#hlpoa

On July 26, 2016, the Michigan DEQ approved an application from the AMVETS Lodge on the NW shore of Higgins to construct a 36-boat marina that would extend 522 feet into the lake. Knowing that this marina has been opposed by the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association and neighboring property owners to the south and not having seen any actual plans, I decided to stop by and see if the Lodge would show me what they had for visuals.

When I walked into their office, I was met by their office manager, who after responding to the need to replace a fuse, disappeared into a room where files are kept. After a short time, she returned and said she couldn’t find them and that she would have to talk to someone about it. She seemed defensive, but I asked her to see if she could find them and send me a photo. Then next day, I had an email from “Craig Robinson, Chairman of the AMVETS Lodge Committee”, asking the purpose of my inquiry. I explained that I was curious and knew that others would be interested as well. In my experience, plans are better than verbal descriptions in making clear what is being proposed. He responded that my request would have to be directed to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). I then contacted Jim Vondale, who chairs the HLPOA Riparian Committee, and happily was sent both the permit application and approval with plans attached.

The Plan

Not surprisingly, the plans show things not covered by the descriptions.

The drawing shows a 457 foot 5-foot wide dock to accommodate 6 jet ski hoists near shore and 22 spots for pontoon boats with 3-foot wide finger piers between them. In addition, plans provide for 8 hoists for v-hull motor boats which would extend another 65 feet beyond the end of the dock section. These would have 3-foot wide finger piers between them. Note the plan as approved by the DEQ modified the AMVETS plans as submitted by removing two pontoon slots and the extension of the 5-foot wide dock into the lifts for v-hulled boats (erased area shown in white).

Violation of Michigan Act 56

The drawing also shows the dock extending out parallel to the property lines. Higgins bottom rights actually extend to the middle of the lake from the points where property lines meet the shore. The red dashed lines on the plan have been added to show approximately the extension of Ironwood Road right-of-way which runs along side the Lodge property. If correct, this would indicate the dock plan calls for construction which is not on the AMVETS property but within the road end, a violation of Michigan’s Act 56. Talking to a surveyor I was told that DEQ would normally require a marine survey for a plan like this, but that was not the case here.

Act 56 passed in 2012 basically outlaws private docks, boat hoists, piers and similar structures from being placed at road ends. The law makes it a misdemeanor to use public road ends for placing boat hoists or boat anchorage systems mooring or docking boats between midnight and sunrise . There’s a $500 fine for each 24-hour period the violation exists. The law also provides a cause for action in civil courts.

Extension into the Lake

The dashed line on the Google Map view shows how the marina would extend from the shore to just short of the drop-off into black water. It is very close to the Ironwood Road right-of-way and AMVETS property line to the north. One wonders how something this long could be built without its becoming a navigational hazard. It is definitely a different scale from anything nearby.

The Opposition

In a meeting with Wayne Brooks, the president of the Northwest Lakefront Property Owners Association (NLPOA), I learned that the relationship with AMVETS facility until recently has been relatively benign. Things started changing 3 or 4 years ago with the arrival of new managers who appeared to be intent on increasing revenue through using the facility for wedding events and renting spots for mooring boats to people who are not guests of the lodge, in effect creating a public marina. According to Wayne, there is no staff presence after 5 pm, allowing noise and other behavioral problems to develop because of the lack of supervision.

The permit has been opposed by the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association and NLPOA. To date, no construction has taken place. Both the HLPOA and the NW Shore group are prepared to take legal action. An attempt was made to stop the permit through an administrative legal review process, but this was ineffective. Lyons Township also has the power to prevent construction under its zoning laws, but the township supervisor has taken the position that the zoning does not extend beyond the shore, a position that was not supported by the township attorney who has since left. It has also been determined by the state courts that the zoning powers do extend into the water. For political reasons it appears that the town supervisor, Ed Nellis, chooses not to enforce the zoning.

Dear HLPOA members,

Please forgive this unsolicited message from a fellow HLPOA member.  

I have received some disturbing news regarding some recent actions taken by the newly elected members of the board that I believe many of you would want to know about.

Issue 1: New board members amend bylaws to eject officers before term is up, install selves.

  This past Summer, we had an election that saw several new faces placed on the board. They were elected on the basis that they would work to build a consensus on our association's position on the lake level and the best path to addressing Swimmer's Itch as well as other issues that affect our beloved lake.

Instead, the new board members took it upon themselves to amend the bylaws on the terms of officers so that they could eject the officers we already had prior to their term being up so that they could install themselves.  

Hence, Mr. Springstead who has worked tirelessly on our behalf to address the road end issues was unceremoniously removed and replaced by Mr. Vondale.  Rick Meeks, HLPOA's vice president, who has also volunteered for years doing water quality testing and many other good works was similarly removed. This was done without any sort of consultation with the membership.  

In addition, the board decided to give Eric Ostergren, who does not own property on the lake, has sent seemingly endless unsolicited emails to myself and other members attacking the previous board and publicly accused Commissioner Melvin of being "incompetent" or "corrupt" honorary membership to HLPOA. As a reminder, HLPOA stands for Higgins Lake Property Owner's Association -- not "Friends of the board who attack people we don't like".

