GENERAL COMMENTS

The paper titled “Monitoring snow depth variations in an avalanche release area using low cost LiDAR and optical sensors” presents a compelling project where high-end technology from the automotive industry is explored and adopted to enhance our understanding of snow processes for avalanche hazard applications, with the long-term goal to improve road safety. The paper is focused on describing the instrumentation, and lessons learned from the first three months of operation. I truly enjoyed reading the manuscript. The scientific significance, the scientific quality and the presentation quality are all ranging from good to excellent. Terrestrial lidar is typically cost-prohibitive and avalanche safety programs rarely have the funds to invest in monitoring networks that can provide near real-time information about the snowpack in the release areas. Here, the authors have designed a low-cost autonomous terrestrial lidar/meteorological station network that shows promising potential in providing high spatiotemporal resolution of snow distribution. I look forward to following this project which, by no doubt, will be of high interest by the global avalanche community. The goal of the project is clear, the background (literature review) is quite thorough, however, as pointed out by the community reviewer Thomas Gölles, it should be updated to include recent implementations of low-cost lidar systems for geoscience applications in Austria. While the purpose of the study is clear, I think the value of the study could be even more emphasized -- there is only one sentence in the introduction that touches on why snow depth variability in the release area matters for avalanches – please elaborate on this a bit further. The selected methodology is well motivated and considered (please see request below for additional brand/sensor details in Table). I commend the authors for their skill in keeping the chapters concise, yet adequately detailed. Chapter 2 Monitoring provides all the details necessary to understand the motivation behind selecting the suitable sensors, where and how to install the stations, and how the setup is configured. Anyone interested in implementing a similar system will find this section of the methodology very satisfying! I would like to point out that it would be important to include a brief paragraph that describes the UAV system that was used for generating photogrammetry-derived DSMs and how that data was processed. If these data were not acquired and processed by the author team, then please provide a reference to the data release/publication. For the most part, it is easy to understand the lidar Data processing (Chapter 3), however some clarification regarding some of the processing steps would be needed prior to publication (see specific comment and line comments below). I also suggest making the Data Processing (Chapter 3) a sub-section of chapter 2. Naturally, given the early stage of the project, the authors are cautious with drawing too many conclusions based on their results, nevertheless they provide some interesting discussion points which deserve further exploring. In addition, they have attempted to assess the system performance and they openly state some challenges and limitations that they have encountered this winter. I appreciate the authors determination in making the effort to assess the system performance thoroughly, to [especially more so in the future] analyze the derived products, and comparing the lidar results with other methods available (photogrammetry-derived DSMs using UAVs for example). The text generally flows well and the language in the paper is mostly good, though there are a few sections with a bit clunky or convoluted sentence structure, and where I would suggest rephrasing or removing unnecessary words (see line comments below). There are also a few typos that need correction, some abbreviations that need to be spelled out the first time they are being used, issues with hyphenation, and some consistency issues using certain terminology (e.g. drone vs UAV). These language issues are relatively minor and should not be a problem for the authors to tackle prior to publication. My suggested rewording or rephrasing aim at improving the flow of the text, to make the content clearer and ultimately strengthen the paper. If you have any questions regarding any of my comments or suggested edits, please feel free to contact me at katreen.wikstromjones@alaska.gov.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Georeferencing the point cloud and aligning different models) Please elaborate a bit on what was involved in the georeferencing step using the prisms. Can you also please explain how you “projected the 3D models in the vertical direction”? Did you calculate horizontal and vertical offsets and applied shifts to the point cloud or models?  It does not appear that co-registration of the lidar model to the photogrammetric model was made. I apologize if I misunderstood any of your processing steps; it would be important to co-register the datasets using stable features, such as the prisms, prior to differencing, especially when comparing a lidar-derived DSM to a photogrammetry-derived DSM (based on Line 269 in the Discussion, it suggests that a co-registration was not done yet). Photogrammetric models tend to be less accurate horizontally, unless they are well georeferenced, which for this type of steep terrain may result in large vertical offsets when compared to another model.

Interpolation of voids in the lidar-derived DSM) Did you evaluate other interpolation methods before choosing Nearest Neighbor? If yes, how did they perform?

