Tenting near the Bonds

[The Yankees Guy]

I am trying to put a plan together for doing the Bonds as a two day hike. My question is what to do if the campsites are full. I read that it is okay to camp off of the Bondcliff trail. Some helpful info would be great on this. The huts are out of my price range and I was hoping for a more back country experience in the back country.

 

[Rainman]

Tenting is allowed only if you are 200' off the trail in the Pemigewasset Wilderness as seen here. You should be able to find places below the stream crossings on the Bondcliff Tr., as you approach the former railroad grade (the former Wilderness Tr). I have yet to see an AMC tentsite turn anyone away. They each maintain "overflow" areas (although they might be stretched with the closure of the Lincon Woods trail during the week).

 

[Will]

Tenting is allowed only if you are 200' off the trail in the Pemigewasset Wilderness

I can't remember where I got this definition of the Pemi boundary, and can't claim it's definitive.

* 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

If these are correct, how does that impact the OP's question?

There are places where you can sleep anywhere on one side of the trail but not for miles on the other, and I don't always remember which side is which.

I have always maintained that no one should sleep in the White Mountains without a surveyor and a lawyer in the party, both of whom you have paid to have done the required research.

 

[nartreb]

The rules change every few years, but here is the current version:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363715.pdf

Most of the Bondcliff trail is very far inside the wilderness, so the 200-foot rule applies. There's a little carve-out from the wilderness boundary around Mt Guyot and the Guyot shelter, but the 1/4-mile exclusion around Guyot Shelter, combined with the 200-foot AT exclusion and the ban on camping above treeline, fills the carve-out.

The verbal description quoted by Will looks consistent with this Forest Service map:
http://caltopo.com//map?id=5F23 (may need to choose the "US Forest Service" layer from menu at upper right). My AMC map shows a larger carve-out, but still not big enough to matter much.

I wouldn't worry too much about the shelter being full. If you're looking to avoid the shelter, there is good terrain for camping at the bottom (south) end of the Bondcliff trail. You only need to be 200' from the Pemi river [since you're east of Franconia brook], but you might as well climb a little before camping. Just know when to quit: if you go too high the terrain gets steeper and the woods get less open.

 

[Mark]

Are you planning to approach the Bonds from the south (Lincoln Woods) or the north (Zealand Road)? The responses above are primarily useful if you are approaching from the south. When I hiked the Bonds, we approached from the north. We stayed at Guyot camp, so we weren't looking for a site, but finding something with a water source near by could be tough once you get past Mt. Zealand

 

[Will]

The rules change every few years ... Most of the Bondcliff trail is very far inside the wilderness, so the 200-foot rule applies

But I recall there are some decent spots off the Twinway, both N-S and as it swings E (though quite a ways E), that would seem to offer some opportunity for the OP. There are spots off the Bondcliff Trail 200 feet in, though they are harder to find and the problem is you're usually looking while it's getting dark.

 

[nartreb]

But I recall there are some decent spots off the Twinway, both N-S and as it swings E (though quite a ways E), that would seem to offer some opportunity for the OP. There are spots off the Bondcliff Trail 200 feet in, though they are harder to find and the problem is you're usually looking while it's getting dark.

All of the Twinway is part of the AT, so that 200-foot rule applies there. The woods up there are spruce/fir, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a small spot as long as you're not expecting to find much water.

whoops...

 

[JCarter]

All of the Twinway is part of the AT, so that 200-foot rule applies there. The woods up there are spruce/fir, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a small spot as long as you're not expecting to find much water.

I can't find a 200 foot AT exclusion in this part of the Whites. Am I failing at reading comprehension today?

 

[nartreb]

Whoops, no, my failure. Forgot where the Connecticut River was.

 

[David Metsky]

I can't find a 200 foot AT exclusion in this part of the Whites. Am I failing at reading comprehension today?

I believe you are correct and nartreb is wrong in this case. The 200 foot rule only applies to the AT from Moosilauke to the CT river.