the
molecules of a substance due to heat agitation. Also, the degree of hotness or coldness measured
on a definite scale.
Temperature Gradient—The change in temperature over a distance. Expressed in units of degrees
per length (i.e. °C/m).
Test Profile—A snow profile where selected characteristics of the snowpack are observed and recorded.
Stability tests are typically conducted in a test profile. Also see full profile.
Track—The portion of an avalanche path that lies below the starting zone and above the runout
zone.
Trigger—The mechanism that increases the load on the snowpack, or changes its physical properties to
the point that fracture and subsequent avalanching occurs.
Trigger Point—The area where a trigger is applied.
Vapor Pressure—The partial pressure of a vapor.
Vulnerability— The degree to which an exposed element (person, vehicle, structure, etc…) will suffer
loss from the impact of a specific natural hazard.
Wind Sensor—An instrument that measures both wind speed and direction.
Wind Slab—A dense layer(s) of snow formed by wind deposition.
Whumpf —See collapse
91
92
Appendix F
ICSI Classification for Seasonal Snow on the Ground
Morphological classification Additional information on physical processes and strength
Dependence on most Common effect on
Basic classification Subclass Shape Code Place of formation Physical process
important parameters strength
Precipitation
PP
Particles
Columns Prismatic crystal, PPco Cloud; Growth from water vapour at –3
solid or hollow temperature inversion to –8 °C and below–30 °C
a j layer (clear sky)
Needles Needle-like, PPnd Cloud Growth from water vapour at

approximately high supersaturation at –3 to –5 °
k cylindrical C and below –60 °C
Plates Plate-like, PPpl Cloud; Growth from water vapour at 0 to
mostly hexagonal temperature inversion –3 °C and –8 to –70 °C
l layer (clear sky)
Stellars, Six-fold star-like, PPsd Cloud; Growth from water vapour at

Dendrites planar or spatial temperature inversion high supersaturation at 0 to –3 °
layer (clear sky) C and at –12 to
m –16 °C
Irregular Clusters of very small PPir Cloud Polycrystals growing in varying
crystals crystals environmental conditions
n
Graupel Heavily rimed PPgp Cloud Heavy riming of particles by
particles, accretion of supercooled water
o spherical, conical, droplets
hexagonal, or irregular Size: ≤ 5 mm
in shape
Hail Laminar internal PPhl Cloud Growth by accretion of
structure, translucent supercooled water
p or milky glazed surface Size: > 5 mm
Ice pellets Transparent, PPip Cloud Freezing of raindrops or

mostly small spheroids refreezing of largely melted snow
q crystals or snowflakes (sleet)
Graupel or snow pellets encased
in thin ice layer (small hail)
Size: both ≤ 5 mm
Rime Irregular deposits or PPrm Onto surface as well as Accretion of small, supercooled Increase with fog density
longer cones and on freely exposed fog droplets frozen in place. and exposure to wind
r needles pointing into objects Thin breakable crust forms on
the wind snow surface if process
119
continues long enough

