S Colony rd improvements.

Wow, i was just perusing the Summitpost threads and found that they have leveled the 2d half of the S. Colony Rd in the Sangres. Another 4WD road bites the dust! I was at the Gibson th last week, and they broke up the boulders there, too. Should add some more cars to the Colony trailhead before they close the road off (next september, apparently). They even removed the glorious orange truck!
I may have to head up there a few more times before the snow gets too deep.

From what I hear (over at 14ers.com), it's still a 4WD road, but they have crushed the rocks and smoothed the worst of the hazards, like where that orange truck used to be (they hauled it out, too). There's pics of that former obstacle on the thread "S in S Colony," or something like that.

I don't want them to close that road. It's a fun, challenging route to a spectacular basin that I've been to enough that, if I have to hike an extra four miles of road to go there again, I won't.

I'm hoping to get up there before the snow closes it this year. I haven't been up there before so I guess I missed the 'full' 4WD experience. I definately want to get up there before they close the last part of the road.

Todd,

I climbed Crestone Needle years ago from the lower 2WD parking lot. That is one of the most miserable hikes I've been on, but the bottom 2.5 miles were much worse than the upper miles. Hot, steep, boring and difficult to walk on. If the forest service wants to see usage plummet, closing the 4WD route is all they will have to do. I'm pretty sure that the first time people hike the road from the 2WD trailhead will be their last.

From what i understand, the plan is not to close the whole road, but to close the second half (~2.5 mi) and add parking at the half-way point. I climbed the Needle last summer from the creek (half way) and it wasn't so bad.

As a 4WD poser, that road was the most fun I've ever had in my Tacoma. It would be a real pity to have to walk the damn thing!

I know that they are considering closing the road at 2.5 miles from its current endpoint. I did read some of the forest service proposed management document.

I also agree from my experience that the part after the creek crossing was much better to hike than the first 3 miles. I hiked the whole thing. The bottom section was awful for hiking. My point was that if they wanted to reduce usage, they'd have to close the road at the 2WD lot. Improving the road but closing it at the stream crossing will not be a major deterrent for people trying to climb the 14ers, but will probably increase the percentage of climbers who stay overnight to climb the peaks. They say they want to reduce the impact of campers on the valley, but their plans look to me like they'll increase that impact. The only way I see them accomplishing their goal is to restrict camping in a fashion similar to the backcountry permit system used by the Park Service. More restrictions and fee areas are not what I'd like to see in the national forests.

Ok, i see your point. Im not sure why they improved the upper section if the plan is to close it off There is time to comment, so might be a good idea to add our 2 pennies to the proposal, guess i'll have to look into it a bit more. Ive only been up there 4 or 5 times, but from what ive seen most of the users at the th and lake are not 14ers, most are just people fishing, camping, or taking on the notorious road. Course my trips have avoided the prime climbing season. Personally, i would have preferred them just leaving the road alone. I would agree that if reducing usage is the goal, then close it all!

"They're closing the top half of the road so that they can keep all the fat lazy atvs out and to weed out all the uneducated retard who crap in the water and leave they're trash everywhere, and bury they droppings. And don't anticipate Spanish creek being opened anytime soon because that lady doesn't want those jerks on causing traffic jams on her property either."

-from the 14ers thread on the subject. There's something to be said for this argument

Ok, i finally read the EA on the proposal. The report considers in depth all of the alternatives, and addresses the concerns mentioned by Mel. To try to minimize the possible increase in camping at the lake, there are new camping regulations and plans on building designated camping areas. I was mistaken about my assessment, apparently 80% of users are peak-baggers. (maybe we should shut down the 14ers mentaility!) The plan concedes that only a 15% reduction of use is expected at the lake (although reading the 14ers posts, sounds like at least some people will be dissuaded from hiking the extra 2.5 miles!). This is intended merely to offset the projected increase in usage for the next decade. It's a no-win situation, really. The underlying problem is really over-population!

The underlying problem is really over-population!

Soylent green. It's the only way.

The reason for improving a road they're probably going to close is for SAR access. I say again, I wish they'd keep the damn road open. So the areas around fourteeners get used and, in some cases, over-used. So what? There are certainly ways short of restricting access by proxy to increase protection of an area. Pit toilets, camping pads and education would, imo, do wonders. Closing roads of traditional access to these beautiful places, in order to limit access for only those willing to hike that last 3.5-4 miles of road, is BS.

Soylent green. It's the only way.

And it fits in nicely with this website too. Remember the scene when they're about to nix the guy and they're playing Beethoven's 6th while showing clips of great natural scenes?
Well, we could show slides of NPN portfolios before knocking off everyone over 30...no wait, make that 50 i want a few more years

The reason for improving a road they're probably going to close is for SAR access. ... Closing roads of traditional access to these beautiful places, in order to limit access for only those willing to hike that last 3.5-4 miles of road, is BS.

My thoughts exactly.

anyone have pictures of this place so we outsiders can see what we're missing?

Having not read the EIS and management plan, is it possible that they're closing it where they are because that's where they figured they'd have the least impact on the area if they were to build a campsite? I've never been up there so I don't know the layout. I doubt that 2.5 extra miles is going to be a long-term turn-off for peak-baggers or other serious hikers, so I'm guessing the reason is environmental strain.

So what is a SAR?
John

SAR = Search and Rescue

Amy,

If you look on Summit Post for Crestone Needle, you'll find information about the road along with some pics of the before and after on the road. Darren Kilgore posted a couple recent pics of the peak and Colony Lakes on npcolorado.net.

Having not read the EIS and management plan, is it possible that they're closing it where they are because that's where they figured they'd have the least impact on the area if they were to build a campsite? I've never been up there so I don't know the layout. I doubt that 2.5 extra miles is going to be a long-term turn-off for peak-baggers or other serious hikers, so I'm guessing the reason is environmental strain.

Here is a link to the NEPA document.

One of their four reasons for closing the road.

Minimize the costs for maintaining roads, trails and trailhead facilities.

It doesn't take a financial planner to tell you that when the forest service funding has been flat for the last several years and will remain flat for the forseable future while fuel and employee costs rise, that there is going to be a pinch on the system. I think they are in a bind for trail maintenance money, trail building money and campsite maintenance/cleanup money. My guess is that they plan to make the current trailhead a campground of sorts with developed pads and turn it into a fee area to make it self sustaining. From reading parts of the document, it looks to me that they are looking to secure special funding for the project.

John,
SAR = Search and Rescue.