Observed diurnal patterns in spatial coverage (by lidar)) This is an interesting observation! Line 209-215 in Chapter 4 Results, where you discuss potential explanations to this diurnal pattern, should be moved to Chapter 5 Discussion, and I would encourage you to elaborate on this a bit. I think you are on the right track – research has shown that the lidar sensor can be saturated from scattered sunlight. Even though this is a topic that you may investigate more in the future, I suggest you include a couple of these previous investigations to strengthen the outlook/discussion  (e.g. Wu et al, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2641-2011). In the spring and summertime, I am curious to see if you’ll continue to see a diurnal pattern as less dense air caused by warmer air temperatures could scatter the laser pulses and cause a reduction in reflectance.

Terrain impacts for wind-induced redistribution of snow) In “4.4 Case study II: Snowfall event with wind” -- I suggest adding a sentence at the end of this section that emphasizes your results, something like "The clear pattern of eroded and deposited snow agrees with the recorded wind direction at nearby weather stations on this day."  Additionally, in this section, I encourage you to analyze the interaction between topography and snow distribution a bit further and add a sentence or two that describe how this redistribution (erosion and deposition) was influenced by small terrain features within the ROI, such as scouring on taller small sub-ridges and deposition in lee-ward depressions/small gullies. In the discussion you could, for example, make a point that your results support the idea that it is important for avalanche safety experts to study the avalanche terrain in the summer to enhance their understanding of snow distribution in the winter (i.e. where the deep pockets of snow are vs. shallower potential trigger points).

Discrepancies vs. potential of the system) In Chapter 6 Discussion you state “While the discrepancies between the UAV-based acquisitions and the early processing results from our system are larger than the expected potential of our system…”, what do you mean by this? Can you please explain what you mean by the “expected potential”?

TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Note: Please see attached PDF for mark ups and comments (as they are referred to by line number below)!

Title -- Suggest changing “LiDAR” to “lidar” and doing so throughout the paper. Reference: https://lidarmag.com/wp-content/uploads/PDF/LiDARNewsMagazine_DeeringStoker-CasingOfLiDAR_Vol4No6.pdf

Line 2 “when the avalanche danger is high”, “up-to-date”

Line 3 “wind-drifted”

Line 4 suggest replacing “which we use to” with "to measure snow depth variations in an avalanche release area at a very high spatiotemporal scale."

Line 5 “terrestrial monitoring system”, clarify & add detail about the system "The system, which consists of two stations at xx m a sl and xx m a sl, is operational since Nov 2023", “low-cost”

Line 6 Add the resolution in m in paranthesis

Line 7 replace “changes” with “differences”

Line 8 replace “different” with “varying”

Line 9 “surface elevation models” (to clarify for the non-accustomed reader), "photogrammetry-derived model using a drone" (or UAV – choose one or the other and be consistent!)

Line 10 a mean of what? mean vertical/height difference?

Line 12-13 Suggest switching order to improve sentence structure "To refine and further develop models for wind-induced snow redistribution, we also record meteorological parameters in-situ at the two stations which we will analyze in the future together with a newly established snow depth database for the area."

Line 13 “real-time”

Line 14 "this" or "the avalanche-prone slope of interest"

Line 18 delete “Among other measures” and “in dangerous situations”.

Line 25 "methods to measure"

Line 41 suggest wording "Due to high costs, one disadvantage of airborne systems is the limited temporal resolution.", "ground-based"

Line 49 suggest replacing “features” with “textures” and “structures” with “features”

Line 55 suggest replacing “measure” with “operate”

Line 57 provide detail "near infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum (900 ~ 1550 nm)"

Line 68 “it operates”, ", is" (comma needed)

Line 75 suggest replace with "present" since it's already installed,  “low-cost”

Line 77 suggest replace “present” with "describe"

Chapter 2 Monitoring – General comment regarding order of sections: As a reader I would like to know right away what the study site looks like and learn about the problem (avalanches – the characteristics of this particular avalanche track) because ultimately the avalanche problem is the motivation behind this project. Study site/problem description first – it will motivate why you installed these lidar/meteorological monitoring stations and where, and why you selected the specific instrumentation. I suggest switching the order of these section and provide section 2.2 first (as 2.1) and provide a map of the area with the locations of the stations, outline of the avalanche track, and insert photos of both stations with labels of all the instrumentation. This is obviously my subjective opinion – I can understand why you want to emphasize the study area less and put the monitoring system up-front first. I would recommend that you task a few people, unfamiliar with the project, to read the paper and share their opinion on this.

