Oneida County Clean Waters Action

Another Carnivore Lurking in the Moss

JoAnne Lund's Oneida County Clean Water Minute

Back in November, we explored pitcher plants and their fascinating “meat-eating” ways. Now, let’s turn our attention to another carnivorous plant found in Wisconsin: the Sundew.

Sundews have an unusual, eye-catching appearance. Their lobe-like leaves are covered in a halo of clear, dewy droplets that glisten in the sunlight. These sparkling, sugary beads attract insects, which is exactly what the plant is counting on. Sundews evolved their carnivorous habits because they grow in nutrient-poor habitats. Once an insect is trapped, the plant releases enzymes that dissolve the prey, allowing it to extract nutrients and especially ammonia from proteins. This ammonia replaces the nitrogen that most plants absorb from the soil. Some studies have even found sundews to be effective at helping control mosquito populations in wetland environments.

In Wisconsin, Sundews bloom in mid-summer, producing 3–8 delicate white or pink flowers. After pollination, egg-shaped seed pods form, eventually popping open to release numerous tiny seeds. Carried by the wind, these seeds may take root and begin new plants. Sundews can also reproduce asexually by producing new plants from their roots or leaves. There are four species of Sundew native to Wisconsin.

To survive winter, our native Sundews form a hibernaculum—a compact bud of tightly curled leaves at ground level that protects the plant from harsh cold. Thanks to this adaptation, some Sundew species can even survive the extreme temperatures of subarctic and alpine regions.

A final fact of interest: Sundews have a long history of use in traditional medicine for their anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties. These tiny plants are easy to overlook, but they are anything but ordinary.

CUW's SPO AVC Clearcutting Recommendations DOA at P&D

Oneida County P&D Committee rejects discussion in Conservation Committee's efforts to improve SPO.

By Eric Rempala February 2, 2026- My apologies for those who don't speak county acronyms. The translation of the headline to this article is Oneida County Conservation and UW Extension (CUW) Committee's Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) Access Viewing Corridor (AVC) clearcutting recommendations Dead on Arrival (DOA) at Planning and Development Committee (P&D).

At the January 21st P&D Committee meeting agenda item #10 was listed as:

"10. Discussion/decision concerning Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 to amend Chapter 9, Article 1, Section 9.11, Article 3, Sections 9.32 and 9.33, Article 5, Section 9.50, Article 9, Sections 9.90, 9.91, 9.92, 9.93, 9.94, 9.95, 9.97, and 9.99, Appendixes C through Q, and Article 10 Definitions. The committee will be discussing correspondence received from the Conservation and UWEX Education Committee. The committee will also be discussing updates, revisions, and all aspects of Chapter 9."

Any normal citizen reading the agenda item above would have no idea what the County is up to. Well, hopefully after reading this article you will have a better idea. For those of you not familiar with the Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance revision saga, I'll share 3 paragraphs of the history from an OCCWA August 2025 article. "P&D Chooses Step Backwards on Shoreland Protection"

It all started in 2019/2020 with a clear-cutting issue on Two Sisters Lake in Newbold. A complaint was filed with the Oneida County Zoning Department and then County Supervisor Bob Thome got involved. Eventually, in the summer of 2021, Bob Mott as chair of County Conservation Committee, submitted 4 suggestions to revise County Code Chapter 9, Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO). Much discussion was had including the county's Zoning Department potentially drafting revisions to the SPO. Sadly, nothing ever came of it.

In July of 2022, a Resolution for Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 authored by the Planning and Development Committee to amend Chapter 9, Article 8, Section 9.80 Zoning Administration appeared on a P&D committee meeting. The Amendment included changes recommended by construction contractors and landscapers. Putting the contractor and landscaper changes in place the P&D Committee eventually forwarded the Amendment to public hearing.

In a Spring 2023 Public Hearing, many residents shared concerns about the P&D's Resolution for Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 which was documented in a WXPR article Oneida County residents give mixed reaction to potential shoreland protection ordinance changes | WXPR. Survey ballots were created by Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) for the hearing which the public was able use as a reference to share objections on the proposed SPO language. Despite high in person public participation including 114 publicly provided survey ballot submissions, the P&D made no changes to Amendment #13-2022. On top of rejecting all public hearing input on Amendment #13-2022, the P&D Committee rejected a recommendation by OCLRA to add language prohibiting clear-cutting in the 35% viewing corridor, a prohibition Vilas County had already adopted.

Returning to the present, the Oneida County Conservation and UW Extension Committee (CUW) decided to review the P&D's latest iteration of the SPO revision before it went to a Public Hearing. One of the language change recommendations the CUW came up with addressed the same issue the public has pushed back on through the whole 4-year process, clear-cutting in the Access and Viewing Corridor of shoreland properties.

Clear-cutting in the AVC has been a concern in Oneida County dating back to 2019. Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) has led the charge on multiple occasions to promote improvements to the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance; changes OCCWA has supported whole-heartedly. Improvements to the SPO would include being more protective of lake and river shoreline, which in turn would improve lake and river health. Banning any clearing of an AVC is not what is being sought, nor is reducing the permitted size limits of AVC's. What is being sought is reasonable AVC clear-cutting language, promoting an AVC that falls somewhere between an old growth forest and a golf course putting green from the house to the beach.

With that in mind, the CUW Committee went to work on crafting recommendations for the P&D Committee to consider before the SPO revisions were sent to public hearing which is the final step before going to a County Board vote. Having attended nearly all of the CUW meetings in the past two years, I can say the CUW Committee has done a fantastic job of thoughtfully considering conservation issues for the county. The Committee is comprised of County Supervisors Colette Sorgel, Linnaea Newman, Lenore Lopez, Chris Schultz, and Rob Jensen.

It was not surprising to many that the CUW Committee came back with a recommendation of more protective clear-cutting language than the P&D's version. The CUW brought a more balanced approach of select clear-cutting in the AVC, still allowing for an AVC but not allowing 300ft of shoreline to be clearcut all the way back to the home. One might argue that the CUW may have gone too protective, but certainly there would be the opportunity to discuss the differences and compromise with the P&D Committee at their aforementioned January 21st meeting.

Having attended that January 21st P&D meeting, I can tell you that no discussion between the CUW and the P&D took place. With CUW members Newman and Jensen in attendance, County Conservationist Michele Sadauskas of the Oneida County Land and Water Department (OCLW) shared an initial statement related to potential clear cutting language changes which the CUW Committee had earlier sent by letter to the P&D Committee for consideration. Sadauskas' initial statement was described as follows in the meeting minutes:

"Sadauskas noted that previous attempts to include clear cutting language did not advance beyond the Planning & Development Committee, which believed such provisions might conflict with DNR statues. However, multiple other counties have successfully implemented clear cutting prohibitions. Sadauskas presented two options for potential ordinance language. Option 3a allows select removal of trees and prohibits cutting trees larger than 4 inches diameter breast height. Option 3b includes the same provisions as option 3a, with an additional clause prohibiting landscaping activities involving filling, grading, and other land-disturbing actions."

Additionally, Sadauskas shared the CUW Committee's opinions on the P&D's SPO changes to landscaping definitions. She related that the CUW thought the definitions needed to be clearer. Also described in the meeting minutes Sadauskas questioned ambiguity in the P&D's current proposed landscaping language.

"P&D has proposed including ‘landscaping’, defined as the improvement of land appearance through planting trees, shrubs, or grasses, or by altering ground contours in the SPO. Sadauskas expressed concern that this definition is overly subjective and broad, potentially allowing for extensive land disturbance, including the use of bulldozers. This ambiguity has led to increased discussion around the need for clearer guidelines."

When Sadauskas asked if she should take a seat at the P&D meeting table to discuss the CUW recommendations, no invitation was offered by the P&D Committee. Instead, the P&D Committee participated in a short discussion amongst themselves pointing out some extremely rare instances where the CUW language might be an issue. That discussion was mostly led by Supervisor Almekinder who owns a construction company in Minocqua. In short order, the P&D Committee unanimously rejected the CUW recommendations without even discussing the landscaping language concern.

We at OCCWA still believe that a reasonable compromise can be had on SPO clear-cutting language as well as the landscaping definitions. The question becomes; would the P&D Committee even listen? Considering the P&D's SPO history provided, perhaps that question has already been answered.

The next to last chance for public input on the P&D's SPO language will be at the February 24th Public Hearing. At this time the County has not yet posted the agenda.

Changes to Clean Water Act put Wisconsin Wetlands at Risk

What measures will Wisconsin take to protect wetlands in lieu of latest blow to clean water act?

By Tom Wiensch January 29, 2026- It’s estimated that Wisconsin once had about 10 million acres of wetlands. The current inventory shows that nearly half of those wetlands have been destroyed. The contiguous 48 states as a whole have also lost about half of their original wetlands. In the bad old days, the value of wetlands was not recognized, and they were often seen as unproductive land, best filled in and converted to agriculture or development.

As time went by, it became clear that wetlands are a crucial part of a healthy landscape. Wetlands help protect against erosion flooding and severe weather, prevent the discharge of pollutants into navigable waterways, store water for droughts, and provide recreational opportunities. They filter water, store carbon, and provide habitat for many species of plants and animals. They also provide recreation including waterfowl and other hunting and fishing.

Degradation of wetlands has had large negative impacts. Examples abound. The destruction of wetlands has increased flooding and the property damage that is associated with it. Our capital city of Madison serves as an example. In pre-settlement days, much of what are now the east side and the downtown isthmus areas of Madison were wetlands. Most of those wetlands were filled in, with the filling going on into the 1950’s. The result has been flooding. In the 1990’s, houses on Lake Monona had to be sandbagged as their basements filled with flood water. In 2018 heavy flooding in Madison took a human life and did an enormous amount of property damage.

Over time, the intrinsic value of wetlands, and their value as protectors of human property became clear. Between the 1950’s when Madison ceased large-scale filling of wetlands, and the 1970’s, awareness of the value of wetlands grew. In 1972 the Clean Water Act of 1972 was passed but vetoed by President Richard Nixon. 35 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the Senate voted to override the veto of President Richard Nixon, and the act became law.

For the next 50 years, the act was integral to protecting the waters of the United States, including wetlands.

So, finally after the destruction of nearly half of America’s wetlands, everyone caught on to the tragedy of that loss and we now work together to ensure that what’s left of our wetlands is protected, right? Maybe not.

In 2023, in the case of Sackett v EPA, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water Act can regulate only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water (like streams, oceans, rivers, or lakes) such that they are “indistinguishable” from that water.

Sam Sankar of Earthjustice (formerly The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) has said “The Sackett decision undoes a half-century of progress generated by the Clean Water Act.” Earth Justice estimates that over half of the remaining wetlands in America – about 59 million acres, are at risk because of the Sackett decision. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the Sackett decision puts 6 million acres of wetlands at risk in Wisconsin alone. Of course, Congress could act to broaden the effect of the Clean Water Act to cover the now unprotected wetlands, but that hasn’t been done.

In late 2025, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed rules that would further define which wetlands would be protected under the Clean Water Act in light of the Sackett decision. Wisconsin Public Radio reports, under those proposed rules, only 13% of Wisconsin’s wetlands would be federally protected. Wisconsin Green Fire reports that the proposed rule would leave at least 4.5 million acres (about 75%) of wetlands in Wisconsin without federal oversight. The Wisconsin Green Fire website also notes that:

“Federal protection of waters under the Clean Water Act is important for water quality throughout the US and within Wisconsin. Waters and wildlife are not confined by state borders and impacts to waters in other parts of the country are often felt in Wisconsin. Additional losses to wetlands in neighboring states could diminish habitat for game and

non-game waterfowl that migrate to Wisconsin and exacerbate severe flooding, potentially putting a strain on the pool of national emergency relief dollars available to Wisconsin. Even with Wisconsin’s relatively robust state wetlands law and regulation, federal protections based on watershed science provide an important guarantee for Wisconsin’s resources against possible diminished capacities at the state level.”

Wisconsin Green Fire also reports that the wetlands which would likely not be federally regulated include: Wetlands and small streams in headwater areas; those that do not flow year-round; and wetlands that do not touch navigable waterways.

So, for the moment, much of the battle to save our remaining wetlands may be left to state and local governments. Different states offer differing levels of protection for wetlands. Wisconsin is generally thought of as offering more protection than many states, and it is hoped that the State will continue to protect our wetlands.

More recently, there is a new development in Wisconsin concerning wetland protection, and more specifically delineation of wetlands. Under Wisconsin law, before dredged material or fill can be discharged onto land, determinations must be made as to whether the affected lands are wetlands. In the event that such lands are wetlands, permits are required for filling.

In addition to having the DNR determine whether lands are wetlands, since 2006, in certain situations private persons can be used to make wetland determinations. Also, a pilot program is in place which expands the ability of landowners to use private parties to delineate wetlands.

State Senator Mary Felzkowski has sponsored legislation that would essentially make the pilot program permanent (2025 Wi AB 808.) The program would be known as the “Wetland Assured Delineation Program.” The program would allow landowners to use private parties to delineate wetlands, without the delineations having to be confirmed by the DNR.

The analysis of the bill by the Legislative Reference Bureau describes the current ways (not including the way allowed by the pilot program) of having wetlands be delineated. That description reads as follows:

“Under current law, a person who owns or leases land may use the following methods to delineate the boundaries of a wetland in a manner recognized by DNR:

the person may request that DNR provide a wetland identification to determine if wetlands are located on a parcel, or part of a parcel, that does not exceed five acres;
the person may have a third person prepare a wetland delineation and request that DNR confirm the boundaries of the wetland as delineated by that third person, based on DNR’s on-site inspection of the land; or
with respect to nonfederal wetlands, the person may have a qualified third person perform a wetland identification delineating the boundaries of a wetland and request DNR to confirm those boundaries, not based upon an on-site inspection of the land but rather based on a review of maps, aerial photographs, surveys, wetland delineations, and hydrophytic soil conditions. Under current law, nonfederal wetlands are wetlands that are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and a qualified third person is an individual who has completed basic and advanced wetland training and has a minimum of one year of field experience in wetland delineation.”

The Legislative Reference Bureau’s analysis goes on to explain the additional way of delineating wetlands that would be created if the bill is passed. The description is as follows:

“The bill adds a wetland assured delineation program as a fourth method for delineating the boundaries of a wetland in a manner recognized by DNR. Under the program, a person may apply to DNR to be certified as an assured delineator. A wetland delineation prepared by an assured delineator has the same effect as a wetland identification or confirmation prepared by DNR, and a wetland delineation prepared by an assured delineator need not be confirmed by DNR.”

In addition to expanding the use of private wetland delineators, the bill:

Allows the DNR to charge fees to be paid by private delineators and landowners;

allows the DNR to review the performance of private delineators,

allows the DNR to review complaints and revoke delineator certifications;

States that wetland delineations remain in effect for periods of five or 15 years.

