Ride Report Mt Waterman thoughts and input

[project_d]

I'm bummed that I was out of town and couldn't participate in the festivities. Maybe I could hit it up this weekend.

 

[Dufferin]

I apologize for that, Dean, I did misread your statement. But I hope that something great happens in Waterman and from what everybody is saying here, looks like its going to be a long and rocky road. And when its all done, it might be expensive too. Education, Enforcement, and Trail maintenance all cost time and money. But I don't mind paying a little extra for a proper and legal DH riding in LA.

Please read the posts carfully before commmenting. I am not advocating for restrictions on bikes that use the runs on Watermans property. It is Waterman Trail that has us concerned. Again Waterman Trail is a multi use trail outside the boundaries of the ski resort and one of the more popular hiking trails in the Gabs. It is right across the street from one of the larger campgrounds in the San Gabs...Buckhorn Campground. There are spots on Waterman Trail that touch the boundry of Sheep Mountain Wilderness, do you think the the Sierra Club would love to extend the wilderness boundary to enclude Waterman Trail...I think they would love to.

Dean

 

[Monarch]

I have grown up riding Mt. Waterman. I enjoy it in both the winter and the summer time. The last thing I want to see is Mt. Waterman get destroyed by a bunch of shuttle runners.

Waterman will never be a Northstar,Mammoth or Whistler. However it can be fun as long as we can get a good dialogue going with the forest service as well as the owners to create a nice little slice of heaven for us who prefer not to ride up hill.

The city of Boulder Colorado is in the process of building a Mt. Bike park. This is on city land and we could look at this as inspiration as to what can be done on the Mt. Waterman property.

http://www.bma-mtb.org/valmontbikepark/index.php

 

[1080P]

I have grown up riding Mt. Waterman. I enjoy it in both the winter and the summer time. The last thing I want to see is Mt. Waterman get destroyed by a bunch of shuttle runners.

Waterman will never be a Northstar,Mammoth or Whistler. However it can be fun as long as we can get a good dialogue going with the forest service as well as the owners to create a nice little slice of heaven for us who prefer not to ride up hill.

The city of Boulder Colorado is in the process of building a Mt. Bike park. This is on city land and we could look at this as inspiration as to what can be done on the Mt. Waterman property.

http://www.bma-mtb.org/valmontbikepark/index.php

I think you have a great idea.... build it on City Land. Last I heard the City of Glendale had some land to do so, set aside in the foothills. I've heard nothing on that development for mountain bike riders lately.

 

[maxwell]

Hi All -
I have been following this thread and feel it is time to post the same post i did on Mtbr.

Please be advised, that contrary to the statements attributed to Roberto Martinez/Mt Water, the co-owner (who we have no record of in terms of the permit), that it his mountain and they have a multi-use permit, the following is for real.

The Forest Land Management Plan states that Mountain bike use is restricted to designated roads and trails. Cross-country travel is prohibited due to sustainability issues.
Creation of unauthorized trails do not qualify as designated trails.

As of right now, the use of mountain bikes as described in this thread puts the ski owners in violation of their permit which means they may be subject to administrative restrictions.

I have also posted a lengthy response to questions posed on the other website so i would encourage you to visit there to see where the Forest is in terms of mountain bike opportunities.

First I'd like to say thanks for taking the time to post up on both sites. It shows, at least to me, that you are open minded.

Second, I'd like to apologize here in front of all, if any of the work we did on Sunday hurts Mt. Waterman.
I can assure you that myself, and the guys that were working with me, will NOT be doing any other building until the correct procedures are taken.

Like others have said, it will never be a huge resort. And to me, that is not a bad thing. BIG is not always better.
However, it could be a GREAT spot for all involved, to boost the local economy, and give our local shredder's a legit, much deserved, place to ride.

Like it was mentioned in an earlier post, the money is not in the XC type trails, as fun as they are.
The lift assisted DH runs are going to be what will help Mt. Waterman stay afloat during the warmer months.

 

[lmnop]

The problem lies in mountain bikes being vehicles and continuing to be used in manners on Forest Service Property that are unsustainable, with skidding and erosion problems. Enough Mountain bikers have proven time and again that mountain bikes and Decomposed Granite like in the San Gabriel Mountain Range is incompatible usage and unsustainable. It's in the nature of the material that the mountain is made of that makes it unsustainable on steeper slopes. You can't change that fact. The same lovely weather that makes Los Angeles what it is has broken down the mountain range known as the San Gabriels, and made it sensitive to decomposing, which in turn makes it unsustainable when ridden on by mountain bikes on grades exceeding 10-12% without huge erosion problems.