Line 81 Provide the full description "single-lens reflex (SLR) camera"

Line 82 elaborate a bit "we installed sensors at the stations to record"

Line 85 add "which allows for remote monitoring and data analysis"

Line 91 what's the unit here? Hz?, "application, the" (comma needed)

Line 92 Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean "the spatial coverage increases as the sensor operates farther away from the target features/surface"?

Line 98 "a low power consumption" (add low)

Table 1 since eye safety, cost, and power consumption were important criteria, can you please add those to this table?

Line 103 suggest “This setup”, “on-site” and “as for the”

Line 111 Having a figure here that shows the location of all these instruments would be valuable to the reader!

Line 117 “real-time”

Line 118 suggest adding "due to occasional high avalanche danger."

Line 121 "avalanche track/path", “high-alpine”

Line 127 add "for the laser beam"

Line 128 add "to ensure that the station would not get buried", point #3 Was this a ground assessment? Maybe specify what you were looking for - stable bedrock?

Line 131 suggest replacing “lower” with “shallower”

Line 135 “lidar point clouds”, “, identifiable” (comma needed)

Line 137 replace with “on”, replace “seen” with “visible”

Line 140 "using the" (space needed)

Figure 3. For better presentation, I would suggest rotating the scene so that you're viewing the avalanche path from bottom up with the release area at the top of the figure (add north arrow to indicate viewing direction). Also add two vicinity maps (1) that shows the location of Wildi near Davos, and (2) location of Davos in Switzerland (this map should be very simplified). Those two vicinity maps can be stacked above the legend to the side of the main map. I also suggest coloring the Wildi outline with a different color. Make sure you use a color-blind color scheme for symbology.

Figure 4. This is a great figure! Please label in the image which station is Braema1 and Braema 2. I think it would also help to have the Wildi release area outlined in the background just to show how well the lidar swaths covers the general release area.

Line 142 “derived results” - vague wording

Line 144 typo "measurements", spell out and provide abbreviations for “real-time kinematic (RTK) – Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) unit”

Figure 5. I suggest including this figure in Section 2.1 instead where you describe the sensors.

Line 152 suggest using "scan" instead of "measurement"

Line 152 specify "solid-state drive (SSD)"

Line 154 again suggest replacing “measurement” with “scan”

Line 155 suggest "transfers" instead of “sends”

Line 158 again suggest replacing “measurement” with “scan”

Line 161 Not clear on what “local system” means? Local coordinate system?

Figure 6. This is a clear schematic of all the components and how power supply and data transfers are achieved in the system. In the caption, some suggestions “power-related”, replace “in” with “are in”.

Line 166 I do not understand what is being done in this step. Can you please explain?

Line 168 For an unaccustomed reader it might not be clear that you are talking about surface elevation values here. I suggest saying "The elevation value assigned to each cell is the average elevation value of all points that fall within that cell."

Line 172 Use either 1 m x 1 m or 1 m2. "one" instead of "1". Regarding statement of “points with horizontal coordinates” - Do you have points without any horizontal coordinates?

Line 173 Do you mean percentage of covered cells or percentage of entire grid by covered cells? I think you're trying to say that you calculated the percentage of the grid (the ROI) that was covered by lidar. Please rephrase for clarification!

Figure 7. Typically, darker colors mean "more" in a density map, so I'd suggest you invert the color ramp. Caption: replace "line" with "polygon". Changes in spatial coverage from what date? Maybe delete this part of the sentence.

Line 179 suggest simplifying to "photogrammetry-derived surface from a UAV"

Line 177 specify that you're talking about lidar coverage (not snow coverage)!

4.1 Spatial coverage of ROI -- Again, specify "Lidar spatial coverage of region of interest" (not to confuse with snow coverage!)

Line 187 “short-wave”

Line 197-198 This sentence is a bit clunky. I suggest rephrasing to something like "Due to the high temporal resolution of the lidar system, a short weather window during a snowstorm will allow the system to capture the area and provide current information about the snowpack.”

Line 199 add years “2023” and “2024”

Line 200 "a review of the camera images", replace “at these times” with “on these dates”

Line 203 suggest simplifying to "this coincides with the clearing of the lidar lens".

Line 207-209 Your observation of a difference in lidar reflectance during nighttime vs daytime is very interesting! Please provide some numbers here - these diurnal patterns, how significant are they?

