Garfield Pond

Is the Garfield Pond close enough to the GRT and reasonably clear enough to count on as a decent water source? Never done this stretch of the GRT and am planning to do soon. On the maps it appears set back a bit from the trail so I wasn't sure if you had to force your way through thick brush, swampy terrain, etc to access and whether or not it was just a muddy, mosquito riddled puddle or clear enough that standard water filtration would be adequate for use.

DayTrip said:

Is the Garfield Pond close enough to the GRT and reasonably clear enough to count on as a decent water source? Never done this stretch of the GRT and am planning to do soon. On the maps it appears set back a bit from the trail so I wasn't sure if you had to force your way through thick brush, swampy terrain, etc to access and whether or not it was just a muddy, mosquito riddled puddle or clear enough that standard water filtration would be adequate for use.

Click to expand...

There's a good water source at the beginning of the path to the Garfield tent site.

There used to be a shelter there, there is obvious cut off trail from the Garfield trail that skips the summit and goes direct to the pond. Its not a great water source, the shelters water source is much better.

It's not tough to get to from the Garfield Ridge Trail, it goes within a couple of dozen feet of it and isn't thick to get to it. Here is a Picture (click here) of the pond, looks good for filtering.

-Chris

It gets a lot of use by backpackers and thru-hikers, so I would definitely treat it. I think you're better off carrying some extra from Greenleaf Hut or Liberty Springs/Garfield Campsites (depending on your route).

This is the water source for the shelter/tent-sites. Much closer to them than the pond.

We found out the hard way it's dry as hell coming from the Ridge. We were camping off trail, and pulled up before the pond and had no water with us. After making camp we went hunting for the pond (turns out we were only a half-mile away) and watered up there. We did treat it. We wouldn't have made it to the tentsite.

The photo that was posted previously was taken at a high water level, the times I have visited it, it has been decidedly more weedy. If you look at the Google Earth historical imagery, you can see some photos of the pond, some have weeds and some don't. Its a cloud pond with some minimal uphill drainage area running into it. That drainage area includes a very high use area with potential for human waste contamination (I seem to remember at one point there was a privy at the top that potentially drained towards the pond). I expect one of the reasons this area was abandoned for a campsite is that the campsite was within the immediate water shed of the water source (generally not a good idea). I expect the other reason was in general having a campsite immediately adjacent to water body is no longer preferred as it impacts widllife

It's a good water source - easy to get to, nice and clear. Treat the water the same as you would any other pond water. Much faster to get to than hiking off the ridge all the way down to Garfield Ridge tentsite. No sense in carrying water all the way from Greenleaf or Liberty Spring or anywhere else (IMO). It's a good water source.

Note that the GRT between Garfied and Lafayette is notoriously difficult. Much more rugged than the map would have you believe. And while thru-hikers and backpackers certainly go through there, it's not on a daytrip route to anything, so it gets WAY less traffic than the standard 4k' trade routes. It's a beautiful area, but kind of mean in the winter (should you venture out that way later).

JustJoe said:

This is the water source for the shelter/tent-sites. Much closer to them than the pond.

Click to expand...

Yeah - this is a wonderful source - it's right on the trail and reliable even in dry times. Worth popping up to the re-built shelter too - it's really beautiful.

hikerbrian said:

It's a good water source - easy to get to, nice and clear. Treat the water the same as you would any other pond water. Much faster to get to than hiking off the ridge all the way down to Garfield Ridge tentsite. No sense in carrying water all the way from Greenleaf or Liberty Spring or anywhere else (IMO). It's a good water source.

Note that the GRT between Garfied and Lafayette is notoriously difficult. Much more rugged than the map would have you believe. And while thru-hikers and backpackers certainly go through there, it's not on a daytrip route to anything, so it gets WAY less traffic than the standard 4k' trade routes. It's a beautiful area, but kind of mean in the winter (should you venture out that way later).

Click to expand...

I am likely going to be going up Garfield Trail to Garfield and then the GRT over to Lafayette. I am specifically taking that section because it is the only part of the Pemi Loop that I have not traveled yet and I've been trying to do longer hikes with more vertical this Spring for "training" purposes when I go to the Adirondacks and Baxter. I've heard the stories about what a "lovely" stretch of trail that is. Figure if the weather sucks or I get gassed at least I'll hit Garfield.

When you say "treat the water the same as you would any other pond water" are you saying a chemical treatment in addition to filtering? I generally just filter but as I think back I don't know that I ever used a pond as a source. I normally use running water of some sort, even if it is very tiny. I do carry those tablets Katahdyn makes and only used once but they definitely put a taste in the water.

JustJoe said:

This is the water source for the shelter/tent-sites. Much closer to them than the pond.

Click to expand...

Isn't this a ways down the GRT heading toward Twins (like 1/4 mile and a few hundred feet of vertical)? I tried finding in my notes from the times I've been through there but don't see anything. I remember thinking it would suck to go down that far just to get water. Don't have a clear memory of it though.

dug said:

We found out the hard way it's dry as hell coming from the Ridge. We were camping off trail, and pulled up before the pond and had no water with us. After making camp we went hunting for the pond (turns out we were only a half-mile away) and watered up there. We did treat it. We wouldn't have made it to the tentsite.

Click to expand...

The pond is the last possible water source heading toward the Franconia Ridge correct? There aren't any little brooks or anything on GRT between Garfield and Lafayette?

