Dec 16th, Kelso Mountain Avalanche - questions

[Roca]

Given that there have been two fatalities and other accidents, seem like it would be a good idea to move the summer trail altogether. Really it would just need to move about 100 yards to the east.

It doesn't matter what the avy danger is, or if you put a sign up warning people of the danger. Hikers will look off in the willows and proceed up the summer trail. Or someone could be coming down after dark and not see a sign...who knows. Instead of trying to teach or warn everyone about this hazard, just move the trail out of the danger zone.

[cottonmountaineering]

Given that there have been two fatalities and other accidents, seem like it would be a good idea to move the summer trail altogether. Really it would just need to move about 100 yards to the east.

It doesn't matter what the avy danger is, or if you put a sign up warning people of the danger. Hikers will look off in the willows and proceed up the summer trail. Or someone could be coming down after dark and not see a sign...who knows. Instead of trying to teach or warn everyone about this hazard, just move the trail out of the danger zone.

there isnt a lot of room in that area to move the trail down slope without going into the willows, if you've ever navigated willows in the winter i believe people would actively avoid it and return to using the summer trail. a sign right near the avalanche area might be best and people can make their own choices from that point on

[Gore Girl]

[/quote]
there isnt a lot of room in that area to move the trail down slope without going into the willows, if you've ever navigated willows in the winter i believe people would actively avoid it and return to using the summer trail. a sign right near the avalanche area might be best and people can make their own choices from that point on
[/quote]

Just raising my hand here politely to add that if we get into the practice of moving trails that cross hazardous areas - we will be moving a lot of trails everywhere. And hazards change over time with conditions - summer erosion, winter snow and wind loading.

Just my $0.02.

[SkaredShtles]

Given that there have been two fatalities and other accidents, seem like it would be a good idea to move the summer trail altogether. Really it would just need to move about 100 yards to the east.

It doesn't matter what the avy danger is, or if you put a sign up warning people of the danger. Hikers will look off in the willows and proceed up the summer trail. Or someone could be coming down after dark and not see a sign...who knows. Instead of trying to teach or warn everyone about this hazard, just move the trail out of the danger zone.

there isnt a lot of room in that area to move the trail down slope without going into the willows, if you've ever navigated willows in the winter i believe people would actively avoid it and return to using the summer trail. a sign right near the avalanche area might be best and people can make their own choices from that point on

Yep - the current summer trail is *specifically* located where it is *because* of the willows.

[CaptainSuburbia]

There are several slide paths off Kelso that cross the road as well that winter climbers need to be aware of. Two of them slid big in 2019. Debris from those slides kept the road closed 1.5 miles from the trailhead until mid July that year.

[dwoodward13]

Just raising my hand here politely to add that if we get into the practice of moving trails that cross hazardous areas - we will be moving a lot of trails everywhere. And hazards change over time with conditions - summer erosion, winter snow and wind loading.

Just my $0.02.

Agree. Not only this, but its not like the existing trail in this case will just disappear back into the tundra. Given how established it is, remediating it should the trail be moved would never happen in our lifetimes, if ever. It would be a constant battle to keep people on the right one and off the old one in both winter and summer.

[Gore Girl]

Just raising my hand here politely to add that if we get into the practice of moving trails that cross hazardous areas - we will be moving a lot of trails everywhere. And hazards change over time with conditions - summer erosion, winter snow and wind loading.

Just my $0.02.

Agree. Not only this, but its not like the existing trail in this case will just disappear back into the tundra. Given how established it is, remediating it should the trail be moved would never happen in our lifetimes, if ever. It would be a constant battle to keep people on the right one and off the old one in both winter and summer.

I thought of environmental impact also after I had made this point. Thanks for adding it into the conversation!

[ekalina]

Let's say, proceeded extra cautiously on ascent, and almost naturally diverted lower on the way down due to the snow conditions. On a low-angled slope, punchy but firm on the way in, loose and slippery on the way out.

Good that you were conservative. That, plus the better forecast for the 14th - likely made all the difference between your experience and that of the folks two days later.

Margins can certainly be slim!

