NASA's 2017 SnowEx field campaign at Grand Mesa, CO, generated Airborne Laser Scans (ALS), Terrestrial Laser Scans (TLS), and snow‐probe transects, which allowed for a comparison between snow depth measurement techniques. At six locations, comparisons between gridded ALS and TLS observations, at 1‐m resolution, had a median snow depth difference of 5 cm, root‐mean‐square difference of 16 cm, mean‐absolute difference of 10 cm, and 3‐cm difference in standard deviation. ALS generally had greater but similar snow depth values to TLS, and results were not sensitive to the gridded cell size between 0.5 and 5 m. The greatest disagreements were where snow‐off TLS scans had shrubs and high incidence angles, leading to deeper snow depths (>10 cm) from ALS than TLS. The low vegetation and oblique angles caused occlusion in the TLS data and thus produced higher snow‐off bare Earth models relative to the ALS. Furthermore, in subcanopy areas where both ALS and TLS data existed, snow depth differences were comparable to differences in the open. Meanwhile, median values from 52 snow‐probe transects and near‐coincident ALS data had a mean difference of 6 cm, root‐mean‐square difference of 8 cm, mean‐absolute difference of 7 cm, and a mean difference in the standard deviation of 1 cm. Snow depth probes had greater but similar snow depth values to ALS. Therefore, based on comparisons with TLS and snow depth probes, ALS captured snow depth magnitude with better than or equal agreement to what has been reported in previous studies and showed the ability to capture high‐resolution spatial variability.

Snow depth variability between different sides of the forest edge was analyzed using airborne lidar in the Olympic Mountains, WA; Tuolumne River Watershed, CA; Jemez Caldera, NM; and the Boulder Creek Watershed, CO. At Boulder Creek there were statistically significant snow depth differences between leeward and windward forest edges (mean: 38%), which were likely the result of cold winter temperatures (‐5 ‐ ‐10°C), substantial wind speeds (>10‐12 m s^‐1), and the forest architecture. In the Olympic Mountains, wind speeds were similar to Boulder Creek, but snow depth differences between forest edges were not significantly different, likely due to winter temperatures near 0°C and a more continuous forest distribution. At Jemez, forest shading likely caused significant snow depth differences between north and south‐facing forest edges (mean: 32%). Tuolumne had similar incoming solar radiation to Jemez, but only two of the four sites contained significant snow depth differences between north and south‐facing forest edges (14% and 31%). The Tuolumne sites without significant edge differences received less direct solar radiation due to shading by surrounding topography. At Jemez, Boulder Creek, and Tuolumne, snow depth differences between forest edges were greater than or equal to differences between exposed and under canopy areas. Furthermore, at Jemez and Tuolumne, forest‐edge snow depth differences were similar to snow depth differences between different aspects in exposed areas. Therefore, snow depth differences between forest‐edge classifications are of similar magnitude to classifications currently used to represent sub‐element heterogeneity within hydrologic models. Therefore, representation of forest‐edge variability within models should be explored.

Estimates of precipitation from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model and the Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) are widely used in complex terrain to obtain spatially distributed precipitation data. The authors evaluated both WRF (4/3 km) and PRISM’s (800-m annual climatology) ability to estimate frozen precipitation using the hydrologic model Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives (SUMMA) and a unique set of spatiotemporal snow depth and snow water equivalent (SWE) observations collected for the Olympic Mountain Experiment (OLYMPEX) ground validation campaign during water year 2016. When SUMMA was forced with WRF precipitation and used a calibrated, wet-bulb-temperature-based method for partitioning rain versus snow, its estimation of near-peak SWE was biased low by 21% on average. However, when SUMMA was allowed to partition WRF total precipitation into rain and snow based on output from WRF’s microphysical scheme (WRFMPP), simulations of snow depth and SWE were near equal to or better than simulations that used PRISM-derived precipitation with the calibrated partitioning method. Over all sites, WRFMPP and simulations that used PRISM-derived precipitation had relatively unbiased estimates of near-peak SWE, but both simulated absolute errors in near-peak SWE of 30%–60% at a few locations. Since, on average, WRFMPP had similar errors to PRISM, WRFMPP suggested a promising path forward in hydrology, as it was independent of gauge data and did not require SWE observations for calibration. Furthermore, in similar maritime environments, hydrologic modelers should pay close attention to decisions regarding rain-versus-snow partitioning, wind speed, and incoming longwave radiation.

To provide ground validation data for satellite precipitation products derived from the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, such as IMERG, in cold seasons and where orographic factors exert strong controls on precipitation, the Olympic Mountain Experiment (OLYMPEX) was conducted during winter 2015/16. By utilizing multiple observational resources from OLYMPEX, estimates of daily and finer-scale precipitation are constructed at 1/32° spatial resolution over the OLYMPEX domain. The estimates are based on NOAA WSR-88D and gauge estimates as incorporated in NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) Q3GC product, augmented with an additional 120 gauges available during OLYMPEX. Few stations are located in the interior of the Olympic Peninsula at elevations higher than about 500 m, and in this part of the domain the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrology model is used to invert the snow water equivalent (SWE) estimates, derived from two NASA JPL Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO) snow depth maps on 8–9 February 2016 and 29–30 March 2016, for precipitation through adjustment of the precipitation-weighting factor on a grid cell by grid cell basis. In comparison with this composite product, both IMERG (version 04A) and its Japanese counterpart GSMaP’s (version 04B) satellite-only products tend to underestimate winter precipitation, by 41% and 28%, respectively, over the entire domain from 1 October 2015 to 30 April 2016. The underestimation is more pronounced for the orographically enhanced mountainous interior of the OLYMPEX domain, by 57% and 48%, respectively. In contrast, IMERG and GSMaP storm interarrival time statistics are quite similar to those estimated from gridded observations.