Category Archives: Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club

Letter to Supv. Gerry Broderick about relocation of Sportsmen’s Club in Warnimont Park

Dear Supervisor:

The Friends of Grant Park are acutely aware of the way that shrinking budgets have damaged the ability of the county to adequately maintain the Milwaukee County Parks over the last two decades. Our group has often been called upon to finance the kind of things within Grant Park that in years past would have been covered by park funds. These include installing new park benches, security cameras for highly vandalized areas of the park (soon to be replaced after the first set were destroyed), replacing the carpeting in the club house at the golf course, and other items. Two years ago our group secured a $5,000 grant, and matched it with our own funds, in order to restore a hillside in the Seven Bridges ravine that was badly eroded. Beyond this our group does regular invasive species eradication and cleanup in the park, which used to be done by county employees.

These budgetary issues alone would make it unconscionable to pass the resolution put forth by Supervisor Weishan, which calls for Milwaukee County to contribute what would amount to tens of thousands of dollars to the project costs, including the construction of the new access road and parking lot. To put it simply, it is not in the interests of the Milwaukee County taxpayers to subsidize, in such a large way, a small, private group which apparently has the financial wherewithal to locate a piece of property outside the park system on which to construct their facility.

The gun club’s resolution comes on the heels of a December 2014 Department of Natural Resources “Responsible Party” letter which ordered the county and the Club to clean up and reclaim the Club’s current site in Warnimont Park, finding that it was lead contaminated and covered with other environmental pollutants, including a hillside full of shattered toxic clay targets and plastic shotgun wads which had accumulated over decades of use and which were regularly washing onto the beach and into Lake Michigan. The ultimate cost to the taxpayers of this cleanup has not yet been determined. Given the Club’s misuse of the present site, it is astounding to FOGP that the Club is not only asking to move to a new site within the park, but  also for public funds.

The Club’s history at the current site also bodes poorly for the prospect they would run their operation at the new site in a more responsible way. The lease they signed with the county requires them to keep the premises in a clean and sanitary condition. The DNR Responsible Party letter demonstrates they utterly failed to do so. Indeed, in recent years 25,000 clay targets, 25,000 plastic wads, and close to a ton of lead per year were deposited directly into the lake or onto the hillside and eventually winding up there as well. One DNR inspector recently viewing the hillside below the Club’s site where it’s refuse accumulates referred to it as a “garbage dump.”

After it’s lease was briefly terminated in November of 2014, the Club engaged in a public campaign of misinformation  in hopes of remaining at the current site. Their initial press release, read on talk radio by Jeff Wagner, asserted that any claim by the Friends of Grant Park that gun club refuse was winding up on Grant Park beaches  was “patently false” and “ridiculous.” These kinds of claims were repeated. Yet the Club must have known these statements were false when they were made. This was established by the “farewell letter” issued by the Club’s president in November of 2014 where he refers to beach cleanups by the Club conducted the previous summer and earlier that picked up 200 pounds of their plastic wads along the beaches south of the Club. This translates into more than 37,000 plastic wads and confirmed what FOGP had been saying about the sheer quantities of Club garbage that was washing up on the beaches.

During this same public campaign by the Club to rescue its lease, it claimed that it had a fence located at the foot of the hillside at beach level that caught the refuse as it eroded off the hillside. That the Club must have known that this fence was dysfunctional in 2013 and had completely disappeared by 2014 is likewise clear. Pictures taken in November of 2013 and 2014 establish this and can be viewed at . Yet the public was led to believe that the Club was controlling the flow of garbage off the hillside and into the lake.

To date the Club appears to demonstrate no comprehension of either the environmental damage caused at the current site, or the risk to which they put the Milwaukee County taxpayer. In December of 2014 the DNR conducted a meeting with the Club, Parks, FOGP, and other interested parties. Given the contamination of the site, and the ordered cleanup, the DNR “strongly encouraged” the Club to cease operations and not to reopen in February of 2015 until the extent of the damage could be determined and cleanup could be conducted.. This was surely a reasonable suggestion. Did it make any sense to cover the hillside with another 25,000 shattered toxic clay targets and 25,000 more plastic wads, thus driving up reclamation costs which the taxpayers could ultimately be on the hook for? The Club’s reaction was to open as scheduled.

Finally, on February 4, 2015 the DNR issued a letter directing that if the gun club was going to continue operation it was to utilize “best practices” to keep the refuse out of the lake. “Best practices” referred to a Manual of Practices endorsed by the NRA and  amateur trap shooting associations, as well as the DNR and EPA, and utilized by other gun clubs which insure that a club’s refuse does not leave the site.  Friends of Grant Park itself had brought this manual to the attention of the Parks Department in November of 2013, which then forwarded it on to the Club. Following the February 4, 2015 DNR letter, FOGP forwarded a letter to the Club’s attorney as well as the DNR asking specifically which best practices would be instituted at the site. FOGP received replies from neither party. The lack of response is most likely explained by the fact that to date none of these best practices, save one, have been implemented. In response to an order issued by the DNR, the Club has said they have changed from lead to steel shot. However, nothing has been done to prevent the toxic clay targets or the plastic wads from leaving the site.  Not even a replacement fence has been installed at the base of the hillside.

Given this history of disregard for the park environment itself, as well as the economic interests of the Milwaukee County taxpayers, it would be inappropriate for this committee to endorse construction of yet a new site in Warnimont Park.