Line 209-215 This section is discussing the results and should be moved to the discussion!

Line 212 replace “relation above” with "relationship"

Line 212-213 I'm also wondering if the less dense air caused by warmer air temperatures (though still subzero) were enough to scatter the laser pulses and cause a reduction in reflectance.

Line 217-219 Move this to a sub-section of Chapter 2 Monitoring where you describe the drone and how the data was processed.

Line 217 How was the comparison done? Did you compare the resulting DSMs or was it a point cloud comparison?, write out MP as "megapixel"

Line 220 Mean difference between the two?

Line 223 typo “artifacts”, "For example, " (comma needed)

Line 231 Maybe to clarify, say "towards the edges of the LiDAR swath at far distances away from the sensor" (an “edge” can be close too), clarify by saying “snow distribution pattern”.

Line 231-231 Here you state that there is disagreement between the models “where the pattern changes from ablation to accumulation, which can be due to errors in the alignment of the systems.” Was no horizontal alignment done between the models?

Line 236 replace with “small (D?) avalanche”

Line 237 be consistent in usage of “release area” vs “release zone”.

Line 240 suggest replacing with "100 m, though the length....", replace “ends” with “extends” or “reaches”

Line 241 suggest replacing “due to the limited field of view” with “due to its limited field of view”, replace “mostly also not” with “scarcely”

Line 241 suggest replacing “high angles of incidence” with “high incidence angles”

Line 243 suggest replacing “becomes visible with” with “is demonstrated by”

Line 245 suggest simplifying/clarifying a bit “This captured avalanche data" (....) "will become useful input data in future avalanche modeling in the Wildi avalanche path."

Figure 9. Add at the end of caption "Ski and snowboard tracks are visible outside of as well as cutting through the monitored area."

Figure 10. suggest putting the letters a, b , c in the upper left corners of each figure and put white circle behind for better visibility, clarify in (c) that it’s “elevation difference”

Line 252 typo “was”, "west wind” (no hyphen)

Line 253 suggest replace “difference of snow depth” to “redistribution in snow depth”

Line 255 You have the opportunity here to analyze the interaction between topography and snow distribution – I suggest adding a sentence that describes how this redistribution (erosion and deposition) also was a result of topography within the ROI, such as erosion from taller small sub-ridges and deposition in depressions/small gullies. Suggest adding a sentence at the end emphasizing your point "The clear westward pattern of eroded and deposited snow agree with the recorded wind direction on this day."

5 Discussion

Suggest starting the Discussion by adding a sentence that states which points you are going to discuss. “Here we will discuss (1) …., (2).. etc.”

Line 257 "state-of-the-art"

Line 259 suggest "lidar technology"

Line 260 suggest adding "that are limited by day light"

Line 261 “significantly”

Line 264 “have given”, delete “proposed”

Line 265 add “lidar” to “system”, please be consistent in using the term “UAV” vs. “drone” (choose one or the other!)

Line 266 What do you mean by “potential”?

Line 269 suggest replacing “results” with “products”

Line 271 “small-scale”

Line 272-273 suggest rephrasing " The high temporal resolution of the lidar system enables us to capture an avalanche event by measuring the snowpack surface shortly before and after an event.", remove “therefore”, switch to “derived immediately”

Line 275 suggest rephrasing "Some meteorological conditions can hamper lidar acquisitions, resulting in a reduction of lidar transmission and reflectance."

Line 277 replace “small weather window” with “short weather windows”, suggest replacing with "which offers a valuable alternative for when other methods (e.g. UAV flights) would not be feasible."

Line 279 Suggest rephrasing "Finding a suitable location for installation of the system might be challenging in some areas."

Line 284 clarify "campaigns" with "snow sampling campaigns"

Line 285 suggest also adding "and offers a great monitoring solution for agencies that have limited monetary resources"

6 Conclusions

I'd suggest starting the conclusions paragraph by restating the motivation and purpose of the project.

Line 286 suggest replacing “proposed” with "presented"

Line 289 replace “from” with “since”, suggest replacing “With the analysis of the data” with "Based on the first three operating months.."

Line 290 remove “limitations of the system” unless you’ll give examples!

Line 291 suggest replacing “safety management at avalanche prone traffic routes” with "avalanche safety decision-making for infrastructure corridors".

Line 295 spell out "decimeter"

Line 301 suggest removing “Nevertheless”. Add a sentence that says something like "The first three months of system operation have also revealed some areas of opportunity for improvement."