DayTrip said:

The pond is the last possible water source heading toward the Franconia Ridge correct? There aren't any little brooks or anything on GRT between Garfield and Lafayette?

Click to expand...

We came from the other direction, and saw nothing. So, I'd suggest loading up at the pond as the next water I know of would be at Greenleaf. It was later in the summer, so not sure if there's seasonal wetlands that you could use in a pinch. We were pretty desperate and would've tried about anything, but nothing appeared.

DayTrip said:

Isn't this a ways down the GRT heading toward Twins (like 1/4 mile and a few hundred feet of vertical)? I tried finding in my notes from the times I've been through there but don't see anything. I remember thinking it would suck to go down that far just to get water. Don't have a clear memory of it though.

Click to expand...

Either your memory is good, or we're both wrong. I'd guess it might be around .3 and 300' from the junction (which is probably .2 and 200' below the summit). To me it's worth it for the higher quality water, but I don't filter or treat often so we might use different parameters in our decision making. Carrying a couple liters mostly downhill doesn't faze me, but I'm better with the downhill.

IIRC, the old trail by Garfield Pond is just west of the pond, but the spur to it is pretty obvious after that first steep descent from the cone. I did this stretch of trail in the rain a few Memorial Days and found it to actually be fairly pleasant. The stretch from Galehead to Garfield is more arduous I think. If you haven't had a chance to enjoy the Skook yet I'd recommend it for the descent. Have fun!

TJsName said:

The stretch from Galehead to Garfield is more arduous I think. If you haven't had a chance to enjoy the Skook yet I'd recommend it for the descent. Have fun!

Click to expand...

Yes, that section from Garfield to Galehead is a big time morale crusher. Lot of nice viewpoints but it just seems to go on forever. And I have taken the Skook many times. One of my favorite trails and usually the way I go to Lafayette because it is so much less crowded and has such a nice variety of forest and terrain. That clearing where the Skook and the GRT connect is one of my favorite areas in the Whites.

dug said:

We came from the other direction, and saw nothing. So, I'd suggest loading up at the pond as the next water I know of would be at Greenleaf. It was later in the summer, so not sure if there's seasonal wetlands that you could use in a pinch. We were pretty desperate and would've tried about anything, but nothing appeared.

Click to expand...

I'll probably carry sufficient water to get out to Lafayette and back to the pond. I'll have a chance to evaluate the sources on the way out and I can decide on the way back if the pond or the spring would make more sense if I need water for the return.

DayTrip said:

I've heard the stories about what a "lovely" stretch of trail that is. Figure if the weather sucks or I get gassed at least I'll hit Garfield.

When you say "treat the water the same as you would any other pond water" are you saying a chemical treatment in addition to filtering?

Click to expand...

That stretch of GRT is particularly challenging in the winter because it gets a TON of snow, the snow hangs in the trees (it's a wind-protected area), and it's much less used, so often it's not broken out. And the deep snow pack puts you up in the (snow-covered) boughs. In the summer, it's still rougher than you might expect (relatively steep ups and downs with no purpose [UADWNP's, also knowh as PUD's]), but I think it's very pretty.

For Garfied Pond water, just filter it. No need for a chemical treatment in addition. You probably don't even need to filter, but I always assume a pond is slightly higher risk than a stream (though I have no data to support that assumtion, and it very well may be unfounded). You may want to be sure you've got a dip cup of some kind to scoop the water out of the pond if you're using a Sawyer Squeeze.

Enjoy!

I don't agree with the contention of no need to treat the Garfield Pond water but of course some folks are lucky and are willing to risk giardiasis and other waterborne pathogens as it usually takes a couple of days to kick in. Luckilly we don't have cryptosporidium in the region as that can knock someone for a loop within hours. Sure there are studies that advocate that contamination is transmitted predominantly by fecal/oral human contact but the secondary means of transmission due to human and animal waste getting into a water source is established scientifically which is why all the AMC huts had to drill wells years ago to replace nearby surface water sources and also end up treating the well water on occasion at Lake of the Crowds and Greenleaf and Zealand (possibly others). Same reason why the entire Cutler River drainage out of Tuckermans is definitely a place to treat water. Given that the pond is in a direct drainage route from a heavily visited summit with no sanitary facilities, there is a risk.

I traditionally weigh these risks in my mind when I encounter an obviously dehydrated person or persons on a trail, there is slight risk that the untreated water could cause issues in few days offset by a much larger risk that they will have dehydration related issues far sooner. If they appear to be casual hikers I usually point out the nearest water they will encounter and hope for the best.

Just so we're clear, I don't think anyone advocated NOT treating water from Garfield Pond. What I wrote is that filtration is sufficient, so one should not ADDITIONALLY treat the water chemically.

I can feel this conversation potentially digressing into a 'What's the real efficacy of treating back country water?' discussion. My personal viewpoint is that there's essentially no downside to filtering water. Cost is minimal ($40 for a filter that lasts for years), time required is minimal, and there's no added off flavor. Whether the risk is small or large from drinking untreated water is immaterial. That the risk is non-zero is enough for me.

I also tend to think the suggestion that flowing water is safer than still water is probably not true. Especially considering that many streams are actually outlets from alpine lakes and ponds. Again, to me the question of relative risk is immaterial. It's all getting filtered before it goes into my belly.