By Richard L. Kaiser

Our message to the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors

January 26, 2015

Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors
Parks, Energy and Environment Committee

Gerry Broderick, Chair,
Khalif Rainey, Vice Chair,
Jason Haas,
Deanna Alexander,
Steve F. Taylor,
Anthony Staskunas,
Martin Weddle,

Re:Items 5-6 on PEEC Agenda for January 27, 2015,
Lease Agreement with Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club

Dear Committee Member:

The Friends of Grant Park strenuously oppose any further lease extension between Milwaukee County and the Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club at Warnimont Park. Extending the lease would not only facilitate violations of federal law by the Club, but increase the environmental damage occurring and further subject county taxpayers with greater cleanup costs at the site.

For years the Friends of Grant Park and other volunteers participating in beach cleanups complained about the thousands of plastic shotgun wads littering the beaches which originate from the Club, located a full two miles north of Grant Park. For years we simply picked them up.  Our research revealed a much larger problem than plastic wads in November of 2013.

The history and details of our research may be found at Club Issues. For now, we present a summary of concerns expressed to the County Parks that we hope you will read prior to the meeting on Tuesday. We have expanded these summary points further on in this document and encourage you to apprise yourself of these details as well.

In Summary: 6 points that have been raised with the Milwaukee County Parks Administration:

            1. The club admits that 99.9% of all lead shot fired at the site lands directly in Lake Michigan.  The quantity of lead deposited in the lake by the club each year approaches 1 ton. (25,000 shotgun shells full of lead @ 1-ounce of lead per shot equals 1,734 pounds of shot). These quantities have been building up in Lake Michigan at the site over the 65 years of the club’s presence in the park. Photos supplied by UWM Water School research divers will document this and can be found at
            2. The club states that it goes through 25,000 clay targets containing a toxic binding material each shooting season. As confirmed by a DNR warden many of these targets wind up directly in the lake, either whole or in pieces. The rest wind up on the steep hillside, described by one DNR Warden as a virtual “garbage dump” and eventually wash into the lake.  25,000 plastic waddings are likewise discharged at the site every year. The majority of these also wind up on the hillside, and are eventually washed into Lake Michigan.  Fencing recently installed to capture this has failed and is buried beneath eroded soils.
            3. The debris that the club discharges into Lake Michigan puts them in direct violation of the federal Clean Water Act. That law requires that anybody discharging these kinds of materials into a body of water such as Lake Michigan secure a permit from the EPA. Although this has been a requirement since the mid-70’s the club has made no attempts to secure such a permit.
            4. The great weight of authority on this issue states that gun clubs of this type cannot operate near or at bodies of water.  Various manuals put out by EPA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, whose members include among others, the Amateur Trap Shooting Association and the National Rifle Association advise trap shooting organizations on how to conduct their operations within the confines of the law. None of the practices recommended for capturing the lead, the clay targets and the plastic waddings and preventing them from leaving the site and contaminating the surrounding area can be implemented at this site. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Manual, after noting the EPA permit requirement for these kinds of sites, states:
              • “Avoid range sites that would require shooting over or into wetlands or surface water.”
              • “To the maximum extent possible, shooting positions should be oriented so that lead is deposited within an area that is well stabilized, relatively unattractive to wildlife, and facilitates lead recovery. Impact areas should not be associated with sensitive areas such as wetlands, open water, areas with woody vegetation, or high quality wildlife habitat.”
            5. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued an Internal Guidance document, effective January 20, 2015, that makes many of these same points.

              1. The current lease between the county and the club required that the latter post only a $30,000.00 cash bond to cover necessary cleanup at the site once they leave. In February of 2014 we provided the Parks Department with prior examples where the EPA required property owners (i.e. in our case, the County) to cover the costs of all environmental cleanup in instances where gun clubs of this sort simply went out of business and left the site. In one instance in southeastern Wisconsin the EPA cleaned up the site and sent a 1.1 million dollar bill to the property owners for reimbursement. Concern for the taxpayers of Milwaukee County was the primary cause for Corporation Counsel to emphasize this issue when recommending that the gun club lease not be renewed. Renewing the lease with the knowledge of the club’s lack of an EPA permit can only put the county and its taxpayers in a more precarious position.
              2. A chart kept in the clubhouse at the Sportsmen’s Club’s site indicates they have been monitoring the loss of bluff area due to erosion. In our April 7, 2014 meeting, the club’s Board of Directors told us that they lose 2-3 feet of bluff every year. Thus, this site, with a bluff of sharp decline, is quantitatively eroding. Stabilizing the bluff by Parks management is currently impossible given the inaccessibility compounded by the club waste being deposited there.

That the serious environmental concerns we identified to the Parks Department exist here was confirmed by the December 11, 2014 “Responsible Party” letter from the Department of Natural Resources to both the Milwaukee County Executive and the Sportsmen’s Club. The letter confirmed that a “hazardous substance discharge, including lead contamination in the soil, had been documented at the site” and that other materials constituting environmental pollution such as “broken clay targets and shot shell wads” were also present. The DNR indicated that a procedure would be established for the required reclamation of the site under Chapter 292, Wis. Stats.

Likewise, our concerns voiced over a year ago in our submissions to the Parks Department concerning the potential costs to the county taxpayers for reclamation at the Club’s site were directly on point. Equally disturbing is the fact that while the DNR has determined that the site will have to be reclaimed, and that Milwaukee County is responsible for this cleanup, the Club will resume its operations in February of this year. Despite the site being found to have lead contamination, the Club will continue using lead shot, thus continuing to pollute and contaminate the site, and driving up the reclamation costs. .

One can’t help noticing that none of this information is included in any of the documents submitted by the Club in support of the Resolution authored by Supervisor Weishan. In particular, the “fiscal effect form” filed in support of the Resolution identifies only increasing operating revenues as resulting from adopting the resolution. Does this refer to the minimal annual rent payment made by the Club on the lease, which amounts to a little over $10.00 per Club member per year? The fiscal note form identifies none of the reclamation costs which the county will now be saddled with.

