Laserfiche WebLink
- Least intensive, works with the system <br />- Highest likelihood of maintaining clear water <br />- Lower likelihood of Eurasian watermilfoil becoming established <br />- Quieter, calmer environment <br />- Improved fish and wildlife habitat <br />• Cons <br />- Non-tradition approach <br />- Does not address all of the Assoaation's concerns <br />- Reduces open water recreational activities <br />Traditional approach <br />• Pros <br />- Mare traditional <br />- Focuses on phosphorus control <br />- Maximizes open water recreation <br />• Cons <br />- More intensive, more expensive <br />- Constrained by DNR permit rules <br />- Less sustainable, less reliable <br />- Nigher likelihood of Eurasian watermilfoil becoming established <br />When presented with these two approaches, the Snail Lake Association preferred working <br />with the shallow lake to maintain the status quo. They understood that some of their <br />concerns would not be addressed, but they also understood they would be frustrated <br />trying to address these concerns in their situation. The management actions they agreed <br />to include: <br />I . To coordinate and minimize aquatic plant control activities, plus <br />- Conduct annual aquatic plant surveys <br />- Conduct regular Eurasian water milfoil inspections <br />- Monitor aquatic plant control activity <br />- Encourage shoreland lakescaping <br />- Develop a contingency plan for Eurasian watermilfoil <br />2. Implement Surface Use Controls that included <br />- Establish a quiet water zone in the littoral area of the lake <br />- Reduce the maximum speed limit (from 35 to 30 m.p.h.) <br />- Post and communicate the ordinance and the rationale for the restrictions <br />3. Evaluating the water level control plan to minimize lake level fluctuations <br />The Snail Lake experience shows that the shallow lake bonus is a workable alternative for aquatic plant <br />management plans. <br />