Public Beach Review of 5 County Area in Northwest Wisconsins
Summary
The five-county analysis of Polk, Barron, Burnett, Washburn, and St. Croix Counties shows that the best public-beach strategy is not simply to build more beaches. The strongest approach is to combine three types of investment: protect high-quality existing beaches, upgrade underperforming public waterfronts where the public already controls the land, and develop new beaches only where there is both good swimming water and a clear geographic service gap.
The analysis also shows that lake size alone is a poor predictor of beach opportunity. Several smaller lakes have excellent clarity, depth, or swimming characteristics, while some very large lakes have lower clarity or already have adequate public access. The most promising projects tend to occur where water quality, public ownership, shoreline suitability, community access, and lack of a nearby quality beach all overlap.
High-level findings
Polk County has the strongest overall transformation opportunity. The best strategy is a three-node system centered on Clear Lake, Balsam Lake, and the Amery Twin Lakes complemented by smaller well-maintained local beaches. Clear Lake is already a strong public asset. Balsam offers opportunities with the right level of investment for a larger regional destination potential. Amery, the City of Lakes (North, Twin, Pike and nearby Wappogasset and Bear Trap), is particularly compelling because North and South Twin can be treated as one coordinated public-waterfront initiative: North Twin can emphasize better-quality swimming and paddling.
Northwest Wisconsin - Google Earth 5 County Lake Flyover
Clear Lake - Flagship Public Park and Beach
Balsam Lake - Room for Improvement
Amery, WI - Determine a Public Beach Strategy - The City of Lakes
Barron County has the clearest case for pairing existing flagship beaches with a new geographic-gap opportunity. Beaver Dam Lake in Cumberland and Silver Lake are the strongest existing swimming assets to elevate. Sand Lake in western Barron is the leading new opportunity because it combines favorable depth and substrate with a potential geographic gap. Echo Lake is the strongest alternative.
Burnett County already has a proven county-beach model. Lake 26 Park is the best existing benchmark, and Ralph Larrabee Park on Round Lake provides a simpler natural-beach experience. The strongest new opportunity is Sand Lake, which stands out for very clear water, substantial depth, and sandy bottom conditions. Burnett should add only one major new beach rather than spread investment across many clear-water lakes.
Washburn County has the strongest existing beach benchmark in the study. Shell Lake Beach is already close to the ideal model: beach, park, downtown access, restrooms, playground, parking, and seasonal lifeguards. New investment should therefore be selective. Stone Lake is the strongest candidate for a second flagship if it fills a real drive-time gap, with Island Lake as the main alternative.
St. Croix County should focus mostly on improving its existing network rather than creating new inland beaches. Homestead Parklands on Perch Lake is already a strong inland flagship. While this review is focused on lakes-- St. Croix County also has notable swimming beaches on the St. Croix River including the Hudson Beach, Troy Beach, and the beach at Kinnickinnic State Park.
Strategic conclusion
Across the five counties, the highest-value investments are likely to come from upgrading existing public waterfronts before pursuing expensive new lakefront acquisitions. Existing sites already benefit from public ownership, road access, parking, utilities, and community familiarity. Where new beach development is justified, it should be limited to locations with both superior swimming conditions and weak current beach coverage.
The strongest existing benchmarks to protect are Shell Lake Beach, Homestead Parklands, Clear Lake Park, Beaver Dam Lake, and Lake 26 Park. Overall, the analysis supports a regional strategy of “protect the best, upgrade what is already public, and build new only where the water quality and geographic gap clearly justify it.”