The two actions, taken together, represent a politicization of HLPOA that many of us find very distasteful. 

Issue 2: Turning the organization on itself

  There seems to be a misconception regarding the nature of the HLPOA.  It has no legal standing.  It is supposed to be an association of lake front owners working together to mutually support common interests.  Its position on water levels, swimmer's itch, zebra muscles, etc. are exactly as relevant as legally meaningful as that of the local Friars Club. Though its meetings would no doubt be more entertaining.

HLPOA's effectiveness largely comes from its ability to secure the voluntary labor and financial contributions of its members. However, who wants to volunteer or help an organization that seems intent on eating itself?  That's the danger of politicizing the organization.  The entire purpose of the association is to support causes that we all (or nearly all) agree on.   Instead, the organization seems intent to continue focusing on divisive issues that there is no general consensus on.

My family has been part of this association for many years. We've been on the lake since for over 50 years.  We care deeply about the lake and have collectively been very active in supporting the HLPOA both financially and in volunteering.  But at the rate things are going, I fear for the organization's future.  

As a practical matter, HLPOA is in danger of splintering into sub-groups due to the organizations continued and unrelenting advocacy of divisive issues like what the lake level should be. This isn't to say HLPOA would disappear, it would simply be a smaller, poorer organization as a result.

If a group wants to advocate water levels, they should form their own group and lobby with their own time and money rather than hijack ours.  I suspect I am not the only HLPOA member who is weary of seeing the HLPOA meetings hijacked by this divisive issue.  I implore the board to reconsider some of its recent behavior and make sure the HLPOA is an organization that focuses on the issues that are of concern to all riparians in which there is also a broad consensus on.

Thank you for your time,

Between 1850 and 1900 was a lesson learned (hopefully) that we cannot abuse the environment.  In this time frame the natural resources seemed unlimited.  The demise of the bison only took 5 years. Almost 60 million Bison were killed for belting material for the industrial revolution.  The passenger pigeon was driven to extinction by uncontrolled commercial hunting for their meat, which was desired by Euromerican settlers and the removal of their habitat (forestlands). The estimated population was numbering around 3 to 5 billion, the most abundant bird in North America. In the summer of 1878, the last large breeding colony of Pigeons arrived near Crooked Lake in Petoskey, Michigan. The flock covered 40 square miles and for three months yielded over 50,000 birds a day to hunters. One hunter reportedly killed 3,000,000 of the birds and according to one account earned $60,000—more than $1 million in today’s dollars. Most wild life was decimated in this time frame; deer, Mourning Doves, varmints including Fox, Wolves and any other animals that would threaten farming and the raising of domestic animals or be profitable for food.  Other abuses in Michigan was mining and lumbering.  The latter being a direct impact on Northern Lower Michigan, including the Roscommon/Higgins Lake area.  By the 1900s almost all of Northern Lower Michigan was clear cut of all trees.  By 1897 over 160 billion board feet was logged from Michigan forests.  This affected the area by splash dams, erosion, silting and blocking of rivers, forest fires, and farming land that was not suitable for agriculture.  On Higgins Lake there was a splash dam at the mouth of the cut river that rose the elevation of the water by 2 to 3 feet.  In the winter, trees were cut down and placed on the frozen lake.  The water was released from the dam to rapidly float the logs down the Cut River to mills near Houghton Lake.  We have done our damage and now we have to deal with how to fix what we, as a society have done.

Now you say what does all this have to do with Higgins Lake and what is happening now.  We are good right?  Well not exactly.  Do we want to put in a dam that would raise the water level to 2 to 3 feet as it was in the 1800s?  This would make new front lot owners and would make the lake even more accessible.   Obviously this is not what anyone wants.  But the lake level of the 20th century are outdated and are creating an environmental concern.   I have read the reports that have been published in the recent months.  The aquodic report in general says that the lowering of Higgins Lake will not affect the vegetation for aquodic environment.  The vegetation would move down the “drop off” and will support the environment.  Ecohydrologic Evaluation the lowering of the lake results would be minimal.  I am sure that the front lot owners are worried about their docks and floating their pontoons and large power boats.  If the lake level is lowered slowly over a longer time period and eventually removing of the dam would have minimal effect on the land owners. The lake would be lowered approximately 9 inches.  The sand and vegetation would transition into almost the same landscape as it is now.   This actually benefit the land owners, in some cases, will have more land to enjoy in front of your property.  As stated by Dave Bachelor, the land erosion into the lake from run off is a concern and a lot of progress has been made by the county such as the road end easement.  Dave Bachelor’s idea of landscaping will be an issue with lowering of the water level and all front lot land owners have a responsibility to manage their own lot.  With the Cut River running freely, this would create a healthier river and enhance the fishery with fish flowing freely between the lake and the river.  This may even enhance the spawning of trout and other species.  As for Houghton Lake that this would adversely effect the lake levels on that lake.  This is another fallacy that the cut river dam affects the lake levels on Houghton Lake.  Houghton Lake has their own lake level dam on the Muskegon River approximately three-quarters of a mile from Houghton Lake. 