Notes: Diamond dust is a further type of precipitation often observed in polar regions (see Appendix E).
Hard rime is more compact and amorphous than soft rime and may build out as glazed cones or ice feathers (AMS, 2000).
The above subclasses do not cover all types of particles and crystals one may observe in the atmosphere. See the references below for a more comprehensive coverage.
References: Magono & Lee, 1966; Bailey & Hallett, 2004; Dovgaluk & Pershina. 2005; Libbrecht, 2005
Common
Dependence on most
Basic classification Subclass Shape Code Place of formation Physical process effect on
important parameters
strength
Machine Made
MM
snow
Round polycrystalline Small spherical MMrp Atmosphere, near surface Machined snow, i.e., freezing of Liquid water content In dry
particles particles, very small water droplets from the depends mainly on air conditions,
often showing surface inward temperature and humidity quick sintering
s protrusions, a result of but also on snow density results in
b the freezing process; and grain size rapid strength
may be partially hollow increase
Crushed Ice plates, shard-like MMci Ice generators Machined ice, i.e., production of All weather safe
ice particles flake ice, subsequent crushing,
and pneumatic distribution
t
References: Fauve et al., 2002
Decomposing DF
and Fragmented
precipitation
particles
Partly decomposed Characteristic shapes of DFdc Within the snowpack; Decrease of surface area to Speed of decomposition Regains
c precipitation particles precipitation particles recently deposited snow reduce surface free energy; also decreases with decreasing cohesion by
still recognizable; often near the surface, usually fragmentation due to light winds snow temperatures and sintering after
u partly rounded. dry lead to initial break up decreasing temperature initial strength
gradients decreased
due to
decomposition
process
Wind-broken Shards or fragments of DFbk Surface layer, mostly Saltation particles are Fragmentation and packing Quick
precipitation particles precipitation particles recently deposited snow fragmented and packed by wind, increase with wind speed sintering
often closely; fragmentation often results in rapid
v followed by rounding strength
increase
120
Basic classification Subclass Shape Code Place of formation Physical process Dependence on most Common effect on
Rounded RG
Grains
Small rounded Rounded, usually RGsr Within the snowpack; Decrease of specific Growth rate increases Strength due to
d particles elongated particles of
size < 0.25 mm;
dry snow surface area by slow
decrease of number
with increasing
temperature; growth
sintering of the snow
grains [1]. Strength
w highly sintered of grains and increase slower in high density increases with time,
of mean grain snow with smaller settlement and
diameter. Small pores decreasing grain size
equilibrium growth
form
Large rounded Rounded, usually RGlr Within the snowpack; Grain-to-grain vapour Same as above Same as above
particles elongated particles of dry snow diffusion due to low
size ≥ 0.25 mm; well temperature
x sintered gradients, i.e., mean
excess vapour density
remains below critical
value for kinetic
growth. Large
equilibrium growth
form
Wind packed Small, broken or RGwp Surface layer; Packing and Hardness increases High number of
abraded, closely- dry snow fragmentation of wind with wind speed, contact points and
y packed particles; transported snow decreasing particle small size causes
well sintered particles that round off size and moderate rapid strength
by interaction with temperature increase through
each other in the sintering
saltation layer.
Evolves into either a
hard but usually
breakable wind crust
or a thicker wind slab.
(see notes)
Faceted Rounded, usually RGxf Within the snowpack; Growth regime Grains are changing Reduction in number
rounded particles elongated particles dry snow changes if mean in response to an of bonds may
with developing facets excess vapour density increasing decrease strength
z is larger than critical temperature gradient
value for kinetic
growth. Accordingly,
this transitional form
develops facets as
temperature gradient
121
increases
Notes: Both wind crusts and wind slabs are layers of small, broken or abraded, closely packed and well-sintered particles. The former are thin irregular layers whereas the latter are thicker, often dense layers, usually
found on lee slopes. Both types of layers can be represented either as sub-class RGwp or as RGsr along with proper grain size, hardness and/or density. If the grains are smaller than about 1 mm, an observer will need
to consider the process at work to differentiate RGxf from FCxr.
References: [1] Colbeck, 1997

Faceted FC Grain-to-grain vapour
diffusion driven by
Crystals large enough
temperature gradient,
i.e., excess vapour
density is above
critical value for
kinetic growth
Solid faceted Solid faceted crystals; FCso Within the snowpack; Solid kinetic growth Growth rate increases Strength decreases
e particles usually hexagonal dry snow form, i.e., a solid with temperature, with increasing growth
prisms crystal with sharp increasing rate and grain size
A edges and corners as temperature gradient,
well as glassy, and decreasing
smooth faces density; may not grow
to larger grains in high
density snow because
of small pores
Near surface faceted Faceted crystals in FCsf Within the snowpack May develop directly Temperature gradient Low strength snow
particles surface layer but right beneath the from Precipitation may periodically
surface; dry snow Particles (PP) or change sign but
B Decomposing and remains at a high
Fragmented particles absolute value
(DFdc) due to large,
near-surface
temperature gradients
[1]
Solid kinetic growth
form (see FCso
above) at early stage
Rounding faceted Faceted crystals with FCxr Within the snowpack; Trend to a transitional Grains are rounding
particles rounding facets and dry snow form reducing its off in response to a
corners specific surface area; decreasing
C corners and edges of temperature gradient
the crystals are
rounding off
Notes: Once buried, FCsf are hard to distinguish from FCso unless the observer is familiar with the evolution of the snowpack.
FCxr can usually be clearly identified for crystals larger than about 1 mm. In case of smaller grains, however, an observer will need to consider the process at work to differentiate FCxr from RGxf.
122
References: [1] Birkeland, 1998