County | #1 Priority | #2 Priority | #3 Priority | Honorable Mentions |
Polk | Amery Twin Lakes — coordinated North + South Twin investment | Clear Lake Park — protect and enhance an already strong public asset | Balsam Lake — elevate village beach/waterfront into a stronger destination | Half Moon Lake — very clear existing swimming asset; Church Pine Lake — small, very-clear new opportunity; Lake O’ the Dalles — scenic state-park beach |
Barron | Beaver Dam Lake — existing flagship with major upgrade potential | Silver Lake — strong existing beach with better swimming-water profile | Sand Lake (Barron) — best new western-county opportunity | Chetek City Beach — important urban/community beach; Echo Lake — strong Sand Lake alternative; Waldo Carlson / Red Cedar — major recreation asset but weaker water-quality profile |
Burnett | Lake 26 Park — existing county benchmark | Sand Lake (Burnett) — strongest new clean-water flagship candidate | Ralph Larrabee / Round Lake — natural existing beach to preserve and improve | Johnson Lake — excellent clear-water alternative; Long Lake — very clear secondary candidate; Crooked Lake/Siren — established community beach node |
Washburn | Shell Lake Beach — strongest existing flagship and regional benchmark | Stone Lake — best potential new clear-water flagship if it fills a service gap | Birch Lake / Doolittle Park — existing beach with strong community investment potential | Island Lake — excellent new clean-water alternative; Lake Nancy — outstanding water quality but lower geographic urgency; Beaver Lake Beach — established small community asset |
St. Croix | Homestead / Perch Lake — inland flagship | Troy Beach (river)— strongest major upgrade opportunity | Glen Lake / Glen Hills Park — community-scale public swimming asset | Lake George — existing community beach; Bass Lake — strong public-land position but lower need because of Homestead; Pine Lake — existing recreation asset |
Inventory of Lakes in Review
County | Lake / Beach | Acres | Max Depth | Water Quality / Characteristics | Public Beach | Strategic Assessment / Role |
Polk | North Twin – Amery | 129 | 27 ft | Better swimming characteristics than South Twin; predominantly sandy bottom; urban-lake water quality requires management | Existing/legacy swimming waterfront | Major transformation opportunity; combine with South Twin as Amery Twin Lakes flagship |
Polk | South Twin – Amery | 72 | 9 ft | Very shallow; more susceptible to warming, algae and bacteria events | Yes | Major targeted redevelopment; family/community component of Amery Twin Lakes |
Polk | Clear Lake / Clear Lake Park | 30 | 26 ft | Strong clarity and water-quality profile | Yes | Existing flagship / benchmark; targeted enhancement |
Polk | Balsam Lake / Village Beach | 1,901 | 37 ft | Moderately clear; major recreational lake | Yes | Major village waterfront/beach enhancement opportunity |
Polk | Half Moon Lake | 550 | 60 ft | Very clear | Yes | Strong existing swimming asset; maintain/selectively improve |
Polk | Lake O’ the Dalles | 25 | 12 ft | Small scenic state-park lake | Yes | Natural/scenic public beach; protect and selectively enhance |
Polk | Church Pine Lake | 87 | 45 ft | Very clear; favorable sand/gravel characteristics | No developed beach | Strong small clean-water new-beach opportunity |
Polk | Pipe Lake | 293 | 68 ft | Moderately clear; deep; largely sandy substrate | No major beach | Secondary new/acquisition opportunity |
Polk | Antler Lake | 94 | 22 ft | Relatively good small-lake clarity | No | Community-scale beach opportunity |
Polk | Round Lake / Dwight Beach | 68 | — | Moderately clear | Yes | Existing community beach; maintain/upgrade selectively |
Polk | Deer Lake | 786 | 46 ft | Moderately clear; favorable sandy/gravel bottom | No major beach identified | Strong secondary opportunity |
Polk | Sand Lake | ~216 | 58 ft | Deep; more detailed water-quality comparison needed | No major beach | Secondary |
Polk | Crescent / Pickerel Lake | ~15 | 43 ft | Small, deep trout-oriented lake | No major beach | Low-impact swimming/nature-access opportunity |
Polk | Bone Lake | 1,667 | 43 ft | Lower clarity | No major beach | Lower priority for premium swimming investment |
Polk | Big Round Lake | 1,014 | 17 ft | Lower clarity | — | Lower swimming priority |
Polk | Lake Wapogasset | 1,189 | 32 ft | Lower clarity | Limited | General boating/recreation focus |
Barron | Beaver Dam Lake – Cumberland | 1,163 | 106 ft | Large, deep recreational lake; extensively monitored | Yes – established/lifeguarded beach | Existing flagship; major targeted enhancement opportunity |
Barron | Silver Lake | 331 | 91 ft | Moderately clear; excellent depth profile for swimming | Yes | Premium existing-beach upgrade opportunity |
Barron | Lake Chetek / Chetek City Beach | 923 | 22 ft | Shallower/more productive; weaker premium-water profile than Silver | Yes | Important urban/community beach; targeted enhancement |
Barron | Sand Lake (Barron) | 318 | 57 ft | Moderately clear; mesotrophic; very favorable sand/gravel bottom | No major developed beach | Best new western-Barron opportunity |
Barron | Echo Lake | 172 | 41 ft | Moderately clear; favorable trophic and shoreline characteristics | No major beach | Strong alternative to Sand Lake |