To conclude this is we as a society have to make a decision to do the right thing: to help the environment or to make it convenient for a few.  We have a history making decision on only a few benefitting such as in lumbering and industrial hunting.  For the front lot owners have to make that decision for all of us that use the lakes and streams in Northern Michigan.

As a side note to this, environmentally, there are many issues with Higgins Lake.  One is the septic systems, especially on the front lots.  In my opinion is that a sewer system has to be put in place around the lake, especially the front lots to stop phosphates and the pollution.  This years I have seen a bloom of agley that is heavier that I have seen before.  There is many reasons for this but one is the septic systems.  

In the materials received from HLPOA in advance of the upcoming annual meetings is a revised set of bylaws. Regarding changes in the qualifications for membership and related voting rights, there is a summary of the changes but little explanation of what the changes are supposed to achieve. The essential question is, “What are the objectives behind the membership changes and are these in the best interests of the organization?” Another question is, “How has the process for developing the changes been open and transparent, eliciting participation and thrashing of options before presenting a proposal to the membership.”

In regard to the first question, the objective appears to be to create a very tight  definition of membership limited to riparians only with one vote per property. This reflects the view of those who were concerned that some families and properties had multiple votes at the last annual meeting. Two families, mine and one other, were subsequently subject to personal attacks when a member found we had seven and five memberships.

To explain why our family had multiple memberships, I wrote a blog post back in March. It talked about the 2014 transfer of ownership to the next generation and reasons why I thought both generation’s memberships were in the best interest of HLPOA. At the time, I didn’t have any statistics as to the extent of multi memberships but hypothesized that the phenomenon was more widespread than those who apposed the idea reported. Nor did those who attacked the idea of multiple memberships have or present full information.

When the Board sent out the proposed changes to the bylaws, I stopped by the HLPOA office to look over the membership list to see how many properties had multiple memberships. I was given a written list, but quickly realized that doing an analysis there would be extremely time consuming. Subsequently, I requested an electronic copy of members with their lake addresses so that I could do an analysis. After what seemed like a long delay, this information was finally provided.

When I received the file a couple of days before the fourth of July, I found that a large number of members had no lake address. This lead to a second request to include all addresses. This file was received on July 8 – understandably allowing time off for the 4th of July holiday. I say all this because I think there seemed to be some internal resistance to providing the information and concern about what might be found.

So what was found? Here are the broad brush results:

In 2014, there were 24 cottages with multiple memberships representing a total of 66 members. These appear to be scattered around the lake with some concentration in the old camps – Pinewoods, Cottage Grove, and Lakeside where there are some large multigenerational cottages. Multi memberships represent 11% of the 604 memberships with lake addresses. Note that even with all addresses supposedly in the data, there were 16 without any address.

In 2015, there are 23 cottages with multiple memberships representing a total of 49 members. This also represents 11% of the memberships of which there were 457 with addresses.

From 2014 to 2015 there has been a 147 (25%) drop to total membership. This may be in part a timing issue as many members reportedly join at the time of the annul meeting.

In 2014, at $75 per member, the cottages with extra memberships represented $4950 in dues.

It’s clear to me that the Board and the Bylaws Committee have given little thought to the metrics of their proposed changes – the loss of membership engagement and the loss in revenue that might be associated with the change. The summary above should give everyone a rough idea.

It is also clear to me that the proposed membership changes will have significant negative impacts on the organization. These are:

Future membership will decrease.

Human resources available to the organization will be reduced. Organziations need a wide range of volunteers, professional and personal skills, and support to not only survive, but thrive.

Loss of dues revenue associated with reduced membership.

Lost engagement of people, especially the next generation.

Lost participation of those who have for various reasons been valuable participants in HLPOA but who are not riparians.

Some might still feel that there is some unfairness when it comes to voting. Although I have don’t have complete information, especially on how people voted in the last election, I can at least note that the multiple memberships seem to be fairly widely spread around the lake perhaps with some concentration in the old camps. These have many large cottages with sometimes as many as 20 or more families with ownership interests. I suspect that on divisive issues, the multiple memberships voting will approximate the general voting patters of other members.

There are also some other issues with the proposed changes. One is the provision for 1 vote per 50 feet of association held property. How does this play out in reality? Are all the forms of lake front ownership fully covered? Has it been analyzed? What happens to existing members who might become ineligible upon passage of the bylaws? Might there be some consideration of grandfathering such members?

Existing Bylaws and Proposed Modifications

The current bylaws state the following:

3.1 Any person who owns or whose immediate family (defined as spouse, children, siblings, parents and grandparents, by blood, marital relationship or adoption) owns, resides at or uses property which is located on or within one-half mile of Higgins Lake shores shall be eligible for Membership in the Association, subject to approval by the Board of Directors. The latter may also accept other interested persons to Membership in the Association. Association members are hereinafter referred to as Members.

