Casting for Recovery - Fish Tales and Cocktails

Join Casting for Recovery at the Wildlife Experience this Thursday, August 21st from 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm to show your support to Colorado women breast cancer survivors.Click on the link for more details: https://secure.acceptiva.com/?cst=aa368c

Hidden Treasure Mine Decommissioning and Rehabilitating Project this Saturday!!

Itching for a way to volunteer? Are you a fan of BBQ? If so, we have the perfect opportunity for you! We are in need of 8 more volunteers to help with the Hidden Treasure Mine Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Project this Saturday, August 23rd.CCTU is joining forces with the Coalition for the Upper South Platte and the city of Alma to complete the Hidden Treasure Mine, aka. Orange Fence Mine Decommissioning and Rehabilitating Project. By closing access and rehabbing the site, this work will both help to preserve the historical aspects of the area, populations of rare plants recently discovered at the site as well as to improve water quality of Buckskin Creek and ultimately the important fishery of the Middle Fork of the South Platte River.Where and When: We plan to meet at 9:00 AM at the Alma Town Hall located at 59 Buckskin Street, Alma, CO 80420. There is a lot of work to do so we are planning on working till 2:00PM.Lunch! A BBQ Lunch will be provided by a generous supporter for all volunteers.Project Description: Work will include rehabilitating the abandoned mine site on USFS property 4 miles outside of Alma on County road 8.. The site has significant erosion issues exacerbated by illegal digging with heavy equipment. Runoff flows over tailings and goes subterranean before entering Buckskin Creek, which then drains into the Middle Fork of the Upper South Platte. Part of the project entails creating a diversion to curtail water moving over the tailings. The illegal use activity also created access point for off road vehicles, multiplying the damage. Work will minimize the issues through decommissioning the site, re-seeding with native perennials, transplanting trees and shrubs. This work will reduce degradation of this 'attractive nuisance' and enhance regeneration at this polluted site, improving downstream water quality. The Town of Alma will donate heavy equipment and staff for the project, CUSP will donate staff and seed, and a generous supporter will provide a BBQ lunch. This project will be completed through genuine dedication of key local community members and committed efforts of CCTU volunteers. Please plan to join us on this collaborative and impact-full effort.Please Bring:Any applicable medicines (including epi-pen and inhalers, if needed)Sun block and sun glasses (or safety glasses)Layered clothing appropriate for outdoor workWaterproof work bootsWork GlovesA container for water, the use of reusable containers is encouraged, refills will be providedPlease call Jim Klug at 303-565-7504 to sign up and to arrange for car-pooling.

2014 South Platte River Cleanup - a HUGE success!

A big thank you to all the CCTU members who participated in the 2014 South Platte River Cleanup! The event was a huge success and our Chapter collected 15 bags of trash and 10 bags of noxious weeds.  After a morning of hard work, everyone was treated to a delicious lunch, followed by an afternoon of fishing.  If you would like to learn how to become more involved, join us at the next member meeting on August 12th!

Calling all volunteers!

Have you been looking for an opportunity to be more involved?   Ladies, we need you in particular! This is a wonderful time for you to share your passion and talk about fly fishing and encourage women to become more involved in the sport and Trout Unlimited.We are looking for help with the Fishing on the Fly class for women in August at the Eastridge Rec Center in Highlands Ranch. This program includes three classroom sessions, and one morning field-trip to put into practice what they have learned. Classroom: August 7, 14 & 21,  6:30 - 8:30 p.m. 
Field-trip: August 28, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Please reach out to Richard Miles at m6111926@msn.com  for more information and to sign up to help. 

Colorado High School Teacher Wins National Conservation Award

Thanks to his conservation efforts and environmental teaching within the program of Trout in the Classroom, local Summit High School teacher, Jamie Lambrecht is the newest winner of the 2014 Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators (PIAEE).

The PIAEE is awarded to 16 different teachers across the country each year. These teachers have dedicated their time and curriculum to teaching their students about the importance of environmental conservation. According the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the award is given to teachers, “to nationally honor, support and encourage educators who incorporate environmental education in their classrooms & teaching methods.”

