A dashboard for the proposed data center at the former paper mill.
Public records. Visible assumptions. Room for your own conclusions.
Latest: statewide DNR review settlement; local reports say Council denied the current CUP 7–0 on October 20. Status reviewed October 24; official denial record still pending. City minutes or a signed decision were not yet located. The 45-condition approval resolution was only a draft and was not adopted. Statewide DNR review settlement added October 24; broader developer disclosures remain dated October 9; technical charts retain their filing dates.
Local reports say the Common Council denied DC Rapids LLC’s current conditional-use permit application for 950 Fourth Avenue N. on October 20. The City’s written decision or minutes were not available when this update was prepared.
This denial applies to the current application. A future application, appeal, or other next step has not been established in the records reviewed.
WSAU / WAOW · Oct 21 · reports 7–0 ↗WSAW · Oct 20 · reports denial ↗The Planning Commission denied the conditional-use permit and site-plan requests. Its record cites missing or inconsistent material and unmet standards. The Common Council later denied the CUP on October 20.
September 16 report · pp. 8–10 ↗A settlement filed October 16 and announced October 19 requires the Wisconsin DNR to prepare a statewide review of data-center development’s environmental effects, with public comment and at least one hearing. The review is due January 31, 2028. The settlement also sets project-by-project Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act compliance going forward.
This is a statewide policy development, not a site-specific review of the Wisconsin Rapids proposal. Reporting says Port Washington’s existing permits remain valid; the agreement does not reopen Wisconsin Rapids’ October 20 permit denial or establish that a future Rapids application must receive a site-specific environmental impact statement. The final court order and how DNR applies the requirements to any future Rapids proposal remain to be checked.
Wisconsin Public Radio · Oct 19 · settlement terms and DNR statement ↗Midwest Environmental Advocates · Oct 16 · announcement ↗The Council denied the current DC Rapids LLC conditional-use permit application, according to local reporting published October 20–21. WSAU/WAOW reports a 7–0 vote. As of October 21, the City’s project page and minutes archive still did not show the Council’s written outcome, so the vote count and formal findings should be checked against the official minutes or signed decision when posted.
The Planning Commission’s September 16 site-plan denial remains a separate prior action. The October 20 packet’s 45-condition draft resolution was not adopted; do not describe those draft conditions as project commitments.
A new application, appeal, or other next step has not been established in the records reviewed. The denial resolves the current permit request; it does not by itself establish what the developer may do later.
WSAU / WAOW · Oct 21 · reports 7–0 ↗WSAW · Oct 20 · reports denial ↗City agendas and minutes archive · check for official record ↗The October 20 packet contains an unsigned draft approval resolution with 45 numbered conditions. Council denied the permit rather than adopting that draft. The conditions are not operating requirements or established developer commitments.
The draft addressed utility-capacity documentation, substation permitting, cooling and wastewater, noise analysis, generator-testing notices, stormwater, habitat planting, and river-facing lighting. These remain proposals within an unadopted draft.
Draft resolution · PDF pp. 838–842 (large file) ↗The ordinance text presented October 5 pauses new data-center-enabling rezonings, plats, certified survey maps and land divisions. It preserves earlier submissions and excludes conditional-use permits, site-plan reviews and building permits. The pending mill-site application should therefore not be described as automatically cancelled or frozen.
The new DC-O overlay district adds parcel-specific zoning review for future data centers, followed by a conditional-use permit. Earlier applications and accessory data centers are preserved in the packet text.
Scope is summarized from the premeeting packet; adoption is verified by the published legal notice. A signed final ordinance was not located in this review.
Scope and exceptions · pp. 28–31, 37–40 ↗The packet calls for work on generator emissions and fuel, equipment setbacks, sound measurement, water limits and reporting, decommissioning and financial assurance. These are planned regulatory tasks, not verified operating conditions or completed studies.