Sets minimum educational and experience standards for delineators and allows the DNR to set additional standards.

Also notably included in the bill are the following:

The bill only allows the DNR, when reviewing complaints or auditing delineator performance, to investigate and examine delineations made within the previous 12 months;

The bill allows the DNR to revoke the certification of private delineators for a number of reasons, including certain misrepresentation and falsification. The bill says, however, that even if a delineator’s certification is revoked, the delineator may continue to do certain other wetland delineations allowed under the statutes;

The bill prohibits the DNR from modifying permit or exemption decisions on the basis of data gathered in complaint investigations or delineator performance reviews. Interestingly, the analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau says that the bill prohibits the DNR from using data gathered in in investigations as the sole basis for permit or exemption modification. In fact, the actual language of the bill does not use the word “sole” and indicates that the restriction is applied not only to data from investigations, but also from performance reviews. The absence of the word “sole” in the bill would make it appear that such information may not be used as even a partial basis for modification.

It would seem that the most likely ways for a delineator’s mistake or other wrongful delineation to be found would be through a performance review or a complaint investigation. With the DNR being barred from using such data as the basis (and perhaps even a partial basis) for modifying a permit or exemption, it’s hard to see how a landowner could be required to stop filling wetland or remove fill that was already wrongfully placed.

Thus, the bill expands the use of hired third parties to determine if lands to be filled are wetlands, without confirmation by DNR staff. This represents a movement away from involvement of professional DNR employees in determining whether lands to be filled are wetlands.

The bill raises a number of questions, including:

Why isn’t the DNR allowed to employ sufficient staff to make all wetland determinations? If the bill passes, landowners who employ private delineators will have to pay them. Why not have the DNR do the assessments and charge fees equivalent to what the private sector will charge? What is the value of privatizing and adding a profit motive to environmental oversight?
If the bill passes, will the DNR be given sufficient funding to adequately audit delineators so that it can be assured that wetlands aren’t destroyed?
Why shouldn’t the DNR auditors be allowed to review delineations made more than 12 months preceding the beginning of the audit or the filing of a complaint? Doesn’t the fact that delineations remain in effect for either five or 15 years argue against this limited look-back period?
Why does the bill prohibit the DNR from modifying a permit or exemption decision on the basis of data gathered in a complaint investigation or a performance review of a delineator? If it is found that the delineation was incorrectly made, shouldn’t the permit or exemption be modified so that wrongful filling of a wetland will cease and the problem be remediated regardless of how the mistake or misrepresentation was discovered?
Regarding performance reviews, what is meant by “a recurring basis”? How often will private delineators be reviewed? Especially if the 12-month lookback period is to remain in the bill, shouldn’t the audits occur at least annually and perhaps more frequently.
If the certification of a delineator is revoked, especially if it is revoked based on misrepresentation or falsification, why should the delineator be allowed to continue making certain other wetland delineations?
If delineators are found to have improperly conducted delineations, especially if misrepresentations or falsehoods are involved, shouldn’t there be penalties beyond revocation of certification?

The enormous reduction in federal protection of wetlands is very concerning. Hopefully the federal government will, at some point, act to again provide protection for those wetlands. It is also hoped that Wisconsin will continue its tradition of protecting wetlands. Expanding privatization of wetland delineation with limited DNR oversight is a significant step. If this is to be done, it should be done in a way that will ensure the protection of Wisconsin’s wetlands.

How One County Reimagined Lake Protection

The "why" and the "how" behind the Oneida County Lake Classification System.

By Beckie Gaskill January 28, 2026- There are projects that feel like work… and then there are projects that feel like stewardship. This one landed squarely in the second camp.

Over the past several years, I had the privilege of serving on a stakeholder committee tasked with helping Oneida County build an entirely new way to think about lake protection. I was only one of many people to give input on this project, but most of the heavy lifting was done by county land and water conservation department staff, with JoAnn Lund putting in what I know must have been hundreds of hours of work. With more than 1,100 lakes scattered across the county, and 451 of them officially named, this was no small lift. It was one of those “eat the elephant one bite at a time” undertakings, except the elephant was made of bathymetry, shoreline development, watershed dynamics, public access pressure, and invasive species.

And yet, it all came together. Earlier this month, the department released the results of this classification system, as well as protection ideas for each class of lakes in the county.

The result is a lake classification and protection framework that flips the traditional script. Instead of waiting until lakes show obvious signs of distress and then scrambling into costly restoration mode, this system prioritizes prevention, resilience, and proactive protection.

In plain language: keep healthy lakes healthy and give stressed lakes the tools they need before things get ugly.

Why Oneida County took this on

Like many places across Wisconsin, Oneida County has seen a surge in lake use: more recreation, more development, more pressure. Lakes aren’t just pretty postcards here. They are economic engines, cultural anchors, and ecological cornerstones.

Rather than watching lake health slowly slide and reacting later, the county chose a forward-thinking path: understand the vulnerability of each lake and match protection strategies accordingly.

This approach recognizes something we often forget that not all lakes respond to stress the same way. A small, shallow seepage lake at the top of a watershed behaves very differently than a deep, flow-through lake lower in the drainage.

So instead of using a one-size-fits-all model, the system evaluates each lake individually, then groups lakes with similar characteristics and risk profiles.

Translation: smarter decisions, better outcomes, and fewer wasted resources.

How the classification system works

Each named lake in Oneida County receives two major scores:

1. Physical sensitivity score

This reflects how vulnerable a lake is by nature, based on: - Lake size - Maximum depth - Shoreline shape and complexity - Hydrology (how water moves in and out)

These factors help determine how easily a lake can be pushed out of balance.

Smaller, shallower lakes, especially those high in the watershed, tend to be far more sensitive. Larger, deeper lakes lower in the drainage generally have more buffering capacity.

2. Watershed health score

This looks at the current condition of the lake and surrounding landscape, including: - Water quality - Land use - Development pressure - Ecological integrity

Together, these scores place each lake into one of three protection categories:

· Category 1 — High Protection Priority

· Category 2 — Moderate Protection Priority

· Category 3 — Lower Protection Priority

Out of 451 named lakes: - 133 fell into Category 1 - 287 into Category 2 - 31 into Category 3

Which is a pretty strong reminder that most lakes benefit from some level of thoughtful protection.

What these categories actually mean

This system doesn’t just label lakes. It connects each classification to specific, actionable protection strategies. I feel this is the biggest key of the classification system, and one that can be used as an example for lakes anywhere.

Instead of vague suggestions, lake groups and shoreline owners now have a clear menu of priorities tailored to their lake’s needs. And, I think, knowing where to start is three-quarters of the battle.

Examples include:

For lower-density and healthier lakes

· Shoreland and wetland protection

· Native vegetation buffers

· Citizen science monitoring

· Education and outreach

For more developed or higher-pressure lakes

· Comprehensive lake management planning

· Invasive species monitoring and control

· Water quality testing

· Strategic shoreline restoration

And because boat traffic and wake energy are increasingly shaping lake ecology, the system also addresses enhanced wake activity, public access pressure, and development density, which are three of the biggest emerging stressors statewide.

In total, the framework identifies 30 practical actions that lake groups and communities can take to reduce the four biggest threats to lake health:

1. Public access pressure

2. Shoreline development

3. Enhanced wakes

4. Aquatic invasive species

Why this matters far beyond Oneida County

This project isn’t just a win for northern Wisconsin. It’s a model that can be used well beyond the boundaries of the Northwoods.

As lake use intensifies statewide, communities everywhere are facing the same question:

How do we protect our lakes without crushing recreation, local economies, or property rights?

This classification system offers a roadmap that’s data-driven, practical, and adaptable. It shows that smart protection doesn’t have to mean heavy-handed regulation. It can mean targeted action, local decision-making, and community buy-in.

Better yet, it empowers lake organizations, municipalities, and landowners with information they can actually use.

A personal note

Being part of this committee wasn’t just professionally meaningful. It was grounding.

Because good conservation work isn’t loud.
It’s slow.
It’s methodical.
It’s collaborative.
It’s technical.
It’s built in rooms, not rallies.

It’s spreadsheets and maps and meetings and compromise and process. Sometimes the work behind the scenes, of conservationists, scientists, planners, and lake residents isn’t flashy or “cool.” And not all of us always agreed on the best way forward, but our collaboration focused on learning from each other and accepting views that were unlike our own. And, honestly, I think the world needs more of that.

This wasn’t just science; it was social learning as well. That’s truly what made this special. Then the county took over and did the real work to bring this all together. That, for sure, was not easy work.

And when it’s done right, most people never notice it happening. They just keep enjoying clean water, healthy ecosystems, and functioning lakes.

Which is exactly the point.

If you’re part of a lake organization or simply care about the future of Wisconsin’s waters, I highly recommend digging into this framework. It’s a masterclass in proactive conservation, and proof that when communities come together, real progress happens. See the full classification system as well as the potential protection actions on the Oneida County land and water conservation website oclw.org.

(And yes, if you ever want to geek out about lake classification systems over coffee, I’m your person.)

About Beckie:

Beckie Gaskill is a writer, environmentalist, entrepreneur, fisherwoman, and so much more! She plies her trade all across the Northwoods and is a Wisconsin treasure. We at OCCWA are always grateful when she shares an article with us. Thank you, Beckie!

You can follow Beckie on her two Substack accounts at:

The Watershed Watch | Beckie Gaskill | Substack

Midwest Conservation | Beckie Gaskill | Substack

You can view Beckie's Field to Fenceline show on Marshfield Now Channel at:

Field to Fenceline

You can also visit Beckie's Bait Shop at:

FLaG Bait Shop – fishlikeagirlus

Effect of Clean Water on Total Well-Being

Opinion piece reflects on environmental health's connection to total well-being in Northwoods.

By Kathleen Cooper January 15, 2026- We spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is good for us. We do our best to take care of ourselves and each other, work hard to make a good living, and here at OCCWA, try our best to preserve and maintain clean water in Oneida County. We look at statistics, graphs, and studies to find out how damaging our water supply will affect us and our environment physically. But the statistics we are given don’t tell the whole story. There is one indicator that is usually left out, because it is less quantifiable and harder to define. That indicator is well being.

Well-being is another reason that we at OCCWA persist in protecting our water. We know that clean water is important for our bodies; it keeps us healthy, hydrated, free from disease, and better able to heal any diseases we may contract. But there is another reason that clean water is good for us. Looking at clean, clear rivers, lakes, and streams also inspires us, reminds us of how beautiful our world is, opens our eyes to the beauty in our environment, and the beauty in the hearts of all of us. This is well-being, and it has been quantified by several major studies.

One such study was done by the University of Oxford. It found that workers who were happier were 13% more productive. A Ziraat Bank Research analysis showed a positive relationship between happiness and performance, confirming happy workers are more effective. Another long term study by Positive Psychology and Neuroscience supports the “happiness advantage” where positive emotions enhance performance and achievement across individuals and teams. These studies demonstrate that investing in well-being is a strategic driver for enhanced individual and organizational success.

Aside from improving our productivity, other studies have consistently shown that spending time in nature improves mental health (reducing stress, anxiety, and depression) and physical health (lowering blood pressure, improving sleep, boosting immunity, encouraging exercise, enhancing creativity) by providing mental restoration, regulating hormones, and supporting physical activity and vitamin D production, with benefits seen from just 20 minutes in nature. 20 minutes! Studies supporting being nurtured by nature can be found on the NIH website, and have been done by the University of California, American Psychological Association, Harvard, and Michigan State University, to name a few.

What does this have to do with clean water? It’s simple - the forest and wetlands filter our water, for free! Nature reduces the amount of artificial treatment needed to filter water and also contributes to the prevention of flooding. In nature, water is filtered through layers of soil, sand, rock, and other natural materials, like leaves. Healthy forests and wetlands contribute to healthy water, and since human bodies are 60-70% water, that is important. What is good for our natural environment is good for our water, and beautiful environments and clean water are good for us in many more ways than we can imagine.

Would you rather see a clear-cut field full of stumpage and destruction, rutted with tire tracks and discarded dead branches, or a living forest - green, shady, filled with beauty, stillness, and peace? Would you rather see the dirty, dusty, barren landscape of a mine, the adjacent waterways foul smelling and stained reddish brown from pollution, or clear, clean rivers, lakes, streams, and waterfalls, with wild animals stopping for a cool drink? Which scene inspires you and fills your head and heart with peace?

This is why we at OCCWA keep working to preserve what we have and to find ways to clean up what has already been polluted. A healthy environment and clean water are good for both our bodies and our souls. When we feel good emotionally, we are healthier, we work harder, we play more, we are more creative. We play with our kids and grandkids more. We have more fun and more peace. When we take deep breaths in these beautiful places, it feels like we are breathing in love, peace, well being - everything that is good in this world, everything that nurtures us and reminds us of our humanity. It’s like breathing in miracles with every breath. We have all felt it as we stand in the forest, our eyes wide open in awe and appreciation, our mouths curved in smiles. We are not outsiders visiting these environments, we are part of these environments, and are meant to be there. In these days of chaos and turmoil, I think we can all use more of that. At Oneida County Clean Waters Action, our mission is to create a sustainable future for all. We believe that everyone can make an impact and that small actions can lead to big changes. Through our initiatives and advocacy, we aim to raise awareness about the importance of environmental sustainability and empower individuals and communities to take action.

Expanded PFAS Testing Requires More Participation

Federal PFAS funding may not accomplish all that was expected in Onieda County

By Eric Rempala January 9, 2026- The WDNR shared an update on their expanded PFAS well testing in Oneida County. As you may recall, the WDNR has offered targeted free PFAS testing of private wells to determine where else PFAS may be located in the county. The targeted testing has consisted of expanding testing outward from the town of Stella with emphasis on properties near agricultural land. The towns of Pelican, Crescent, Pine Lake, Newbold and Sugar Camp were all part of the latest testing offered.

Why agricultural fields? Well, the WDNR has established that one source of PFAS in Oneida County, and specifically in Stella's case was sludge spreading on agricultural fields by paper mills. Paper mill sludge also known as biosolids were spread on farm fields for years as a free source of fertilizer.

The expanded test results are promising. No such PFAS contamination the likes of Stella have been detected so far. In the town of Stella some PFAS numbers topped out in the tens of thousands of parts per trillion (PPT). With PFAS numbers in the expanded well tests coming back at much lower numbers than Stella, there is cause for guarded optimism going forward.

One point of concern from the expanded testing is the lack of residents taking advantage of offered free PFAS testing. The EPA has provided funding for approximately 400 wells to be tested in an effort to determine the extent of PFAS contamination in Oneida County. With only 113 private well owners taking advantage of the 457 offer letters sent out by the WDNR, one wonders if the EPA's dollars may dry up rather than be exhausted. It would be a shame to not take advantage of federal monies, particularly since our legislators have held up state PFAS funding for private well owners for years now.

