H a z a r d

M a n a g e m e n t

a n d

P u b l i c

Wa r n i n g

lanche problems,such messages didn't really educate or
teach.There was a definite lack of uniformity, little or no
standardized terminology,and often there was no discus-
sionaboutwhyavalancheswerelikely,what travellers
could do to minimize theirexposure, orwhen the danger
might be abating.In an attempt to address thisproblem,
forecasters with the primary governmental avalanchefore-
cast centers in the United States met in Seattle in 1978to
develop and adopt a standardized set ofavalanche "haz-
ard" rating levels and theirdefinitions.Aftermuch dis-
cussion,the4-levelhazardschemeshowninTable1
evolved and pretty much formed the basis fororganized
avalancheforecast or avalanche information operations in
the United States through the mid 1980's.
As is shown by the table, while US avalancheinforma-
tion centers utilized fourlevels todescribe the degree of
avalancheproblems, not all used "hazard" to describe that
risk.Otherterminologysuch as avalanche potential and
snowpack instability was utilized and seemed to provide
a good service for regional centers.Also, normally several
statementsaccompanied anyavalanche related forecasts
and thesetook the form of disclaimers (e.g., "theseforecasts
donotapplytodevelopedskiareasorhighways")or
additional helpful information to aid forecast usage (e.g.,
"Note that no matter what the avalanche hazard, there are
avalanche-safe areas in the mountains").

2

During the mid-late 1980's and early 1990's,however,
slightmodificationofavalanche hazard levelsand their
definitions occurred from region to region, along with fur-
ther subtle changesin what wasactuallybeing described--
hazard,danger, instability,orpotential.Forecasters also
increasingly foundthemselvesusing transitionalcatego-
ries (like moderate to high) todescribe avalanche condi-
tionsthatexceeded standardsdescribedbyonelevel--
moderate--but didn't quite meet the agreed-upon defini-
tionsforthenexthigherlevel--high.Intheinterestof
what was perceived to be more meaningful and less am-
biguoustothepublic,forecastersbegan tousetheterm
avalanchepotentialorsnowpackinstability(functions
primarily of the snowpack,weather andterrain)ratherthan
avalanche hazard (previouslyconsidered inthiscontext
to be a function of nature andhumans) to describe the dan-
gers dueto avalanches.Although four levels remained the
de facto standard of public avalanche information,these
undercurrents ofchange within United States avalanche
centers continued into the mid-1990's.
Meanwhile, in western Europe andthroughmuch of the
Alps, public avalanche information and rating levels were
topics of heated debate and controversy, as the number of
levelsandrelateddefinitionsvariedconsiderablyfrom
countrytocountryand fromone sideofthe Alpstothe
other.This produced significant confusion and difficulty
in both dissemination and usageof avalancheinformation.