Tenting and/or Hammocking off Twinway (between South Twin and Guyot)

[wildbill]

Can anyone tell me if this is a good area for either?

Also curious about North Twin Spur.

Thanks!

 

[nartreb]

The twinway from south twin to Guyot is fairly pleasant - spruce/fir with a fern and moss understory; the ridge is broad and slopes are gentle near the trail except right next to Guyot. Finding room for a tent would take some searching (due to thick woods, stumps and downed trees) , but a hammock should work well. Camp on the north side to stay out of the Pemi wilderness (or camp at least 200' from the trail)*, and bring plenty of water.

The North Twin trail from South Twin to North Twin flirts with treeline for the purpose of the camping regulations (8' trees) and the ridge is narrower. I like your odds much better on the Twinway.

*edit: it appears that the Wilderness boundary is 66 feet south of the trail in this area, so camping within spitting distance on the south side is legal.

 

[JustJoe]

I don't remember exactly where this spot is. Roughly, about 1/4 mile before you exit the trees on the Twinway heading towards Guyot on the left. It's only about 20' off trail. Hard to miss. And it is outside the wilderness boundary. Your biggest problem in that area will be water.

It has a small view.

 

[Will]

Camp on the north side to stay out of the Pemi wilderness

You seem to be implying that the Pemi Wilderness includes the trails surrounding it. I don't have my maps & notes at hand here, but generally that is NOT the case.

 

[nartreb]

You seem to be implying that the Pemi Wilderness includes the trails surrounding it. I don't have my maps & notes at hand here, but generally that is NOT the case.

It is definitinely not the case for the Twinway; the boundary is somewhere just south of the trail (or, south of where the trail was at the time the boundary was drawn). But as I understand it, the regulations for the wilderness require staying 200 feet from "any trail", not "any trail within the wilderness. It's unlikely that rangers know exactly how far the boundary is from the south side of the current trail, so for practical purposes, the south side of the trail *is* the boundary. But see Update below.

In my mind, going 200' from the trail and *then* searching for a campsite is not worth it when the other side of the trail has no restrictions. I've edited my post above to make my intent clearer.

Update, I looked up the legislation that created the Wilderness:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg259.pdf

The Forest Service in D.C. apparently possess the official "map and legal description", and VFTT member RoySwkr reported in 2011 that he obtained a copy:

http://www.vftt.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-40542.html

I finally received an answer from the WMNF surveyor, the official document is a scanned PDF which I can't post here (e-mail if you want to OCR or host it).

As suspected, it is defined as a distance from trails so most trailed summits are outside Wilderness but bushwhack summits are on boundary. My summary:
* 66 feet from Osseo, Franconia Ridge, Garfield Ridge Trails
* 100 feet outside Galehead Hut permit area
* 66 feet from Twinway to Bondcliff Trail
* 33 feet from Bondcliff Trail to point 100 feet S of Guyot Shelter spur, then 100 feet from spur and shelter returning 33 feet from other side of Bondcliff Trail
* 66 feet from Twinway and Whitewall Brook
* 66 feet from Ethan Pond Trail to ridge S from Mt Willey
* follows ridgeline all the way to East Side Road with 100' deviation at summit of Mt Carrigain - no such deviation at Mt Hancock so apparently part of Hancock Loop Trail is in Wilderness although not signed as such
* 66 feet from East Side Road to 66 feet beyond gate
* across to Wilderness Trail and back to 33 feet from Franconia Brook
* up Franconia Brook to E of northern tip of Black Pond, then over to pond
* follow pond shore (which not specified but presumably W to connect below)
* 33 feet SW from Black Pond Trail
* 66 feet from Wilderness Trail back to Osseo Trail

Better get a certified copy in case of arguments with the rangers

 

[JustJoe]

The Pemi is much further than 66' from the Twinway between S. Twin and where it hangs a left to Guyot. But even if it is 66', if you are outside of the wilderness boundary on a trail, the 200' rule does not apply. The rule does not state you must be 200' from the wilderness boundary. It says you must be 200' from the trail if you are within the wilderness boundary. That is how the back-country camping rules read.

 

[nartreb]

Joe, you read the rules the same way I do: if you're camping less than 200' from the trail but inside the Pemi Wilderness, you're in trouble. If you're camping outside the Wilderness, it doesn't matter where the Twinway is. The problem is, where does the Wilderness start?

Where did you get that map? It doesn't look official to me.

 

[Will]

The problem is, where does the Wilderness start?

You can make a pretty good guess from the boundary description as to where the legal corridor is between the trail and the Wilderness border, and it would be a harsh Ranger indeed who would fine you and/or force a move if you're off by a few feet.

