Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Winter Access Forum Snow Profile Whitney 4-1-06

See SteveC's post below:

Kurt Wedberg sent me this table of data today.

If anyone can make a recommendation on how to clean up the post, specifically how to eliminate the gap, I'd appreciate hearing it.

My girlfriend and I summited yesterday and on our way down, I think we saw this pit just below Iceberg. Very detailed!

Jason

> If anyone can make a recommendation on how to clean up the post
Did you mean the gap above the table, or columns 4 and 5? (There were end-of-lines (cr) within the table definition that caused the gap.)

Date: 04-01-06
Location: Below Iceberg Lake
Objective: To identify layers and stability of snowpack
Elevation: 12,100’
Aspect: South
Incline: 26 – 30 degrees
Precip: Nil
Sky: Scattered
Wind: gusty 20-40 mph
Temp: 5 C
Blowing Snow: Yes
Foot Penetration: 40 cm
Type of pit: Test profile

<table style="font-size: 8pt;" align="center" border="2"><tbody><tr><th>H cm</th><th>Hardness</th><th>Grain Type</th><th>Crystal Size</th><th>Liquid Water Content(theta)</th><th>Test Results/Comments</th><th>H (cm)</th><th>Temp C</th></tr><tr><td>215</td><td>-</td><td>+ New</td><td>2 mm</td><td>dry</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Fist+</td><td>+ New</td><td>2mm</td><td>dry</td><td>Failed CT4 Q2</td><td>-</td><td>-
</td></tr><tr><td>198</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>215</td><td>1.5
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Knife</td><td>__ Ice</td><td>-</td><td>dry</td><td>-</td><td>210</td><td>-.5
</td></tr><tr><td>195</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>200</td><td>-.5
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Knife</td><td>__ Ice</td><td>-</td><td>dry</td><td>-</td><td>190</td><td>-.5
</td></tr><tr><td>190</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>180</td><td>-.5
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>1 Finger</td><td>/ Fragmented Decomposing</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>-</td><td>170</td><td>-3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>163</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>160</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>4 Finger</td><td>&#8729; Facets</td><td>1 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>Failed CT12 Q1</td><td>150</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>158</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>140</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Pencil</td><td>&#8729; / Rounds & Fragmented</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>-</td><td>130</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>150</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>120</td><td>-2.5
</td></tr><tr><td>- </td><td>Knife</td><td>Ice</td><td>-</td><td>moist</td><td>- </td><td>110</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>145</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>100</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>4 Finger</td><td>&#8729; / Rounds & Fragmented</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>Bonding to lower layers</td><td>90</td><td>-3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>140</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>80</td><td>-5
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>1 Finger</td><td>&#8729; / Rounds & Fragmented</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>Well bonded</td><td>70</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>128</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>60</td><td>-5
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>1 Finger</td><td>&#8729; Rounds</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>Well Bonded</td><td>50</td><td>-4.5
</td></tr><tr><td>115</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>40</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>1 Finger</td><td>&#8729; Rounds</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>Well Bonded</td><td>30</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>20</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>1 Finger</td><td>&#8729; Rounds</td><td>2 mm</td><td>moist</td><td>Well Bonded</td><td>10</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Rocky bottom; Temp would probably be 0 on dirt</td><td>0</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Icy Chunks w/ 4 Finger</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>moist</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-
</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>- </td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>

Hi guys,

Thanks for helping post and clean up this table. I don't have a good enough handle with html yet to do this so I appreciate your help. Here's a little explanation:

I have been more concerned with the snow conditions on Whitney this year than on any previous year that I can remember. I had a group that two of my guides were leading ready to make a summit attempt on Sunday. One of my guides and I decided to go one day ahead of them and try to punch in a trail. While we were in there I also wanted to get a good handle on the snowpack. The way to do this is to take the time to dig a pit and analyse the layers that have developed in the snowpack. There have been a number of you in this community now who have taken an avalanche course so I think you will have some understanding of what this table means.

Richard added some commentary with the columns to help it make sense. Steve C cleaned up the table and took out two of the columns. One is density that I didn't measure. The other is water content that I accidentally left off. Overall the water content was dry on the upper layers and more wet on the lower well bonded layers.

The pit was dug all the way to the ground, which is boulders.