City work program · pp. 28–29 ↗The County adopted Ordinance 709 on September 15. It requires developer notice within 30 days of the first planning contact for qualifying projects anywhere in Wood County. Its definition requires all three thresholds: at least 25,000 square feet of principal buildings, 10 contiguous acres and 5,000 servers.
The ordinance provides for review of infrastructure, land-use and environmental impacts, and possible mitigation agreements. It is a notification and coordination rule. This review did not establish whether DC Rapids has submitted a county notice.
County adoption notice ↗Full Ordinance 709 ↗Current conditions from the National Weather Service station at South Wood County Airport.
Wisconsin Rapids’ planned 150 MW is about one-sixth of the 902 MW listed for Port Washington’s Lighthouse campus.
Source figures rechecked October 9, 2026150 ÷ 902 = 16.6% · approximately one-sixth
PNK calls its figure total planned power capacity. Vantage specifies critical IT load: power for computing equipment. The sources do not establish matching boundaries for cooling and other support systems. This ratio describes the published figures; it does not establish a one-sixth ratio of total electricity use or local impacts.
Full buildout · 2030 target
Applicant estimateCurrent FAQ · Domestic use only
Developer estimateAug 1 statement · Plan pending
Developer statement via reportingSep 1 plan · Industrial land
Applicant filingTotal proposed load in the August 28 filing, not additional load in each phase.
The 2027–2030 dates are applicant targets from the August filing. They remain conditional on approvals and final utility arrangements.
Applicant narrative · Aug 28 · p. 5 ↗The August 28 filing lists totals of 40, 100 and 150 MW; PNK’s current FAQ describes approximately 50 MW increments. This chart retains the dated filing. A final utility agreement would resolve the phase schedule.
Compare PNK’s current FAQ ↗Your assumption, not an operating forecast. MW × load share × 8,760 hours ÷ 1,000. No additional efficiency factor is applied to the stated load.
PNK’s current estimate for domestic municipal use at full buildout; checked October 9.
Estimates and a service reference have different scopes. None is a measured withdrawal or an independently verified permit cap.
Premixed water/propylene glycol delivered from off-site. Separate from daily local water demand.
2 × 300,000 gal tanks. Storage, not daily use.
PNK describes sealed, non-evaporative cooling with no routine river intake or coolant discharge. It anticipates 10–15 years between coolant replacements; the supplier, source water and tanker count remain unspecified. These are design statements, not operating measurements.
Aquatic-life context · Final design, containment, maintenance and stormwater controls still need review.
PNK cooling disclosures ↗Normal operations · HVAC contribution at six receptors
dBA is logarithmic; these values are not percentages of loudness. Receptor IDs match the study. Existing background sound is not added here.
Maximum across 14 boundary receptors at each frequency, with modeled mitigation. This envelope does not describe a single location.
Sound study · Appendix B · pp. 14–15 ↗| Hz | Normal | Emergency | Limit |
|---|
PNK’s Aug 1 statement, reported by USA TODAY Network.
Parking calculation in the Sep 1 plan.
The response defers the staffing plan.
A parking assumption is not a verified total of permanent jobs. Construction jobs, permanent roles and local hires are separate measures.
Site-plan response · pp. 1, 13 ↗Total property in plan C400.
“Other site area” does not mean undeveloped, permeable or publicly accessible land.
Full-buildout estimate.
Peak-hour counts are part of the daily total. Construction traffic needs a separate estimate.
Applicant narrative · pp. 8–9 ↗Current site traffic and background road counts would show the change residents might experience.
The applicant says it will pay for project-driven electrical upgrades. Its FAQ also states residential rates will not rise because of the project. These are developer positions; this review found no final utility terms or quantified household-rate analysis establishing that outcome.
Applicant’s cost-allocation position · pp. 5–7 ↗PNK rate statement · checked Oct 9 ↗Habitat changes, artificial light, noise and changes to water can affect wildlife. Research establishes these pathways; the size of any effect here depends on the species present, their exposure and the final project design.