With that being said, over 300 second chance letters have been sent out by the WDNR. The hope is that more residents will participate and more information may be garnered in the expanded PFAS investigation. Let's hope this is not an opportunity lost.

Below is the latest expanded testing information provided by WDNR:

Expanded Oneida County Private Well PFAS Sampling as of December 31, 2025

Overall Summary: 113 Private Well Results

· 15 PFAS detected greater than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 31 PFAS detected less than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 67 No PFAS detected

Town of Crescent-South: 31 private well results

· 8 PFAS detected greater than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 15 PFAS detected less than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 13 No PFAS detected

Town of Newbold: 22 private well results

· 2 PFAS detected greater than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 4 PFAS detected below DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 16 No PFAS detected

Town of Pelican: 8 private well results

· 8 No PFAS detected

Town of Pine Lake: 13 private well results

· 3 PFAS detected greater than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 5 PFAS detected below DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 5 No PFAS detected

Town of Stella: 14 private well results

· 1 PFAS detected greater than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 4 PFAS detected below DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 9 No PFAS detected

Town of Sugar Camp: 20 private well results

· 1 PFAS detected greater than DHS drinking water health advisory levels

· 3 PFAS detected below DHS drinking water advisory levels

· 16 No PFAS detected

Oneida County Expanded Private Well PFAS Sampling Project Timeline:

April 25, 2025 Contract established with Northern Lake Service LLC

June 30, 2025 50 Offer letters – Town of Crescent – South

July 21, 2025 50 Offer letters – Town of Crescent – South

August 16, 2025 50 Offer letters – Town of Crescent – South/Town of Newbold

September 5, 2025 50 Offer letters – Town of Newbold

September 26, 2025 50 Offer letters – Towns of Newbold, Stella and Sugar Camp

October 17, 2025 50 Offer letters – Town of Sugar Camp

October 30, 2025 70 Second chance offer letters – Town of Crescent – South

November 7, 2025 51 Offer letters – Town of Sugar Camp

November 28, 2025 50 Offer letters – Towns of Sugar Camp and Pine Lake

December 12, 2025 63 Second Offer Letters - Towns of Sugar Camp and Pine Lake

7 Second Offer Letters – Town of Newbold

December 22, 2025 56 Offer letters – Town of Crescent - North

457 offer letters sent to date (a few others sent – 10 or so)

133 second chance letters sent to Town of Crescent-South and 7 for Town of Newbold

Outstanding Activities:

191 Second chance letters – Towns of Crescent – North, Newbold, Pelican, Pine Lake, Sugar Camp & Stella

Refine offerings based on analytical results.

Housing Bill Disregards Environmental Impacts

Assembly Bill 449 could double septic system loads on lake shore properties.

By Eric Rempala December 30, 2025- Recently there have been rumblings out of Vilas County about 2025 Assembly Bill 449 (AB 449). Credit due to our neighbors to the north, AB 449 could have major impacts, not the least of which would be increased environmental stress on Wisconsin lakes and rivers. AB 449 originally was proposed as a way to increase affordable housing. The gist of the original version of the bill would allow accessory dwelling units (ADU's) to be added to all existing structures, thus increasing housing availability. ADU's are commonly referred to as granny flats, in-law units/suites, backyard cottages, guest houses, and secondary units.

A summary of the original AB 449 by Fast Democracy, Bill tracking in Wisconsin - AB 449 (2025-2026 legislative session) - FastDemocracy states:

"Assembly Bill 449 mandates that political subdivisions with zoning ordinances permit at least one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on each residentially or mixed-use zoned parcel containing an existing single-family dwelling. The bill defines an ADU as a residential unit that provides independent living facilities and has a separate entrance from the main dwelling. It allows local governments to impose certain restrictions, such as limiting the size of the ADU to the square footage of the existing single-family home, regulating its height, ensuring compliance with setback and lot coverage requirements, and prohibiting the use of newly created ADUs as short-term rentals.
The bill introduces new sections to the statutes, specifically 59.69 (16), 60.61 (3o), and 62.23 (7) (j), which outline the definitions and regulations surrounding ADUs. These sections clarify that a permitted use does not require conditional use, variance, or special approval, thus streamlining the process for homeowners looking to add an ADU. The legislation aims to address housing availability and affordability by facilitating the development of additional living units within existing residential areas. The bill is set to take effect on the first day of the seventh month following its publication."

Note the bolded type stating the prohibiting of the use of newly created ADU's as short term rentals. Now look below at original AB 449 language as well as the adopted Amendment 1 version of AB 449. Comparing the original to the amended, you will see the prohibition on turning new ADU's into short term rentals has disappeared.

Original AB 449 language:

16(c) An ordinance under this section may do any of the following.

1. Limit the size of an accessory dwelling unit to not larger than the square footage of the existing single-family dwelling on the same parcel.

2. Limit the height of an accessory dwelling unit, other than an accessory dwelling unit that is a conversion of an existing legal nonconforming structure, to not greater than the maximum height permitted in the underlying zoning district.

3. Require that an accessory dwelling unit satisfy current setback and lot coverage requirements.

4. Notwithstanding s. 66.1014, prohibit the use of an accessory dwelling unit created on a parcel after the effective date of this subdivision .... [LRB inserts date], as a short-term rental, as defined in s. 66.0615 (1) (dk).

ASSEMBLY SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT 1, TO ASSEMBLY BILL 449 October 15, 2025 - Offered by Representative Scott Allen who serves most of the City of Waukesha, along with parts of the Village. (c) An ordinance under this section may do any of the following:

1. Limit accessory dwelling units that are allowed as permitted uses under par. (b) to accessory dwelling units that are created by converting an existing structure.

2. Limit the size of an accessory dwelling unit to not larger than the square footage of the existing single-family dwelling on the same parcel.

3. Limit the height of an accessory dwelling unit, other than an accessory dwelling unit that is a conversion of an existing legal nonconforming structure, to not greater than the maximum height permitted in the underlying zoning district.

4. Require that an accessory dwelling unit satisfy current setback and lot coverage requirements.

The amendment removing the prohibition on short term rentals becomes very concerning for numerous reasons, but the one we'll be focusing on is the potential for any current housing unit to double in size by creating an ADU. Imagine doubling the impact of septic fields on shoreland properties, whether by short term rental or a more permanent rental method.

Failing or improperly maintained septic systems pose a significant environmental and public health risk to Wisconsin's lakes and streams, primarily through the contamination of surface water and groundwater with pathogens, nitrates, phosphorus, PFAS, and household chemicals. Anyone living in the Northwoods should be familiar with a failing septic field's effect on lakes.

One of the points of concern brought up about the bill in Vilas County was, " It effectively doubles the density on every property in Vilas County. This is especially troublesome on riparian parcels where parcel size standards cannot be altered." Riparian areas of course would be the most vulnerable to increased septic field usage.

Riparian Areas definition

Location: Directly adjacent to streams, rivers, lakes, and other water bodies (streambanks, floodplains).
Key Feature: Distinct vegetation and soil moisture influenced by the water body, creating a gradient from water to upland.
Function: Water quality filtering, erosion control (bank stabilization), habitat corridors, flood reduction, and temperature regulation for water.
Management and Threats

Riparian areas are among the most altered and vulnerable landscapes due to human activity.

Key Threats: Major stressors include invasive species, livestock overgrazing, urbanization, and climate change, which alters flow regimes.

Another concern of the amended AB 449 is it effectively removes local discretion and regulations to prohibit ADUs. State Legislators recently have actively been stripping away local control on many issues, with two examples being Act 55 limiting local Shoreland Zoning protections and Act 12 banning local referenda. In a submission to the public hearing on AB 449 the Village of Ashwaubenon stated their concerns of the loss of critical local tools.

"Under AB 449, municipalities would be required to allow at least one ADU on every parcel with an existing single-family dwelling, effectively removing local discretion and regulations to prohibit ADUs. This restriction could create unintended consequences, including increased density in neighborhoods not equipped with the infrastructure to support it, potential strain on local services, and challenges for existing residents regarding privacy, parking, and neighborhood character. While the bill allows some regulatory measures, such as size, height, and setback limits, the prohibition on conditional use or special approvals removes a critical tool for local governments to ensure that new development aligns with community planning goals."

It's expected that Vilas County as well as other counties will be considering AB 449 as it's currently written and begin to create resolutions to move forward to oppose the bill. We also would expect the Oneida County Conservation Committee to take this issue up at their next scheduled meeting in January. There's little doubt that the Conservation Committee is aware of the potential consequences of AB 449 and hopefully a thoughtful recommendation or resolution will be forwarded to the P&D Committee for consideration.

OCCWA will continue to monitor the AB 449 situation. Stay tuned!

Politics Killing Conservation in Wisconsin?

Legislators failing Knowles Nelson Program which has 90% public approval polling.

By Tom Wiensch December 12, 2025- Many would say that the heart and soul of outdoor recreation in Wisconsin is based on public access. This includes public landings on our waterways, but also access to land to hunt, hike, snowmobile, ride atv’s, and more.

In this regard, Wisconsin has advantages over some places. We have many beaches and boat landings, a reasonable stream access law, and a moderate amount of public land (The Natural Resources Council of Maine reports that Wisconsin is near the middle of the pack when it comes to ownership of land by the State and Federal Government, ranking 18th in the nation.

On the other hand, Wisconsin doesn’t have as much public land as its neighbors, Minnesota and Michigan. The Natural Resources Council of Maine reports that 16.21% of Wisconsin is owned by the State and Federal Government combined. For Minnesota, the percentage is 17.57 and for Michigan, 22.47.

There has been a long legacy of protecting lands and allowing for public access in Wisconsin. It is unclear whether and to what extent Wisconsin will continue that legacy and compete with its neighbors.

It seems unlikely that there will be any new National Forests or State Forests added to Wisconsin. The days of using those programs to protect huge tracts of land are essentially over.

On the other hand, few would argue against the idea that there are more special places in Wisconsin that need to be protected. One of the most important remaining means of protecting more industrial forests and special recreational places is the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.

Created in 1989 and named after former Wisconsin Governor Warren Knowles (R) and Former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson (D), the program has protected land and provided recreational opportunities in every county of the state.

Polling has shown that about 90% of Wisconsin residents support the program. The K-N program has not only been used to acquire land, but also to develop town parks, recreational trails, boat landings, and other recreation facilities, and to fight against aquatic invasive species.

Throughout most of its history, the K-N program was also popular with politicians from both sides of the aisle. In recent times that seems to be changing. Relatively recently, the law was changed to require that no K-N funds may be spent on any land acquisition project north of Highway 8 unless every city, village, town, or county in which the land is located adopts a resolution approving the acquisition. This provision will likely hamper land acquisition in the north, the very part of the state where most undeveloped land exists.

In just the past few years, the opposition to the K-N Program has grown among Republicans in the Legislature. Evidence of this came when the Pelican River Forest Easement was being established. The Pelican River Forest, consisting of about 70,000 acres, was purchased by The Conservation Fund. The land provided an important link between the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and the Oneida County Forest and contains parts of the headwaters of the Pelican, Wisconsin, and Wolf Rivers.

The Conservation Fund sought to sell a conservation easement to the State before selling the land. The easement was to ensure that the forest would not be developed and would remain open for logging and recreation. The project was divided into two parts. The federal government, with a match from K-N paid for the first part. When it came time to finance the second part, however, Senator Mary Felzkowski (R) blocked the K-N funding that was to match the federal funds. Ultimately the state was able to purchase the easement, however the matching funds came from philanthropic sources instead.

The manner in which Felzkowski stopped the financing was examined closely by many. The statutes pertaining to the K-N program allowed any member of the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee to anonymously block funding of any K-N project.

This provision of the statutes came under criticism by many Democrats as being non-democratic. Subsequently, Governor Tony Evers and others brought suit, arguing that the ability of the JFC to block financing violated the doctrine of separation of powers. Evers and the other plaintiffs succeeded when the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and struck down that part of the law as being unconstitutional.

This decision of the court drew the ire of many in the Republican party. For instance, Mark Born (R), Chair of the JFC stated:

“It’s unfortunate that Governor Evers’ lawsuit removed all accountability of The Stewardship program, which helped ensure local voices were heard and that taxpayer resources were spent wisely . . .”

and

“The entire program is now in jeopardy.”

Of course, there was nothing intrinsic to the court’s ruling that put the program in jeopardy. What could put the program in jeopardy are attempts by politicians to damage or kill it.

Presently, the K-N program is funded through June 30, 2026. Whether and to what extent it will be funded after that has become increasingly unclear. The following is an outline of some of the things that have happened regarding K-N and federal funding relating to land acquisition and conservation in Wisconsin.

On August 13, 2024, Wisconsin voters were given the chance to vote on two constitutional amendments backed by Republican politicians and designed to shift the ability to distribute federal funds (including federal funds for land conservation) from the Governor to the Legislature. Wisconsin voters refused to authorize these amendments.

In September of 2024, the Wisconsin DNR submitted a proposed budget calling for funding of the K-N program for 10 years at the rate of $100 million per year. In 2021, Governor Evers had proposed funding Knowles-Nelson at $70 million annually for 10 years. The program only ended up being authorized at $33 million per year, and only for four years. Apparently, the Governor’s more recent request for a higher amount was made out of recognition that the funding over the previous four years was set at a relatively low level.

Representatives Tony Kurtz (R) and Patrick Testin (R), Vice Chairs of the JFC issued a statement indicating that they felt that reauthorization of the K-N Program should be addressed in a stand-alone bill, rather than as part of the biennial budget. Kurtz and Testin co-sponsored a bill providing for reauthorization and $28 million in annual funding for the K-N program. The bill contained provisions that would force the program to always prioritize land management over land acquisition. It also required full legislative approval of land acquisitions costing over $100 million.

The Legislature presented a 2015-2027 biennial budget bill that did not include funding for the K-N program. The Governor signed that bill in July of 2025. The Senate failed to act on the Kurtz-Testin bill as part of the budget process.

In August of 2025, Senator Jodi Habush-Sinykin (D) and Representative Vinnie Miresse (D) introduced a bill that would fund the program for six years at the rate of $72 million per year.

On November 5, 2025, the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks & Outdoor Recreation took up Assembly Bill 612, a companion bill to Assembly Bill 315. AB 315 is the Kurtz-Testin Bill on funding. AB 612 deals with administration of the Program. It is thought by some that the legislation was split into two bills as a tactic to avoid a partial veto by the Governor, as the Governor only has partial veto power on spending bills. The proposed legislation created two separate tracks for funding of land conservation by non-profit organizations – one track for land acquisition and one for land management. The proposed legislation included the requirements of legislative reviews of certain acquisition projects and prioritization of management over acquisition.