We found two layers that failed on a shovel compression test and they are noted in the table. The top one means Compression Test 4. That's four taps with my shovel blade on top of a 30 x 30 cm column of snow. In short that means it is a very weak layer. Q2 refers to the quality of the shear. Q1 is very smooth and clean and Q3 is pretty rough. Q2 is therefore in between those two values.

The second layer that failed concerns me more. It failed on a CT 12, which is also very weak. Plus, it was a Q1 meaning it slide very smoothly off of the layer directly below it.

All of this is not to sy that the snowpack is safe or unsafe. It is data that we use and constantly monitor so we see how the snowpack changes and if it is getting weaker or stronger. This information is one of the factors that help us make our route plan and "go/no-go" decisions.

If anybody has questions about this table or any of the information feel free to ask.

All the best,

Kurt

Is the listed slope aspect (South) correct?

Yes, the slope below Iceberg Lake is a south aspect.

If I read the graph correctly, the snow 20 inches down (215 cm - 160 cm divided by 2.54 cm/inch) is the most likely to fail and slide. Is that correct.

Andrew, that'd be my impression.

Also, the temp of that layer, and surrounding layers is such, that there will be little bonding occurring for awhile, until there is a significant warming of the weather...so that layer is going to remain weak.

On top of which, any further snow coming down is going to load this location more, and more snow IS coming down.

Yes that is correct Andrew.

Also, I made a mistake on the graph. On the hardness measurement the pencil and 4 finger should be reversed. The faceted layer between 158 - 163 is 4 finger and the rounding fragmented grains below are pencil.

The failure layer is listed correctly.

Kurt, I made the 4 Finger / Pencil switch in my post. I can add the Water Content column if it is important.

Hi Steve,

Yes, I think the water content is important. This current storm has dumped several feet of new snow and it appears to be very wet. That means we hve several feet of wet heavy snow laying over dry snow. Yikes!

Thanks for your help!

Kurt,
There was another thread that you participated in recently where somebody asked about the avalanche conditions and I can't find it now.

It looks like you made this profile on Saturday. What do you think the avalanche conditions will be after the recent snow?

Quadaxial said he leap frogged a guided group up there. Since you said you were going in there to help break a trail I'm assuming the group they saw was from your company?

From how Kurt described the recent snowfall, sounds like avy conditions are worsening. Several feet of wet heavy snow on top of the already exsisting weak layer, means more instability and more danger. Just my estimation from reading posts having no first hand exp of the conditions.
Eric

Off topic, but related...

I've heard that four climbers' tent was buried, but they were not injured, by avalanche debris at Iceberg Lake recently. Does anyone have any details?

If true, it fits in with the feeling that this is a dangerous spring almost everywhere.

Hey guys,

I'll respond to a couple posts above.

We just got several feet of wet heavy snow on top of the existing base that consisted of snow that was a lot more dry. After the storm clears there will be some wind events that will transport the snow and deposit it around. The wind could either scour avalanche prone slopes or load them up. In general expect the avalanche danger to be Considerable or High for a bit. Especially given that we will probably get another storm this weekend.

Sierra... yes, the guided group referenced by Quadaxial was from SMI. Like he said they followed our group to the notch and leap frogged them to the summit. My guides said they were nice people. Congratulations to both of you!

Richard... I have two groups headed in this weekend. I'll have them be on the lookout for a buried tent or people.

All the best,

Kurt

High Kurt: We enjoyed climbing with you to Baldy during January. My son thinks what you have down is "awesome" I agree.

I was on your web site and I didn't see a Mt. Whitney Climb scheduled this weekend. You said you have 2 groups going in.

When are they starting in?

Kurt I found some more info on the tent burried at Iceberg Lake.. From the Eastern Sierra Avalanche Center website

A party of four climbers narrowly missed catastrophe Tuesday morning in the North Fork of Lone Pine Creek. While camped below the steep cliff like slope below Iceberg Lake on Monday night, a naturally triggered avalanche struck their tent. They lost most of their gear, including their snowshoes but were able to extricate themselves and were uninjured.

Very interesting. Kurt, as I recall, that is a slope the you've had concerns about for some time. It seems like the conditions were finally right.

What is a party doing setting up a tent below a cliff like slope near Iceberg?