Line 306 re-wording - nearby? adjacent?

Line 308 "small-scale", "wind-drifting"

Line 310 suggest replacing “state-of-the-art” with “current”, add “that are mainly”. Regarding “its benefit”, I’m wondering, would you provide all the data, such as providing real-time access to the monitoring stations, or would you compile a product based on the data that you’ve collected, or maybe both?

General Comments:

The paper titled “Monitoring snow depth variations in an avalanche release area using low cost LiDAR and optical sensors” explains how a low cost automotive lidar system is applied to measure snow depth variations in an avalanche release area. Currently several research groups are working on the topic, as such low cost lidars are promising to increase the application of terrestrial lidars for avalanche safety applications. The presented paper is an easy read and the presented analysis are done well , so in this context it is very worth publishing those results. However, the paper seems to be written a bit in a rush, which is too bad, as the scientific content could be increased and give even more valuable information to the reader. Here are some examples on how to improve the paper: 

.) The data presented ends after 3 month in the middle of the winter. I think in particular the spring season with wet snow decreasing the range of lidar sensors and melt/freeze cycles challenging the stability of the set-up would have been great to analyze the full potential of the system. There is no reason to stop the analysis at this point as any future application would certainly like to apply the system for the whole winter season. You have been mentioning in the text yourself that the spring season would reveal further information, so why not showing the data. I guess it is possible to still do it. In this way you could also elaborate on that one of the systems was taken out by an avalanche later on in the season, so that would point out another very important limitation of the system and would support your comment that positioning of the lidar sensor is crucial in terms of the application regarding the limited measurement range achievable. 

.) As already mentioned by the other reviewers the literature research can be improved. The work of the other groups that currently work on the same topic has not been mentioned. Moreover extensive work from different research groups about lidar applications you like to achieve with your system should be included, I have mentioned some in the specific comments, but feel free to cite others as well. 

.) The comparison of the lidar data to SfM-photogrammetry is not optimal. Here it would have been better to validate with state-of-the-art lidar sytems (e.g. Riegl VZ 6000). I think it is not necessary to do this for this paper, but please elaborate on the referencing of both techniques and what the error introduced by the referencing process is as there is certainly an error when comparing 2 totally different measuring approaches (active and passive measurement)

.) Other to reviewer 1 Katreen, I think the important scientific content of the paper is how the low cost lidar system works in comparison to the existing expensive ones. All applications in the snow and avalanche community have been extensively discussed in the past 20 years, so what is really interesting is what kind of information you can actually gather from the low cost lidar systems. In this context I mentioned in particular for the discussion and conclusion section some improvements in the specific comments. E.g. while calculating full avalanche release volume seems to be not achievable by the limited measurement range of the system and the data presented, still very valuable information can be given to avalanche forecasters. So I suggest a more thorough discussion on the results achieved leading to certain applications, that would improve the paper significantly.

In case of any questions arise to this review please contact me at alex@snowscan.at

Specific commensts:

Line 16: „face avalanche danger“ instead of  “face the danger of avalanches”

Line 17: “Common routines in temporary avalanche protection include 1)avalanche warning 2)closing of infrastructure e.g. roads 3)evacuation of people and 4) triggering small sized avalanches  using explosives” instead of  “Among other measures, in some cases traffic routes have to be completely closed in dangerous situations

Line 19: “Such measures have significant impact on people and their economy, so the aim is to apply such measures as precise as possible” instead of: “Such a closure has a significant impact on people and the economy, so the aim is to keep the period of closure as short as possible”

Line 20: ”However, local experts have” instead of  “However, the local experts have”

Line 31: change to “of snow depth across a slope and are less accurate than spatial measurements” (Prokop et al. 2008)

Prokop, A., Schirmer, M., Rub, M., Lehning, M., Stocker, M., 2008. A comparison of measurement methods: terrestrial laser scanning, tachymetry and snow probing for the determination of the spatial snow-depth distribution on slopes. Ann. Glaciol. 49,210–216.