This section does not establish a measured wildlife impact at the Wisconsin Rapids site. The studies below concern other places or general ecological processes. Regional examples are not a survey of animals on this property.
PNK’s current FAQ describes sealed, non-evaporative cooling that releases heat to air, with no river-water cooling intake or routine coolant discharge to waterways. If implemented as described, this avoids the direct cooling-intake and heated-water-discharge pathways discussed below. Final design and operating records are needed to verify that outcome.
PNK project FAQ · rechecked Oct 9 ↗Known: Replacing native vegetation with buildings, pavement or closely managed lawns removes food and nesting opportunities. Wisconsin DNR identifies habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation as major pollinator threats. Pesticide exposure is another recognized pressure; the risk depends on the chemical and exposure.
Check locally: Map existing flowering and nesting habitat, planned disturbance, native planting and pesticide practices. A honeybee hive count alone would not describe wild bee populations.
Known: Nearby artificial lights can disrupt flight orientation in studied flying insects. In a Swiss field experiment, illuminated plant communities received 62% fewer nighttime pollinator visits than dark controls. That is a study-specific change in visits, not a prediction of 62% fewer insects here, and not a bee-mortality estimate.
Check locally: Measure light spilling into vegetation and water, including its color, intensity and duration. Compare insect activity across seasons and against similar unlit habitat.
Known: Some bats feed around lights where insects gather; others avoid illuminated areas. Experiments with greater mouse-eared bats found avoidance of noisy foraging areas. Many Wisconsin bats use trees for seasonal roosts, so clearing can also remove habitat. These findings do not establish how local bats would respond to this facility.
Check locally: Survey roosts and flight routes before clearing; record bat activity alongside light levels and the sound frequencies reaching habitat. Activity recordings are not a direct population count.
Known: Artificial nighttime light can interfere with foraging and movement in mammals. Human-caused noise can mask useful sounds or lead animals to avoid an area. Responses vary with species, sound characteristics, habitat and other pressures; an animal remaining nearby does not by itself demonstrate no effect.
Check locally: Identify feeding areas, cover and travel routes. Compare wildlife observations and nighttime sound and light before and after changes, including nearby reference areas.
Known: Transparent or reflective glass can cause bird collisions. Artificial lights can attract or disorient birds migrating at night. Risk depends on the amount and placement of glass, lighting, nearby habitat and migration conditions; a building’s floor area alone does not predict bird deaths.
Check locally: Review glazing and exterior lighting, preserve nesting habitat where feasible, and assess bird activity during spring and fall migration. Bird-visible glass treatments and reduced unnecessary lighting can lower collision risk.
Known: Wisconsin wetlands provide breeding, feeding and shelter habitat for amphibians and reptiles. Filling or degrading that habitat can remove those functions. Roads are another pressure: Wisconsin DNR identifies vehicle deaths as a leading cause of turtle declines, especially where turtles cross roads to nest.
Check locally: Identify wetlands, seasonal pools and connections to upland habitat. Review drainage changes and construction traffic against seasonal animal movements. A statewide species list does not establish which species occupy this site.
Known: Cooling-water intakes can trap fish or draw in eggs and small organisms. Heated discharges can change aquatic habitat; warmer water holds less dissolved oxygen, and temperature affects fish and aquatic insect development. These mechanisms require the relevant intake, discharge or temperature change.
Separately, sediment escaping construction sites can clog fish gills and cover spawning areas and aquatic habitat. That pathway can exist even when a facility uses sealed cooling.
Check locally: Confirm the cooling design, drainage routes, erosion controls, coolant and fuel containment, and any discharge arrangements. Compare temperature, dissolved oxygen and sediment conditions upstream and downstream of relevant drainage inputs, with a pre-project baseline.
PNK’s no-intake/no-coolant-discharge description narrows the expected cooling risks. It does not establish the performance of stormwater controls or predict a local fish-population change.