Indeed, the Club is now requesting that it be granted the right to extend this lease for an additional 9 years. Thus, Milwaukee County faces the prospect of financing a cleanup of the site, only to have it re-contaminated from continued use by the gun club, and having to pay a second or third set of reclamation costs as later determined by the DNR.

We do not dispute the Club’s right to exist, we object to its location. In that regard, we are aware of the recent discussion regarding the Club’s apparent relocation efforts. That the Club has options to relocate its operation is clear. As early as December of 2014, they were informed by the DNR that the latter has funds available for entities like the Club to subsidize the cost of relocating to a more appropriate site.

Going forward, we would urge the committee to weigh carefully the credibility of the positions taken by the Club. Since they were originally notified of the cancellation of their lease, they have seriously misrepresented the facts in their public statements and have otherwise been less than candid. It has consistently been their position that none of their activities created any environmental problems at the site. Indeed, members were seen on social media and heard on talk radio taking the position that no debris was being introduced into the lake. It was said by the Club that our concerns were fabricated and that we were motivated by an anti-gun agenda. Despite the recent findings by the DNR, this continues to be their position, as demonstrated by a petition they are still circulating, and which was prominently displayed on their website until quite recently.

For the Sportsmen’s Club any lease extension would be an economic windfall. In no other location could they hope to operate so cheaply. Presently all their debris is conveniently deposited into Lake Michigan. Moving to another location would require them to pay for the  collection and proper disposal of tons of lead shot, toxic clay targets and plastic wads, as other trap shooting organizations are required to do. On the other hand, it’s also the responsible thing to do.


Our letter to Milwaukee County Board Supervisor Gerry Broderick

November 24, 2014

Milwaukee County Board Supervisor Gerry P. Broderick

Re: Proposed Resolution for further extension of the county’s lease agreement with the Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club

Dear Supervisor Broderick:

We are in receipt of a proposed Resolution apparently drafted by Supervisor John Weishan, File No. 14-910. While the proposed lease agreement discussed therein has not been seen by us as of yet, the Resolution talks about a lease extension which could ultimately cover the next nine years. This of course comes on the heels of an amendment to the county budget originally tendered by Supervisor Weishan, and later by Supervisor Jursik, extending the Sportsmen’s Club’s lease with the county after the County Parks Department had originally sent notice to the club that the lease would not be renewed. Being unfamiliar with the inner workings of the County Board, and when a vote on this Resolution might take place, we are requesting that you do what you can to put the brakes on this proposed resolution until the County Board can be made fully aware of the facts surrounding this issue, something that has not occurred to date. We understand that there is apparently planned an informational gathering session before the County Board’s Parks Committee sometime in December. We are asking that we be permitted to speak at that event and to be allotted a sufficient amount of time to share with the committee the facts surrounding this issue, some of which I will share below.

Continue reading

Our letter to the EPA

November 25, 2014
Mr. Kevin Pierard
Chicago, IL

Re: Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club (Milwaukee County, Wisconsin)
Operating without permit in Warnimont Park

Dear Mr. Pierard:

It is my understanding that you are the person in the Chicago office of the Environmental
Protection Agency who handles permitting issues under the Clean Water Act. The purpose of this letter is to put you on official notice that we believe the Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club operating out of Warnimont Park in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is currently in violation of the Clean Water Act for failure to apply for and secure a permit. The club has been operating a trap shoot at that site since the mid-1960’s. Warnimont Park is located on bluffs overlooking Lake Michigan. The trap shooting club is set up so that members discharge their shotguns at clay targets which are discharged over the bluff towards the lake. According to the club, 99.9% of all the lead shot discharged by club members at clay targets lands in Lake Michigan. A DNR warden who is advising Milwaukee County on other aspects of the case has witnessed evidence of clay targets also landing directly in the lake. The remaining targets land on the hillside overlooking the bluffs and are eventually washed into Lake Michigan. The club has indicated that 25,000 clay targets are used each year, which would mean that an equal number of lead shot filled shotgun shells are discharged into the lake.