On November 12, 2025, the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks & Outdoor Recreation met and adopted an amendment to lower the threshold for required legislative approval of land acquisition to $250,000. This would mean that, even after the DNR approved a project that cost over $250,000, both houses of the Legislature would have to vote to approve the project. The Amendment was passed by the Committee, on a 7-5 in favor with all Democrats and Representative Melotic voting against it. The Committee did not vote to advance the bill. Of the twelve members on the committee, all four Democrats (Palmeri, Andracca, Udell, and Miresse) voted against the bill. Also, two of the Republican members (Swearingen and Callahan) voted against the bill. The other six republicans (Mursau, Melotik, Tittl, Pronschinske, Moses, and Wichgers) voted for it. Despite the committee not voting in favor of the bill, it will move forward, but without any recommendation from the Committee.

Gathering Waters, Wisconsin’s Alliance for Land Trust reports that the Democrats who voted against the bill did so because their concerns were not addressed, and that Swearingen and Callahan voted against the bill out of a belief that there is already too much K-N conserved land in their districts. Gathering Waters also reports that of Callahan’s district, 4% of the land has been conserved by the Program and in Swearingen’s district, 4.7% of the land has been conserved by the Program.

In contrast to the amended Kurtz-Testin Bill, the Sinykin-Miresse Bill would create an independent, bi-partisan council to approve larger projects. To date, no Committee has taken up the Sinykin-Miresse Bill.

It is unclear what will happen next and whether the K-N Program will be reauthorized and funded in any amount before it expires on June 30 of this year. If not, there will be no K-N funding for management and maintenance of previous K-N projects, which include boat landings, recreational trails, town and city parks and much more. There also will not be K-N funding for land acquisition and for other projects that K-N has funded in the past such as aquatic invasive species control.

Voice your support for Knowles Nelson at: Take Action – Knowles Nelson Stewardship

Wisconsin Examiner December 9, Knowles Nelson piece- ‘Just don’t kill it’: Wisconsin land trusts face 2026 expiration of Knowles-Nelson stewardship fund • Wisconsin Examiner

DNR Answers Oneida County PFAS Questions

OCCWA shares DNR answers to specific PFAS questions to help public better understand situation.

By OCCWA Staff November 21, 2025- As Oneida County residents are aware, the county has experienced multiple PFAS contaminations dating back to the City of Rhinelander closing two of its wells near the Rhinelander Airport. The Rhinelander PFAS contamination was PFHxS commonly used in airport firefighting foam. Years later, PFAS contamination was detected in the Town of Stella. The Stella PFAS contamination being PFOA and PFOS commomly found in biosolid spreading. Other less severe PFAS contamination also have been detected in other parts of the county.

Trying to keep track of the different contaminations has become quite difficult. We at Oneida County Clean Waters Action (OCCWA) have done our level best to inform the public. With the recent Town of Stella's DNR, DHS, EPA meeting on October 1st and the DNR expanding testing in Oneida County to determine if PFAS may be more widespread, keeping track is near impossible.

With that in mind, we solicited the DNR to answer a few additional PFAS questions that we could share on our occwa.org website. Well, a few questions turned into 34! To the DNR's credit, they did not hesitate to reply to our request promptly and in a most professional manner. If you have been following our PFAS coverage over the years, you would already know that that is not a surprise. We at OCCWA have never been disappointed with any of our many DNR interactions both local and Madison based. We thank them for their patience.

The questions below are questions submitted to the DNR by our organization (OCCWA). The answers below are the exact responses the DNR provided. It is our hope that most if not all the information will help residents better understand the many different and complex PFAS issues they may be facing. We encourage you to share this information with friends and neighbors.

OCCWA questions pertaining to DNR expanded testing for PFSAS in Oneida County

1) Is the expanded PFAS testing in Oneida County for PFOA and PFOS only? 

DNR Answer DNR Answer The project utilizes EPA Method 537.1, which reports results for 18 PFAS compounds.

2) Are any of the offered test sites close enough to Rhinelander to include testing for PFHxS? 

DNR Answer Invitations to sample will be sent to residents in the Town of Crescent – North near Rhinelander. This sampling with utilize EPA Method 537.1, which reports results for 18 PFAS compounds including PFHxS.

3) If the DNR only is testing for PFOA and PFOS, does that mean any other PFAS compounds would not be detected? 

DNR Answer The project utilizes EPA Method 537.1, which reports results for 18 PFAS compounds.

4) Has the DNR's survey of companies who used PFAS in the past helped in determining where to test and for what PFAS type?

DNR Answer That data was collected by the RR Program in response to PFAS detection in municipal wells located on the airport. Information about land use that is similar to the Town of Stella was utilized to target potential private wells for PFAS analysis in other Townships in Oneida County.

5) Have the property addresses that were offered PFAS testing been shared with their respective town boards? 

DNR Answer The town chair people of each township were notified by letter prior to the sampling of the effort. Results have been shared upon request.

6) Have the property addresses that were offered PFAS testing been shared with Oneida County? 

DNR Answer The Oneida County Health Department has been copied on all correspondence regarding private well PFAS results.  The DNR and Department of Health Services continue to hold regular check-ins with Oneida County Health Department about the expanded sampling project and PFAS impacts in the county.

7) Will the PFAS test results be shared for individual properties, or only shared as an aggregate? 

DNR Answer Private well PFAS test results are being tracked utilizing Wisconsin Unique Well Numbers (WUWN). Individual pdf files are created for each WUWN and will be posted on BRRTS Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS) on the Web | | Wisconsin DNR. (EPA owns the data.)

8) Will bottled water be provided by the DNR to property owners whose tests comeback above state standards? 

DNR Answer Wisconsin does not currently have state groundwater standards for PFAS. However, Wisconsin Administrative Code ch. NR 738 allows for the provision of emergency bottled water if results exceed DHS recommendations. Property owners whose wells have results in excess of DHS recommendations will be offered emergency bottled water.

9) Will the DNR provide well grants to property owners whose tests comeback above state standards much like Stella residents were provided? 

DNR Answer The state statutory well compensation program is available to impacted well owners. 

10) Regardless of the expanded PFAS testing results, does the DNR expect to expand testing further? 

DNR Answer If funding becomes available, the department may offer additional testing.

11) Could you please explain the DNR/EPA coordination efforts in the expanded testing? 

DNR Answer The DNR worked with EPA to secure funding to analyze PFAS levels in drinking water wells in the townships surrounding the Town of Stella. This involved creating a project plan that outlined sampling areas, targeted wells, communication tools, and resources for impacted wells. The EPA approved this plan and worked with their contractor to secure a contract with Northern Lakes Services lab in Crandon to analyze the drinking water samples for PFAS. The DNR volunteered to serve as the project facilitator, which involves coordinating offers to sample with well owners, sample kit pick up, communication of results to owners of wells sampled, connecting impacted well owners to available resources (i.e. emergency temporary bottled water and the Well Compensation Grant Program), as well as answering all questions from area residents about the project. The DNR does not receive any funding for their coordination of the project. The DNR continues to coordinate with the EPA on the sampling and investigatory work being done in Oneida Co. These partners meet regularly to provide updates and information.

12) Without the EPA provided funding for testing, would the DNR have the financial resources to conduct the current expanded PFAS testing? 

DNR Answer The DNR does not currently have any additional funds to continue the expanded sampling.

13) Does the DNR have any indication from the state as to where funding for expanded testing and well compensation will come from going forward if Senate Bill 128 fails to get resolved and passed?

DNR Answer No.

14) Is the DNR aware of any specific PFAS related funding in the state's latest approved budget for private well owners?

DNR Answer No.

15) With the current expanded PFAS testing focused on areas near agricultural fields, will the DNR be using their historical Biosolid permitting records to better pinpoint areas of concern?

DNR Answer The DNR identified areas with similar conditions as the Town of Stella. Such similarities include the general groundwater flow and proximity to known biosolid spreading sites as well as private well construction.

16) With the know PFAS contamination at MHLT elementary school, are there any plans on offering PFAS testing in that area? 

DNR Answer Not at this time. If PFAS Trust Fund money or other funding becomes available, grant money could become available for municipalities and/or counties to undertake PFAS sampling in targeted areas.

17) Does the DNR have an idea of when companies in Oneida County stopped using PFOA and PFOS?DNR Answer Not at this time.

OCCWA follow up questions from Town of Stella October 1st meeting

1a) The DNR sent questionnaire letters to past biosolid spreading entities in Oneida County asking detailed questions as to what PFAS products they used and when. What is the DNR hoping to determine from the questionnaire results?

DNR Answer The DNR seeks to better understand where PFAS-containing solid waste may be located or has been discharged.

1b) Has any progress been made with this investigation?

DNR Answer On Sept. 26, 2025, the DNR issued two Responsible Party letters. These letters are available on the Bureau of Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTs). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also has a website with information about the town of Stella.

1c) What if any benefits could there be to the town of Stella or Oneida County from this investigation?

DNR Answer A “responsible party” under the Spills Law and Wis. Admin. Code § NR 700.03(51) must follow applicable law to address the discharge of a hazardous substance to the environment or other environmental pollution. Wisconsin Stat. ch. 292 and Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 700-799 provide specific requirements for undertaking appropriate response actions to address contamination, including requirements for emergency and interim actions, public information, site investigations, remedy selection, design and operation of remedial action systems, and case closure.CERCLA, informally called Superfund, is a program through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allows EPA to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work.When there is no viable responsible party, Superfund gives EPA the funds and authority to clean up contaminated sites.

2.) Since the DNR adopted a biosolid interim strategy https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/PFAS/PFAS_BiosolidsInterimStrategy.pdf based on the state of Michigan's researched standards, and Michigan has since lowered their allowable PFAS number in biosolids, is the state of Wisconsin/DNR planning on following suit?

DNR Answer The department is currently working on updates to the interim strategy.

3.) Since the town of Stella's fields, surface water, and aquifers already have PFAS contamination above the state of Wisconsin's allowable levels, would it not be prudent to ban all spreading of biosolids in Stella regardless of their PFAS levels?

DNR Answer There are currently no state or federal standards for the allowable levels of PFAS in biosolids. There are also no state standards for PFAS in groundwater that could be used to determine protective levels of PFAS in biosolids. The department has developed the Interim Strategy for Land Application of Biosolids and Industrial Sludges Containing PFAS to help wastewater treatment facility operators make decisions on handling biosolids and industrial sludge that contains PFAS.

4a.) Can the DNR suspend (not permit) biosolid spreading in Stella?

DNR Answer No

4b.) If no, please give explanation

5.) Has the City of Rhinelander's waste treatment plant's biosolids been tested for PFAS, if so, what were the PFAS levels?

DNR Answer The City of Rhinelander recently shared results of PFAS testing they performed on their biosolids. The PFOS results were 43 ppb and the PFOA results were 4.6 ppb for a combined PFOS + PFOA concentration of 47.6 ppb.

6.) How many locations in Stella have received City of Rhinelander biosolid waste over the years?

DNR Answer Eight sites have been used by the City of Rhinelander in the Township of Stella between 1997 and 2011.

7.) Were any of the soil samples taken by the EPA from fields that had Rhinelander wastewater sourced biosolids spread?

DNR Answer Yes. We expect analytical results from this sampling event in early 2026.

8.) Are there any plans to request biosolid testing for PFAS from the Rhinelander waste treatment plant outside of their normal permit timeline requirement, much like was requested from the Ahlstrom Munksjo mill?

DNR Answer The City of Rhinelander has provided PFAS monitoring results for their biosolids.

9.a) Is Stella PFAS testing of water and soils limited to PFOA and PFOS?

DNR Answer No

9b.) If no can you share the other PFAS compounds sampled for each?

DNR Answer Analysis for PFAS in surface waters and soil is done using EPA method 1633A, which analyzes for 40 PFAS compounds.

10.) Most PFAS contamination in Wisconsin involves a small number of tightly spaced point sources. What additional challenges do you see where the contamination involves many dozens of point sources spread over a large area such as Stella/Oneida County?DNR Answer The DNR continues to prioritize a health-based approach by cutting off the exposure pathway, primarily through the provision of bottled water.

11.a) According to the September 2021 EPA multi-industry report: "As of July 2021, the four Ahlstrom-Munksjö Wisconsin facilities are applying coatings containing PFAS to impart oil and grease resistance to food service products. Has either DNR or EPA done any testing to determine whether past chemistry at those mills has caused a problem?

DNR Answer The DNR has not done this type of testing.

11b) Has DNR encountered any other situations where PFAS-contaminated paper mill waste has been spread on land?

DNR Answer The department has very limited historical data on PFAS concentrations in paper mill sludge. Results received since we started requiring monitoring in WPDES permits have indicated PFOS + PFOA concentrations less than 5 ppb for a very limited data set.

11c) Has DNR identified the other three Ahlstrom mills and determined whether any of them has land spread their waste?

DNR Answer There are currently 4 Ahlstrom Munksjo facilities with individual wastewater permits:· DePere (Brown County, NER) – WI-0001473 – No land application is allowed in the permit, wastewater is discharged only to the City of DePere.· Mosinee (Marathon County, WCR) – WI-0003671 – Land application is allowed in the permit, but biosolids are being incinerated or landfilled (per 3400-52 forms from 2019 through 2024). Annual PFAS sampling is required since 2024 whether land application occurs or not· Thilmany Road (Outagamie County, NER) – WI-0000825 – No land application is allowed in the permit, sludge is landfilled.· Rhinelander (Oneida County, NOR) – WI-0003026 – Currently land applies. Annual PFAS sampling is required since 2024.

12.) Is there an allowable limit for PFAS in soil as there is for drinking water?

DNR Answer The DNR establishes soil cleanup standards called residual contaminant levels (RCLs) that can assist in determining human health risk and establish if a soil cleanup or capping is needed to address the contamination. RCLs are calculated using U.S. EPA's regional screening level (RSL) web calculator and following the procedures in NR 720.12 for determining soil direct-contact RCLs protective of human health.

13.) Is there another source of funding available to the DNR to address Stella's PFAS issues outside of funding from a bill such as SB128?

DNR Answer No, not at this time.If the funds are released by the legislature, Wisconsin's PFAS Trust Fund could be utilized by local communities to conduct additional sampling and continue to gather more information about the community-specific impacts. It could also be used to support beneficial activities that would disrupt exposure to PFAS – whether additional resources for clean water or different agricultural interventions and beyond.

Clarification Questions on Enforcement Discretion Policy

1) Could you Please clarify what is meant by WDNR Enforcement Discretion Policy?

2) Is there actually a policy or is it just language in NR 700?

3) Is Memo: PFAS Enforcement Discretion for Farmers considered a policy or just an interpretation of NR 700?

4) What weight does a memo such as this carry, and can the position be altered at a later date?