Please, stop with your lies/mistruths as to the geology of the San Gabriels! From what I understand, you are or were an accountant.

I can poke a bunch of holes into that mish-mash of thoughts quoted above, but I can hardly stomach the thought of spending the time in typing this, let alone getting into an "intellectual" discussion with you.

 

[simonmtb]

Looks like everyone had a blast at Waterman and i have really enjoyed following this thread and the input from users, owners and adminstrators of this area.

Please, stop with your lies/mistruths as to the geology of the San Gabriels! From what I understand, you are or were an accountant.

I can poke a bunch of holes into that mish-mash of thoughts quoted above, but I can hardly stomach the thought of spending the time in typing this, let alone getting into an "intellectual" discussion with you.

Well said.:clap: The San Gabes are an absolute mountain biking gem and I find it hard to believe that a regular contributer to this site and a supposed advocate of our great sport, would say so much to undermine so many peoples pleasure on a public forum.

 

[Tedroy]

I can't wait to take my 4" bike down the face. Can I plant my mug in the rocks like I do in the snow? Maybe I can slide all the way down onto the road too!
Waterman is fun on skis, but I think the place is too small for bikes.

 

[Mt Waterman]

http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5944953&postcount=32

Respond to All
I am pleased to see all the responses to my original post as I have tried to engage the Mountain Bike Community to come to the table to discuss illegally constructed trails and courses, and to collaboratively develop a trail system that addresses all user needs. The response has basically been nill.

For those that need a name with the moniker (it was a requirement of the website to have a "nickname" to post), I am Mike McIntyre, District Ranger on the Los Angeles River Ranger District of the Angeles National Forest. If this information still is not enough, you can call 818 899 1900 and they will patch you to my desk.

I will try to answer the questions of HHMTB as they seem to cover most everyone's concerns.

1) The rules and regulations of the Angeles National Forest are the same for all National Forests and can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Management rules and regulations can be found in the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan.
2) Waterman is public property under special use authorization for the operation of a ski facility. As such, the rules of the Forest apply here.
3) This was a loaded question. Only trails on our transportation system are "legal". If it is not on our system then it is "illegal". That is not to say that there is not going to be a route that is safer or meets the public's needs now that the "legal" trail doesnt but there is a process in place by which trails can be incorporated into our system. However, that process does not mean to go and build the trail and then petition it into the system. We are faced with trails being illegally constructed without proper environmental analysis or provisions for sustainability. We try to have a travel network for recreation use that allows most users access to recreation areas. Waterman has dirt roads that bikes can use.
4) That is a good point. And to avoid long posts in posing questions and resulting answers, I would be willing to meet with the mountain bike community to talk about solutions or criteria to provide more options.
5) See #4.

What is critical is to move off this "us vs. them" undercurrent that exists. We have already received to calls from other public complaining on the mountain bike use at Waterman. One i received personally and he was a hiker who said his wife was almost hit this weekend by two mtn. bikes speeding downhill on the hiking trail, and heard third hand of a fight that almost occurred between a hiker whose daughter was almost hit by a bike and the operator of the bike.

This sets the stage where options for solutions get really narrow and we, on the management side, have to resort to more restrictive options as other options arent working.

I hope this helps.

Mike

Hello to all. I just wante the FS to know that the owners of MtWaterman are not cut new trails. We have access roads which the mountaun bikers are using. We are not allowing anyone to bring up picks and shovels to creat trails. No trees are being used to make jumps or bridges. The most we have done is rake pine cones and sand off the access roads to make it safer to ride.
We are interested in making a park on the mountain. We feel in would work in everyones interest to move the big bike off the trails hikers are using.
I will call you today.

 

[roach]

Damn World Wide Web!

Almost as quickly as this insane fantasy of plowing trail wherever it feels good came to fruition, it looks like it’s not actually permissible. Shocking! This fantasy would have lasted maybe a month or two if it didn’t immediately get plastered all over the Internet. I know some of you are really excited to share with the world, but questionable trails/trail work activities? [end of rant]

Now the District Ranger has chimed in to help clarify procedure, but I doubt he’ll get too involved with the crazy bickering that is online forums.

Seriously though, Waterman can get new trails, just not by next weekend. The guys at Waterman are super cool with MTB’s but the mountain is still located on National Forest Land. A laid-back bro attitude doesn’t usually coincide with Federal Regulation enforcement, but it can be done.