Continue reading

Our letter to Parks Director John Dargle

February 14, 2014
Director John Dargle
Milwaukee County Parks
9480 Watertown Plank Road
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
Re: Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club at Warnimont Park
Dear Mr. Dargle:
The Friends of Grant Park had an opportunity to meet with Guy Smith, the Chief of Operations with the Parks Department, at our regularly scheduled meeting last December. At that time we raised the concerns we had with the operation of the Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club in Warnimont Park (hereafter referred to as the “Club”). For some time now our members, and others who have attended our meetings, have expressed concerns about the plastic gunshot wadding that is found up and down the County beaches from Warnimont Park into Grant Park. As you may know our group conducts clean-ups along the beach, some organized, and others informally done by individual members. Suffice it to say that parts of the beach are littered with these waddings throughout the year.
At our December meeting we provided Mr. Smith with pictures of the Club site as well as the area below the bluffs where the trap shooting takes place. Pictures taken at the beach level demonstrated that the hillside between the bluff and the beach is saturated both with gunshot waddings and broken pieces of the clay targets used by the Club. The pictures also demonstrated that the partial fencing put up by the Club at the base of the hillside to catch gunshot wadding and other debris coming down from the bluff was neither properly maintained nor effective in its purpose.
We were contacted sometime after our meeting by Mr. Smith via email on December 17, 2013; he indicated he had spoken with you about this and that you shared our concern and would be meeting with the Club in attempts to remedy this situation. On Tuesday of this week, February 11, 2014, our group received an email from the Club’s President, Tom Ahmad, informing us for the first time that a meeting had indeed occurred between your office and the Club, and requesting that we set up a time to meet and discuss our concerns. Given the Friends of Sheridan Park’s busy schedule (they had been included on the Club’s email ) with their centennial, they have asked that we try to schedule a meeting with the gun club sometime in March. We will be following through on that.
In any event, having learned that a meeting took place, we then contacted Mr. Smith in hopes of hearing how the meeting with the Club had gone and what position Parks had taken. I was able to speak with Mr. Smith on Thursday, February 13th, and received a summary of major points discussed. I at that point informed him that this letter, which had been drafted over the course of the last two weeks and prior to our learning that you had already met with the Club, would be coming your way.
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention other concerns we now have based on recent research conducted by some of our members after meeting with Mr. Smith at our December 17th meeting. These concerns go well beyond the issue of the plastic waddings. We provide this information to you in hopes that it brings home the seriousness of the situation and the need for an effective remedy.
Let me start with a more thorough summary of the information we shared with Mr. Smith at our December meeting. Our visit to the Club site was prompted by an interest in determining what the Club was and was not doing to prevent the gun shot wadding from getting into the lake. In particular we had been told that the Club, in response to complaints received some time ago, had erected a type of netting or fence at the foot of the bluff to catch the shotgun waddings and pieces of clay targets that were deposited on the hillside and later washed down to the beach. Upon examining the scene, several things became apparent.
First, there seems to have been no attempts to clean up the site on a regular basis. A lack of clean-up activity is evidenced if one walks the bluff area where the clay targets are discharged and where the members fire from. There is a five or six-foot width of grassy area at the very
edge of the bluff and east of the boxes from which the clay targets are released. This would be the easiest place at which to pick up discarded shotgun waddings as it is level ground and easily walkable. However, our examination of that area, which occurred in late November and after the shooting season had ended, found that it was saturated with shotgun waddings. One would expect, with heavy rains, that these waddings would eventually find their way to the hillside, down to the beach, and then into the lake. Despite the ease with which these waddings could have been collected following each day’s shooting, this apparently was not done.
Second, glancing over the bluffs from above, one can easily see the results of years of use of the site. As mentioned above and as demonstrated by the pictures, the hillside is covered with the waddings and pieces of clay targets. All of this material will inevitably, given the angle of the slope of the hillside and normal erosion, wash down onto the beach and ultimately into the lake.
Third, an examination of the netting at the bottom of the hillside clearly demonstrates that it has not been properly maintained. The netting only covers approximately one-quarter of the width of the Club’s site. Therefore the residue from any trap shooting that takes place on the other three-quarters of the site, that is, from the 5 or 6 southerly firing positions, not only lands on the hillside, but is washed unimpeded onto the beach. The beach area covered by the netting fares little better. Tears in the netting render it dysfunctional.In several spots the rain had caused erosion and subsequent gulleys running beneath the netting and directly onto the beach. The gulleys themselves were filled with waddings and the pieces of clay targets. In another part soil washing off the hillside came over the top of the netting itself. It was not surprising then that one could easily find shotgun wadding and pieces of clay targets littering the beach just below the site.
Various sections of the lease executed between the County and the Club call for the latter to properly maintain the property. Thus Sec.10.08 requires the Club to “maintain, replace, and keep in good order and repair, and in a safe and sanitary condition the entire leased premises.” It also indicates that the Club will be responsible for any “repair, clean-up, remediation or detoxification arising out of any Hazardous Materials brought or released onto the leased premises.” (Sec. 10.02) As will be described below, the lead shot which we believe the Club probably is using is toxic, and thus ought to be considered hazardous materials. The lease itself draws on definitions of “Hazardous Materials” used by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (Sec. 10.02). Case law set out below has previously found that these kinds of materials generated by trap and skeet gun clubs fall within this definition. Finally, the lease states that the Club and not the County will carry the burden of any environmental remediation that is necessary during the life of the lease.(Sec. 9.02, 10.01). However, as will be discussed below and as demonstrated by case law, our concern is that the County itself will not be protected from potential future costs of remediation by this term in the lease. In any event, given the current state of the premises, it seems apparent that the Club has not taken the necessary steps to maintain the premises in an environmentally sound manner as called for in the lease.
The Club has been operating at the Warnimont Park site for decades. It is probably safe to assume that at the time they located there and the County first approved of the lease arrangement, many of the safety, health and environmental concerns that have developed around these kinds of sites over the past 10-15 years were unknown. However, our research has confirmed that it is no longer open to question as to whether or not environmental and health hazards flow from this type of activity. More importantly, a review of the scientific and regulatory literature on this issue establishes that the bluff and lakefront area upon which the Gun Club sits is absolutely the worst kind of site for this kind of activity.