BTW it is only MAINSTREAM thought that there is such a corridor. One dissenting constituency (including many amc site caretakers, volunteer ridge runners and most of the posting forum members here) believes there is no such corridor and the 200' rule is absolute. Another constituency (including some Rangers and long-term amc employees, if pressed) believes the rule's reference to "any trail" ONLY applies to trails within the area being described. "Obviously" they'll say, "if you're describing the rules WITHIN an area, you have to be very specific if you're going to drag in a reference to something OUTSIDE that area, such as "any trail, whether within or outside the Wilderness." BTW they too start the conversation with the 200 feet mantra, until you show that you know the language.

I wholly dislike the fact that these visible, near-trail sites exist; they are eyesores. But I do use many sites that are OUT OF SIGHT behind the brush or mounds, and there are many such sites suitable for hammocks as asked about here. I am confident from the pure volume of authoritative people I've talked to over time that the corridor interpretation is correct; but I posted here many years ago that no one should backpack in the Whites without a lawyer and a surveyor in the party.

 

[JustJoe]

Joe, you read the rules the same way I do: if you're camping less than 200' from the trail but inside the Pemi Wilderness, you're in trouble. If you're camping outside the Wilderness, it doesn't matter where the Twinway is. The problem is, where does the Wilderness start?

Where did you get that map? It doesn't look official to me.

That's a screen shot of AMC online maps. I'm have no idea how accurate their maps are. But like I was saying, if it is 66' from the Twinway then camping 10' from the trail would be legal. But I myself never camp at sites like that. I always use the 200' rule no matter where I am only because I prefer to be out of site.

I attended the Trail Stewards meeting in May and brought up the 200' rule question in regards to any area not listed in the restriction section of the back-country rules. I put the question to John Marunowski, who is a ranger and the USFS Wilderness Manager. He did state that the 200' from a trail is not a requirement if you are in a non-restricted area. But, as I do, would like to see people use it anyway. I've spoken to 3 rangers over the years about back-country camping and all seen to think along the same terms. If you know of an already established site, such as the one I mentioned above, use it. That way it lessens the impact on other areas.

 

[yogi]

There are a few large well used sites in this area, on both sides of the trail. However they are well known to AT hikers, the ones I spoke to found out at the hut. Unsure of the legality though.

 

[IQuest]

Is one legally allowed to camp right along side of the AT (such as along the Twinway)?

 

[alexmtn]

Ian, camping *is* allowed along the Twinway, so long as you're at least 1/4 mile away from the huts and are not in the alpine areas on South Twin and Guyot. Re: the AT in general, it varies. You can find the rules that that apply (and that folks have been referencing in this discussion) on the WMNF website: WMNF Backcountry Camping Rules

As a side note, we should have a spot somewhere for oft-referenced links [or do we already?]

Alex

 

[bikehikeskifish]

As a side note, we should have a spot somewhere for oft-referenced links [or do we already?]

The topic comes up from time-to-time, but nobody has made a case that they would keep it relevant, updated, and correct (in a generally agreed-to-by-everybody way).

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

Do note that in addition to the sites that fall within the wilderness boundary restrictions and outside of the RUA area associated with the hut, the forest service apparently has the right to arbitrarily post specific sites as closed with apparent public notice. This was done on some sites that were just off the trail on the west side of the Franconia ridge Trail outside of the Liberty Springs RUA. This exception is not included in the referenced Backcountry camping rules and probably is an unfortunately surprise to folks that had planned to camp there.

On the rare times that the WMNF actually writes a ticket for illegal camping, its seems to be most prevalent within the 1/4 mile zone along roads. This is understandable as its the least work for the ranger and I expect the most prone to camping that is not LNT. The few forest service personnel I have asked over the years regard taking out the citation book as their last option reserved for folks that just don't seem to want to comply with education. The other thing for those who might have an attitude is that the ranger has a lot of latitude on how many tickets he can write. During one particular case of folks who called in a deliberately false S&R, the rangers were discussing which citations would apply and after agreeing one of the FS employees made the comment " if they have an attitude write individual tickets for all the participants". They acknowledged later that few if any of the tickets would stick but in order to fight them, the individuals would need to take a day off to go to federal court and that was punishment in and of itself. Of course there are occasional dragnets and areas of special management, the areas along the Lincoln Woods trail used to get special enforcement and during a scouting trip with a small group we were once followed by a ranger from Franconia Falls to the Bondcliff junction who obviously was trying not to be seen. When he finally caught up while we taking a break, he started asking a lot of questions on our intended campspot which was outside the RUA.