Line 50: ”induced by wind and that light conditions are favorable” instead of “induced by the wind, and that the light conditions are favourable”

Line 65: Please cite here as well: Bernard et al. 2017 as it is a comparison between lidar and sfm photogrammetry, so both techniques you use

Bernard, É., Friedt, J.M., Tolle, F., Griselin, M., Marlin, C. and Prokop, A. (2017), Investigating snowpack volumes and icing dynamics in the moraine of an Arctic catchment using UAV photogrammetry. Photogram Rec, 32: 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/phor.12217

Line 66: add: “or studies to monitor snow surface variations and avalanche properties (Hancock et al. 2020 and Hancock et al. 2018)

Hancock, H., Eckerstorfer, M., Prokop, A., Hendrikx, J. (2020). Quantifying seasonal cornice dynamics using a terrestrial laser scanner in Svalbard, Norway. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 603–623. 

Hancock, H., Prokop, A., Eckerstorfer, M., and Hendrikx, J. (2018). Combining high spatial resolution snow mapping and meteorological analyses to improve forecasting of destructive avalanches in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 154, 120–132. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2018.05.011

 

Line 67: to my knowledge the VZ-6000 is not that costly, its above 150k (USD) and if necessary you can run it in an eye safe mode even though its not the optimal mode. Those scanners  (e.g. Riegl VZ-4000) are often run operational in mines, so an autonomous operation is not complex., there are ready made (not cheap) solutions provided by Riegl . The group at Hintereisferner you are citing suffered from a poor foundation of their measurement cabin and therefore a rather instable set-up.

Line 73: add: “or in a mobile mode (Goelles et al. 2022)”

Goelles, T., Hammer, T., Muckenhuber, S., Schlager, B., Abermann, J., Bauer, C., Expósito Jiménez, V. J., Schöner, W., Schratter, M., Schrei, B., and Senger, K.: MOLISENS: MObile LIdar SENsor System to exploit the potential of small industrial lidar devices for geoscientific applications, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 11, 247–261, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-247-2022, 2022. 

Line 74: Here it would be great to mention the other groups that work on snow and avalanche application of low cost lidar systems here e.g.: “… and attracted already snow and avalanche scientist to measure snow cover properties (Kapper et al. 2023; RSnowAut Konsortium 2023; Bragton, 2023*)

Kapper KL, Goelles  T, Muckenhuber  S, Trügler  A, Abermann  J, Schlager  B, Gaisberger  C, Eckerstorfer  M, Grahn  J, Malnes  E, Prokop  A and Schöner  W (2023) Automated snow avalanche monitoring for Austria: State of the art and roadmap for future work. Front. Remote Sens. 4:1156519. doi: 10.3389/frsen.2023.1156519

RSnowAUT-Konsortium  (2023). Das Potential von Automobilsensoren für die lokale Detektion von Lawinen im Rahmen des FFG-Projekts RSnowAUT, 5. Lawinensymposium Graz 2023,https://lawinensymposium.naturfreunde.at/files/uploads/2023/11/Tagungsband_2023_gesamt.pdf

*please ask Ned Bair how to cite Bragton, he has send us the paper via email.

Line 67: a paragraph about the extensive work that was done to measure snow depth variations via lidar in avalanche release areas for snow drift analyses as you want to do would be great here as well. Some of the work you could cite: 

Schön, P., Prokop, A., Vionnet, V., Guyomarc'h, G., Naaim-Bouvet, F., Heiser, M., 2015. Improving a terrain-based parameter for the assessment of snow heights with TLS data in the Col du Lac Blanc area. Cold Regions Sci. Tech 114, 15 – 26.

Schneiderbauer, S., Prokop, A., 2011. The atmospheric snow-transport model:  SnowDrift3D. J. Glaciol. 57, 526 –542.

Vionnet, V., Martin, E., Masson, V., Guyomarc'h, G., Naaim-Bouvet, F., Prokop, A., Durand, Y., Lac, C., 2014. Simulation of wind-induced snow transport and sublimation in alpine terrain using a fully coupled snowpack/atmosphere model. Cryosphere 8 (p-395)

Prokop, A., and Procter, E. S. (2017). A new methodology for planning snow drift fences in alpine terrain. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 132, 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions. 2016.09.010

Schön, P., Naaim-Bouvet, F., Vionnet, V., and Prokop, A. (2018). Merging a terrain-based parameter with blowing snow fluxes for assessing snow redistribution in alpine terrain. Cold Regions Sci. Technol. 155, 161–173. doi:10. 1016/j.coldregions.2018.08.002

And an industrial product: https://www.wyssenavalanche.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/LIA_DE_V.2.pdf

And for avalanche dynamics:

Sailer, R. et al. Snow avalanche mass-balance calculation and simulation-model verification. Ann. Glaciol. 48, 183 –192 (2008).