The information shared in this section as to the appropriateness of the Warnimont Park site for the Club activities comes from several manuals and other sources. Primarily, these include:
(1) The Environmental Protection Agency’s, Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, E.P.A.-902-B-01-001, rev. June 2005 (hereinafter cited as “Best Management Practices”; full document is accessible at:
(2) The Environmental Protection Agency’s TWR Recommendations for Performing Human Health Risk Analysis on Small Arms Shooting Ranges, OSWER No. 9285.7-37, March 2003 (hereinafter cited as “TWR Recommendations”; accessible at:
(3) Environmental Management and Operating Outdoor Small Arms Firing Ranges, prepared by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, Small Arms Firing Range Team, February 2005 (hereinafter cited as “I.T.R.”; accessible at; tobid=986 .
A clear consensus among the authorities cited above is that these kinds of shooting ranges should not be located near wetlands or other waterways. According to the E.P.A., “Shooting into water bodies or wetlands should not occur.” (Best Management Practices, Sec. 2.2 pg. II-4).
After warning clubs which are located in this kind of setting of their susceptibility to litigation and/or government action the document states, “Shooting into water bodies or wetlands is NOT an option for ranges that want to survive in the future.” (Best Management Practices, Sec. 2.2 pg. II-4)
This strong language followed on the heels of a summary of environmental and health issues raised by the lead shot winding up in bodies of water, in this case Lake Michigan.
While it is uncertain, Friends of Grant Park believes that the Club may be using lead shot at the site. Sec. 10.10 of the lease between the County and the Gun Club requires the club “to take such steps as are necessary to insure that lead shot is not used” if “lead shot should be prohibited at the site” based on federal or state law. It seems apparent that at the time the lease was signed it was thought that at some point in the future lead shot would be prohibited at these kinds of gun club sites.
While alternatives to lead shot have been developed, the resources cited above indicate that the vast majority of the shot used at these gun clubs are lead-based. Further, even if the Gun Club asserts that it has a rule against lead shot, it is difficult to believe that such a rule could be effectively enforced. Our understanding is that the Club sells its own shotgun cartridges at the site but that members can also bring their own. Unless the club is inspecting each such cartridge it would be impossible to determine whether the rule is being complied with. The resources set out above indicate that the preference for lead shot is economically based, as they are cheaper than other forms. Likewise others believe that lead shot is simply more effective and efficient in trap shooting. It may be that the only way to enforce such a prohibition would be to require that only shells sold by the Club could be used at the site and that only non lead shot be sold. Such a process could be more easily monitored by the County to make sure that lead shot was not used.
Assuming that the Club is using or has ever used lead shot, this raises grave concerns. Given the layout of the Club’s site, the vast majority of the lead shot will wind up in Lake Michigan. As I am sure you know, the shotguns used are fired in the direction of the lake. There is no barrier between the person firing and the lake itself. Beyond this, the distance between the
site and the lake falls well within the “fall range” of the shot. Depending on the kind of lead shot used and the angle of the clay targets when they are released, shot will travel anywhere from 100 yards to 300 yards. (“TWR Recommendations, p. 8; I.T.R., p. 19). Lead shot that doesn’t make it to the lake directly but lands on the hillside poses the same health and environmental risks, as it too would eventually wash down into the lake. The E.P.A. Manual quoted above spends a considerable amount of time advising gun clubs how to control for runoff to prevent lead from migrating off-site as a result of surface water and other factors. (Best Management Practices, pg. III-8).
The health effects to humans from lead exposure have been well documented over the years and are described at length in Best Management Practices, pp. I-4, and I-5. The lead on the hillside, on the beach, and in the water is likewise a hazard to waterfowl and other birds. As the E.P.A. points out, it is not unusual for waterfowl to ingest the shot directly, mistaking it for food and grit. (Best Management Practices, p. I-4). “Numerous studies have documented the risks to waterfowl. The risk is especially high if spent shot falls into wetlands or water where waterfowl may feed.” (I.T.R. p. 14). It is for this reason that as long ago as 1991 the use of lead shot was banned for the hunting of waterfowl. It is illogical that hunters permitted to shoot waterfowl on Lake Michigan are not permitted to use lead shot while an activity that deposits hundreds of times more lead into Lake Michigan goes unabated.
The clay targets themselves contain hazardous materials. While biodegradable clay targets are available, it is our group’s understanding that the clay targets used at the Club site use binding material which is petroleum based and are therefore at least pollutants, and some would argue toxic.
Further demonstrating that locating the Club on the lake shore at the Warnimont Park site was ill advised in the first instance is the fact that many of the acceptable modes of limiting environmental damage as the result of the operation of these kinds of gun clubs could not be implemented here. Both the E.P.A. and the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council/Small Arms Firing Range Team have developed protocols for trap clubs of this sort to implement in the hopes of not only reducing environmental damage, but to help them avoid litigation by federal and state regulatory bodies, or citizens groups. These “best practices” call for the following:
1. Realigning the shooting stands and the angles and trajectories of clay targets to concentrate the spent shot in a smaller area and keep it away from sensitive areas such as waterways. Such would be impossible at the Warnimont site. Changing the angle of the shooting stands in any direction would only bring the line of fire into a direct line with a parking lot, the golf course, or the bike trail.
2. Use of barriers such as shot curtains or berms to control lead shot and plastic wadding dispersion. The problem here is that there is insufficient space between the shooting stands and the bluff to erect any kind of shot curtain, berm, or for that matter, additional vegetation.
3. Controlling runoff by planting vegetative ground cover, use of mulches and compost, removable surface covers, and other kinds of engineered runoff controls. Again, none of this is workable at the Warnimont site. The majority of the shot reaches the lake before falling to the ground. The pitch of the hillside and its sensitive nature is not conducive to the use of any of these practices for the shot falling on the hillside.
4. Lead reclamation via hand raking or sifting, screening, vacuuming the shot and soil washing. Once again, while the EPA strongly recommends these practices, none could be used to reclaim the shot that is falling onto the hillside.
Best Management Practices, p. III-1, III-22; I.T.R., p. 25-57.