For Lambrecht, winning the award is an honor; but he is most happy with the recognition the award represents. According to Lambrecht, the award shows that, “people are starting to realize the efforts that go into watersheds and conservation.” This is the reason behind his involvement with the Trout in the Classroom program (TIC).

Lambrecht has been involved with the TIC program for the last three years. With a biology degree under his belt, he felt very drawn to the program when it was being offered by Gore Range Trout Unlimited. “I wanted a way for kids to get more involved with some more hands on research,” he said.

The program reaches about 150-200 kids between the ages of 14 and 18 at Summit High School in Summit County, Colorado. “The program is an elective class, [as an extension of the biology department] therefore students have to sign up and want to take it,” said Lambrecht.

His curriculum involves more than growing fish in tanks; it helps students learn all about the aquatic ecosystem. Students learn about the insects in the water, the affects of pH and nitrate towards water quality, and other ways to help improve the river habitat. The kids also learn how these different traits affect fishing. Lambrecht says, “The kids leave the class ready to fish.”

In the future Lambrecht and Gore Range TU are going to continue with the Trout in the Classroom program as well as other conservation projects that will help kids get more involved with watershed conservation.

For more information on the Trout in the Classroom program, check out thearticle on the Stream Explorers Program.

July 15th Meeting

Be sure to join us for our monthly meeting Tuesday, July 15th at 7 pm at our regular meeting place (7899 S Lincoln Ct Littleton, CO 80122). Our speaker this month is going to be be very special. CCTU member Mark Lance will provide an exciting presentation entitled: "Chasing Cutthroats and Wangling Llamas in the Weminuche Wilderness." We have lots of exciting news to share with you! Learn about our upcoming projects and learn how to get involved.  Do you have fellow fishermen that are not current members? Encourage them to come along and become part of this great group!We look forward to seeing you all next Tuesday!Sincerely,Board of Cutthroat Chapter Trout Unlimited 

Call To Action: Recent Supreme Court Rulings Weaken the Clean Water Act

Recent Supreme Court Rulings Weaken the Clean Water ActAllen Adinoff, MD and the Board of Cutthroat Chapter Trout UnlimitedHopefully many of you had a chance to read the e-mail from CTU Executive Director, David Nickum from July 2 (Tell EPA & Congress: Protect Our Headwaters!).  http://www.coloradotu.org/2014/06/tell-epa-congress-protect-our-headwaters/ It is very important to all of us who value our streams, waterways, and wetlands to read this article and to contact our State Senators and Congressman, so they can hear how we feel about this issue.  Since the 1970s, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been one of the best tools for protecting water quality and moving toward the goal of "fishable, swimmable waters”. Unfortunately, CWA protections were weakenedby two recent Supreme Court rulings that rolled back its coverage from isolated wetlands and seasonal and intermittent streams. Waters threatened by these decisions include millions of acres of wetlands and some of the most important trout habitat across the country: headwater streams, amounting to almost 60% of all US streams.  Now, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have released a draft rule that reflects this simple common sense approach, clarifies the intent of the original CWA, and would restore protections to these headwater and feeder streams.The agencies are taking public comment on this proposal until October - but in the meantime, opponents in Congress are proposing amendments that would block the new water quality rules.  An editorial in the Denver Post July 9 by the El Paso County Commissioner makes the preposterous charge that the new rulings would be overbearing, and apply to such bodies of water as “ditches on the side of the road”.   Making your voice heard - both with the agencies, and with our Colorado Congressional delegation is critical so that our vital headwater streams are protected under the Clean Water Act.The intent of this commentary is to expand on the article from Dave, and provide you with additional information that will allow us all to better understand the issues at hand.  I’ve provided some “bullet points” to summarize the concerns.  I’ve also included more detailed information regarding the CWA and the Supreme Court rulings.