I do think the provisions in this section could be retained with some tightening. This would include the following:

A member must be at least 18 years of age. If you had a child of say 18, the child could become a member and have one vote.

All memberships should be subject to approval by the Board. A member who is not a Riparian owner must have his membership approved by the Board. I would still give the board some flexibility to allow other members, for example I have a friend who has lived on the lake all his life, has been very active in lake related issues, has served on related boards and thinks like a riparian. The more open provision with board approval also would allow the board to approve long term lakefront property renters as will as riparians.

All members would, of course, be required to pay the full membership fee. 

So my modified proposal might read as follows (with changes in Italics)

3.1 Any person who owns or whose immediate family (defined as spouse, children, siblings, parents and grandparents, by blood, marital relationship or adoption) owns, resides at or uses property which is located on Higgins Lake lakefront shall be eligible for Membership in the Association The Board may also accept other interested persons to Membership in the Association. Association members are hereinafter referred to as Members. Any Member who is current in payment of dues shall be eligible to vote. Membership shall be subject to the following additional restrictions:

3.1.1 Members must be at least 18 years of age.

3.1.2 Anyone who is not a riparian owner must be approved by the Board of Directors.

3.1.3 All memberships are subject to approval by the  Board of Directors. Non riparian members must be approved by the Board of Directors.

3.1.4 For purposes of this article, a Riparian is defined as any person or entity (including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, associations or trusts) that has an ownership interest in a lakefront parcel on Higgins Lake within Roscommon Country, Michigan.

Here’s a June 21st update on the SICON swimmer’s itch control program on the lake based on phone conversations with Dr. Curtis Blankespoor. According to Dr. Blankespoor, 46 birds have now been removed from the lake. If my count is right, this includes 4 broods with the female mothers ranging in size from 6 to 14 birds. It also involved taking 5 wounded birds left by the Northpoint harassment and depredation shooting program. It does not include the 23 birds shot by Northpoint, two of which are reportedly Red Mergansers and 15 of which were female common mergansers.

One of the common questions about any control program is what happens after the three year control programs. Assuming success after three years, what might a long term maintenance program look like?

Dr. Blankespoor answered, “First I’m going to give you my standard answer. Generally, and this shouldn’t come as a surprise, no one’s ever going to be able to eradiate swimmer’s itch. You can certainly get it controlled to manageable numbers, but with it being a living system, with the migrants coming in the spring and the fall, it’s never going to be possible to get 0 swimmer’s itch cases. However, we do feel certain that a reduction of swimmer’s itch cases is possible.”

“To us the most important thing for long term success is to find nest sites and either plug them or remove them. Both Ron and I think that’s the limiting factor in determining merganser broods in an area. It’s how many suitable nest sites are available. If we take the female and the brood and move her to a different part she’s going to come back because she’s successfully brooded here before. That’s the best we can do if we don’t know where she’s nesting and we don’t want to kill her. Shooting her will definitely prevent her from coming back… we agree with that, or least with the outcome, but her nest site will probably be discovered by another merganser in the future. That’s why we think locating the nests will give the best long term option for control. “

“We hope to knock the number of cercariae and swimmers itch case down significantly in the first three years and then you don’t need us on the lake 24/7. We would provide a program where we maybe spend a week or two looking for more nests and maybe a week or two catching broods once the come off the nests.” He says they would monitor snails, but would not need the same level of effort as in the first couple of years. “The maintenance plan would be at significantly reduced cost. If we keep identifying nests or have land owners take them down or a combination of both, I think that’s where your merganser numbers will get to the point where swimmer’s itch will not be a major problem. You might get 2 or 3 broods, but the numbers would not be as high as 10 or 12 broods on the lake. What we’re doing now is for next year. What we do the last year, is for the year after. I think it’s about management and we think it’s possible to control swimmer’s itch without having to shoot the birds.”

“I don’t what to knock the shooting `gun and done’ program, but I don’t think it’s a good statewide answer. It might be a one lake answer if it’s done correctly. But that’s not my first choice and I don’t think it should be the state’s first choice. There are so many questions on swimmer’s itch. We should get people working on them.” He continued, “The big issue is balancing the research with the control. We want to provide both. We think both are necessary. I don’t think state wide money needs to go into more depredation permits, especially if we can show the state that we’ve got this program that doesn’t involve shooting mergansers.”

Dr. Blankespoor stated that they want to compare the results what’s being done on Higgins with other lakes. Glenn Lake would be one where they are doing harassing. He mentioned again that they have some sterilization techniques to try with the females. If the sterilized females come back, they would not brood.

In the shot glass sized cup (a comunion cup actually) under the microscope you can see the quivering hair like cercariae that cause swimmers itch. There are lots of them. The microscope is in the lab set up by SICON in connection with the swimmer’s itch control program now under way under contract with the Higgins Lake Simmer’s Itch Organization (HLSIO).