DNR Answer Questions 1 thru 4 The DNR has not and does not intend to pursue farmers [Memo: PFAS Enforcement Discretion for Farmers] who own agricultural land for response actions or costs related to unintentional PFAS contamination resulting from permitted land spreading. The DNR will continue to work with communities and stakeholders to determine whether and how additional enforcement discretion may be applied.

Mining Company Eying Spring Exploration in Schoepke

Metallic Sulfide Mining could be the result of Canadian company's exploration.

By Eric Rempala November 21, 2025- In a November 5th WPR article Canadian mining company plans to expand drilling in northern Wisconsin - WPR's Danielle Kaeding covered the current exploratory drilling in Taylor County and the mining company Green Light Metal's (GLM) recent funding acquisition. The Taylor County drilling is being done on the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest. With 6 exploratory holes drilled this summer, GLM is looking to expand their drilling further into the National Forest. You might ask, what does this have to do with Oneida County? Well, that's a good question. The answer lies in a quote in the article from GLM board member Steve Donohue.

"Some of the funds will support exploration of the company’s Lobo sites near Crandon. Donohue said the company hopes to conduct drilling at those deposits in the spring. The cash influx will also fund airborne geophysical surveys, property payments for lease agreements with private landowners, project support and corporate expenses for the next year."

Lobo sites and Badger Minerals 2020 exploratory drilling

If you have been following the mining saga in Oneida County, you would know that that the town of Schoepke has had exploratory drilling done in the past. That past drilling was done in 2020 by Badger Minerals and was contested by Oneida County Clean Waters Action and many county residents. The Badger drilling was done just South of Route 8 at several locations just off of Browns Road. The property at the time was owned by Heartwood Forestry but has since been acquired as a part of the Pelican River Forest.

The drilling at that time did not go unnoticed. WXPR's Ben Meyer covered the Badger drilling permitting story in an April 2020 article Oneida Co. Approves Mining-Related Drilling Near Wolf River; Full DNR Approval Still Required | WXPR . The fact that public comments were taken only after the county approved the drilling was reflected in an excerpt from the article.

"Benzel previously told WXPR any metallic mine would be an “economic boon” to Wisconsinites involved.

Even so, Oneida County’s Planning and Zoning Department got about 60 letters and emails prior to Wednesday’s meeting, most vehemently opposed to mining.

But Karl Jennich, the department director, pointed out most comments were directed at mining generally, not the Oneida County ordinance on exploration or the Badger Minerals application.

“A lot of the comments that were made were really related to if and when a mine would be developed on that parcel of that property,” he said. “I did not see any technical issues in relation to [the ordinance].”

The private land proposed for exploration is zoned General Use, and General Use allows for mining exploration. Jennrich advised the committee to approve the permit in accordance with county ordinances, and it did, unanimously, minutes later.

Minutes after that, the public attending the meeting in person or by phone got the chance to speak up."

It is important to note how mining being permitted in the catchall zoning of General Use mentioned in the quote above reared its ugly head. OCCWA has long lobbied the county and towns for mining to be removed as a permitted use from zones General Use and 1A Forestry which comprise an estimated 70% of Oneida County. You would be hard pressed to find any other county in Wisconsin which permits mining so liberally. Permitting mining on 70% of Oneida County land takes away town's rezone authority and strips it's ability say no to mining if desired. It is our opinion that mining should only be permitted in zone Manufacturing and Industrial which a town could approve a rezone to if they support a mine application.

In the end Badger Minerals exploratory drilling results from the sites off of Browns Road were deemed not significant enough for Badger to acquire the property from Heartwood Forestry as related in WXPR article Company Won’t Pursue Further Mining Exploration on Timber Company-Owned Oneida Co. Site | WXPR .

With Badger Minerals passing on the purchase of the Heartwood Forestry property, Heartwood chose to sell their land including the Browns road drilling sites to The Conservation Fund (TCF). TCF in turn sold a conservation easement to the Wisconsin DNR and created the 70,000 acre privately owned Pelican River Forest (PRF) with public access granted in perpetuity as is allowed under Wisconsin's Managed Forest Law (MFL) program. PRF continues to contribute to the tax base just as the land always had in the past in accordance with MFL tax requirements.

Enter Green Light Metals

Green Light Metals (GLM) is a Canadian based junior mining company that operates as Green Light Wisconsin in the state of Wisconsin. On the GLM website it's stated that they are exploring the Penokean Volcanic Belt in Wisconsin. The header on the GLM website states: "America’s Next Premier Mining District: Wisconsin". Back when former Wisconsin 7th District Senator Tom Tiffany championed Wisconsin Act 134 and the repeal of the "Prove it First Law" OCCWA and our content contributor Karl Fate lamented the possibility of the Northwoods becoming a Mining District. A quick AI search on Mining Districts revealed:

"potential economic benefits like jobs and development, but also significant negative effects such as health problems from pollution, environmental degradation, displacement of communities, and social issues like increased inequality and crime. The overall impact depends on factors like the type of mining, company practices, and local conditions."

After the sale of the Heartwood property to the Conservation Fund, Badger Minerals chose to sell the balance of their property interests in Oneida County to GLM. Those property interests wound up being two sites named Lobo and Lobo East near Lake Lucille in Schoepke. Per a 2023 GLM Q1 report, the Lobo site owned by GLM consists of parcels located a bit north of Lake Lucille and Southeast of the 2020 Badger drilling. The Lobo East site is 476 acres abutting the Northeast and East shorelines of Lake Lucille which GLM states as being optioned property. These two properties are the ones Green Light metals referenced in the WPR November article (Lobo sites near Crandon). It's important to note that GLM has not specified which of the two properties, nor the locations therein it plans to explore/drill in the spring.

The only other documented GLM Oneida County activity was reported on in a WPR August 2024 article Oneida County shoots down mining resolution as companies express interest in sulfide mine - WPR . The WPR article covers the highly controversial Oneida County Board meeting on August 19th which many residents attended as well as sent the county letters in opposition to mining on County Forest land in the Town of Lynne. Much of the controversy was centered on the lack of transparency of a meeting with County Board Chairman Holewinski and, Vice Chair Russ Fischer, with GLM which took place in Madison. An excerpt from the WPR article stated:

"The Lynne deposit has also generated interest from Toronto-based GreenLight Metals. On Aug. 12, Holewinski said he and one of the county board’s vice chairs, Russ Fisher, met officials with the Wisconsin Counties Association and Steve Donohue, a director with the company’s board, in Madison.

Holewinski said they discussed the proposed resolution, the county’s metallic mining ordinance, the history of the Lynne deposit and other mineral deposits in northern Wisconsin."

Environmental Impacts on Lake Lucille and the Wolf River

The environmental impacts on Lake Lucille (See map at top right) and surrounding areas are composed of two components, drilling and mining. Impacts from exploratory drilling and impacts of a Metallic Sulfide mine are very different. Exploratory drilling does obviously present less environmental impact than mining, but if done incorrectly, there could be issues. With both Lobo sites being privately owned, the ability of public monitoring is not possible as it was for the Badger drilling. The reason the public had access to Badger was due to it being enrolled in the publicly accessible Open MFL program. Therefore, the sole responsibility of monitoring the Lobo drilling would fall directly on the WDNR. It's imperative that any drilling be done explicitly in accordance with Wisconsin state code, no shortcuts.

Environmental impacts from a Metallic Sulfide mine on the other hand are well understood. Sulfide mines are known to create Acid Mine Drainage which causes leaching of heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, copper, and other metals into the ground and surface waters. Clearly heavy metal contamination of water from mining is exponentially more impactful than exploratory drilling. Possible mining contamination could affect not just Lake Lucille, but also Lucille Creek a tributary to the Wolf River as well as nearby aquifers.

For more information on environmental impacts of Metallic Sulfide Mining OCCWA recommends Dr. Steven Emerman's YouTube The Myth of Clean Mining

CAFOs versus The American Dream

Only a matter of time before CAFO's come, Oneida County needs to prepare.

By Kathleen Cooper November 14, 2025- All of our lives we have heard about living the American Dream. Part of that dream is owning our own home, a home where we can raise a family and live out our lives in peace and security. A home is also a great investment, especially now that home prices have hit record highs. In fact, it is said that owning a home is the greatest investment of our lifetimes. That is, unless a CAFO comes to town.

CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are large scale animal operations defined as housing more than 1,000 animal units, which is equivalent to 700 dairy cows or 2,500 hogs. These operations generate large amounts of manure, which can contaminate groundwater, surface water, air, and soil with bacteria, phosphorus, and nitrates, if not managed correctly. The most common practice is for CAFOs to store manure in lagoons, and to spread this manure on farm fields near the CAFO in the spring and fall, which has the potential to seep nitrates and other pollutants into the groundwater and wash them into streams and lakes. The WDNR attempts to mitigate these issues by requiring that CAFO owners submit a nutrient management plan.

But the best laid plans sometimes just don’t work out. The WDNR is understaffed and underfunded, making the regulatory process slow and proper oversight difficult. I fact, just one WDNR employee covers Oneida, Clark, Florence, Forest, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Portage, Vilas and Wood counties. In 2019 an incident occurred at Emerald Sky Dairy, where thousands of gallons of manure ran off into a trout stream, killing fish and endangering local wildlife. Another incident at Emerald Sky Dairy involved a pipe rupture that spilled over 250,000 gallons of manure in a wetland and storm water pond. It was not reported by the owners as required by their permit. (What, a company not acting up to code? You mean they don’t follow the rules?) This incident finally was reported THREE MONTHS LATER by an anonymous tip. At Kinnard Farms a settlement was reached after allegations of pollution - evidently the cost of doing business for these people. Manure stored in manure lagoons often overflows with heavy rains. Groundwater seepage has contaminated private wells in Kewaunee County, where a family actually had to be hospitalized after drinking well water contaminated with E.coli linked to CAFOs. Some CAFO owners, have stated that it is cheaper to pay fines and settlements than to fix the problem.

Instead of CAFOs expanding, they need to be more tightly regulated, since, according to Clean Wisconsin, we are facing a growing public health crisis caused by widespread nitrate contamination in our drinking water, the result of over-application of manure. Nitrate exposure is linked to serious health effects, including cancer, pregnancy complications, and infant methemoglobinemia, otherwise known as “blue baby syndrome.” Nitrate exposure is widespread and worsening, and costs are borne by water users, not polluters. Over-application of manure in fields is widespread - in 2022 16 million pounds of nitrogen were applied beyond crop needs, costing farmers $8-11 million.

Aside from pollution problems, CAFOs often mistreat and/or abuse the animals, who live in cramped, dirty conditions. Instead of being able to graze and wander through fields, they live in pens or stalls, and many never have the chance to be exposed to even minimal natural sunlight.

The best way to clean up a CAFO is to not allow them in the first place, or to impose local regulations, especially in places like water-rich Oneida County. That is not easy. State law prioritizes expansion over local bans. Towns like Laketown, Eureka, Ledgeview, and Door County Wisconsin are fighting with large agricultural operations and lobbying groups over regulations for CAFOs. These disputes often involve legal challenges against towns that have passed ordinances to regulate issues like air pollution, odor, and waste, as shown by lawsuits filed against Laketown and Eureka. Other small towns fighting for local control over CAFOs are Trade Lake, Gilman, and Rock Elm, against industry groups with seemingly unlimited resources to enforce their will on local property owners. So, in other words, the CAFOs decide they want to have a polluting, smelly, huge farm, then when the neighbors who have used their life savings to invest in homes in the town object, the CAFOs think it is their right to establish themselves anyway. Many times, due to the big money backing CAFOs, they win against small towns with limited resources.

So, what about Oneida County? In 2019, at the request of the Conservation Committee, an ad hoc committee was formed to author a manure storage ordinance. A number of Wisconsin counties at that time were implementing CAFO ordinances which included manure storage regulations. The proposed Oneida County ordinance set minimum standards for distance of manure storage facilities from wetlands, waterways, wells, and roadside ditches. It also set out standards for storage containment, as well as a “workaround” for smaller farmers to allow for smaller piles of manure, provided they did not exceed a certain size. This ordinance was modeled after several counties’ ordinances in Wisconsin, with accommodations for Oneida County farmers. The committee members were Bob Mott, Bob Thome, Michele Sadauskas, Karl Jennrich, Tom Jerow, and Dan Butkus. Most of the hard work of authoring the ordinance was done by Tom Jerow and Dan Butkus. When this ordinance was presented to the Planning and Development Committee, it was tabled because a few farmers in Oneida County, not realizing that the ordinance did not apply to them, requested that their county board supervisors deny it. This was shortsighted and potentially dangerous for our water, air, and soil.

That was six years ago, and the CAFO problem isn’t going away, it is getting closer and closer to Oneida County. We need to have at least some minimal regulatory groundwork in place before that happens. If you don’t think this is important, call Laketown, Eureka, and Door County. Without added regulation, we could all literally be down s**t creek without a paddle. All poop jokes aside, this is serious, folks. Please contact your county board supervisor and make your voice heard about this threat to clean water. The health and property of our residents, and our American dream, depends on it.

2019 proposed Oneida County, Wisconsin Manure Storage and Management Ordinance: final_draft_mso_ordinance.pdf

More info including meeting video on the stalled Oneida County CAFO ordinance can be viewed at: MANURE STORAGE - Oneida County Land and Water Conservation

Call for County to Correct Mining Zoning Mistakes

Long time opponent to mining in Oneida County calls for reinstating town control.

By Karl Fate November 13, 2025- Back in 2009 a company called Tamerlane approached Oneida County about acquiring rights to the Lynne Deposit, a known zinc/silver/lead deposit that was discovered in 1990 by Noranda under a glacial aquifer just upstream of the Willow Flowage on County Forest lands. Tamerlane, a “mining interest”, never amounted to much, but that didn’t stop our county government from aggressively trying to lease the deposit. The committee of jurisdiction that was established spent three years ignoring public concerns about the leasing proposal. Those concerns were finally brought before the full County Board in 2012, and the proposal started receiving resistance from several other Board members, ultimately resulting in the defeat of the proposal to lease the Lynne site, known as the “Shidel Resolution”, ending metallic mining as a “policy goal” in Oneida County.

The defeat of the “Shidel Resolution” did not sit well with the Supervisors that had been pushing a mine at Lynne. They were especially upset with Lynne Town Chair, Dave Schatzley, who vowed to block the mine by opposing a rezone of the area to “Manufacturing and Industrial”, an important protection for area property owners. Committee members led by Scott Holewinski and Dave Hintz wasted no time proposing to remove this important protection by simply allowing metallic mining in “1-A Forestry” so that the area would not need to be rezoned for a mine.

Eventually, the Committee dropped this proposed change because of public opposition, but when Tom Tiffany repealed the “Prove it First” law in 2018, those board members pushing the mine, pounced on the opportunity by proposing a new mining ordinance that would allow metallic mining in areas zoned “1-A Forestry” and “General Use”.

