UDOT PLANNED AVALANCHE CLOSURES!!
Ad

Blog: Avalanche Route Ratings

Drew Hardesty
Forecaster

I'd like to (re) introduce our Avalanche Route Ratings for Selected Touring Routes in the Wasatch Range

You know the old saying..."If I had a dollar for everytime...." For years we fielded calls and emails from outta towners to scout groups to beginners - "The danger's Considerable - where can I go that's safe?" And we'd tell them here or there depending on what was going on. So we set upon a project to outline 30 routes in the central Wasatch and rate them based upon static parameters (as you'll soon find out). It was shelved for a number of years but now resurrected. My initial framework was based upon the Simple, Challenging, and Complex system as designed by the Canadian Avalanche Association....but soon realized that a number of accidents in Canada had taken place in what was called Simple terrain. This wouldn't do. To remedy this, I added another level - Green - that would fit the bill and would only be suspect under Extreme circumstances (ie-old growth trees taken out, new slide paths created, etc). You'll see.

Our little range is unique in that the terrain has been well trodden,skiied, ridden, mapped, and enjoyed for years. KEY POINT - What we know is that terrain selection and management is the single most important key for enjoying the backcountry (powder euphoria, anyone?) AND coming home at the end of the day. We hope that this small project will blossom into a more comprehensive review of the backcountry terrain in the Wasatch and be used as a planning tool for outings and objectives for years to come.

Acknowledgements: Avalanche terrain ratings were developed by Grant Statham and others with Parks Canada, and we would like to thank them for developing this model. We would also like to thank Dr. Phoebe McNeally, a professor of GIS at the University of Utah and her then-students Max Felkor-Cantor, Mark Hammond, and Sheila Grindstaff for their tireless work and patience.

Hey Drew, really like this route ratings concept. It seems like public land users want to be told or given info on what they might encounter when they enter an area. The summer user wants to know what the terrain is like, the difficulty, elevation gain etc.. The backcountry skier I think would benefit from a route rating system. Is there any discussion on what training or level of knowledge a person should have to enter certain areas? Thanks for all you guys do.

Reply - Appreciate the thoughts Ted. A few years ago I created a planning tool that incorporated training/education/experience as well as the day's danger rating. It will be shelved for another couple of years. I hope that if this is popular/useful...then we can create terrain ratings for the Wasatch as well as the Uintas - and you'd be invaluable toward that effort. Thanks again.

Oh, I like this!! You must have been thinking about people like me when you worked on it. I know just enough about avalanches to scare the bejesus out of me, so this is very helpful!! Thank you!!!

Nice job on the route ratings. Always have one person in a Know Before You Go talk there to get just this sort of beta.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:03 PM, colinwrote:

Wow, what a ton of work you've put into this! Impressive. Sorry to be negative, but...
By publishing this information, I take it that the UAC is recommending that individuals with limited-to-no-training/experience can go out into the backcountry on any given day. Got my 'avy detector'? Yup. Got my shovel and probe? Yup. Got my green UAC map? Yup. And I'm off!
How long before there's an accident where the party involved mentions they were following a UAC recommendation? Will the UAC take comfort in the disclaimer: "It is very important to understand that these maps do not rate avalanche terrain - they rate specific, “out-and-back” routes and do not apply to terrain immediately adjacent to the route. Combined with snow stability information from the Forest Service Utah Avalanche Center, you can choose a specific route appropriate for the avalanche conditions."
It is my impression that the UAC's mandate is to make folks safer when heading out into the backcountry. The advisory and outreach programs are excellent tools to meet this mandate. Will this 'guidebook' make folks safer? In my opinion, no. I think the UAC is empowering folks to go out into the backcountry without adequate training and experience, which may be just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Reply - Colin - thanks for the feedback. I've heard it from others over the years and there are always opportunities for people tomis-usetools and get themselves into trouble. This may be applicable for the avalanche world as well. Still, we feel that these tools will help save lives by giving people places to go when the danger is elevated. The Canadians have had great success with their terrain ratings system...and have gone full speed with their mapping projects. Thanks again.

As an aside, take the survey I had in today's advisory regarding mapping and danger ratings. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for having put so much work and thought into this very helpful project. Climbing guidebooks and protection ratings go a long way to helping people avoid getting over their heads, and I think this approach can do the same for skiers and riders in the Wasatch. In an earlier blog addressing danger ratings, you had discussed using X ratings as modifiers, and I think something similar, maybe a spice rating,might help for route ratings here? E.g., some of the more technical sections of Alta to Superior might be worth3 chilies, with an extra chili awarded if your snowboard boots don't have a great sole for steep hiking...

Please consider selling these as PDFs, they take a lot of work and it is one way to get great feedback on where people have an appetite for more, as well as to fund further work.
Keep it up!
-John
Reply - John - super glad to get your feedback. Seems like a good idea to use something different (like number of chilis)...as colors or words can be confusing. I might incorporate that in the future. I'll keep them free, though, and look for some other grants in the next couple of years to potentially introduce terrain ratings over and above these route ratings.

ok drew here's what I think...

personally i think your rating system is flawed there are problems with an overall evaluation of the safety level a good example are the days after it just snowed... you rating are seem to lean to the get out there side that to me is kinda silly those days are THE MOST dangerous! and the rating should reflect that which I have not noticed! another example is the day we got 36" in the low terrain that rating should have been "extreme" but I can't even remember seeing extreme ever on your site! what good? is a rating like that if you NEVER use it? are you trying to get people out on the hill or warning them of the dangers of it? i wonder do you feel responsible for an avalanches that people got themselves in? there is a conflict in my opinion andy
Reply -
You have many great points about overall risk and hazard for the backcountry, but they combine avalanche conditions, human psychology as well as terrain. My initial foray into this is categorizing routes (and by extension terrain) which is static; in other words, it never changes whether the danger is LOW or Extreme. That's why you and I will go to USA bowl or the Willows or Powder Park or Silver Fork when the danger is elevated and not Gobbler's or Superior.
Agreed on the Extreme usage (or lack of it). We try to avoid crying wolf with this danger 'scale'...and I've written earlier this year on our Blog about the dangers of the danger scale. We also struggle with appropriate uses of Avalanche Warnings and Watches, and Special Avalanche Advisories as well. Good food for thought.
As always, I appreciate input as it only improves the overall product.
Drew

Comments welcome

Drew Hardesty

[email protected]