Mt. Baldy, 2/27/05

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
Weather was clear and sunny until 2PM, then patchy cloud and fog, but not as widespread as many Baldy afternoons. The upper mountain coverage of up to 10 feet is reminiscent of the 1983 and 1998 El Nino years midseason. Lower mountain is well covered but not nearly what we had in 2001 when the storms were colder and the snow level consistently lower. The creek under chair 1 from January's rain is still alive, though there are several snow bridges over it to get back to the lift.

The recent snow was very heavy, as evidenced by the huge mounds of it still pasted on the trees. Thus when it was skied fresh earlier in the week (as in South Bowl, where one run was enough today), it set up into crud that will be very difficult to ski until it consolidates. During the storm chairs 1 and 3 and about 50% of terrain were open and got tracked out each day. The rest of the area opened and got tracked out Thursday.

The core terrain pod on Thunder (Skyline to Robin's) remains packed powder. Emiles/Liftline have great skier packed moguls with no rocks or hard spots. The sunny drops off the Fire Road (Herb's, Andy's, etc.) are also skier packed and ski very nicely once the sun has softened them around noon. The 3 groomed runs on chair 4 had great corn snow cruising in late morning.

Most off-trail sunny exposures are still mashed potatoes and need more time to consolidate. This applies to chair 1 also. Only the main run under the lift and Bentley's have decent skier packed lines at the moment.

Conditions should get better over the next week or two as the snow settles, but not too many rocks come out with the deep coverage. The core area on Thunder should remain skiable until early May with a normal spring. I estimate season-to-date snowfall on Thunder Mt. at about 265 inches. An above average spring would still be needed to reach the 350 totals of the 1983 and 1998 El Nino seasons.

227emiles.jpg

227bldypeak.JPG

227thunder4.JPG

227toperics.JPG

227ch1creek.JPG

227notch.JPG

227liftline.JPG

227fogtrees.JPG
 
niec picts and report...!

As you mentioned, its nice to see a good snowpack..I remember 2001 around this time after the 10 feet Baldy got..it was incredible..However,again as you mentioned, it was alot lighter and lower snow level, which is obviously more fun to ride on.....but it also packed down more and left us ulitmately with less base than will probably be the case this year, weather permitting of course. That is one good thing about our heavy wet snow!

Mtn high has reported I believe 269" so far this year, so that estimate on Thunder is probably pretty close, if not a bit conservative..although trying to get a stright forward snow report out of either Mt. high or Baldy can sometimes be a challenge!
 
Mt. High quotes a range. The lower number (192 season-to-date) is pretty good, but I think the higher one is sometimes optimistic.

Baldy usually quotes a range, but it's all from the top of Thunder. They never say how much snow fell at the parking lot, but when they have a big storm and report roads clear with no chains right away you can figure it out.

Like you, I would expect Thunder to get more snow than Mt. High:
1) Crest vs. backside of San Gabriel Mts.
2) About 500 ft. higher elevation

I have been estimating SoCal weekly snowfall and conditions ( http://bestsnow.net/scalhist.htm ) since 1975-76. The snowfall (season-to-date 207 in the table at http://bestsnow.net/seas05.htm ) is an average of highest (usually Waterman when it was in business or Baldy) and lowest (usually Big Bear). You do need to look at each storm individually. Sometimes they move through L.A. and stall over the desert and Big Bear gets more than the San Gabriels, as in last October. Big Bear is also colder and will be much less damaged by rain, as in January. Mt. High should nearly always come in somewhere in between, though with Waterman not reporting Mt. High tends to be closer to Baldy's numbers than Big Bear's. Historically Snow Valley gets a bit more than Mt. High.
 
Tony Crocker":1943aylf said:
I have been estimating SoCal weekly snowfall and conditions ( http://bestsnow.net/scalhist.htm ) since 1975-76. The snowfall (season-to-date 207 in the table at http://bestsnow.net/seas05.htm ) is an average of highest (usually Waterman when it was in business or Baldy) and lowest (usually Big Bear). You do need to look at each storm individually. Sometimes they move through L.A. and stall over the desert and Big Bear gets more than the San Gabriels, as in last October. Big Bear is also colder and will be much less damaged by rain, as in January. Mt. High should nearly always come in somewhere in between, though with Waterman not reporting Mt. High tends to be closer to Baldy's numbers than Big Bear's. Historically Snow Valley gets a bit more than Mt. High.

Tony,

Do you have yearly snowfall totals for all the SoCal resorts? Not the easiest data to find on the Net. For some odd reason, they don't like to brag about the 12 inches they received one year or 25 in another. ... :P
MH's marketing director said High got 310" in 97-98; I found some resort review that said Summit received 168" that year, but finding season snowfall data has been tough.
 
I am aware of Mt. High's range..as I was referring to the higher number being the comparison of the two summit elevations of both ski areas..I also agree that Waterman tends to get the most snow annualy, in most seasons. I work in the Angeles National Forest too, so I tend to get to see first hand some of the conditions fairly regularly. I also am a weather freak, been so for about 25 years..just to give you a heads up that I'm not necesarily talking out of my a$$... :lol: but I also realize you have many years of socal snow experience!

Did you see the picture link I posted recently of some Waterman pictures from last weekend?http://community.webshots.com/photo/284953918/284955073cTGvin

again, I don't know the guys personally, but amazing to see the lifts basically buried... I don't think 300" is an unreasosnable total so far at Waterman..especially at the summit..
 
I've not tried contacting local resorts for data. It will be spotty for when they aren't open and not that many would have them for a meaningful number of years. And if Mt. High is doing it now, they certainly weren't under old management before 1997. I think my method of saving the new snow reports as they come in is as good as any. I do save them as a range, so adding up the higher numbers is probably a reasonable estimate for Baldy/Waterman. I only process the average through my computer programs.

Back in the 1980's I did see averages quoted somewhere that sounded very reasonable:
Snow Summit 60
Bear Mt. 72
Snow Valley 150
Mt. High 120
Mt. Baldy 150-180
Mt. Waterman 180
Kratka Ridge 190.

My independent averaging method comes out to 130, season totals below:
75-76 63.00
76-77 87.00
77-78 192.00
78-79 237.00
79-80 102.00
80-81 63.00
81-82 162.00
82-83 264.00
83-84 12.00
84-85 132.00
85-86 111.00
86-87 76.00
87-88 87.00
88-89 105.00
89-90 111.00
90-91 153.00
91-92 237.00
92-93 219.00
93-94 114.00
94-95 172.00
95-96 77.00
96-97 79.00
97-98 267.00
98-99 99.00
99-00 112.00
00-01 210.00
01-02 39.00
02-03 75.00
03-04 100.00

By this method the current season is at 207 now (second highest to 1979 through February), and the expected for the rest of the year is 37. The chances of reaching the 1983 or 1998 snow totals are only about 25% IMHO. The chances of L.A. breaking the 38+ inch rainfall record for 1883-84 are about 50/50.
 
Back
Top