Depth Hoar DH Grain-to-grain vapour

diffusion driven by large
temperature gradient,
i.e., excess vapour
density is well above
critical value for kinetic
growth.
Hollow cups Striated, hollow DHcp Within the Formation of hollow or See FCso. Usually fragile but
f D skeleton type crystals;
usually cup-shaped
snowpack;
dry snow
partly solid cup-shaped
kinetic growth crystals
strength increases
with density
[1]
Hollow prisms Prismatic, hollow DHpr Within the Snow has completely High recrystallization May be very poorly
skeleton type crystals snowpack; recrystallized; high rate for long period bonded
E with glassy faces but dry snow temperature gradient in and low density snow
few striations low density snow, most facilitates formation
often prolonged [2]
Chains of depth hoar Hollow skeleton type DHch Within the Snow has completely High recrystallization Very fragile snow
crystals arranged in snowpack; recrystallized; rate for long period
F chains dry snow intergranular and low density snow
arrangement in chains; facilitates formation
most of the lateral bonds
between columns have
disappeared during
crystal growth
Large striated Large, heavily striated DHla Within the Evolves from earlier Longer time required Regains strength
crystals crystals; either solid or snowpack; stages described above; than for any other
skeleton type dry snow some bonding occurs as snow crystal; long
G new crystals are initiated periods of large
[2] temperature gradient
in low density snow
are needed
Rounding depth hoar Hollow skeleton type DHxr Within the Trend to a form reducing Grains are rounding May regain strength
crystals with rounding snowpack; its specific surface area; off in response to a
H of sharp edges, dry snow corners and edges of the decreasing
corners, and striations crystals are rounding off; temperature gradient
faces may lose their
relief, i.e., striations and
steps disappear slowly.
123
This process affects all