Summer 2011 sounds realistic to have an actual approved network of new trails at Waterman. However, getting a new network of trails through the NEPA process will come at a substantial $$cost. Of course, Mt. Baldy has been running summer lifts for hikers and bikers for a few years without developing any new trails, they just tell you to stay on the fire roads…That's the easiest and cheapest approach.
In the meantime, Waterman’s mtb lifts should still be able to operate, but the owners have to discourage/eliminate cross-country exploring.

-Mt. Waterman, I have 11 years experience in Environmental Planning and may be able to help you with any questions about the NEPA approval process. PM me if interested-
Good Luck Mt. Waterman, a lot of us are rooting for you. Hope we get an El Nino this winter!

 

[dstepper]

Where is the report from "THE EXPERT" 1080 P ???

Too busy throwing CORBA under the bus on MTBR. Don't think STR mods have much tolerance for him over here.

Roach as far as people posting about Waterman that was Roberto himself that invited people to come out and ride where they wanted. Many of us knew that it was a cluster **** and will be short lived. I still am hoping that the Forest Service would consider that the lift faces are pretty much one big trail going down the hill.

Dean

 

[1080P]

I can't wait to take my 4" bike down the face. Can I plant my mug in the rocks like I do in the snow? Maybe I can slide all the way down onto the road too!
Waterman is fun on skis, but I think the place is too small for bikes.

150 acres for Mt Waterman.... Mammoth Mountain is over 3500 acres for reference, 25x the size. 3 or 4 days at 6hrs a day at Mammoth, and I'm bored. Divide that by 25 to figure out how long it takes to get bored at Mt. Waterman... about an hour, before all the new dirt is discovered.

Read about the owners of Mt Waterman here.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/12/business/fi-waterman12

The names Rick Metcalf and his brother Brien are mentioned as owners in the article.

 

[spookydave]

I thought this thread was about Mt. Waterman. Can you please take all the other stuff someplace else?
Maybe start a new thread about bus undercarragies, cobras and the missing 10K. That is all moot to Waterman right?

thanks

 

[dstepper]

Highjack my thread:

 

[art23rockpile]

As Dean stated, we didn't hear any negative assessments from anyone who was there Sunday. Mt Waterman has a lot of potential if handled correctly.
I'd be willing to volunteer my time and effort (i'm a professional woodworker) when/if the time comes.

I thought this thread was about Mt. Waterman. Can you please take all the other stuff someplace else?
Maybe start a new thread about bus undercarragies, cobras and the missing 10K. That is all moot to Waterman right?

thanks

Relegate him to your "ignore" list as many others here have done, Dave.

 

[Mt Waterman]

We are meeting with the Forest Service next week to discuss the options for Mt Waterman.
They do not want anyone riding the Mt Waterman trail. We can only ride on established trails on Mt Waterman.
The Forest Service was very gracious in our conversation with them. Not a negative undertone at all.
The attitude was very positive and I am sure that working together, bikers, hikers, and Forest Service we can find a middle ground where everyone can enjoy the mountains.

 

[Fewinhibitions]

We are meeting with the Forest Service next week to discuss the options for Mt Waterman.
They do not want anyone riding the Mt Waterman trail. We can only ride on established trails on Mt Waterman.
The Forest Service was very gracious in our conversation with them. Not a negative undertone at all.
The attitude was very positive and I am sure that working together, bikers, hikers, and Forest Service we can find a middle ground where everyone can enjoy the mountains.

Will this be a "public invited " meeting by any chance?

 

[project_d]

Relegate him to your "ignore" list as many others here have done, Dave.

How do I do this?

 

[Mt Waterman]

Will this be a "public invited " meeting by any chance?

No it will not be. I will invite everyone once we have a plan of action.

 

[CA_descender]

One thing I think you should consider is having an experienced trail builder with you at the meeting with the USFS. Maybe someone from CORBA, SDMBA (maybe a bit far for them) or call IMBA and see if they have some one they would recommend. Just to give input/ideas even though they are not allowed to actually do the work, at least from I have been reading.

I really hope this works out. I will be watching closely because I really miss "local" lift assisted DH. Even if it never becomes a Whistler/N. Star/Mammoth type of deal but something that is fast and fun.
:beer:

We are meeting with the Forest Service next week to discuss the options for Mt Waterman.
They do not want anyone riding the Mt Waterman trail. We can only ride on established trails on Mt Waterman.
The Forest Service was very gracious in our conversation with them. Not a negative undertone at all.
The attitude was very positive and I am sure that working together, bikers, hikers, and Forest Service we can find a middle ground where everyone can enjoy the mountains.