• The law now known as the CWA was adopted as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. With the passage of this law, Congress made a national commitment to control and eventually eliminate water pollution. The very first sentence of the statute states: “The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”  The law was passed with broad bipartisan support of Congress.
• Congress gave the EPA a broad mandate to protect the “waters of the United States” to achieve the law’s goals. In defining the scope of the 1972 law, Congress used the term “navigable waters,” which it borrowed from older statutes, but then expanded protections beyond the limit of traditional navigable waters. Under the new law, the term “navigable waters” was defined as “waters of the United States.”
• Since the law’s inception, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have determined that the CWA was intended to protect tributaries that flow into larger waters, such as rivers, lakes, and wetlands adjacent to such tributaries.  Appeals courts have affirmed Congress’ intent to protect these waters.
• However, in recent years industrial polluters and developers have found allies within the Supreme Court who appear to be sympathetic to their point of view and perspective.  Two recent Supreme Court cases have placed longstanding CWA safeguards in doubt.  At issue is what constitutes “waters of the United States”.
• The most important of these are Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Both cases involved developers who wanted to fill and permanently destroy wetlands for a shopping mall and condominium complex, respectively. In both cases, the lower courts said the CWA protected these waters from unregulated pollution and destruction. The plaintiffs advocated eliminating the federal government's ability to set minimum anti-pollution safeguards for our nation's streams, tributaries, wetlands, ponds, and other waters that are not big enough to support commercial navigation.
• On June 19, 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued a deeply divided decision on these two of the most important clean water cases brought before the court since the law was passed now 42 years ago. Justice Scalia wrote a sharply worded decision that would have severely limited the CWA by eliminating key federal protections for many of the nation’s waters. His approach—that the law only protects waters that are “permanent” and “continuously flowing”—would have put at risk almost 60 percent of streams across the country.  Three other Justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Alito, joined Justice Scalia’s opinion.  Fortunately, there was not a fifth vote for this radical reinterpretation of the law that ignored its plain language and history.  The dissent authored by Justice Stevens criticized Justice Scalia’s opinion as ”rejecting more than 30 years of practice by the Army Corps” and leaving at risk wetlands that “preserve the quality of our Nation’s waters by, among other things, providing habitat for aquatic animals, keeping excessive sediment and toxic pollutants out of adjacent waters, and reducing downstream flooding by absorbing water at times of high flow.”  Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer joined this opinion.  Justice Kennedy penned the “swing” decision.  While he agreed with Justice Scalia’s decision to remand the cases back to the Sixth Circuit for further proceedings, he completely disagreed with the plurality’s reasoning for doing so.  In fact, Justice Kennedy agreed with the four dissenting justices that the Clean Water Act applies to a broad range of rivers, streams, tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The Scalia opinion, Kennedy wrote, “would improperly waive protection for rivers, streams and wetlands that Congress intended to protect”.  Instead, Justice Kennedy created a new test for Clean Water Act protections over streams and wetlands – that the EPA and Corps must show that there is a “significant nexus” between these water bodies and the downstream, traditionally navigable waters.
• Because there was no majority opinion written by the Supreme Court, there was no precedent that binds lower courts, the EPA, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to a particular course of action. The plurality of this decision and the remand to the lower court for review has certainly muddied the original intent of the CWA: that all waters of the United States be protected against harmful, unregulated pollution.
• This (and other) Supreme Court opinion underscores the need for Congress to step in and reaffirm that the Clean Water Act applies everywhere and in all other waters of the United States.  The intent of the law was clear.  So please take the time to contact your Representatives.