subclasses of depth
hoar
Notes: – DH and FC crystals may also grow in snow with density larger than about 300 kg m-3 such as found in polar snowpacks or wind slabs. These may then be termed ‘hard’ or ‘indurated’ depth hoar [3].
References: [1] Akitaya, 1974; Marbouty, 1980; Fukuzawa & Akitaya, 1993; Baunach et al., 2001; Sokratov, 2001; [2] Sturm & Benson, 1997; [3] Akitaya, 1974; Benson & Sturm, 1993
Surface Hoar SH
Surface hoar Striated, usually flat SHsu Usually on cold snow Rapid kinetic growth Both increased Fragile, extremely low
g crystals crystals; sometimes surface relative to air of crystals at the snow cooling of the snow shear strength;
needle-like temperature; surface by rapid surface below air strength may remain
I sometimes on freely transfer of water temperature as well as low for extended
exposed objects vapour from the increasing relative periods when buried in
above the surface atmosphere toward humidity of the air cold dry snow
(see notes) the snow surface; cause growth rate to
snow surface cooled increase.
to below ambient In high water vapour
temperature by gradient fields, e.g.,
radiative cooling near creeks, large
feathery crystals may
develop
Cavity or crevasse Striated, planar or SHcv Cavity hoar is found in Kinetic growth of
hoar hollow skeleton type large voids in the crystals forming
crystals grown in snow, e.g., in the anywhere where a
J cavities; orientation vicinity of tree trunks, cavity, i.e., a large
often random buried bushes [1] cooled space, is
Crevasse hoar is formed or present in
found in any large which water vapour
cooled space such as can be deposited
crevasses, cold under calm, still
storage rooms, conditions [2]
boreholes, etc.
Rounding surface Surface hoar crystal SHxr Within the snowpack; Trend to a form Grains are rounding May regain strength
hoar with rounding of sharp dry snow reducing its specific off in response to a
edges, corners and surface area; corners decreasing
K striations and edges of the temperature gradient
crystals are rounding
off; faces may loose
their relief, i.e.,
striations and steps
disappear slowly
Notes: It may be of interest to note more precisely the shape of hoar crystals, namely plates, cups, scrolls, needles and columns, dendrites, or composite forms [3]. Multi-day growth may also be specified.
Surface hoar may form by advection of nearly saturated air on both freely exposed objects and the snow surface at subfreezing temperatures. This type of hoarfrost deposit makes up a substantial part of
accumulation in the inland of Antarctica. It has been termed 'air hoar’ (see [2] and AMS, 2000).
Crevasse hoar crystals are very similar to depth hoar.
References: [1] Akitaya, 1974; [2] Seligman, 1936; [3] Jamieson & Schweizer, 2000
124
Melt Forms MF .
Clustered rounded Clustered rounded MFcl At the surface or Wet snow at low Meltwater can drain; Ice-to-ice bonds give
h grains crystals held by large
ice-to-ice bonds;
within the snowpack;
wet snow
water content
(pendular regime),
too much water leads
to MFsl; first freezing
strength
L water in internal veins i.e., holding free liquid leads to MFpc
among three crystals water; clusters form to
or two grain minimize surface free
boundaries energy
Rounded Individual crystals are MFpc At the surface or Melt-freeze cycles Particle size increases High strength in the
polycrystals frozen into a solid within the snowpack form polycrystals with number of melt- frozen state; lower
polycrystalline when water in veins freeze cycles; strength in the wet
M particle, either wet or freezes; either wet at radiation penetration state; strength
refrozen low water content may restore MFcl; increases with
(pendular regime) or excess water leads to number of melt-freeze
refrozen MFsl cycles
Slush Separated rounded MFsl Water saturated, Wet snow at high Water drainage Little strength due to
particles completely soaked snow; found liquid water content blocked by capillary decaying bonds
N immersed in water within the snowpack, (funicular regime); barrier, impermeable
on land or ice poorly bonded, fully layer or ground; high
surfaces, but also as rounded single energy input to the
a viscous floating crystals – and snowpack by solar
mass in water after polycrystals – form as radiation, high air
heavy snowfall. ice and water are in temperature or water
thermodynamic input (rain)
equilibrium
Melt-freeze crust Crust of recognizable MFcr At the surface Crust of melt-freeze Particle size and Strength increases
melt-freeze polycrystals from a density increases with with number of melt-
Oh polycrystals surface layer of wet number of melt-freeze freeze cycles
snow that refroze after cycles
having been wetted
by melt or rainfall;
found either wet or
refrozen
Notes: Melt-freeze crusts MFcr form at the surface as layers at most a few centimetres thick, usually on top of a subfreezing snowpack. Rounded polycrystals MFpc will rather form within the snowpack. MFcr usually
contain more refrozen water than MFpc and will not return to MFcl.
Both MFcr and MFpc may contain a recognizable minority of other shapes, particularly large kinetic growth form FC and DH. See the guidelines (Appendix C) for examples on the use of the MFcr symbol.
125
Ice IF
Formations
Ice layer Horizontal ice layer IFil Within the snowpack Rain or meltwater from the Depends on timing of Ice layers are strong
i surface percolates into cold snow percolating water and but strength decays
P where it refreezes along layer- cycles of melting and once snow is
parallel capillary barriers by heat refreezing; more likely completely wetted
conduction into surrounding to occur if a
subfreezing snow, i.e., snow at T stratification of fine
< 0 °C; ice layers usually retain over coarse-grained
some degree of permeability layers exists
Ice column Vertical ice body IFic Within snowpack Draining water within flow fingers Flow fingers more
layers freezes by heat conduction into likely to occur if snow
Q surrounding subfreezing snow, is highly stratified;
i.e., snow at T < 0 °C freezing enhanced if
snow is very cold
Basal ice Basal ice layer IFbi Base of snowpack Melt water ponds above substrate Formation enhanced if Weak slush layer may
and freezes by heat conduction substrate is form on top
R into cold substrate impermeable and very
cold, e.g., permafrost
Rain crust Thin, transparent IFrc At the surface Results from freezing rain on Droplets have to be Thin breakable crust
glaze or clear film of snow; forms a thin surface glaze supercooled but
S ice on the surface coalesce before
freezing
Sun crust, Thin, transparent and IFsc At the surface Melt water from a surface snow Builds during clear Thin breakable crust
Firnspiegel shiny glaze or clear layer refreezes at the surface due weather, air
film of ice on the to radiative cooling; decreasing temperatures below
T surface shortwave absorption in the freezing and strong
forming glaze enhances solar radiation; not to
greenhouse effect in the be confused with melt
underlying snow; additional water -freeze crust MFcr
vapour may condense below the
glaze [1]
Notes: In ice formations, pores usually do not connect and no individual grains or particles are recognizable, contrary to highly porous snow. Nevertheless, some permeability remains, in particular when wetted, but to
much a lesser degree than for porous melt forms.
Most often, rain and solar radiation cause the formation of melt-freeze crusts MFcr.
Discontinuous ice bodies such as ice lenses or refrozen flow fingers can be identified by appropriate remarks (see Appendix C.2).
126
References: [1] Ozeki & Akitaya, 1998