During a weeks visit to the lake, I had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Ken Dennings representing HLSIO and Dr. Curt Blankespoor, his dad Dr. Harvey Blankespoor  and  Ronald Reimink, lead scientists with SICON. According to Mr. Dennings, trapping started on June 8 when a brood of 14 mergansers was trapped. SICON has also scooped up over 5000 snails from various locations around the lake. Roughly 1 in 100 snails is infected, so the itch causing cercariae are already present in the lake. Snails have a 13 month lifespan, so many of these presumably are survivors from last summer.

The SICON program began early in the spring. The plan was to attempt to locate common merganser nests and, when found, either oiling the eggs or recording their locations. According to Dr. Blankespoor, what they soon discovered was that the harassment program conducted by Gerrish Township was scaring the birds and making it impossible to get reliable information. The harassment also interfered with the bird’s normal behavior. “We needed to key on stereotypical behaviors of brooding females. Those behaviors were not easily observed with all the harassment, so we weren’t able to accomplish finding as many nests as we had hoped.” There are a couple candidate nests. “Again, when you’re trying to look at the natural behavior of the birds with pyrotechnics being fired all over the place it’s kind of hard. They spook.”

Northpoint Fisheries, LLC

SICON dissected 23 birds which were turned over by the Gerrish contractor, Northpoint Fisheries, LLC, headed by Dr. Steven Sendek and Dr. Mark Luttenton, under a contract with Gerrish Township. SICON found there were at least 7 males taken and two Red Breasted Mergansers. The rest were Common Merganser females. According to the Dr. Blankespoor, eight (8) of them were reproductively active to varying degrees. Some had fully developed eggs in their oviducts but a couple were in the very beginning states of egg development. The rest were not breeding. The degradation permits do not cover the less common Red Breasted Mergansers. The two killed were found not to be infected. Dr. Blankespoor noted that he has pictures of those birds “if you really need to see them but it’s pretty gruesome.”

The Northpoint Report and Mr. Frank Homola, Gerrish Township Supervisor, claim that only Common Mergansers were taken. I tend to believe SICON. According to Dr. Blankespoor, they have pictures and the identification has been confirmed by two leading ornithologists in the state. He says they were not breeding, so they look a lot like Common Mergansers. He says it’s one of the reasons they don’t shoot because it’s really hard to tell the difference. He also says that, as a courtesy, data was sent to Mr. Homola and that SICON was legally obligated to send its findings to the DRN and the Fish and Wildlife Service with copies to Mr. Homola.

Shooting Males Does Not Help

According to Dr. Blankespoor, “shooting males does not help.” Male Mergansers do not stay at the lake, leaving by late spring. He believes there is only one left on the lake at this time. Although some males are infected, the infection is not spread from the birds to the snails until the water reaches higher temperatures later in the spring. By then the males are gone.  

Lethal Takes

Dr. Blankespoor stated, “We’re allowed to take 20 birds for scientific purposes. One of the questions that remain unknown for mergansers is that some appear to be females with non breeding plumage – there are 6 or 8 around Treasure Island. No one knows if they are all females or whether they are a mixed batch. They are probably second year birds, but no one knows that either. So we’re going to use up to 20 lethal takes and dissect them to determine the sex.” Also of interest are a couple of different methods of sterilization by surgery that has proven successful. He mentioned an interest in chemical sterilization using some chemicals that are available for Canada Geese. “We’d like to try them for Common Mergansers. That is something we hope to do in the future – maybe as early as next year if we’re working here next year. That seems to be the best choice if you catch a female - there’s a good chance she will come back and have broods in the future.”

Brood Traps

SICON is using specially designed traps to capture broods. These consist of a large net suspended under water from four poles. The attachment to the poles consists of spring loaded lines that are guided up the poles when release by a remote signal. The ducks get caught in the net. This includes the mother duck that needs a long horizontal run to be able to take off. Nor will she leave her young. Broods can be herded for long distances to get them into position for the trapping. The first trapping which occurred June 10th resulted in a capture of a brood with 14 birds. Their permit allows for the capture of up to 150 birds on Higgins and Lime lakes.

Nest Boxes

According to Dr. Blankespoor, there are document cases that you actually end up with more breeding pairs with nest boxes. “That’s counter to what we want to do. If the assumption is that they would choose a nest box over a natural cavity, then the idea of using nest boxes for control would work. But most birds, given the protection of a natural nesting site and if they’ve had experience with a successful nesting site, they’re going to go there.” He predicted that there wouldn’t be any birds in nest boxes this year because it usually takes the females a year to find a spot where they will nest next year. Migratory birds may not have nested here in the first place may use them.

Snail Removal by Property Owners

Asked about what property owners can do, Dr. Blankespoor said, “We do think it’s possible for property owners to collect snails. Most of the snails in the areas we’re working have been the ones causing swimmers itch. There are a few places where the black snail I showed you is really common. That is easily distinguished from the others. But we don’t know how effective or long lasting removal of snails from a property will affect swimmer’s itch. That’s one of the things we’re going to discover this summer.