Planning and Zoning did not conduct a “face to face” with the Towns to explain these changes, as is customary, because of an imposed “deadline”, but once the new metallic mining ordinance was approved by the County Board, they neglected to update the County Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new changes imposed by the Metallic Mining Ordinance, effectively obscuring how property owners had been stripped of Local Control in order to push a mine at Lynne.

Even now, as I type this, seven years later, the County Zoning Ordinance contains inaccuracies/inconsistencies and is riddled with confusing cross references, making it hard for a property owner to go online to see what is allowed in his/her neighborhood, unless they bother to dig way down into the Metallic Mining Ordinance.

Seven years ago, our County Government decided to remove a critical local control from property owners to push a mine at Lynne that they knew the Town and property owners in the impact area were opposed to, and to push highly speculative “mines” in the Towns of Pelican and Schoepke. Will our County Government correct this mistake, or will it take Town leaders and organized groups of property owners to fix it?

Lead Free Venison

Consider alternatives to lead for your health and the environment.

By Tom Wiensch October 31, 2025- Everyone knows the dangers of lead water pipes and lead paint. In recent years, people are becoming more aware of the risks of lead fishing tackle and hunting ammunition.

The Mayo Clinic reports that even small amounts of lead can cause serious health problems for people and notes that children under the age of four are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning, which can cause them to have developmental delays, learning difficulties, fatigue, hearing loss, irritability and a host of other health problems.

Lead poisoning in adults can cause high blood pressure, joint and muscle pain, memory problems, mood disorders, and other health issues.

Lead poisoning in women can cause serious reproductive problems including stillbirth, miscarriage, premature birth and poisoning of babies in utero.

We’ve worked to eliminate lead paint, and lead water pipes. Lead paint for residential use has been banned in the United States since 1978. The job is far from over, especially as regards water pipes, but strong gains have been made.

In recent years, more attention is being paid to the risks to humans of lead ammunition. Studies have shown that lead bullets can fragment in game animals and get eaten by consumers of the meat. Lead bird shot, if not carefully removed from small game animals can also get ingested by humans. Ingesting lead in these ways can lead to lead poisoning.

On top of the human cost of adding lead to the environment, there is a cost to the game and non-game animals we love. Birds must eat small stones in order for their gizzards to function properly in grinding food. Too often, in the process of searching for stones, they accidentally ingest lead shot, and lead fishing tackle.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that loons have been found to ingest lead fishing sinkers up to 2.5 ounces and lead jigs up to 4 ounces. In addition to loons, other waterfowl, including ducks, geese, and trumpeter swans also consume lead shot. Also, Oklahoma State University reports that, in heavily hunted upland areas, upland birds can be at risk of lead poisoning too.

Scavengers, such as eagles, which feed on gut piles and other remains left by hunters can also ingest lead bullet fragments and shot. Ted Williams, one of the foremost fishing/hunting/conservation writers in America reported in a 2024 article in Hatch magazine that “Lead bullet fragments and pellets, scavenged from carcasses and gut piles, poison far more wildlife than did lead waterfowl pellets.”

The use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting has been banned in the U.S. since 1991. This helps prevent lead shot from getting ingested by waterfowl. Oklahoma State University reports that the lead shot ban saves 1.4 million ducks annually. A number of states have also imposed various limits on the use of lead ammunition and tackle.

Wisconsin has imposed several rules restricting hunting with lead shot in addition to the federal rule prohibiting its use while hunting waterfowl. Since dove hunting became legal in 2003, the State has banned the use of lead shot in hunting those game birds on state

managed lands. Lead shot also cannot be used while hunting game birds or turkeys in federal waterfowl reproduction areas in Wisconsin. Additionally, under state law, lead shot cannot be used or possessed while hunting ducks, geese, brant, snipe, rails, coot or common gallinule.

Restrictions on the use of lead fishing tackle in Wisconsin are few. Lead sinkers and lures cannot be used in the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. Lead tackle and sinkers of less than one inch in diameter or one ounce in weight cannot be used in Escanaba, Nebish, and Pallette lakes in Vilas County.

Of course, individual hunters and anglers are free to limit their use of lead beyond the legally imposed restrictions. Tin fishing sinkers have become widely available and are reasonably priced. Tin sinkers are a bit larger than lead sinkers, but for most applications, the size difference doesn’t matter. For some applications such as certain methods of fly fishing where smaller shot is needed, small tungsten shot is available, albeit at a higher price.

Copper bullets are now widely available. The prices tend to be a bit higher than lead bullets, however, most deer hunters fire a relatively small number of shots each year while sighting rifles and hunting. In 2024 Sporting Classics magazine reported that the competition among makers of copper bullets was heating up, and copper bullets with excellent performance are available. Shotgun shells with non-lead shot, such as steel shot are widely available and are priced only a bit higher than shells with lead shot.

If you are a hunter or angler, consider the ammunition and tackle you use, and its effects on game and non-game animals. Consider the many situations in which non-lead products will work perfectly well. Voluntary switching to non-lead products can save the animals we love to view, photograph, and hunt. In the case of ammunition, it can also save you and your loved ones from the risk of lead poisoning.

Wisconsin DNR Safely Eating Venison link:

Safely Eating Venison | | Wisconsin DNR

Suspect wildlife lead poisoning?

Wildlife rehab centers in Oneida County:

Northwoods Wildlife Center, Minocqua Wisconsin

Wild Instincts – "Where the Wild Things Heal"

Injured Loon, Eagle, Pelican, Swan, etc., rescue?

Loon Rescue Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/942848699396690/

Proposed Grant to Measure Blood for PFAS in Town of Stella

Research study proposal to measure PFAS in residents of the Stella, WI area.

By Eric Rempala October 29, 2025- At the Town Hall Meeting held in Stella on October 1, 2025, Dr. Amy Schultz presented a research study proposal that, if funded, would measure PFAS in the blood of residents in the area. Amy Schultz is an Environmental Epidemiologist and Senior Research Scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies how exposure to different chemicals and metals can affect human health. She presented the proposal ahead of its due date to receive feedback and input from the community. As she stated in the meeting, “This study will only be successful if the community is interested and involved in the research process.” After gaining support from the Stella Town Board and the Oneida County Board of Health, she pursued a smaller grant that was not funded back in February 2025. In response to peer-viewed feedback on the initial proposal, she put together another proposal that was submitted in October 2025. This proposal, if funded, would be supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH proposals go through a lengthy review process. Due to the government shutdown, this process may take even longer. The earliest the study would start is the summer of 2026. Dr. Schultz provides details about the study below.

What are the goals of the study?

1. Test PFAS in people’s blood and in their environment at two time points, two years apart. We are hoping to have 400 people participate.

2. Identify what the primary pathways of PFAS exposure are. This will let us know how people can reduce their exposure moving forward. In this project, we’ll measure PFAS in blood samples from local volunteers, and in household dust, water, soil, air, and local food sources. There is a lot we still do not understand about PFAS exposure in rural areas from land spreading.

3. Understand how people’s exposure to PFAS is changing over time. Is it decreasing, increasing, or staying the same? What factors are linked to decreasing exposure?

4. Understand how PFAS exposure may affect cholesterol or other lipids in the blood. There is evidence that PFAS may affect health through disrupting cholesterol and fat metabolism. Scientists can work on treatments once they better understand what PFAS do in the body.

Who is running the study?

Dr. Amy Schultz will lead the study. She will be joined by a team of 6 other investigators at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with expertise in environmental engineering, medicine and public health, lipid metabolism and cholesterol. A community advisory board made up of local residents will provide guidance on carrying out the study. Oneida County Health Department, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Health Services will meet regularly to share knowledge and expertise that may inform the study.

What will participants do?

1. Visit a community site (town hall or health department) for a blood draw and interview.

2. Have a study staff member visit their home to collect dust, water, indoor air samples. Some homes may be asked for locally grown or caught food or outdoor air samples.

3. Receive their own blood results privately.

4. Receive their own household sample results privately.

What are the benefits of participating?

You will get free PFAS testing (~$500 value) and will learn about your PFAS exposure levels. You will also help your community advocate for resources and protections from future PFAS exposure. As a “thank you” for participating in research, you will receive $70 for the blood draw and interview, and households receive $25 for household sample collection.

How long will the study take?

There are two parts:

1. Blood draw and interview: about 45-60 minutes.

2. Home visit for sample collection (water, soil, dust, air): about 15-20 minutes.

People will be asked to participate two times, two years apart. This will help us understand how people’s exposure is changing over time.

When will I know the results?

Individual results: your personal results will be mailed to you within months after lab testing. Community-level report: shared at future town halls at the end of the study.

If I live in the area, do I have to participate?

No, participation in voluntary. If you decide to participate, you can change your mind later. We will destroy any of your information, data, and blood provided at any time you request it.

How will my information be used?

Your personal results are confidential. Only group-level or community-level results will be shared publicly. Your data will help researchers understand PFAS exposure and support health protections for your community and other rural communities.

Will my blood results be shared with other people?

No, your personal blood results will be mailed only to you. They will not be sent via electronic methods. They will not be shared with your doctor, employer, insurance company, or anyone. The same is true of results from household samples (dust, water, air) – results will only be mailed to participants in the household and not shared with others.

Your PFAS results will be kept confidential. NIH-studies are protected under a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC). This means that even in a lawsuit if the lead researcher is summoned, they are not required to release an individual’s health data. They may be asked to talk about the overall study findings, but no one’s identity or personal PFAS levels would be shared.

Why conduct a research study here?

There are several good reasons.

First, High levels of PFAS have been found in groundwater, surface water, fish, and soil in the area. This suggests people in the area are exposed to high levels of PFAS. However, measurement of PFAS in people living in the area has not been conducted. While we can estimate people’s exposure from the amount of PFAS in the environment, we cannot be certain of anyone’s exposure until we measure PFAS in human blood. A research study will over the cost of PFAS testing making it free to everyone in the community.

Second, A research study not only provides individuals with their exposure levels but generates knowledge of exposure across the entire community. This allows for comparing the community’s exposure to the state population and the national population. It also allows for enough statistical power to draw conclusions about what specific actions will decrease exposure moving forward. We will be able to answer questions such as: What are the factors that are associated with higher or lower levels? What behaviors or environmental factors have resulted in more rapid decreases in PFAS blood levels? Is it local fish consumption? Filtering drinking water?

Third, NIH-supported studies are reviewed by other scientists and carry more weight with regulators and policymakers. In this study we will learn about how land spreading affects human exposure to PFAS and human health. Findings can be used to create regulations or policies or provide evidence for more funding towards cleanup of contaminated sites.

Lastly, research studies generate new knowledge and contribute to our scientific understanding. Findings will benefit not just this community, but other similar communities. In this study, we will use new technology via a mass spectrometry instrument to measure non-targeted PFAS. Government agencies are only measuring a small number of PFAS in the environment, however, there are thousands of different PFAS compounds. This study will examine pre-cursors often used in paper products that can turn into common PFAS under the right environmental conditions. Learning more about pre-cursors and other PFAS that we are not monitoring will be informative for future regulation and testing. It will also inform remediation efforts, because pre-cursors may extend the duration of a contamination site and may need to be considered.

If I want to participate in the study, or have questions, who do I contact?

Reach out to Dr. Amy Schultz via email or phone:

Phone: 815-307-4007

Email: aaschultz4@wisc.edu

MORE INFORMATION:

Please visit PFAS Study | Powered by Box for the following information:

• Dr. Schultz’s presentation slides from October 1, 2025

• Explanation as why a research study is best suited for measuring PFAS in human blood

• Answers to questions about PFAS and cancer risk

• NIH Research Study Proposal FAQ

Amy plans to produce short videos with answers and explanations to questions about PFAS she has received. She will post these in the coming weeks

More About Amy Schultz:

Amy Schultz first became interested in studying environmental exposures and health outcomes after working as a forester for the Bureau of Land Management in rural Oregon. On the job, she saw DEET disintegrate a hard hat and forest fire fighters become ill with respiratory distress. Later, during her time working as a high school teacher in rural Mississippi, she encountered parents and students who wouldn’t drink their water. They were convinced it was contaminated and that the agricultural chemicals were responsible for the cancer cluster they lived in. Itchy, red eyes from the chemicals sprayed on fields to speed up the cotton blooms became the norm. Since then, she has dedicated her career to helping communities and populations collect data and evidence to understand people’s risk of exposure to environmental contaminants and associated health risks. She led PFAS testing on a statewide sample of adults in Wisconsin and examined determinants of exposure. You can find those publications and interviews linked below:

Biomonitoring of PFAS in Wisconsin Adult Population

Determinants of PFAS exposure in Wisconsin Adult Population

Committee Forwards Proposal on Shoreland Clear Cutting

The County Conservation Committee to forward proposal on Shoreland Protection Ordinance.

By Eric Rempala October 25, 2025- The Oneida County's Conservation and UW Extension Committee's October 13th meeting was chock full of Clean Water issues. My compliments to Land and Water personal who provided the meeting minutes in a reader-friendly version 2025-October-13-CUW-Draft.pdf. It never ceases to amaze me the number of issues the committee addresses, all in an effort to promote conservation and help keep the county on the right-side of environmental issues. In addition to the meeting minutes, Beckie Gaskill provided excellent coverage of the October 13 meeting for the Northwoods River News. Beckie's efforts are greatly appreciated as well as the River News providing free access to the article which can be viewed at The Northwoods River News

The number one issues in OCCWA's hearts but #10 on the agenda was Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) 9.95, 9.97, and Article 10. This is the very Shoreland Protection issue which we at OCCWA addressed with in an August 31st post, "P&D Chooses Step Backwards on Shoreland Protection", which can be viewed by simply paging down on our homepage. In our August 31 article we shared concerns about the Oneida County P&D Committee's latest iteration of their proposed SPO. The language of concern is clear-cutting being allowed in the shoreline Access and Viewing Corridor (AVC) and unclear language on landscaping in the AVC.

Clear-cutting in Access and Viewing Corridor

Clear-cutting in the AVC has been a concern in Oneida County dating back to 2019. Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) has led the charge on multiple occasions to promote improvements to the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance, changes OCCWA has supported whole-heartedly. Improvements to the SPO would include being more protective of lake and river shoreline, which in turn would improve lake and river health. Banning clearing of an AVC is not what is being sought, nor is reducing the permitted size. What is being sought is reasonable AVC clear cutting language. Promoting an AVC somewhere between an old growth forest and a golf course putting green from the back deck to the beach.

With that in mind, County Conservationist Michele Sadauskas of the Oneida County Land and Water Department (OCLW) shared comments and potential clear cutting language changes which the Conservation Committee agreed to forward to the P&D Committee for consideration. The proposed language is quoted from the meetings minutes.

Additionally, landscaping definitions need to be more clear

In another quote from the meeting minutes Michele Sadauskas related ambiguity in the P&D's current proposed landscaping language being a concern.