Stay safe -

Good discussion in this thread. I had a couple of thoughts when reading through this part that I wanted to share, hopefully that is OK.

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to traverse this slope on Dec. 14th, even though the avy danger was low that day. My rationale for that is: 1) low danger doesn't mean no danger, and 2) most or all of the structural issues within the snowpack that contributed to the Dec. 16th avy were likely present on the 14th. This includes a weak layer that the CAIC mentions as getting buried on Dec. 9th, and presumably at least a thin slab above that.

Why was there no avalanche on Dec. 14th? It could be that additional wind loading was needed before the slope would have slid. The bump in the avy danger rating on the 16th reflected the additional loading. But it's also plausible that a small avy could have occurred on the 14th, but due to good luck, possible trigger points were avoided on that day. Since we can't know which of these possibilities is correct, I would simply avoid traversing this slope when snow is present (unless I am confident that a stable spring snowpack is present).

This relates to another point that may be worth mentioning when traveling in avy terrain - don't interpret someone, or even another group, crossing a slope ahead of you without incident as evidence that you or your group will also cross safely. There are many examples of avalanches that were triggered when the second, third, or fourth person stepped in the wrong spot or simply with a wrong/different amount of force and took the slope with them.

[Gore Girl]

Let's say, proceeded extra cautiously on ascent, and almost naturally diverted lower on the way down due to the snow conditions. On a low-angled slope, punchy but firm on the way in, loose and slippery on the way out.

Good that you were conservative. That, plus the better forecast for the 14th - likely made all the difference between your experience and that of the folks two days later.

Margins can certainly be slim!

Stay safe -

Good discussion in this thread. I had a couple of thoughts when reading through this part that I wanted to share, hopefully that is OK.

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to traverse this slope on Dec. 14th, even though the avy danger was low that day. My rationale for that is: 1) low danger doesn't mean no danger, and 2) most or all of the structural issues within the snowpack that contributed to the Dec. 16th avy were likely present on the 14th. This includes a weak layer that the CAIC mentions as getting buried on Dec. 9th, and presumably at least a thin slab above that.

Why was there no avalanche on Dec. 14th? It could be that additional wind loading was needed before the slope would have slid. The bump in the avy danger rating on the 16th reflected the additional loading. But it's also plausible that a small avy could have occurred on the 14th, but due to good luck, possible trigger points were avoided on that day. Since we can't know which of these possibilities is correct, I would simply avoid traversing this slope when snow is present (unless I am confident that a stable spring snowpack is present).

This relates to another point that may be worth mentioning when traveling in avy terrain - don't interpret someone, or even another group, crossing a slope ahead of you without incident as evidence that you or your group will also cross safely. There are many examples of avalanches that were triggered when the second, third, or fourth person stepped in the wrong spot or simply with a wrong/different amount of force and took the slope with them.

Solid points, ekalina - and good methodical thinking about this.

[Mel Kel]

[/quote]

Good discussion in this thread. I had a couple of thoughts when reading through this part that I wanted to share, hopefully that is OK.

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to traverse this slope on Dec. 14th, even though the avy danger was low that day. My rationale for that is: 1) low danger doesn't mean no danger, and 2) most or all of the structural issues within the snowpack that contributed to the Dec. 16th avy were likely present on the 14th. This includes a weak layer that the CAIC mentions as getting buried on Dec. 9th, and presumably at least a thin slab above that.

Why was there no avalanche on Dec. 14th? It could be that additional wind loading was needed before the slope would have slid. The bump in the avy danger rating on the 16th reflected the additional loading. But it's also plausible that a small avy could have occurred on the 14th, but due to good luck, possible trigger points were avoided on that day. Since we can't know which of these possibilities is correct, I would simply avoid traversing this slope when snow is present (unless I am confident that a stable spring snowpack is present).

This relates to another point that may be worth mentioning when traveling in avy terrain - don't interpret someone, or even another group, crossing a slope ahead of you without incident as evidence that you or your group will also cross safely. There are many examples of avalanches that were triggered when the second, third, or fourth person stepped in the wrong spot or simply with a wrong/different amount of force and took the slope with them.