“We’re working with Oakland University. They have a way of counting cercariae in the water so we are going to sample in the areas where we are removing snails and we’re going to transport that sample to Oakland and they are going to analyze it. And we’re going to be able to analyze sections where we’ve removed snails and compare these with neighboring sections where we haven’t and if there’s a significant difference in cercariae count we’ll share that possibility. You know, the problem is that the shallows go out a long way, there are lots of snails, cercariae can drift in from non treated areas, so we’re not promising that as a fool proof method, but we’re thinking it may help. We also don’t pretend that that’s a solution for the lake. There are too many snails. But if 10 owners want to get together and have us teach them how to identify the snails and how to scoop, we’ll gladly teach people how to do it.”

Funding

According to Mr. Dennings, HLSIO has $105,000 in donations, $15,000 from HLPOA, and $23,000 committed by Higgins Lake Foundation on a reimbursement program. So they have reached $143,000 of the $265,000 first year budget. The HLF grant is for work only that is permitted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, i.e. the sacrifice of 20 birds, capture of up to 150 birds, and oiling of 40 eggs. Because of the Gerrish harassment and the inability to locate nesting cavities, SICON appears to have lost the opportunity to oil any eggs.

The Northpoint program is funded with $5,000 from Gerrish Township and $23,000 from the HLF. Some additional work is being done on a volunteer basis.

Reporting Swimmer’s Itch

The two teams have what appear to be totally separate ways of reporting cases of swimmer’s itch. The SICON link is http://www.swimmersitch.org/higginslake. This allows you to report Merganser sightings, location of nests, and cases of swimmers itch.

The link to the Gerrish Township reports is http://gerrishtownshipmarina.com/swimmers-itch/report-swimmers-itch/. This is designed to report cases of swimmers itch only and goes to Mr. Homola’s desk.

Scheduled Meetings and Presentations

Starting June 15 and continuing until July 27, the SICON team will be holding an "Open House" every Monday night from 6-8 pm to answer any simmer’s itch related questions. The public is encouraged to stop by and see first-hand what the SICON team is doing. 

The “Open Houses” will take place at at the Dragon Fly House, 104 Webster Blvd. which is located on the corner of Webster Blvd. and West Pine Drive just north of the Gerrish Township Marina.

The SICON team will also be available for questions on two Saturday mornings, June 20 and July 11 from 9:00 to 11:00 am at the Lyon Township Hall, 7851 W Higgins Lake Drive.

Mr. Dennings is seeking to schedule meetings with various associations to update them on the program and to raise funds. He can be reached at 989-821-6711.

According to Mr. Homola, Luttenton from Northpoint will be at the Swimmers Itch Task Force meeting next week June 16th at 2pm at the Lyon Township hall. Sendek will be at the meeting in August.

The Divide

It is unfortunate to have the two highly skilled teams working at cross purposes without coordination beyond sharing of sacrificed birds. The conflict between the harassment program and the SICON’s bird control program, and the two uncoordinated reporting systems are examples. The leaders of the various organizations involved had a mechanism through the Swimmer’s Itch Task Force to do better. Instead the Gerrish Township and HLSIO organization have gone separate ways. The HLF has had to split its funds to help both. The state, which should be a player, has contributed nothing other than handing out permits. The HLSIO program, which will total $675,000 over three years, seems hardly sustainable with this divide. There may be ways to bridge the divide, but with the polarization that has occurred over the past three or so years, this will be a challenge.

For more on swimmer’s itch bology and the contracts, go to Swimmer’s Itch Control Under Way.

What is Simmer’s Itch and how do you fix it?

Swimmer’s Itch has been a persistent problem on northern Michigan lakes for a number of years. In the past it has been treated with copper sulfate treatments, a method is now frowned upon because of its potential long term environmental impacts. There are now two proposed control programs under way – one championed by the Simmer’s Itch Partnership chaired by Jim Vondale who is now also president of HLPOA and one championed by Gerrish Township under the leadership of Frank Homola, Gerrish Township Supervisor.

The contractor for the first approach is SICon, LLC lead by Dr. Curtis Blankespoor who has a doctorate in parasitology from Cornell and who has been studying Swimmer’s since 1988 and who is now a professor at Calvin College, and by Ronald Reimink, a biologist with experience with Swimmer’s Itch and who is one of the founders of SICon. The total cost of their program is $225,000 per year over three years.

The second contractor is Steven Sendek, Northpoint Fisheries Management, LLC, and Dr. Mark Luttenton. Phd. Their proposed full program for 2015 has a cost of $82,000.

The Biology

Birds, specifically Mergansers, are the “definitive” hosts for the flat worm parasite, called avian schistosomes, that causes swimmers itch.  Avian schistosomes pass their eggs in the feces of their host. When these eggs pass into the lake, they hatch into larvae within an hour which drop to the bottom. Some find an intermediate host, a specific snail, where they reproduce asexually and then produce second larvae called a cercariae. As many as a thousand leave the snail, looking for a new avian host. Swimmer’s itch occurs when the cercariae accidentally penetrate into humans where they die. Reddened spots occur within hours and last for several days.

Back in October, Dr. Blankespoor made a presentation to an ad hoc group interested in Swimmer’s Itch. Here is a quick presentation on the biology based on material he provided.

