PRESCOTT – When following up on a resident request extend the no wake zone along Lake Street, Prescott city staff learned it may be possible, but not without a lot of red tape.
At the Sept. 14 …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
PRESCOTT – When following up on a resident request extend the no wake zone along Lake Street, Prescott city staff learned it may be possible, but not without a lot of red tape.
At the Sept. 14 meeting, Joe Baumann of 440 Lake St. suggested extending the existing slow-no-wake zone approximately 300 yards north to help reduce shoreline erosion.
City Administrator Matt Wolf said city staff contacted Robert Kneeland with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding the city's authority and the process for considering an expanded slow no-wake area. Kneeland said the city could establish an expanded slow-no-wake zone through a local boating ordinance under state law. However, it would need to be consistent with existing St. Croix River regulations and other applicable state and federal laws.
“The St. Croix River is technically a federal waterway,” Wolf said. “He (Kneeland) recommended doing a proof, basically an erosion study for this particular ordinance because if it’s ever challenged in court or if somebody fights against it, they’re going to want to have to show extensive proof of why we needed to implement it and what the damage that’s being done to the shoreline as a result of the erosion.”
Because shoreline erosion is the primary concern, a condition report could document existing erosion, boat traffic and speeds, shoreline characteristics, photographs, the proposed 300-yard extension, effects on navigation and comments from affected property owners and river users, a city memo states. Kneeland also recommended the city consult with the U.S. Coast Guard, Minnesota authorities (since it’s a border waterway) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine if there are additional jurisdictional or regulatory requirements in expanding a no-wake zone.
Alderperson Bailey Ruona suggested asking those entities if they would consider conducting and funding an erosion study, since they’re responsible for regulating the riverway.
“It does have a special status as a scenic and wild river and there are only like three or four of them in the country, so you’d think that they would protect it,” Alderperson Maureen Otwell agreed.
Other challenges would include getting permits for any additional regulatory buoys or markers and enforcing a new slow-no-wake zone when the city doesn’t have a water patrol. The city would need to determine how to enforce it and whether an agreement with another law enforcement agency could be negotiated or if additional equipment and staffing would be necessary.
The council directed Wolf to reach out to other agencies about them conducting an erosion study.
Other business