 Additional ReadingThe CWA is one of the nation’s strongest environmental laws, designed to protect the waters of America that provide drinking supplies, recreational activities and wildlife and aquatic habitat for many different species. For more than 40 years, the law has protected  lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and our country’s waterways from industrial pollution. But in recent years, industrial polluters such as developers and the oil industry have been making a concerted effort to dismantle the protections of the Clean Water Act through litigation and rule challenges that threaten our nation’s water supplies.On June 19, 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued a deeply divided decision on two of the most important clean water cases brought before the court since the law was passed 42 years ago. This plurality opinion by four conservative justices advocated drastic cutback in the protections of the Clean Water Act. With only one more vote, Justice Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas would have allowed pollution to flow into streams, lakes, wetlands and rivers that supply drinking water to one in every three Americans. Justice Kennedy agreed that the lower court should review the case, but on much narrower grounds than the plurality.Because there was no majority opinion written by the Supreme Court, there was no precedent that binds lower courts, the EPA, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to a particular course of action. The plurality of this decision and the remand to the lower court for review has certainly muddied the original intent of the CWA: that all waters of the United States be protected against harmful, unregulated pollution. Polluters’ efforts to cut off clean water protections for rivers and creeks throughout the nation by challenging the laws in court and pushing for weaker rulemakings by regulatory agencies like EPA and the Corps of Engineers inches closer to success. This opinion underscores the need for Congress to step in and reaffirm that the Clean Water Act applies everywhere to keep poison out of our drinking water supplies and all other waters of the United States.Defending the Integrity of the Clean Water ActThe Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases, Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, on February 21, 2006. Both cases involved developers who wanted to fill and permanently destroy wetlands for a shopping mall and condominium complex, respectively. In both cases, the lower courts said the Clean Water Act protected these waters from unregulated pollution and destruction. The polluters advocated eliminating the federal government's ability to set minimum anti-pollution safeguards for our nation's streams, tributaries, wetlands, ponds, and other waters that are not big enough to support commercial navigation.The polluters' position flies in the face of the plain meaning of the Clean Water Act, its purpose and legislative history, and decades of legal precedent in the Supreme Court and lower courts. Indeed, so extreme are the polluters' claims that even the Bush administration opposed them. An extraordinary collection of  33 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, state wetland and floodplain managers, over three dozen environmental advocates and hunting and fishing groups sided with the administration to support continued protections for our nation’s wetlands, streams, tributaries and rivers.Underscoring what is at risk, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  showing that almost 60 percent of all streams in the country could lose federal protections, if, as polluters are asking, the Supreme Court cuts "non-navigable" tributaries and wetlands out of the Clean Water Act.  This includes waters that are the source of public drinking water supplies to 110 million people in the United States.Questions Before the CourtThe Supreme Court heard these two cases on February 21, 2006. In Carabell and Rapanos, the Court was looking at two key questions:

1. Did Congress intend to protect tributaries of larger waters, and wetlands adjacent to those tributaries?
2. If so, does Congress have constitutional authority to do so under its power to regulate interstate commerce?