The dashboard’s residential sound model estimates sound at homes, and its frequency chart reports boundary values. Those results are not a wildlife assessment. As an ecological interpretation of the research above, meeting a residential dBA limit does not establish a safe exposure for every species: frequency, timing, background sound and the location of habitat also matter.
Retain connected habitat and native flowering plants; protect wetlands and roosts; contain sediment and spills; and use bird-visible glazing where needed. For lighting, NPS recommends shielding, directing light only where needed, limiting brightness and operating hours, and choosing warmer spectra. Lower-impact lighting still needs to be checked at habitat edges.
NPS outdoor lighting principles ↗For this proposal, the measures and monitoring priorities above are questions for design review, not a claim that each measure has been adopted. The existing industrial site should be assessed against its current habitat and conditions.
A dated habitat and species survey, measurements before work begins, final equipment and drainage plans, and repeated observations during construction and operation. Sampling should cover relevant seasons and comparable reference areas so weather, seasonal movement and other nearby activity can be distinguished from project effects. Counts, activity, breeding success and mortality measure different outcomes.
Useful starting points: Wisconsin DNR wetland maps ↗ and the Surface Water Data Viewer ↗. Maps guide field checks; they do not replace a site survey.
Needs final utility terms, upgrade cost allocation and a rate-impact calculation.
Needs average power, electricity sourcing and generator fuel use. No generic grid mix is assigned to this project.
The commissioned interim memo anticipated an October final report. No final report was located in the reviewed City hub as of October 9; a local effect size remains unestablished.
Tracy Cross interim memo ↗Before-and-after sound, water and traffic measurements would turn predictions into observed impacts.
City adopts data-center standards; the applicant submits its CUP request.
Updated plans, sound model and interim residential analysis enter the public record.
MC 1423 creates the moratorium; MC 1424 creates the DC-O overlay district.
Legal notice ↗Effective date reported by the Tribune after October 8 publication.
Dated report ↗WSAU/WAOW reports Council denied DC Rapids LLC’s current conditional-use permit. Official minutes and written findings were not located by October 21.
WSAU / WAOW report ↗The current CUP denial is reported locally; the official written record remains pending. A future application or appeal is not established. Read the status update, moratorium scope and separate county rule.
The City says its September 16 staff report reviewed submissions through August 26; later materials could still be considered by the Commission. This dashboard’s technical charts use the August 28 narrative and September 1 filings. A newer model does not establish that the City accepted it or that every requirement was met.
City explanation of the review window ↗| Source | Author / relationship | Date / scope | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 · Amended application narrative | Applicant’s legal submission | Aug 28 · Power, water, traffic | PDF ↗ |
| 02 · Site plans and responses | Kimley-Horn for applicant | Filed Sep 1 · Land, storage, staffing | PDF ↗ |
| 03 · Sound study | Kimley-Horn for DC Rapids LLC | Aug 26; filed Sep 1 · Modeled sound | PDF ↗ |
| 04 · Interim residential analysis | Tracy Cross for PNK DC LLC | Aug 21; filed Sep 3 · Home values | PDF ↗ |
| 05 · Papermill redevelopment hub | City of Wisconsin Rapids | Checked Oct 9 · Decisions, next steps and filings | Open ↗ |
| 06 · Historical public hearing notice | City of Wisconsin Rapids | Sep 16 hearing · Time and venue | Open ↗ |
| 07 · Aug 1 meeting reporting | USA TODAY Network / The Daily Reporter | Aug 6 · Permanent-job statement | Open ↗ |
| 08 · Preliminary city review | City Community Development | Aug 12 · Clarification requests | PDF ↗ |
| 09 · Wisconsin Rapids project FAQ | PNK Group · developer statement | Checked Oct 9 · Capacity, water, cooling and rates | Open ↗ |
| 10 · Lighthouse campus specifications | Vantage · developer statement | Checked Oct 9 · Critical IT load | Open ↗ |