Our research has also convinced us that the nature of the operation at the Gun Club site is most likely in violation of federal law. In 1993 in Connecticut Coastal Fisherman’s Assoc. v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 989 F.2d 1305 (2nd Cir. 1995) the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (R.C.R.A.) applied to the kinds of trap shooting operation we have here. It first held that the R.C.R.A. authorizes citizens groups, states or municipalities or the E.P.A. to bring suits if a gun club’s shooting activity posed an “imminent and substantial endangerment to the health or the environment.” More importantly here, the court also held that gunshot and clay targets met the statutory definition of “solid waste” where these materials were “discarded or abandoned,” that is, “left to accumulate long after they have served their intended purpose.” The court also concluded that based on toxicity testing and evidence of lead contamination, the lead shot was a hazardous waste subject to the R.C.R.A., as it was found to pose an imminent danger to waterfowl. Based on the Remington Arms case the E.P.A. concluded that it can bring legal action
against this kind of club as well as the owner of the property in question, in cases where the lead shot and clay target debris is left to lay, as has been the case here, as opposed to being recovered and reclaimed on a regular basis. (Best Management Practices, p. I-7). It is for this reason that the E.P.A. Manual advises gun clubs to institute lead shot removal practices and to keep records of same. As pointed out above the typical lead reclamation procedures recommended by the E.P.A. would not be available for this gun club. Given this ruling the E.P.A. advises that “Gun clubs, where they are shooting into water, wetlands, rivers, creeks and other sensitive environments, have the highest degree of litigation risk.” (Best Management Practices, p. I-7).
The Club’s use of the site at Warnimont Park also implicates the Federal Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act prohibits discharging pollutants into navigable water from a point source without a permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) and 1342. Federal courts have found, in cases filed against other gun clubs, that the kind of activities engaged in by the Club fall within the Clean Water Act.
In one such case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in Long Island Sound Keeper’s Fund v. New York Athletic Club sided with the E.P.A. on a number of issues. Evidence showed that shot from the club fell into the Long Island Sound. First, the court found that the mechanized target throwers used in a trap shooting operation and the shooting range itself were considered “point sources” as that term was defined by the Clean Water Act, therefore bringing the gun club within the coverage of the law. More importantly it found that expended shot, including nontoxic shot such as steel shot, which the club was using there, as well as target debris, when left in the water, were pollutants as defined by the Clean Water Act. The court issued an injunction against the club prohibiting further shooting at the site unless a permit was approved. The club never resumed the activity.
The Illinois Attorney General apparently interpreted the Clean Water Act in a similar fashion when filing a federal lawsuit against the Lincoln Park Trap Club which operated right on the shores of Lake Michigan in Chicago in 1991. The suit alleged that discharging lead shot, clay target materials and plastic shell wadding into the lake without a federal permit violated federal law. Apparently out of concern that it could be liable itself for the pollution and the costs of clean-up, the Chicago Parks District, which had a lease with the Lincoln Park Trap Club, served it with an eviction notice. The Club then vacated the premises. It was estimated that by that point 400 tons of lead shotgun pellets had been deposited into Lake Michigan at the site. It was further
estimated that 37.5 tons of toxic lead and 75 tons of clay targets were deposited into the lake each year as a result of the club’s activities. (Articles describing the history of the Lake Park Trap Club and the litigation in the 1990’s can be found by Googling “Untimely Shooting at the Gun Club,” Chicago Tribune, April 30. 1991.)
In Stone v. Naperville Park District, 38 F.Supp.2d 651 (1999) the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois likewise found that the Naperville Park District as well as the Naperville Sportsmans Club were violating the Clean Water Act as a result of discharging lead shot into the lakes near their Club. The Park and the gun club had leased the property from the city. At one point the E.P.A. inspected the premises and issued a letter to the gun club giving its opinion that it needed to seek prior approval via a permit to trap shoot at the site. In the litigation the defendant gun club itself agreed that the lead shot and the clay targets were “pollutants” under the Clean Water Act. However, they attempted to argue that their shooting range and firing stations did not constitute “point sources” under the Act. The court disagreed, finding that the Clean Water Act applied. The only issue was to determine issues of civil penalties and litigation costs that the club would be liable for.
A third federal statute implicated here is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which imposes liability on past and present owners or operators of property which are releasing or have released hazardous substances into the environment. Under the Act, the E.P.A. has authority to order the owner of the property or its occupier to clean up a site. The E.P.A. has applied C.E.R.C.L.A. to outdoor shooting ranges and the owners of the property on which the shooting range sits, to order payment of clean-up costs. This should be of particular concern to the County, which is leasing this property to the Club. Two examples where the E.P.A. has taken such action under C.E.R.C.L.A. will be mentioned.
First, in 1992 the E.P.A. took action against the Southern Lakes Trap and Skeet Club in southern Wisconsin following an investigation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service into the death of over 200 Canada Geese as a result of acute lead poisoning after ingesting lead shot. The investigation established the lead shot came from the gun club. After notice to the property owners that E.P.A. action was being taken, the club closed. However, the E.P.A. issued an administrative order against one current and one former owner of the property where the trap club had been located. The order required the owners to perform a site assessment and to
generate an estimate of the cost to restore the damaged wetlands. After the E.P.A. performed the clean-up it recouped a million dollars in clean-up costs from the owners.
As another example, in Walter A. Kamb v. United States Coast Guard, the court ended up applying C.E.R.C.L.A. against the Coast Guard which had operated a rifle, pistol and trap range on certain property. Mr. Kamb, on behalf of certain property owners, sued the Coast Guard after soil analysis indicated the presence of lead from lead shot, bullets and pellets. The court found that the Coast Guard was liable for the clean-up costs. Both these cases are summarized in Best Management Practices, pp. I-11 – I-12.
The continued operation of the Club therefore poses a difficult dilemma for the County Parks. There can be no question but that by today’s environmental standards, the location of the Club on the bluffs of Lake Michigan was terribly ill-advised. During the months that it operates it is believed the Club continues to deposit prohibited materials directly into the lake, in violation of the Clean Water Act. The geography of the site is such that the recommended procedures for preventing or remediating damage caused by these activities cannot be utilized. Finally, unless the Club has previously secured the appropriate federal permit, it appears that their activities are in violation of federal law.
We appreciate all the time and effort you have put into this matter to date, as well as your consideration of the concerns raised above. We look forward to having the opportunity to discuss the various issues this letter raises after you have had an opportunity to consider same.