[/quote]


Ekalina - First, 100% agree. I think you make good solid points. I have a couple further questions though just to understand, because I am still trying to sort through everything and figure out how to make good choices with all this avy information.
Ok, so I know that low doesn't mean "no." However, how are we as backcountry users supposed to know when to go? If the forecast is "low," and there is unavoidable avy terrain that you have to cross, do you not go? You wait until the spring? It sounded like you were suggesting that you would avoid this slope altogether - which, in this case, I would too because there is an obvious better choice lower in the valley, but for discussion sake if there was not an alternative and you *had* to cross avy terrain would you not cross on a low/green day? I hope what I am asking makes sense.

I do agree that the margins are slim. If I'm traveling in avy terrain and it has only been low/green danger for a day (vs a week) then I would be much more on guard.



To the others suggesting a sign/moving trail, while I think this is a nice idea I don't think it's reasonable. There is no way that we can mitigate all risk to backcountry users. However, this does bear the question - how do we continue to educate and get folks to be aware or understand the risks of winter travel? Maybe a sign at a trailhead, letting folks know that if there is snow on the ground there is a chance of avalanche. But to post a sign each time you travel across an avy prone slope wouldn't be feasible. I think CAIC does a pretty good job at outreach, but the question remains, how do we reach more people? Conversations like this in various forums/websites might be a start.

[ekalina]

Ok, so I know that low doesn't mean "no." However, how are we as backcountry users supposed to know when to go? If the forecast is "low," and there is unavoidable avy terrain that you have to cross, do you not go? You wait until the spring? It sounded like you were suggesting that you would avoid this slope altogether - which, in this case, I would too because there is an obvious better choice lower in the valley, but for discussion sake if there was not an alternative and you *had* to cross avy terrain would you not cross on a low/green day? I hope what I am asking makes sense.

I do agree that the margins are slim. If I'm traveling in avy terrain and it has only been low/green danger for a day (vs a week) then I would be much more on guard.

Yeah, good questions. My reasoning partly hinges on the fact that it isn't necessary to cross this slope - there's a safe alternative nearby that doesn't require me to change my objective. But let's say that it was mandatory to cross this slope, and it's winter. First, I'm looking for a day with a low rating. On Dec. 14th, check. But another thing I'd consider is whether any avy problems are listed in the forecast on this day, and what elevations/aspects CAIC says they're present on. On Dec. 14th, they mention a persistent slab avalanche problem near and above treeline on aspects facing NNW through ESE (see the "avalanche rose" at the link below). The slope in question is above treeline and faces east and southeast, so CAIC says this slope could harbor a persistent slab, even though the overall danger rating is low. The key point here is that there is more to the forecast than the danger rating.

https://avalanche.state.co.us/?lat=39.6 ... 2024-12-14

I'm a hiker/climber, not a skier or boarder. Some would probably argue that an unlikely persistent slab avy problem on a day with low/green danger is an acceptable risk, and I wouldn't think them reckless for having that perspective (hopefully they would be prepared to dig and interpret a snow pit in the field though to assess the local danger). But I typically use the CAIC forecast to decide when to climb couloirs in the spring. I know I'll be in avy terrain for much longer than a skier would (unless they climb the line first), plus the runout will probably end in a terrain trap, and I'll also impact the snowpack differently than someone on skis or a board. Because of these factors, I wouldn't climb a couloir on an aspect that had an alleged persistent slab/wind slab problem, even if the forecast was low/green - I'd either wait for a different day or pick a couloir on a different aspect, probably at least 90 degrees away from the problem sector. But this is just my reasoning, which reflects a very conservative approach to objective hazards and the way I typically use the forecast. I'm interested to hear whether others would think about it differently.

[Istoodupthere]

I’m someone who prefers less signs/cairns. However, in this situation where it is a very popular/easy to get to route that probably attracts a relatively high percentage of inexperienced adventurers, that has killed multiple people over the years, I don’t think it would be a bad idea to put a sign there. Something saying this slides every year and has killed multiple people. Same thing for the Berthoud Pass area…Happy New Year everyone