SWAG

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

SWAG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SWAG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Avalanche Association

Snow, Weather, and Avalanches:

© American Avalanche Association, 2010

Prepared by the Working Group on Observation Guidelines:

Ethan Greene (chair), Colorado Avalanche Information Center

Back cover photograph by Craig Sterbenz.

ÔSections that describe parameters included in a standard observation.

ÔSections that describe parameters included in a standard observation. vii

Manual Snow and Weather Observations

1.3 Standard Morning Snow and Weather Observation

1.4 Manual versus Automated Observations

The following additional equipment is useful:

Table 1.1 Sky Condition

Class Symbol Data Code Definition

Cloudy: more than half but not all of

Overcast: the sky is completely cov-

Table 1.2 Precipitation Type

Data Code Description

Table 1.3 Precipitation Rate

Data Code Description Rate

S –1 Very light snowfall Snow accumulates at a rate of a trace to about 0.5 cm

RV Very light rain Rain produces no accumulation, regardless of duration

RL Light rain Rain accumulates at a rate up to 2.5 mm (0.1 in) of

1.14 Air Temperature Ô

Table 1.4 Temperature Trend

Symbol Data Code Description

RR Temperature rising rapidly (> 5 degree increase in past 3 hours)

S Temperature steady (< 1 degree change in past 3 hours)

F Temperature falling (1 to 5 degree decrease in past 3 hours)

FR Temperature falling rapidly (> 5 degree decrease in past 3 hours)

Location Never Summer Site #4, 8,300'

Date 20030210 20030211 20030212 20030213 20030214 20030215

Sky - OVC CLR

Precip Type/Rate None S-1 S1 S3 RL None

Max Temp (°C) -2.5 -3.0 -3.0 -1.5 1.0 0.0

Min Temp (°C) -7.0 -6.0 -4.5 -4.0 -4.0 -11.0

Present Temp (°C) -6.5 -3.0 -4.0 -1.5 0.0 -10.0

Thermograph (°C) -7 -3 -4 -1 -0 -10

20 cm Snow Temp (°C) -10 -6 -5 -4 -4 -6

Relative Humidity (%) 78 86 96 98 100 67

Interval (cm) HIN 0 T 10 12 4 0

Standard (cm) H2D 0 T 10 12 15 0

New (cm) HN24 0 T 10 12 15 14

Storm (cm), C=cleared HST 0 T 10 20 21 19,C

Snow depth (cm) HS 223 222 231 239 241 239

New water (g) N/O N/O 33.6 42 67 0

New water (mm) N/O N/O 8 10 16 0

Density (kg/m³) N/O N/O 80 83 106 0

Rain gauge (mm) N/O N/O N/O N/O 3 N/O

Precip gauge (mm) 60 60 67 77 82 82

Foot Pen (cm) 35 35 45 50 50 45

Ram Pen (cm) 40 39 47 55 55 48

Surface Form / Size (mm) PP/0.3 PP/0.3 PP/0.3 WG/0.3 DF/0.3

Wind Speed / Direction L, E Calm M, SE L, S L, SW M, E

Blowing Snow Extent / Dir None None None M, S Prev U

Barometric Pressure (mb) 852 847 817 813 833 843

Figure 1.2 An example of a record sheet of a standard observation.

Figure 1.3 Thermograph housed in a Stevenson