Follow up letter to Director Dargle

April 22, 2014
Re: Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club at Warnimont Park

Dear Mr. Dargle:
Four members of our group were able to meet with three members of the Board of Directors of the Cudahy Sportsmen’s Club at their clubhouse on April 7th. We had what can only be described as a cordial meeting. The club expressed regrets concerning both the collection of plastic gun shot wadding along the beaches south of their facility as well as the fact that the issue had not been brought to their attention earlier. While they indicated that they had received complaints from Supervisor Pat Jursik approximately two years ago, it was their understanding that the waddings were mainly collecting around the Sheridan beach area. They also shared with us their attempts in the past to keep the area clean pursuant to the lease and their plans for the future. Having been provided a copy of our letter to you of February 14, 2014 they were also aware of the extent of our concerns and commented upon some of them. The purpose of this letter, then, is to simply update you on our thoughts as they relate to our previous letter and the concerns voiced therein.
I regret to state that nothing we have learned to date, based on our meeting with the club or otherwise, has altered our position in the matter. This is not to say that we came away from the meeting with the belief that the club was not sincere in its stated effort to attempt to ameliorate the situation. They reiterated their position, summarized in their previous letter to you, that they intended to conduct extra clean-ups, fix and possibly relocate the fence located at the bottom of the bluff, and to possibly attempt to employ a firm to collect the accumulated lead shot from the area of the lake below their site. However, it remains clear to us that despite their best efforts, the nature of the gun club operation itself and the particular location involved, make it impossible to prevent the continued degradation of the area and the environmental damage that we described in our previous letter.
First, it is clear that the only part of the club’s site that can be regularly cleaned is the area where the shooting itself takes place above the bluff. This is the only place that is easily accessible to the gun club’s efforts to conduct clean-up. Even this, however, is apparently a difficult process. The gun club opened for business on Sundays in February. Although the Board indicated at our meeting that they had been cleaning the site regularly, our walk through the site above the bluff prior to the meeting revealed that the area was still littered with shotgun waddings. It appears that the nature of the operation itself makes any clean-up, even in accessible areas, extremely difficult.
Next, the club confirmed that there was absolutely nothing that could be done to clean the hillside itself. The pictures previously provided to you evidence the sheer quantity of accumulated shotgun waddings and shattered clay targets that litter the hillside. In our meeting the club indicated that they went through approximately 25,000 clay targets last year. Obviously this means that an equal amount of plastic waddings were also discharged. While the club indicated that the “vast majority” of the plastic waddings remain on the site above the bluff, a view of the hillside itself indicates that thousands still make their way there.
The question, then, is how can the club prevent the large amount of debris that settles on the hillside from washing down onto the beach and into the lake. As we have demonstrated, their efforts in the past to control their plastic waddings have proven ineffective in this regard. The fencing that was installed in the past, as demonstrated by the pictures we provided you last November, has been completely ineffectual in catching this debris. Gulleys regularly form underneath the fence, washing both the shattered targets and the waddings onto the beach and into the lake. The pictures also showed that erosion from the hillside had overwhelmed portions of the fence. Our view of the fencing on April 7th established that yet another slide has buried more of the fence. It was easily seen from the cliff overlooking the lake that a large amount of shattered targets had found their way to the east side of the fence and were about to be washed into the lake.
The club admitted that as of yet they have been unable to even reach the beach below the gun club site to clean the area or repair the fence. Indeed, they indicated that one of their members, in trying to reach the site, had to for a period of time wade through the lake to get to it. This demonstrates one of our chief concerns here. The gun club shuts down its operations in late November. From late November until the spring the beach below the site is inaccessible as a result of weather, ice, and snow. There is a period, therefore, of at least six months when nothing can be done to repair any fencing below the site or to collect any debris that has made it over, under, or around the fence. Given the current weather we’re still experiencing, I would hazard a guess that the club has not yet been able to get to the site to date. It would not be unusual during this six month period for the area to receive heavy rains, as demonstrated by the weather of last week The lay of the land above the club site, including the golf course, insures that there will be a steady stream of rain runoff down the hillside during this period of time. This will result in a considerable period of time where the hillside is continually releasing plastic wadding and clay targets onto the beach and into the lake without any ability on the part of the club to prevent same.
The club’s proposed solution in part to the difficulty in maintaining the fence is to locate it further east along the beach and to do a better job at anchoring it into the ground to prevent gulleys from forming. We do not believe the fencing will effectively resolve the situation. As demonstrated in other areas along the bluff, erosion that occurs easily reaches the lake itself in places. Because this site is especially vulnerable to erosion given the lack of any plantings on the site above the cliff itself, this type of erosion can be expected to occur here, overwhelming the new fence, as it has with the existing one. Then there is the prospect of the lake itself during stormy periods undermining the fence from the easterly direction and sucking any debris captured on the west side of the fence into the lake.
Then, of course, there is the debris that bypasses the hillside and beach completely and is deposited directly into the lake. The club conceded that “99.9%” of all the lead shot fired from the site lands directly in the lake. This apparently has been accumulated since the late 1980’s, which was the last time that the club was aware of the lake below the site being dredged. We expressed concerns in our previous letter about the health effects of this much lead shot accumulating in the lake. In this regard, our more recent research may be of interest to you. We became aware of the fact that the NRA is currently conducting a publicity campaign challenging the danger of lead shot . Putting aside the merits of this position in general, even their material on this issue carves out an exception where lead shot is used around waterfowl. In their article entitled, “The Truth Behind the Assault on Traditional Ammunition,” their section on waterfowl reads in part as follows:
Lead poisoning in waterfowl is extremely unique and is exclusive to certain species of ducks, swans, and geese. While lead ammunition used for hunting waterfowl was banned in 1992, this was predominantly due to the aquatic environment in which the animals reside, and the unusual manner in which the species eat.
Waterfowl generally congregate in and around bodies of water, where lead shot can accumulate in the sediments of water bodies that are heavily hunted. The accumulate of shot can become problematic because of the nonselective way in which waterfowl feed. By sticking their head underwater and blindly sifting through sediment for seeds, bugs, etc. waterfowl can unintentionally ingest large amounts of shot.
The article goes on to explain how these circumstances are unique to waterfowl and are not an issue in nonaquatic situations. (This article can be read in full at
While the club voiced its belief that the lead shot was accumulating in 15 feet of water and thus beyond the feeding patterns of ducks, we likewise take issue with this. It is well known that the lower great lakes support migratory waterfowl and shorebirds such as the common and red-throated loons, which can dive up to 60 feet, as well as sandpipers, plover, and yellowlegs among many others which use the shoreline and shallows as their nutritional zones. Lead is easily confused for the grit used in their feeding patterns.
The family of diving ducks including scaup, long-tailed ducks, merganser, golden-eye, bufflehead, and scoter among other species, use the waters off of the county’s south shore bluffs for feeding in winter. Christmas Birds Counts, sponsored by the National Audubon Society, reflect numbers in the many thousands of diving ducks in Milwaukee County alone. These are not, as was referenced in the previous NRA section, “dabbling” waterfowl such as swans, geese and mallards, but are birds that are very likely to come in contact with lead shot that certainly, with wave action and freeze-thaw cycles, migrates throughout the lake bottom.
We would point to the following paper from the Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative and co-authored by Dr. Noel Cutright, emeritus scientist of WE Energies, and Scott Diehl, manager, Wisconsin Humane Society Wildlife Rehabilitation Center: www.wisconsinbirds.or/leadpoisoning/htm.
From it, for instance, is the following:
• Lead poisoning has been documented in at least 25 species of water birds.
• According to the Wisconsin DNR Wildlife Health Team, 26 Common Loons were submitted to the team between 2006 and 2008. Approximately one-third of those loons were judged to have died of lead poisoning from the remnants of lead fishing tackle recovered from their GI tracts. Research from around the nation has found that poisoning from lead fishing tackle is responsible for up to half of adult loon deaths.
• Nationally, lead poisoning of waterfowl and the Bald Eagle resulted in a 1991 federal ban on the use of lead shot in waterfowl and coot hunting.
We also have previously voiced our concern about the type of clay targets used by the club. Some are directly deposited into the lake, as where targets that are missed completely by the person firing at it. Even targets that are hit and shattered, based on wind patterns, can wind up directly in the lake. This was confirmed not only by the club but also by DNR Inspector Mickleberg, who I believe you have met. He indicated to me that on his second visit to the site in the winter, but after the club had begun its operations, he could see shattered clay targets on the ice shelf in the lake. The club has indicated that it is trying to limit this by ceasing operation of certain of the traps when the wind reaches a certain level. Regardless, the targets on the hillside are also reaching the lake as previously described.
Likewise, we have confirmed with the club that the clay targets they are using are not completely biodegradable. That is, while their contents do break down, unlike plastic, they are using targets that have petroleum products as binding materials. Our concerns about such targets were described in our previous letter. The club has made it clear that there are no real options in the type of targets that are used. They indicated that the completely nontoxic targets, those that exclude the petroleum binding, have a large sulfur content. These targets, when they break down, are deadly to plant material. Their concern, then, is that the use of such targets, when landing on the hillside, would kill whatever vegetation is able to exist there, and thus contribute to further erosion.
Finally, and an issue not raised by our first letter, there is the obvious fact that the area on which the Sportsmen’s Club sits seems to be eroding at a faster rate than the surrounding areas.
The nearly totally denuded slope below the blufftop shows no likelihood of re-vegetating given its pronounced steep angle and relatively continuous sloughing-off. Interestingly, a chart hanging in the club demonstrates the rapidity with which the blufftop is falling away, with many yards lost over the last twenty years. It could be suggested that the lack of rooted vegetation atop the bluff does little to protect it; excess stormwater runoff, contributing to slough, could better be intercepted by deeply rooted plant materials, of which grass is not one. Foot traffic contributes to the ever-weakening blufftop as well. Concern was expressed in the meeting about the clubhouse’s proximity to the edge of the bluff as it slowly erodes. If the status quo remains, there would appear to be no solution to this continuous erosion and eventual encroachment on other surrounding areas, including the bike path.
We continue to feel that the location is at odds with the EPA’s Best Management Practices (BMP) and the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which state that shooting ranges should not be located on or near a wetland or body of water. As for the CWA’s requirement for a permit for this land use, when asked if the club had ever obtained a permit to operate a shooting range, President Tom Ahmad stated that they “never had one, never heard of it, until now.” As we have previously pointed out, we believe this is a violation of the CWA which prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person into the waters of the United States without a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” As pointed out above, according to the club, approximately 25,000 clay targets are launched toward the lake each season, and presumably 25,000 lead shots as well. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that expended shot and target debris, including nontoxic shot, such as steel shot, left in the water, are pollutants as defined by the CWA.
In short, the concerns that we articulated in our letter of February 14, 2014 remain intact. I will be in contact with Guy Smith in the very near future in hopes of getting some idea of where the Parks Department stands on this matter. I thank you for continuing to explore these issues.