The cases questioned whether the Clean Water Act was intended to protect tributaries that flow into larger waters, such as rivers, lakes, and wetlands adjacent to such tributaries. In both cases, the appeals court affirmed Congress’ intent to protect these waters.Justice Scalia wrote a sharply worded decision that would have severely limited the Clean Water Act by eliminating key federal protections for many of the nation’s waters. His approach—that the law only protects waters that are “permanent” and “continuously flowing”—would have put at risk almost 60 percent of streams across the country.  Three other Justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Alito, joined Justice Scalia’s opinion.  Fortunately, there was not a fifth vote for this radical reinterpretation of the law that ignored its plain language and history.The dissent authored by Justice Stevens criticized Justice Scalia’s opinion as ”[r]ejecting more than 30 years of practice by the Army Corps” and leaving at risk wetlands that “preserve the quality of our Nation’s waters by, among other things, providing habitat for aquatic animals, keeping excessive sediment and toxic pollutants out of adjacent waters, and reducing downstream flooding by absorbing water at times of high flow.”  Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer joined this opinion.Justice Kennedy penned the “swing” decision.  While he agreed with Justice Scalia’s decision to remand the cases back to the Sixth Circuit for further proceedings, he completely disagreed with the plurality’s reasoning for doing so.  In fact, Justice Kennedy agreed with the four dissenting justices that the Clean Water Act applies to a broad range of rivers, streams, tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The Scalia opinion, Kennedy wrote, would improperly waive protection for rivers, streams and wetlands that Congress intended to protect.  Instead, Justice Kennedy created a new test for Clean Water Act protections over streams and wetlands – that the EPA and Corps must show that there is a “significant nexus” between these water bodies and the downstream, traditionally navigable waters.The two appeals court decisions were overwhelmingly consistent with Clean Water Act case law. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a similar case, Riverside Bayview Homes v. Army Corps of Engineers, that the act protects wetlands adjacent to waters of the United States. Even after the Supreme Court’s 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision—which ruled that the Clean Water Act does not cover ponds formed by abandoned sand and gravel pits that were only connected to other waters only because they were used by migratory birds—a majority of courts have reaffirmed the act’s broad scope.Unlike the ponds in SWANCC, which did not share proximity, or demonstrate hydrological or ecological connections (beyond migratory bird use) with other waters, the two cases ruled on by the Supreme Court involved tributaries to larger water bodies (specifically, the Great Lakes), and wetlands adjacent to those tributaries.The Justice Department, with the support of Earthjustice and the entire environmental community, argued for the court to affirm the Sixth Circuit decisions that the Clean Water Act protects the tributaries and wetlands at issue, consistent with the language of the statute and Congressional intent, and that it is well within Congress’ constitutional power to do so.The Intent of the Clean Water ActThe law now known as the Clean Water Act was adopted as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. With the passage of this law, Congress made a national commitment to control and eventually eliminate water pollution. The very first sentence of the statute states: “The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”Congress gave the EPA a broad mandate to protect the “waters of the United States” to achieve the law’s goals. In defining the scope of the 1972 law, Congress used the term “navigable waters,” which it borrowed from older statutes, but then expanded protections beyond the limit of traditional navigable waters. Under the new law, the term “navigable waters” was defined as “waters of the United States.”As the House Public Works Committee stated: “The Committee fully intends the term ‘navigable waters’ be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.” Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Public Works stated in its report: “Through a narrow interpretation of the definition of interstate waters the implementation of the 1965 Act was severely limited. Water moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that discharges of pollutants be controlled at the source.”The debate in both the House and Senate on the act’s final passage confirmed the conference report’s intent that the law be applied broadly. For example, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who reported the conference committee bill to the House, explained:The conference bill defines the term “navigable waters” broadly for water quality purposes. It means all “the waters of the United States” in a geographical sense. It does not mean “navigable waters of the United States” in the technical sense as we sometimes see in some laws. Thus, this new definition clearly encompasses all water bodies, including main streams and their tributaries, for water quality purposes. No longer are the old, narrow definitions of navigability, as determined by the [Army] Corps of Engineers, going to govern matters covered by this bill.Thus, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, Congress adopted a broad scope for the law to protect “waters of the United States” as necessary to clean up the nation’s waters.The notion that tributaries of larger waters are beyond the reach of the Clean Water Act is especially absurd. Such tributaries were expressly covered under the 1899 Refuse Act, the predecessor to the 1972 act's core permit program. It is untenable to assert that Congress, when adopting the 1972 law that the Supreme Court has emphatically described as “comprehensive” and “all-encompassing,” actually intended to cut back on the coverage of the predecessor law from the nineteenth-century.

Trout Unlimited Cutthroat Chapter South Platte River Cleanup Workday: Saturday, July 12th, 2014

Project Location: Meet behind Decker’s store (directions below) at 9:00 am, work until noon; have lunch on CCTU, then go fishing!Description: We will be collecting litter after the Fourth of July holiday traffic at sites along the South Platte River near Deckers.  Please come help us clean up this beautiful section of the river. This day will also be a great opportunity to fish with your TU buddies. Your participation is appreciated.Important Notes: Coalition for the Upper South Platte (CUSP) will provide all necessary materials, and trash bags to complete project work, then remove and dispose of litter.Weather which could create hazardous conditions may cause projects to be canceled or rescheduled; staff will monitor the weather and notify you of any changes in a timely fashion. Please register by Thursday, July 10th by contacting Jim Rasmussen 303-663-6707 or Jim Klug 303-565-7504, TU Cutthroat Chapter.  Lunch will be provided by Trout Unlimited Cutthroat Chapter, for registered participants so please let us know by July 10th.. Thank you. Requirements of Volunteers: Please complete a CUSP liability release form (unless you’ve submitted a 2014 release at a prior CUSP (pr0ject this year) A CCTU Liability release form is required as well. These forms will be provided by the Cutthroat Chapter at the parking lot.Please Bring: Any applicable medications (including epi-pen and inhalers) Sun block Sun glasses or safety glasses Layered clothing, trash grabber, work gloves and shoes with good tread – please be prepared to get dirty! Water proof boots or waders – not everyone will need them, Water bottles; water refills are provided. CUSP encourages the use of reusable containers.Directions from Denver to Deckers: From C470 take Hwy 285 southwest to Pine Junction At Pine Junction, turn left (south) on Jefferson County Road 126 Follow Jeff CR 126 through Pine and Buffalo Creek about 25 miles to Deckers We will meet at the parking area behind Deckers store.Directions from Highlands Ranch: Take Hwy 85 to Sedalia, turn right on Hwy 67 To Pine Creek Road Turn Right and proceed to Co Rd 97/ South Platte Rd. Turn Left and Proceed to Deckers.CARPOOLING IS AVAILABLE Meet at the parking lot next to the railroad tracks in Sedalia, (just past Buds) betweent 7:15AM and 7:30AM. We will leave at 7:30 Sharp.Directions from Colorado Springs to Deckers: From I-25 in Colorado Springs take Hwy 24 (Cimarron Rd.) to Woodland Park Turn right on to CO Hwy 67, travel north 23 to Deckers We will meet at the parking area behind Deckers store Please note that GPS systems are often misleading in mountainous areas.Note* Cell phone service will be inconsistent 