Barron | Red Cedar Lake / Waldo Carlson Park | ~1,897 | — | Lower clarity / more productive | Yes | Excellent recreation/camping asset; lower priority for premium swimming |
Barron | Kirby Lake | 98 | — | Moderately clear | No | Small western-county candidate |
Barron | Little Dummy Lake | 43 | 44 ft | Moderately clear; unusually deep for size | No major beach | Small community/nature-beach opportunity |
Barron | Big Dummy Lake | 114 | — | Moderately clear / monitored | — | Secondary |
Barron | Prairie Lake | ~1,408 | — | Large recreational lake; less compelling swimming-water profile | — | General recreation/access asset |
Barron | Crystal Lake | ~110 | — | Lower clarity | — | Lower swimming priority |
Burnett | Lake 26 / Lake 26 Park | 218 | — | Very clear; strong swimming-water resource | Yes | Existing county flagship; take good to excellent |
Burnett | Sand Lake (Burnett) | 900 | 73 ft | Very clear; highly sandy bottom; exceptional swimming potential | No major developed beach | Best new clean-water flagship opportunity |
Burnett | Round Lake / Ralph Larrabee Park | ~208 | — | Natural recreational lake | Yes | Existing natural-beach flagship; targeted modest upgrades |
Burnett | Crooked Lake – Siren | — | — | Community recreational lake | Yes / public park swimming | Existing Siren-area beach node |
Burnett | Johnson Lake | 399 | — | Very clear; oligotrophic / excellent trophic profile | No developed beach | Strong clean-water new-beach alternative |
Burnett | Long Lake | 222 | — | Very clear | No major beach | Secondary clean-water opportunity |
Burnett | Birch Island Lake | 768 | 13 ft | Very clear in screening; shallow; largely sandy | No | Secondary; low-impact approach preferred |
Burnett | Des Moines Lake | 215 | — | Very clear | No | Secondary |
Burnett | Clear Lake | 114 | 55 ft | Deep; detailed comparative water-quality review still needed | No major beach | Secondary |
Burnett | Big Sand Lake | 1,434 | — | Large/deep recreational lake | Limited | Secondary |
Burnett | Dunham Lake | 231 | 63 ft | Deep | No major beach | Secondary |
Burnett | Yellow Lake | 2,283 | — | Lower clarity | — | Fishing/boating emphasis |
Washburn | Shell Lake / Memorial Park Beach | ~2,513 | — | Moderately clear; excellent overall recreation setting | Yes – major municipal beach | Regional flagship and five-county benchmark |
Washburn | Stone Lake | 490 | 49 ft | Very clear / oligotrophic; historically excellent clarity | No major developed beach | Best potential new Washburn flagship if geographic gap is confirmed |
Washburn | Birch Lake / Doolittle Park | ~364 | 73 ft | Deep; full comparative water-quality scoring still needed | Yes | Important existing community beach; targeted enhancement |
Washburn | Island Lake | 252 | 44 ft | Very clear; favorable sand/gravel substrate | No major beach | Strong new opportunity / Stone Lake alternative |
Washburn | Lake Nancy | 757 | — | Very clear / oligotrophic; highly sandy bottom | No major destination beach | Exceptional natural asset; lower geographic urgency |
Washburn | Beaver Lake / Beaver Lake Beach | 87 | 16 ft | Small/shallow; detailed water-quality score still needed | Yes | Existing community beach |
Washburn | Big Bass Lake / Big Bass Lake Park | ~201 | — | Full water-quality scoring still needed | Yes | Existing Minong-area public beach |
Washburn | Minong Flowage / Totogatic Park | ~1,587 | — | Flowage; swimming quality should be evaluated separately from clear natural lakes | Yes | Major existing county recreation/beach asset |
Washburn | Horseshoe Lake | 177 | — | Very clear | No major beach | Secondary clear-water candidate |
Washburn | South Twin Lake | 106 | — | Very clear | No major developed beach | Secondary |
Washburn | Middle Kimball Lake | 96 | 77 ft | Very clear; unusually deep small lake | No | Low-impact clean-water access opportunity |
Washburn | Deep Lake | 43 | — | Moderately clear | No | Specialized small-lake opportunity |
Washburn | Leisure Lake | ~71 | — | Additional water-quality review needed | Yes | Existing local/community beach |
Washburn | Sawmill Lake area | — | — | Rustic/natural lake setting | Swimming area | Rustic public recreation asset |
St. Croix | Perch Lake / Homestead Parklands | 45 | 63 ft | Deep recreational/trout lake | Yes – high-quality county beach | County inland flagship / benchmark |
St. Croix | Troy Beach – St. Croix River | River | — | River swimming; should be assessed differently from inland lakes | Yes | Best major existing-beach upgrade opportunity |
St. Croix | Glen Lake / Glen Hills Park | ~84 | — | Small/deep recreational lake | Yes / swimming access | Strong county/community beach |
St. Croix | Bass Lake | 370 | — | Moderately clear | No major beach | Good public-land setting but deprioritized due to nearby Homestead |
St. Croix | Lake George | ~135 | — | Recreational lake | Yes | Existing community swimming asset |
St. Croix | Pine Lake | ~118 | — | Detailed water-quality scoring needed | Public recreation/access | Existing system asset |
St. Croix | Apple Lake | ~110 | — | Lower clarity | — | Lower swimming priority |
Polk / St. Croix | Cedar Lake | 1,120 | 32 ft | Lower clarity | No major beach identified | General lake recreation rather than flagship swimming |
Note: Content summarized with assistance from ChatGPT. ChatGPT can make mistakes-- check important information.