We at OCCWA are 100% in agreement on the ambiguity of the landscaping language being a concern. In our August 31 article we raised concerns about the term contouring. What exactly does contouring mean? Does that mean bulldozers plowing shoreline? What is needed is clear language defining landscaping including definitions. Without clear language and definitions, how can landowners and the Oneida County's Land and Water department know what is and is not allowed? Understandably, adding more details makes the process more difficult but it is necessary to avoid all the time, effort and money that results from not having clearly understandable rules. Ted Rulseh of OCLRA also touched on the necessity of practical and enforceable language with a statement.

"OCLRA is advocating for the inclusion of such language and believes this represents a significant gap in the ordinance and maintains that clear cutting should not be permitted in that zone. They acknowledge that adding language that is both practical and enforceable is a challenge, but it is not a good reason to avoid adding it."

Next step will be consideration of proposed language by P&D Committee

The Conservation Committee agreed to forward the proposed changes as presented by the OCLW to the P&D Committee for consideration. Currently, the proposed P&D Shoreland Protection Ordinance language has been sent to the DNR for review. Differences between the County and the DNR on the proposed SPO language were touched on in our August 31 article, and the DNR review may result in more alterations. It is expected that once the DNR review returns in 4 to 8 weeks, that the P&D Committee will look at the OCLW proposals and incorporate them into the final SPO which then would go to Public Hearing. The final SPO version from Public Hearing would then be forwarded to the County Board for vote.

OCCWA will stay on top of any developments with the hope that the final SPO will be something we can support. It may be necessary that public input will be required when the final version of the SPO is scheduled for public hearing.

Oneida County Cost Share Projects

Shoreland protection was not the only item on the October 13 agenda. A review of the county's cost share projects for 2026 as well as those accomplished in 2025 were shared among other things.

a. 2026 Project Approvals

Michele Sadauskas presented a series of proposed conservation projects for the upcoming year and requested Committee approval to proceed.

01 Town of Schoepke Culvert/Stream Crossing: Significant erosion and a deteriorating culvert were noted.
02 Washburn Lake – Johnson: Led by Boismenue, this site features a heavily eroded shoreline with minimal vegetation.
03 Romsa – Pelican Lake: A planting buffer will be added to enhance shoreline protection. Property owners are supportive and aim to serve as role models for native buffer implementation.
04 Baguhn – Lake Nokomis: An aging concrete block seawall will be removed and replaced with rock riprap with plantings behind.

b. 2025 Project Completion:

01 Town of Newbold Culvert/Stream Crossing: The undersized culvert was replaced due to severe deterioration. The area was replanted with annual rye and a pollinator mix.
02 Wendt – Wisconsin River: The bank was collapsing with ongoing land loss due to erosion. Installed 100 feet of rock riprap and six root wads angled upstream to stabilize the shoreline, provide habitat, and protect against ice.
03 Bur – Rhinelander Flowage: Installed a soil-filled bag wall to create a more natural, vegetated shoreline. Planted native vegetation in front of the property and seeded with no-mow grass and a pollinator bee lawn mix.

PFAS Meeting in Stella, Long and Informative

With the DNR, DHS, and the EPA in attendance, Stella residents continue to educate themselves.

By Eric Rempala October 12, 2025- On October 1st the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (WDHS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed up at the Stella Town Hall to address the PFAS contamination in the town. The town hall meeting was the fourth for the WDNR in Stella, the second for the WDHS and the first for the EPA since the WDNR's discovery of PFAS in the town in July of 2022.

The organizer of the event was the Stella Town Chairman Casey Crump. Mr. Crump stated that he organized the meeting as a private citizen not as the town chairman and explained he was not representing the town or the town board. No reason was given as to why the Stella Town Board could not come to a consensus on hosting the PFAS town hall. Organizing a meeting of this magnitude and importance to the town of Stella and its residents is no small feat. We at OCCWA commend Mr. Crump for his efforts.

It is important to note, that neither of the town of Stella's State legislators, Representative Swearingen or Senator Felzkowski were present. OCCWA having three members present, also did not recognize any Oneida County Board members in attendance.

WDNR

WDNR's NR Region Program Manager Mark Pauli who is based out of Rhinelander has been on the ground in Stella since the discovery of PFAS and spoke to the process during the meeting. Mark has been involved with residents receiving bottled water, DNR funded well testing, and advising property owners how to replace their wells including applying for grant monies from the state. Updates provided at the meeting Town of Stella - public meeting slides - Oct. 1, 2025 were shared by Mark and included:

Private Well Sampling as of June 20, 2025,

241 private wells have been sampled for PFAS

Breakdown of results:

PFAS detected above DHS’ recommended health guidelines: 88 private wells
PFAS detected below DHS’ recommended health guidelines: 39 private wells
No detection for PFAS: 114 private wells

Well Type of 88 Private Wells Over DHS’ Recommended Health Guidelines:

16 point
27 sand and gravel
25 bedrock
20 unknown

Assistance To the Community

29 awards to impacted homeowners in Town of Stella

25 replacement wells
4 treatment systems Award activities
25 projects have completed work and submitted for reimbursement
4 projects are active
3 projects are under review

Well Success Stories 22 wells have been installed utilizing the Town of Stella well recommendation

8 wells have no detection of PFAS
11 wells significantly reduced initial PFAS levels
3 wells had additional treatment installed

WDNR Wastewater Engineer-Adv Fred Hegeman stated that the PFAS is an emerging contaminant and is a legacy issue. To no one's surprise he confirmed that PFAS was contained in biosolids and industrial sludges spread on the landscape. Mr. Hegeman explained that Wisconsin PFAS regulations have been in the works at the state level for quite some time but are not expected to be finalized perhaps for years. In the meantime, the DNR has a biosolid interim strategy based mostly from PFAS studies performed by the state of Michigan. The interim strategy can be viewed here: Interim Strategy for Land Application of Biosolids Containing PFAS

WDNR Field Operations Director Trevor Nobile revealed that the WDNR has identified responsible parties to the Stella PFAS contamination. Once again, to no one's surprise responsible party letters were sent to Rhinelander paper mills former owner Wausau Paper and its current owner Ahlstrom Rhinelander. The responsible party letters and entire well testing results for the town of Stella can be found on the DNR's BRRTS site at: RR BOTW | Wisconsin DNR An excerpt from the responsible party letters states:

“the Spills Law charges the DNR with ensuring that responsible parties fulfill their statutory duties to investigate and remediate discharges ‘to restore the environment to the extent practicable’ and to ‘minimize the harmful effects of it."

For those of you who have been following OCCWA's coverage of PFAS contamination in our county and the state of Wisconsin, you will know that for years now the Wisconsin Spills law has been under attack. The Wisconsin Spills Law was challenged originally in a lawsuit by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce which in the end failed. A quote from a Wisconsin Examiner article Pro-polluter PFAS bill would leave taxpayers holding the bag • Wisconsin Examiner

"Groups representing the interests of PFAS polluters have long sought to undermine the Spills Law. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce is currently suing the state to prevent it from using the Spills Law to require polluters to clean up PFAS contamination."

The Legislature also got involved with trying to weaken the Spills Law with 2024 Senate Bill 312 and now 2025 Senate Bill 128. Both bills call for changing responsible party language in the Spills Law. A quote from the same Wisconsin Examiner article stated:

"During the budget process, Sen. Eric Wimberger introduced SB 312, the PFAS funding bill with no funding. The bill was sold as legislation that would spend the $125 million, but it contained no provisions to release any funds for helping communities. Instead, Sen. Wimberger’s bill created loopholes in the state’s toxic Spills Law that favored PFAS polluters. This drew criticism from leaders in Marinette, Wausau, French Island, and other communities affected by PFAS contamination. They did not want legislators to use state taxpayer funds as leverage to pass a bill that would exempt PFAS polluters from responsibility and exacerbate their problems."

Questions were asked from residents about the recent WDNR/WDHS fish and deer consumptions advisories for the area around Stella. The WDNR did answer a few questions on the subject but cited the purpose of the Stella meeting was to address town of Stella PFAS concerns. The WDNR stated that previous to the meeting they had agreed to arrange a separate meeting with the Moen Chain Lakes Association to discuss the fish and deer advisory with date and location for that meeting yet to be determined.

EPA

EPA representative Erica Aultz was on hand to elaborate on the progress of determining if the town of Stella would qualify for being designated a Superfund site and being listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). From the EPA's Stella website Stella Township PFAS Contamination | US EPA :

The Stella Township PFAS Contamination site will move forward in the Site Assessment evaluation process.
EPA made this decision based on data from a recently completed site inspection with WDNR. Soil, groundwater, and sediment at the site have PFAS levels more than three times the background levels, or typical levels found in the area.
Visit the link to the complete site inspection.
The next step is to continue evaluation under the Expanded Site Inspection stage (also known as a Site Reassessment in the figure). This evaluation will address data gaps for a possible Hazard Ranking System Package.

A quote from a WXPR Katie Thoreson article Wisconsin DNR names two responsible parties in Stella PFAS contamination | WXPR

"The EPA is in the early stages of determining if the area qualifies for the National Priorities List—which could eventually assist in cleaning up contamination. But EPA National Priorities List Coordinator Erica Aultz cautioned it is a years-long process. “I cannot guarantee this. This is why it says tentative. We do not guarantee National Priorities List inclusion, and this is tentatively projected in 2027,” said Aultz."

WDHS

WDHS's Nathan Kloczko was on hand to share updates and information. It appeared that not much has changed for recommendations from the DHS as far as blood or urine testing. Checking with one's health care professional seems to be the recommended avenue for residents who fear they have been affected by PFAS. More information on PFAS from the WDHS can be found at: Chemicals: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances | Wisconsin Department of Health Services

OCCWA occasional contributor and longtime Northwoods reporter Beckie Gaskill, covered the Stella meeting with a compelling must-read article in The Northwoods River News .

A quote from the article shared WDHS's Nathan Kloczko comments:

"While there are some health effects that are linked to PFAS, Nathan Kloczko of Wisconsin DHS, it was not possible to tell each and every person what health issues they would definitely have if there were certain levels of certain PFAS in their bodies. If residents wanted to know the levels of various PFAS in their bodies, tests are available, and residents could ask their health care providers for those tests. However, he reiterated that a certain level of a certain compound did not necessarily equate to any specific health malady. The lack of PFAS in a person’s system, though, could lead to a certain peace of mind. Still, he said it would be up to each person whether they felt the need to have their blood or urine tested by their doctor."

Dr. Schultz

Last but not least of the speakers was Amy Schultz PhD, MS, Environmental Epidemiologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison. As you may recall from previous OCCWA articles, Dr. Schultz has been attempting to acquire a National Institute of Health (NIH) grant to study PFAS health effects on the residents of Stella. Part of the study would include residents being paid to have their blood tested. The blood test results would be used as an aggregate number and personal blood tests would be shared only by mail with the participant.

During the meeting Dr. Schultz covered what her study would consist of and how it would be administered. The residents on hand at the meeting found Dr. Schultz very open and engaging and asked her many health-related questions. Dr. Schultz has agreed to share more details of her latest NIH grant study proposal with OCCWA and we hope to have a specific post up in short order. In the meantime, we are sharing portions of DR. Schultz's NIH grant proposal Fact Sheet.

What are the Goals?

Test PFAS in people’s blood and in their environment at two time points, two years apart.
Identify what the primary pathways of exposure are. This will let us know how people can reduce their exposure moving forward.

Understand how people’s exposure to PFAS is changing over time. Is it decreasing, increasing, or staying the same? What factors are linked to decreasing exposure?
Understand how PFAS exposure may affect cholesterol or other lipids in the blood. This may be a way PFAS lead to health problems. Scientists can work on treatments once they better understand what PFAS do in the body.

What are the benefits?

Free PFAS testing.
Knowledge about your exposure levels.
Helping your community advocate for resources and protections.
Receive $70 for blood draw and interview; $25 for household sample collection.

The Future of Fishing in PFAS Contaminated Waters

Finding paths forward become part of any contamination recovery process.

By Tom Wiensch September 30, 2025- A few years ago a friend and I fished a lake in Upper Michigan. We were fishing from float tubes, so we couldn’t cover a lot of water. We were using jigs and twister tails – no live bait. That afternoon we caught over 60 walleyes between 15” and 21”. The fishing was as good as what people experience in some remote areas of Ontario.

Why was the fishing so good? It’s simple. That lake had been contaminated with Mercury from a nearby mining operation. The contamination was so bad that it wasn’t safe to eat the fish. So, attempting to make a lemon into lemonade, the State of Michigan enacted a regulation that required that all fish be released. The population of northern pike (including some very big ones) and walleyes exploded. Professional fishermen filmed shows on the lake. People began to enjoy some of the best fishing in the U.P.

Fast forward to today. The State of Wisconsin has announced that, due to PFAS contamination, fish in the Moens Chain of Lakes and some nearby water bodies in Oneida County are not safe to eat. The Moens Chain is one of the prettiest and least developed chains of lakes in Wisconsin and has long been popular with Anglers. The chain of lakes consists of five lakes that form the headwaters of the North Branch of the Pelican River, which is a tributary of the Wisconsin River. The other water bodies include Starks Springs, Starks Creek, Sunset Lake, and Snowden Lake. This is a huge blow to anglers who enjoy catching and eating fish from these water bodies.

These are the only water bodies in Wisconsin that have advisories recommending that people not consume any fish. In light of the damage and risks associated with PFAS including the ruination of private and public wells, and the consumption of water from those wells before the problem was identified, some may view eating contaminated fish as a less important issue. The fact though, is that the pfas contamination in these waters is so bad that the “no eat” warning had to be issued to protect people from the health risks of consuming fish. And fishing is an extremely important part of the culture of Wisconsin.

What will the warning accomplish? No doubt many people will heed the warning and not eat fish from the contaminated waters. Still, I have met people who have ignored PCB warnings in Lake Michigan, and mercury warnings in inland lakes. It seems inevitable that a certain number of people, perhaps not understanding the extreme risks of consuming PFAS, will not heed the warnings, and will eat the fish, and perhaps share them with their

children or others who do not know of the risks or even which water bodies the fish were caught from.

PFAS is not the name of a single chemical, but the designation for a class of chemicals that has been used industry for about 80 years. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that peer reviewed studies have shown that exposure to those chemicals may cause the following serious and disturbing health problems:

Reproductive effects including decreased fertility and increased high blood pressure in pregnant women.
Developmental delays or affects in children including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, and behavioral changes.
Cancer
Reduced efficiency of the immune system, including reduced vaccine response.
Hormonal interference.
Increased cholesterol levels and obesity.