Parasite: Trichobilharzia Stagnicola

Miracidia

Hatch fro eggs

Free-living

Lifespan approximately 48 hours

Negatively geotactic (drop to the bottom of the lake)

50 eggs per duck feces

Cercariae

Free-living

Life span approximately 48 hours

Positively geotactic (rise to surface)

Definitive Host: Common Mergansers

Life span up to 12 years

Migratory – summer breeders in Michigan

After hatch year, birds prospect for nests for one season

Males leave shortly after mating

Average brood of 9-12 eggs

Very wary birds with a low mortality

Daily range of 10 miles on the water

Defecate 20+ times per day. Feces are 5 grams

Hatch year birds have the highest parasite loads

Nests typically high in trees as much as a mile from the lake (per Cornell Ornithological Lab)

Intermediate Host: Stagnicola Emrginata

12-16 month life span – June through August of the following year

Eggs laid in spring, hatch in early June

·Prefer hard, sandy lake bottoms

Daily range of 100 feet

Infection rate less than 2%

Latency of infection 1 month

Infected snails shed 2000 cercariae per day

According to Cornell Ornithology Lab web site, “Common Mergansers are streamlined ducks that float gracefully down small rivers or shallow shorelines. The males are striking with clean white bodies, dark green heads, and a slender, serrated red bill.

The elegant gray-bodied females have rich, cinnamon heads with a short crest. In summer, look for them leading ducklings from eddy to eddy along streams or standing on a flat rock in the middle of the current. These large ducks nest in hollow trees; in winter they form flocks on larger bodies of water.

In northern forests Common Mergansers will take up residence in nest boxes near lakes or rivers, as long as the boxes are large with a large opening

SICon’s Program

SICon’s “Comprehensive Simmer’s Itch Control Program” proposes a 3-year effort which combines educational outreach, scientific research, and bird and snail control. The control program involves capturing and removing the parasite’s definitive host. Adult hosts are trapped, treated with an “antihelmintic drug” to kill any existing adult parasites living in its body, and/or relocating the birds to waterways where there are no receptive snail intermediate hosts. The total cost would be $225,000, per year or a total of $675,000.

The first year’s cost includes the following:

Off season preparation ($15,000)

Avian Shistosome Species Assessment (#30,000) – fee waived in 2015.

Bird Control Program ($195,000)

Snail Removal Project ($20,000) – fee waived in 2015

Educational Activities and Outreach Program ($10,000)

Boat Rental $5,000)

Lodging provided by client

Treatment of Nesting Sites and Eggs (Additional service at $1000 per nest, $1000 per egg)

The objective of the bird control program is to determine the location of common merganser nesting sites on or near the lake and to reduce the number of eggs deposited in the lake. The proposal states, “When nest prospecting and nesting, common mergansers exhibit persistent and stereotypic behaviors. Careful observations of these behaviors can lead on to the location of a female’s nesting site. GPS coordinates with video verification of all nests will be provided… Beginning around May 1, weekly bird surveys of Higgins Lake will be conducted and every effort will be made to trap and relocate as many after-hatch-year (AHY) common merganser birds and their broods as possible. Trapping methods will include SICon, LLC’s modified drive trap and other devices or methods developed during the off-season research and development phase….”

Because snails sustain their infections over the winter, the proposal points out that a significant reduction of the infection rate of snails will not be occur until 2017. They also state that it is “unrealistic to expect the elimination of all swimmer’s itch cases, as a complete eradication of avian schistosomes in an aquatic ecosystem is impossible.”

Northpoint (Sendek) Program

Northpoint’s “Comprehensive Action Plan to Address Swimmer’s Itch on Higgins Lake” focuses on actions to minimize the presence of common Merganser’s on the lake. Actions include hazing, and harassing birds to prevent them from frequenting the lake and a lethal take of up to twenty-five birds. Harassments will occur from ice-out to May 22 or until broods are noted.  

The proposal also includes the destruction of up to twenty five nests.  To simplify nest treatment, their objective is to create nesting sites through the use of nesting boxes at prime locations around the lake. The boxes would be sealed on May 22. Birds killed will be evaluated for the presence of avian schistosome. The boxes will be made by Gerrish staff and installed and monitored by Northpoint.

The program also includes assessment of snail infection rates, abundance of cercariae in the water, and merganser fecal samples. It also calls for the development of rapid assessment tools and methods to track host snail population genetics.

What’s Actually Being Done?

The Higgins Lake Swimmer’s Itch Organization (HLSIO) has been formed with a board to manage the Comprehensive Swimmer’s Itch Program. The Organization has filed for 501(c) (3) status and according to Jim Vondale has had its non-profit status approved by the IRS. Board members are: President Jim Vondale, Vice President Ken Dennings, Treasurer Ed Nellist, Secretary Bill Carey (Carey and Jaskowski), Neil Cooley (owner of Fred’s), Dale McDonald (The McDonald Group), and Bob Schneider (Chair Roscommon County Commission.) The HLPOA board has approved $15,000 from HLPOA funds to support the swimmer’s itch effort by HLSIO. Another $35,000 has been raised and more fund raising is expected. The remainder will have to be raised privately. According to Vondale, SICon has agreed to proceed event though the full funding is not yet in place.