Prokop, A. (2009). “Terrestrial laser scanning for snow depth observations: An update on

technical developments and applications,” in Proceedings of the international snow science

workshop Davos 2009. Editors J. Schweizer and A. V. Herwijnen (Switzerland, 192–196.

Deems, J. S., Gadomski, P. J., Vellone, D., Evanczyk, R., LeWinter, A. L., Birkeland, K. W., et al. (2015). Mapping starting zone snow depth with a ground-based lidar to assist avalanche control and forecasting. Cold Regions Sci. Technol. 120, 197–204. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2015.09.002

Prokop, A., Schön, P., Singer, F., Pulfer, G., Naaim, M., Thibert, E., et al. (2015).

Merging terrestrial laser scanning technology with photogrammetric and total station

data for the determination of avalanche modeling parameters. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.

110, 223–230. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.11.009

Table 1: Include here also the specifications of the Riegl VZ 6000 for comparison.

Line 110: Skip the part of explaining that you measure the temperature in the snowpack in different heights, you do not use this data for any analyses.

Line 191 or before: Just a comment: It would to have been great to measure snow depth automatically with an alternative sensor such as an ultra sonic ranger or an 1D-laser for validation of the snow depth data at least at a single point. Taking HN from 5,5 km away is not really reliable in particular in windy snowy high alpine terrain.

Line 210-215: Already the first lidar snow measurements showed that solar radiation plays a role in the intensity of signals received from the snow surface. See e.g. Prokop 2008 Fig 4. The reason is that there is ambient radiation in the same wavelength as the lidar wavelength and the signal to noise ratio is therefore not as favorable and weak signals (e.g. from targets in a long range to the scanner, or with low incident angles) are not anymore detected by the receiver (too weak and lost in noise). Here a full waveform analysis helps, where the threshold of when the receiver detects a target can be set, however, I guess that is not possible with such low costs lidar systems.

Another factor of reduced received laser intensity is water content at the snow surface, see also  Wiscombe and Warren, 1980; Prokop, 2008 Fig. 5. 

4.2 Comparison with photogrammetric data:

A comparison to a Riegl VZ 6000 measurement would have been great instead of a comparison with photogrammetric data, as it would have pointed out the differences in laser behavior, different footprint size, different range, and so on. However, it leaves room for the other groups working on the topic to deliver such a comparison.  As reviewer 1 pointed out already it is a bit unclear how you referenced the lidar and the photogrammetric data, please elaborate on this.

Discussion and Conclusion:

Focus should be more on what is actually achievable with the proposed system in comparison to existing methods discussing the technical specifications and measurement behavior. For example it is mentioned through-out the text that an application of the system would be to collect data for avalanche dynamics analysis e.g. Line 273 you state that you are able to measure release volume. However, the data you present only shows a part of an avalanche release area, so you are not able to calculate full release volume. Here you could mention that the range of your lidar system is too short to cover full avalanche release areas, in particular when talking about road safety. Avalanches that endanger roads need to have a certain size, so the release area of such avalanches can not be covered by the presented system. It’s still valuable information for an avalanche forecaster to know if there is actually something released and on what weak layer in the snowpack the avalanche has been released, so the application of the system is still very valuable, however it can certainly not used to calculate the full release volume in the current state (not mentioning even the avalanche track and the full accumulation area) as it is done at avalanche test sites e.g. at the Col du Lautaret (France), at Valle de la Sionne (Switzerland), or in Rygfonn (Norway). So to point out the current limitations, you could say that you covered an area of that much square meter, and that helps to asses conditions in the release area for avalanche forecasting in particular to determine snow drift patterns and in case an avalanche is released, in what depth of the snow the weak layer was identified (by the way that would have been another great analysis if you would have pointed out what weak layer was actually identified in your case example using available data).

Another point of discussion could be what area you could cover under all types of measurement conditions, and what under optimal conditions. I think it is very interesting for the reader that wants to apply such a system, what is the impact of the incident angle, the range and the snow conditions on measurement behavior. The manufacturer always indicates optimal measurement results in the specifications, however, those are never reachable in high alpine terrain under harsh measurement conditions. So please go more in detail about what was actually reached and what are the real applications in the current state.