| 11 · Historical moratorium hearing notice | City of Wisconsin Rapids | Oct 5 hearing · Superseded by adoption below | Open ↗ |
| 12 · October 5 Planning Commission packet | City of Wisconsin Rapids | September 16 report; ordinance text presented for adoption | Open ↗ |
| 13 · Published ordinance summary | City legal notice | MC 1423 / MC 1424 · Published Oct 8 | Open ↗ |
| 14 · Moratorium effective-date reporting | Caitlin Shuda / Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune | Oct 9 · Republished via USA TODAY Network | Open ↗ |
| 15 · Wood County Ordinance 709 | Wood County | Notification thresholds and county review | Open ↗ |
| 16 · County adoption notice | Wood County Clerk | Sep 15 · Ordinance 26-9-2 / 709 | Open ↗ |
| 17 · October 20 attendance reporting | Jamie Martinson / Civic Media · reporting | Published Oct 15 · Doors at 5:30 p.m. remain media-reported; official notice linked below | Report ↗ |
| 18 · October 20 official agenda | City of Wisconsin Rapids | Retrieved Oct 17 · Venue, access and scheduled CUP consideration | Agenda ↗ |
| 19 · October 20 Council packet | City of Wisconsin Rapids · proposed resolution | Retrieved Oct 17 · Unsigned draft, 45 conditions, PDF pp. 838–842 | Packet (large file) ↗ |
| 20 · October 20 Council outcome | WSAU / WAOW local reporting | Published Oct 21 · Reports CUP denial 7–0 | Report ↗ |
| 21 · Denial confirmation | WSAW local reporting | Published Oct 20 · Updated Oct 21 · Denial reported | Report ↗ |
| 22 · Official minutes archive | City of Wisconsin Rapids | Checked Oct 21 · Written outcome not yet located | Check archive ↗ |
| 23 · Statewide DNR review settlement | Wisconsin DNR; reported by WPR; settlement parties include Sierra Club and Vantage | Filed Oct 16; announced Oct 19 · Statewide review due Jan 31, 2028; not site-specific to Rapids | WPR report ↗ · MEA announcement ↗ |
Read your neighbors’ views, share a question, or add a source. No account needed. Every post is reviewed by staff before it becomes public.
Community priorities cannot be reduced to a single dial. Each measure keeps its own unit, scope and uncertainty.
Applicant estimate is a proposal or statement, even when filed with the City. Commissioned model is an analysis prepared for the applicant, with assumptions. Official record establishes an action, notice or rule—not every claim inside a submitted document. Not established means this review does not support a defensible number.
Charts use local filings wherever available. Building shares use 43,560 square feet per acre. Annual energy uses a 365-day year and your chosen load share. Sound-envelope values are maxima over 14 receptors at each frequency.
National averages, the operating historic mill and the current site are different baselines. We do not substitute one for another. A modeled limit comparison does not establish the change from present conditions.
The technical charts prioritize the Aug 28 narrative and Sep 1 plans over older project sizes. Water also shows the newer developer FAQ, alongside the original filing. The Aug 1 job range retains its date; parking assumptions and total jobs are not interchangeable.
Later filings may change these readings. Numbers are not automatically updated. Corrections should identify the metric, replacement value, date and supporting page so the source and calculation can be checked together.
MW (megawatts) describes a rate of power use or a capacity. MWh and GWh describe energy over time: 1 MW for one hour is 1 MWh; 1,000 MWh is 1 GWh. Critical IT load covers computing equipment; facility-wide power also covers cooling and supporting systems.
The featured ratio divides two published MW figures. Their measurement boundaries differ, so it is a scale reference, not a verified comparison of total electricity requirements. Neither capacity figure establishes annual consumption.
Any sponsorship will be disclosed publicly. Sponsors may submit sources and corrections through the same evidence review as everyone else. Sponsorship will not confer editorial control, favorable coverage or priority over community questions.
Operating meter records, a dated pre-project baseline, approved utility terms, actual staffing, audited public revenues and costs, and measured sound at consistent locations. Those records would let the dashboard compare predictions with outcomes.