Gerrish Township at this point is proceeding with the duck killing and harassment portion of the Northpoint proposal using $5,000 of its own funds and a $23,000 grant from the Higgins Lake Foundation. According to Jim Vondale, the Gerrish permit requires any ducks killed to be turned over to SICon for evaluation. He is hopeful that the Gerrish effort will not interfere with what SICon is doing and would like to see cooperation between the two efforts.

To the extent Gerrish and Lyon Townships get involved in long term funding, the most likely approach would be through special assessments on a per property basis. At issue is whether this would be assessed to lakefront owners only or town wide. Gerrish has 5,031 properties and Lyon has 3,435; Gerrish has about 900 lakefront properties and Lyon 359. If both participated and the cost was spread across all properties, the three year SICon proposal would coast $27 per year per property. The full Northpoint program would cost $82,000 per year or $10 per property per year.

Housing is being sought for the SICon group, especially for the period from May 15 to the end of July. Additionally, there is at least one board position open on the HLSIO board, possibly more. There is no representation from the north shore of the lake, so any suggestions for good candidates should be sent to one of the existing board members.

Some of us remember that Jamie Saxton (MSU grad student) and a couple of different co-researchers who stayed in Pinewoods for a couple of years, doing some of the original studies of the snails and problems with swimmers' itch. Clearly it's increasing, and it's terribly difficult to cure.  Some understandably have concerns that the SICOM program is trodding a path already traveled.

On the other hand, nothing has been tried before at the scale that is being proposed. Part of the response is that while a reduction in the number of swimmer’s itch cases is the most direct method of assessment of our control program, it is also the most costly and difficult. One would need trained medical professionals and a scientific approach to the assessment rather than the anecdotal evidence that is often quite bias. According to Curtis Blankespoor, “what has been documented, however, is that for the 3 years we worked on Glen Lake there was a significant reduction in both the number of common mergansers present on the lake and the prevalence of infection in snails.”

Today’s technology is great. If you don’t like what the majority wants all you have to do is start your own website and blog, create an unscientific survey with leading/biased questions, let everyone you know that shares your viewpoint respond and you get the results you want. Not surprising. Add your own set of facts and you have a recipe to confuse and mislead. The problem with the “Bad Idea” blog about the restrictor plate is the fact that several misleading statements were made. It is so typical of this blog.

A real survey was done and completed by the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association and the low water folks didn’t like it. What was their reaction? Instead of working inside the HLPOA, they went outside to create their own reality. Here are the results of the HLPOA Survey regarding the lake levels:

When asked “Is the lake level satisfactory?” the following results were reported:

44% said yes

11% said it should be higher

10% said it should be lower

8% were undecided

27% had no comment

If you remove those who were undecided and had no comment the results would be as follows:

68% said lake level is satisfactory

17% said the lake level should be higher

15% said the lake level should be lower

In other words, 85% said the water level should be the same or higher and only 15% said the level should be lower. It’s no wonder the low level folks freaked out and decided to create their own phony blog and survey. It didn’t suit their agenda. 

The same goes for the restrictor plate. A lot of facts are taken out of context. When the Lake Level Control Structure (LLCS) was installed in 2007, it lowered the levels on Higgins dramatically. Well below the legal level. That is a fact. The USGS reports are not lies.

Therefore, in 2010, Spicer Engineering was contracted to make recommendations on how to improve the LLCS to better manage Higgins so the legal levels could be maintained. Again, the low level folks freaked out and the leader of the low level agenda, Pat Springstead, began lobbying for the removal of the dam. His support in regards to lowering the levels on Higgins and removing the LLCS are part of the public record. Those are the facts. 

All the restrictor plate will do is help Higgins maintain the legal levels on Higgins instead of keeping the levels so much lower as it has the since 2007. The uncontrolled spillway was massively larger than the previous LLCS had. This past year was exception with regards to the amount of rain we received and the lower temperatures which kept the levels much closer to the legal level. Most property owners on Higgins enjoyed the water levels this past summer. Some did not.

If a restrictor plate option is not employed next year and we don’t get as much rain and the temperatures are normal, we will not be able to keep the levels on Higgins anywhere near the legal level. That is what the low level folks want and that is why they don’t want a restrictor plate installed and that is why they are trying to create phony public support for their agenda. The restrictor plate is an option that will only be used if the levels start to drop below the legal level. It is simply there to help maintain the legal level, not surpass it.

That is the intention of the resolution the HLPOA passed. By the way, the low level folks keep saying that those who support the natural and legal level as determined by the Court in 1926 are in favor of “high water” in an attempt to mislead. We are the legal level water folks. The fancy charts and drawings are nice but can be confusing. Make no mistake about it, the restrictor plate is simply a tool to help maintain the natural and legal level on Higgins, nothing else. It’s that simple. A Restrictor Plate – Good Idea.