Happy Meadows Riparian Repair Project June 21, 2014

Cutthroat Chapter of Trout Unlimited and CUSP

               South Platte River Restoration, 2014

 UPDATE:  We will not be meeting at Dad Clark park and Ride to Carpool, if you wish to carpool, please call Jim Klug 303-656-7504Workday: Saturday, June 21^st , 2014Project Location:  Happy Meadows, directions belowProject Times: 9:00 am to 12:00 pmVolunteers Expected: up to 20 Workday Description: We will be raking and reseeding disturbed areas of reconstruction following in stream restoration.  The project may also include transplanting native vegetation, sedges and/or willows along the river’s edge.  This work prevents future degradation of the river’s banks improves aquatic habitat. Important Notes: 

• CUSP will provide materials and necessary tools to complete project work.
• A USFS outhouse is available nearby.
• Events may be canceled or rescheduled due to bad weather, which could create hazardous conditions for volunteers and staff.  Staff will monitor weather and notify you of any changes in a timely fashion.

 Mandatory Requirements of Volunteers:  All volunteers must complete and submit:  a CUSP liability release form and volunteer sign-up sheet (for the group). Please Bring: Any applicable medicines (including epi-pen and inhalers, if needed)Sun block and sun glasses (or safety glasses)Layered clothing appropriate for outdoor workWaders – if you have them  Or  waterproof work bootsWork GlovesA container for water, the use of reusable containers is encouraged, refills will be providedSack lunches Directions to Happy Meadows from Hwy 24 (from the east): Take Hwy 24 west through Lake George About one mile west of Lake George, turn right on county rd. 77 (towards Tarryall Reservoir)Turn right at CR 112, (appx. 1.4 mile), then turn right at the T Meet at the first large pullout, before Happy Meadows campground – signs will mark the site 

Car Pool Info:

• Meet at 6:45am at Dad Clark park and ride lot
• University and 470 in Highlands Ranch
• Departure 7:00am sharp!

Contact: Jim Klug 303-565-7504

Congratulations Mike Nicholson - Volunteer of the Year!

Congratulations to Cutthroat Chapter member Mike Nicholson who was recently named Volunteer of the Year by Colorado Trout Unlimited!  Mike was honored in recognition of the countless hours of time Mike has donated while serving for seven years as the Director of the Colorado River Conservation and Fly Fishing Youth Camp (“Colorado Youth Camp”).  David Nickum, Executive Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited, presented Mike with his award at CCTU’s May 20^th meeting.  The Colorado Youth Camp, which was established by Sharon Lance (another Cutthroat Chapter member), provides coldwater conservation education as well as fly fishing instruction on everything from tying flies to casting for  14-18 old students from across Colorado.  The Colorado Youth Camp has served as a model for other TU chapters around the country.  Mike’s contributions to the Colorado Youth Camp have been invaluable.  Next month, Mike and Sharon will be at it again for the 2014 Colorado Youth Camp being held near Weston, Colorado.  Again, hearty congratulations to Mike Nicholson, Colorado Trout Unlimited’s 2014 Volunteer of the Year.  Atta Boy, Mike!