In light of all this, a simple warning doesn’t seem adequate. Wisconsin ought to look at imposing very strict limits on taking fish from these water bodies. The limits could either require that all fish be released, or that only small numbers of trophy fish be taken so that anglers can have fish mounts made.

The Moen’s chain contains most of the popular warm water fish available in Northern Wisconsin, including muskellunge, northern pike, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and panfish.

One possible set of regulations could be to allow anglers to take only one fish of each species per year, requiring that anglers obtain tags and fasten them to fish that are harvested. Examples of potential trophy size limits are:

Muskellunge – 50”
Northern Pike – 40”
Walleye – 30”
Bass – 22”
Crappie – 16”
Bluegill – 11”
Brook trout – 15”

Required tagging of fish is not without precedent. In Wisconsin, anglers who wish to keep a sturgeon must obtain a tag and validate the tag upon keeping a sturgeon. Other states also require anglers to tag certain fish. For example, the State of Texas requires that anglers

fasten a tag to red fish and sea trout of a certain size that are to be kept. This is a way of ensuring that restrictive bag limits are complied with. If a tagging system is not deemed desirable, the size limits could be imposed with a one fish per species per day bag limit.

These limits could and should be placed on all the effected waters, all tributaries that are used by fish from the contaminated waters for spawning, and the Pelican River as far downstream as PFAS or fish from the chain are likely to move.

Restrictive size and bag limits and total catch and release are not unprecedented in Wisconsin. For example, a number of lakes have 50” size limits on muskies, Lake Superior tributaries have very strict limits on steelhead, and a number of streams and springs have catch and release or one trout per day limits.

Many serious anglers already practice voluntary catch and release fishing and have seen what that and mandated catch and release (or strict limits) can do. Restrictive size and bag limits on muskies in Wisconsin have helped create exceptional fishing. Trout fishermen have seen catch and release and one fish bag limits create great stream fishing. High size and low bag limits revived steelhead fishing in some of the Northern Wisconsin tributaries to Lake Superior. The list goes on.

Some may say that, if quality regulations are put on the Moen’s chain and nearby waters, there will be some poachers who continue to take fish. While there certainly are some people who violate fishing regulations, the vast majority of anglers are law abiding, and would obey quality regulations.

Setting quality regulations on these bodies of water could create something positive from an otherwise dismal situation. What’s better? Allowing people to eat dangerously contaminated fish? Or the creation of a trophy fishing opportunity that would allow people to experience high quality fishing of the sort people travel to Canada for? The answer seems obvious. The creation and amendment of regulations concerning natural resources lies with the DNR, but not only with that agency. With some emergency exceptions, regulations must be approved by the legislature and the Governor. Hopefully all three entities will look at the need for a change in regulations in these contaminated waters and help create a silver lining from the dark cloud that PFAS has caused.

P&D Chooses Step Backwards on Shoreland Protection

Despite public input, Oneida County's Shoreland Protection Ordinance to be less protective.

By Eric Rempala August 31, 2025- (Photo Credit, Len Hyke) The impetus to review and rewrite the Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance began way back in 2020. It was an extremely aggressive clear-cutting on the shoreline of Two Sisters Lake that started the conversation. It was the voiced concerns of citizens that contributed to the long and drawn-out process of rewriting the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance. So far, the county's P&D Committee has decided to rewrite the ordinance making it less, rather than more protective. The public still has a chance to change that decision.

Creation of Wisconsin NR115
In 2010 Wisconsin's legislature created NR115. The purpose of NR115 was to overhaul the state's shoreland zoning rules. The amendments aimed to balance the protection of water quality, habitat, and scenic beauty with the property rights of landowners. The new regulations for nonconforming structures and the introduction of standards for impervious surfaces and mitigation were adopted, and those regulations set Wisconsin's State shoreland protection minimums. Counties were still afforded the ability to set more protective standards if so desired, and many did.

2015 State of Wisconsin Act 55 neuters counties powers
In 2015 Wisconsin 2015 Act 55 significantly changed shoreland zoning by transforming the state's NR 115 administrative rules from minimum standards to uniform standards, preventing counties from enacting ordinances more restrictive than these standards on specific issues like buffer zones and viewing corridors, but also exempted certain artificial drainage structures from shoreland zoning. And just like that, Wisconsin Shoreland Protection minimums became Wisconsin Shoreland Protection maximums.

NR 115 & Act 55 how the legislature engineered a step backward for shoreland protection. Link: 18._shoreland_zoning_reversal.pdf

Oneida County revisits Shoreland Protection Ordinance
It all started in 2019/2020 with a clear-cutting issue on Two Sisters Lake in Newbold. A complaint was filed with the Oneida County Zoning Department and then County Supervisor Bob Thome got involved. Eventually, in the summer of 2021, Bob Mott as chair of County Conservation Committee, submitted 4 suggestions to revise County Code Chapter 9, Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO). Much discussion was had including the county's Zoning Department potentially drafting revisions to the SPO. Sadly, nothing ever came of it.

It wasn't until March of 2022 that shoreland protections resurfaced. A March 29th County P&D Committee meeting was held with the sole purpose of public comment related to Article 9 of Chapter 9 the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. It related to all aspects of the ordinance including administration, permits, forms and fees. The minutes ONEIDA COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING told a story. Multiple landscapers and construction contractors attended and raised concerns such as retaining walls being allowed 0-35ft from shoreline, designating retaining walls as being effective for water runoff and erosion control, and allowing patios instead of boathouses. Below are two Distinctly different public comments from the meeting minutes.

"Tom Jerow, Oneida County Property Owner spoke – need to find a balance for homeowners while protecting water. Believes we will have problems in the future if grass lawns take over shore areas, native vegetation retains more soil and water than grass lawns. Education program for owners showing the benefits of native vegetation would be helpful. Zoning should be about water quality not aesthetics. Should be more restrictions of what type of vegetation is allowed in the access and viewing corridor."

"Gregg Walker, Lakeland Times spoke – there are too many regulations that make it hard for local landscapers. Believes contouring prevents more runoff than native species. Rules are being overly restricting, need to find common ground with landscapers."

In July of 2022, Resolution for Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 authored by the Planning and Development Committee to amend Chapter 9, Article 8, Section 9.80 Zoning Administration appeared on a P&D committee meeting. The Amendment included changes recommended by construction contractors and landscapers. With those changes in place the P&D Committee forwarded the Amendment to public hearing.

Many residents shared concerns during the Spring of 2023 public hearing process Oneida County residents give mixed reaction to potential shoreland protection ordinance changes | WXPR. In fact, public hearing survey ballots were created by Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) which the public was able use as a reference to share objections on the proposed SPO language. Despite high public participation in person and by 114 survey ballot submissions, the P&D made no changes to Amendment #13-2022. On top of rejecting all public hearing input on Amendment #13-2022 language, the P&D Committee refused to consider a proposed recommendation by OCLRA to ad language calling to not allow clear-cutting in the 35% viewing corridor that shoreline owners are permitted. Clear-cutting in the viewing corridor language that our neighbors in Vilas County have already adopted.

Objections still stand on Amendment #13-2022 for Public Hearing coming this fall
Two and half years after the first public hearing on Amendment #13-2022, the P&D Committee will be scheduling another public hearing this fall. Much of the delay has come from the P&D Committee hiring a lawyer to contest the DNR's rejection of language in the proposed ordinance not conforming to Wisconsin's NR115. That non-conforming language included stairways to boathouse roofs, retaining walls in the 75ft shoreline buffer, and concrete aprons between boathouses and the Ordinary High-Water Mark. The P&D Committee has decided to go to public hearing despite their lawyer and the DNR's discussions yet to be resolved.

Many, of the objections remain from the Spring of 2023 public hearing. As it would be too difficult to cover all the objections, below we are sharing those that are most concerning. Listed concerns from Survey Ballot for Shoreland Protection Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 Public Hearing: March 29, 2023.

9.11 A.1. Strikes line requiring setback between septic tanks and soil absorption systems from lakes and other water courses. (recommend oppose) This is simply one of the overarching goals stated in the purpose of the underlying ordinance. There are no setbacks attached to this in this part of the ordinance. However, it makes sense to keep this line in and state that the county wants septic tanks and soil absorption systems to be regulated for setback. This impacts water quality through seepage of failing systems. It should remain in the ordinance as a guiding principle.
9.94 C.1.c. Reduced Principal Structure Setback when buildings are on both adjacent properties (setback averaging). Strikes line on existing principal structures on adjacent properties located less than 75 ft from OHWM. (recommend oppose) This removes the requirement that the setback may be averaged when BOTH adjacent properties have structures that are less than 75 ft from OHWM. This is “setback averaging”. Under the original, if one of the adjacent structures was at 75 or more, then you could not use averaging, you must use 75 ft setback from OHWM. The change allows for a looser restriction on reduced setback.
9.94 C.1.e. Reduced Principal Structure Setback. Strikes line prohibiting future expansion for principal structures that were permitted reduced setback, per Section 9.99C. (recommend oppose) With the change in Ch 9 Article 10 definition of Building Footprint, this allows the structure to be expanded by counting things like balconies, chimneys, decks, etc. in the area between 35 ft and 75 ft of the OHWM.
Article 10 Definitions. Revises definition of building footprint. Include now balconies, chimneys, porches, decks, fireplaces, eaves. An attempt to expand footprint. (recommend oppose) As noted, this is an attempt to use appurtenances to expand or encroach beyond the principal structure’s footprint when dealing with reduced setbacks. It adds extra square footage of a building when remodeling or replacing.
9.94 D. Improvements. Entire section stricken. Portion that consolidates with exempt structure language (recommend support) Part of the consolidation of the General Construction Permit and the Shoreyard Alteration Permit. It is consistent with earlier portions of the amendment. However,….. Portion that removes vegetation protections/provisions language. (recommend oppose) In the consolidation, the fundamentals of keeping the area vegetated, especially the Access and Viewing Corridor, environmentally sensitive areas, the cutting of trees and shrubs. This is an aesthetic issue as well as potentially impacting water quality. It should remain.

Notes:

Items #2 thru #4 are three examples of seven changes to the SPO that allow for placing buildings closer to the shoreline by adding convoluted setback averaging language. Any changes to setback averaging that allows buildings closer to the shoreline is a rollback of current water protection.

Item #5 is directly related to OCLRA's efforts to have Oneida County adopt Vilas County's more protective viewing corridor language. The reason for OCLRA's efforts are summed up by their president, Ted Rulseh.

"This should be illegal. The SPO does not prohibit clear-cutting within the Access and Viewing Corridor, which can encompass 35% of the width of a waterfront lot. Clear-cutting destroys natural scenery, removes critical habitat, and creates a pathway for runoff pollution. Vilas County and other counties prohibit clear-cutting in the Access and Viewing Corridor. Oneida County should also enact protections for this ecologically and aesthetically significant zone.Language on preserving vegetation in sensitive areas should be retained. The amended SPO removes a section on the fundamentals of persevering vegetation (for example, limiting the cutting of trees and shrubs) in near-shore areas, especially the AVC. This section should be restored, as preserving vegetation has benefits for scenic values and water quality."

Despite the P&D Committee's initial refusal, we recommend supporting another effort to accomplish this in the upcoming fall public hearing. We at OCCWA rank OCLRA's clear-cutting in viewing corridor recommendation as a top priority for residents to share input to the county pertaining to proposed SPO changes.

Super Fires: Coming to a Forest Near You?

Despite misinformation on Canadian wildfires, comparing them to Wisconsin is apples and oranges.

By Tom Wiensch August 19, 2025- Global warming is changing the world, and part of what is changing is the frequency and size of wildfires. Both NASA and the United States Geological Survey have stated that warming is increasing wildfires and making them more destructive.

Northern Wisconsin has received a huge amount of smoke from Canadian wildfires this year, often making the air unhealthy to breathe. Is Wisconsin going to face the sort of fires that Canada has been dealing with? While there is reason for concern, there is also reason to hope that we will not experience fires like those that Canada has experienced.

The Geography of Canada is much different from that of Wisconsin. Canada has 980 million acres of forest. 16 million of those acres have burned this year alone. By contrast, as of early August, 3.4 million acres of U.S. Forest had burned.

The largest fire burning in the U.S. as of early August was the Dragon Bravo Fire in Arizona, which had, as of August 4th, burned 126,000 acres of forest. The largest wildfire in Canada, the Candle Lake Fire had burned over 1.3 million acres of forest as of early June.

There has been a trend toward increasingly large and destructive wildfires in Canada in recent years. The Canadian wildfires of 2023 were the largest in that nation’s history, burning over twice as much forest as was burned in the second worst year.

Several members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin’s Seventh Congressional district recently sent a letter to the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. suggesting that Canada could, by using available technology, and managing its forests differently, prevent and control wildfires.

“That is a flawed argument that seems to show a lack of understanding of the geography of Canadian Provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan.”

Much of Northern Wisconsin is forested. Unlike the wilds of Northern Canada, however, Northern Wisconsin has an intricate web of roads. These roads can act as fire breaks. Also, the roads, and the natural geography of Wisconsin make most areas in our state readily accessible. It is difficult to find places in Northern Wisconsin that are more than a very few miles from a public road, and many of those places contain logging roads. In contrast, Northern Canada has many roadless areas that are over 100 miles square. Even the most remote parts of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest seem relatively tame compared to more remote parts of Canada. The roads and terrain of Northern Wisconsin make it unlikely that we will see fires of the magnitude recently experienced by Canada.

Still, there is reason for concern. By the end of March 2025, there had already been over 150 wildfires in Wisconsin. Fortunately, the total acreage burned was only 430 acres. On May 13, the Wisconsin DNR issued a red flag warning for five counties in Wisconsin, noting that in the previous week, the Department had fought over 130 wildfires. That report noted that several homes had to be evacuated, and one structure was consumed by fire.

Also, relatively large forest fires have occurred in the Upper Great Lakes States in recent years. In 2012, the Duck Lake Fire in Upper Michigan consumed 21,000 acres of forest. That fire also destroyed dozens of homes and other buildings, including a popular resort. In May of this year, wildfires in Northern Minnesota destroyed 150 structures, and consumed over 20,000 acres of forest. Admittedly, the U.P. and Northern Minnesota contain more remote areas than Northern Wisconsin. Still, they are not nearly as remote and inaccessible as Northern Canada. Both of those fires provide cautionary tales for Wisconsin.

Wildfires are a natural phenomenon. That said, manmade global warming has increased the number and intensity of wildfires in recent decades. Wisconsin’s natural and manmade landscape make it less susceptible than Canada to enormous fires. Still, we do not live in an area without risk. The increase in the number and severity of wildfires is another reason, among many, to advocate for actions that will decrease and reverse global climate change.

Related Forest Fire articles:

As Canada wildfires choke US with smoke, Republicans demand action. But not on climate change | WXPR

Lawmaker Calls for Explanation of Inconsistent Forest Service Staffing Data — ProPublica

Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action