Mt. Waterman (the easy way)

Post by **Uncle Rico** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:03 am

Made a run to Mt. Waterman yesterday before Father's Day festivities were in full swing. Have been wanting to make the trek from 3 Points but didn't have the time yesterday so I opted for the shorter trail the starts on the south side of ACH near Buckhorn.

As most of you probably already know, this is a nice easy walk in the woods. The trail is well-maintained and easy to follow, the elevation gain is minimal and gradual (about 1300 feet I believe), the distance is short (~6 miles RT), and the scenery is top notch. As an extra added bonus, there are a bunch of boulders at and near the summit to explore and climb upon.

Temps were in the low 70s with a slight breeze blowing. Perfect.

Some pics.

Very informative signage at trialhead. At least it's not tagged...yet.

Look for this highway marker at the trailhead instead.

Getting started. The trail is well shaded in many places.

Looking north from the trail. I'm not that familiar with this area of the forest, so you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Winston Peak is to the left, Buckhorn is to the right, and PV Ridge is in the center?

More trail view

View east

View southeast

Not sure on this one. Smith Mtn or Peak 5641?

One of the twins

Ridgeline running southeast from Twin Peaks

Trail junction with trail coming up from 3 Points

Closing in on the summit

Survey marker on the summit. I had to scramble over a couple of the boulders to locate this. Didn't see a summit register.

Nice little dry camp spot on the summit

View west from the summit

The end.

Post by **Sean** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:44 am

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑

I believe Mount Akawie (Buckhorn Peak) is on the left with PVR and Burkhart Saddle in the distance. Winston is out of view way to the left.

Thanks for the report. That is one of my favorite areas to explore.

Post by **HikeUp** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:53 am

Yes, Akawie on left. Pallett, Burkhart Saddle, Will Thrall are hidden by Akawie.

Post by **HikeUp** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:57 am

And that is Smith Mtn. in your other picture.

Post by **Uncle Rico** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:11 am

Thanks for the clarification boys. Very helpful. Geez, if Kratka Ridge is on the far right and Williamson is just to the left of that, then that view really isn't even north at all. Guess I should take my compass along for the ride next time.

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:51 am

I do like that view SE... aka the route codenamed Webe

Post by **tekewin** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:59 pm

Great pictures, Rico.

Does that Waterman benchmark read "TWIN", or did you climb one of the twins?

I still haven't made it into the back range, but something will move to the top of my list in the fall.

Post by **Uncle Rico** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:42 pm

Thanks teke. I was running short on time so "no," I didn't make it out to Twin. But yeah, the Waterman benchmark does say "Twin." Not really sure why, but I'm guessing one of the other more knowledgable folks around here can provide some color on that.

Speaking of Twin, is that Southeast bearing ridge, the one AW refers to as codename Webe, the route out to the infamous Triplet Rocks? Is this where one would find they? If so, I'll probably just be admiring those guys from afar for the foreseeable future.

oldcoot · Post by **oldcoot** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Yeah, the benchmark on Waterman says "TWIN"...there is a benchmark that says "WATERMAN" on the next bump to the east (elev. 7910 on the topo map)...don't think either of the Twin Peaks has a benchmark...

Post by **Sean** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:10 am

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑But yeah, the Waterman benchmark does say "Twin." Not really sure why...

In 1930, when the USGS surveyed this region, I believe the conversation on Waterman Mountain went something like this:

Melvin: Hey, Stanley, do you think this is the summit?
Stanley: Of course it is, you numbskull. Didn't they teach you anything in surveyor school?
Melvin: (yawning) I must have slept through the how-to-know-when-you're-on-the-summit lesson.
Stanley: Remind me again why you're here.
Melvin: I'm good at coming up with names for the little bronze discs you place in the rocks.
Stanley: Okay, so what should we call this benchmark?
Melvin: Hrm...
Stanley: What did you name the one on Rattlesnake Peak?
Melvin: Fang.
Stanley: Right. That was a clever name. I'll give you a dollar if you can top it.
Melvin: (looking across at Twin Peaks) How 'bout we call this one Bosom?
Stanley: Huh?
Melvin: Or, maybe Rack.
Stanley: I don't understand.
Melvin: Well, what do those two peaks over there remind you of?
Stanley: That's Twin Peaks, you numbskull.
Melvin: Yeah, but don't they remind you of a nice pair of tatas? I know, let's call the benchmark Tatas.
Stanley: We're not naming it after female breasts.
Melvin: Why not? I named Rattlesnake Peak after Dracula.
Stanley: I thought you named it after the fangs on a rattlesnake.
Melvin: Nope, but that makes sense too, I guess.
Stanley: (sighing) Got any more ideas?
Melvin: Sorry, Tatas is the best I got. If you like, we could make it weirdly singular like Fang, and call it Tata.
Stanley: Nah, that sounds like you're saying goodbye. I think I'm just going to call it Twin.
Melvin: Alright. It's a little boring, but at least it's weirdly singular.

Post by **Uncle Rico** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:19 am

Ah, both mysteries solved.

But from my vantage point, the USGS should have gone with one of Melvin's recommendations for the benchmark.

MattCav · Post by **MattCav** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:20 am

awesome tr, rico. i love waterman. its an easy, overlooked, and just downright beautiful area. thanks for the reminder.