[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6334727,"mediaKeyId","2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876","parentId",2295020,"title","Land Conservation Committee updates 2025 contractor and equipment rental rates","audioSeconds",543,"startMs",3068000,"endMs",3611000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876&start=3068&end=3611","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876/thumbnail_3068000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6334727/Ashland-County/Wisconsin/Land-Conservation-Committee-updates-2025-contractor-and-equipment-rental-rates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334727-2be1fe297e511ff310c8f4eabf72c4fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1776141895&Signature=gktgqlOYqf~SexZKffcNpg-Tt1kqLUk1dPHeYhQZcR1Ey-YUQ93ugDhK77YXFsf-~a~-QGYPIWyZD4moRPZ9Q-elFhKzcM1la~JkP6OLme6k8t3GS-ZNdzNC~IUmjpMJ1pk68cgTWtt9DD~IvutHr-jvk-urIofKUDCR6EQyXGrdi5bfexLaoucwgIej6ktqgkaLx3BO-c3S3tRGNfcmygyl2eQ3W1xYfJUHTBa0Qc8pNphiUHh7LjxNTFCbZjgADdmk2Jx7Wk0X-selicWfXmpVPZmLWxeuAahNd2c07JO-3cmf2Y22M1NJ4zpEqXDwu~OG53~s7CsihGeosFvfwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ashland County, WI","date","2025-02-12T17:30:11Z","article","The Ashland County Land Conservation Committee approved updated local contractor and equipment rental rates for 2025 to reflect current market pricing and to ensure local producers and contractors receive fair compensation under county cost‑share programs.

Why it matters: Rates set by the committee are used to reimburse landowners or contractors who install conservation practices under the county’s cost‑share programs; raising the rates helps ensure local equipment owners are compensated fairly but may modestly reduce the number of hours or projects that the county’s fixed annual cost‑share allotment can support.

A staff presenter explained the proposed rates were derived from a sampling of local contractors and rental companies and from the highway maintenance manual supplement; rates had not been updated in depth since 2021–22. The presenter said the recommended rates were rounded up from the local averages and noted the county’s DACP (cost share) funding is a fixed pot (staff said $50,000 per year), so higher rates could slightly reduce the number of projects funded but are not expected to cut projects from six to nine per year down to only a couple.

Committee members asked whether increasing rates would constrain program capacity and whether higher rates should be raised with state representatives; staff and committee members said typical annual program volumes (six to nine projects) would not be severely curtailed by these adjustments.

The committee moved and approved the 2025 rates by voice vote. Members discussed implementation details, including that rates apply to either landowners performing in‑kind work or to contractors and that higher, fair rates could encourage greater participation in cost‑share projects.

The committee recorded no roll‑call vote tallies in the transcript; the motion to adopt the 2025 rates was carried by voice vote. Staff said the updated rates will be used when processing cost‑share reimbursements and should be posted in the county’s program guidance and handouts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Land Conservation Committee - 2/12/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Ashland County Land Conservation Committee approved revised local contractor and equipment rental rates for 2025 to align payments to producers and contractors with current market ranges. Staff said updates reflect recent local contractor pricing and will modestly affect how far the county’s fixed cost‑share funding will stretch.","taxTitle","Ashland County, Wisconsin","taxId",72843,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6334732,"Committee opens discussion on PFAS, recommends county testing and Health & Human Services briefing",4464,2470000,6934000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876&start=2470&end=6934","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876/thumbnail_2470000.jpg","/articles/6334732/Ashland-County/Wisconsin/Committee-opens-discussion-on-PFAS-recommends-county-testing-and-Health-Human-Services-briefing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334732-f529cb3a17b318996168ac6937cfb7bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1776141895&Signature=cf8Z1VXj7ScEomFhhdzDSpgZLSRt9--oBiA8tOcTefKKVdq1CucrUAVvNKLcy2HI8Zf6n7cEEEhuWXFBdu8ZpdvmU5yOm6-mqytXOWso0a7T47RLFBbu6o2k3Y2rLOAclyUkGIlTjAeJXlmobvEnHbyRVVn8foZKcvDulx4joOIaoOW7mKuxRLl1Rre-AxWdk1olnQfBRrtL~KmJtHmW3fVI04Xs2Wl0zBq5AdLtR1mWJ61wmxFbQqo5a9KbwilFWZwhQyY5d2uZq6tgmybo~FNlWZJki45fqKK0Rj-QF4WoWVKj~jCj2FhoZpcS2u5C1Lzr7yXySK36Q3h9XenZDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members discussed concerns about PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination tied to historical sewage sludge and septic spreading and recommended steps for Ashland County to establish a testing and information baseline.

Why it matters: PFAS are persistent chemicals that accumulate in soils and water and can migrate into wells and food chains. Committee members said several local fields have received biosolids or septage historically and recommended a county “PFAS profile” to identify potentially affected lands and wells before deciding on policy or land‑use changes.

Charlie Ortman, a committee member, urged the county to determine its PFAS profile and described recent federal and USDA rule changes that affect conservation easement eligibility where biosolids or sludge have been spread. He said some easement programs may disallow lands with certain PFAS histories.

Mary Jo, Land Conservation Department staff, explained the practical steps and constraints: PFAS testing is costly (she cited a lab cost previously encountered of about $600 per test), soil and well testing are different and the county currently runs an annual well‑testing program that subsidizes testing for bacteria and metals at roughly $60 per participant; PFAS testing would be far more expensive and grant funding is not presently identified. Mary Jo said the county will need to map permitted sludge‑spreading locations and determine landowner permissions before any sampling effort.

Several committee members raised next steps: George (committee chair/planning committee chair) asked that the PFAS issue be added to the Health and Human Services agenda for wider public‑health discussion. Dan (committee member) said the state appropriated funds for PFAS research and grants in the biennial budget but noted distribution was delayed pending state budget actions. Other members recommended exploring Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding, collaborating with Northwest Regional Planning Commission, or coordinating with nearby counties on testing and possible legal action in the future if industrial PFAS sources are identified.

Committee members also discussed options for handling contaminated biosolids, including whether landfilling or other containment was feasible locally, and noted remediation options are limited and expensive. Several speakers stressed that a countywide mapping of where biosolids and septage have been spread is a necessary first step and that landowner consent and funding will constrain any testing program. Mary Jo said she will coordinate with staff (GIS and grant contacts) and with the League of Women Voters and the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, both of which have expressed interest, and said creating a PFAS profile will be a process rather than a single, quick action.

No formal motion was taken to change county policy at this meeting. The committee directed staff to add PFAS to the Health and Human Services agenda, to inventory permitted sludge spread sites and to investigate possible grant sources and regional partners for testing and outreach. Members also suggested public‑education steps such as publishing lists of consumer products that contribute PFAS to household waste streams and broader outreach about proper disposal of hazardous materials.

The discussion closed with agreement that testing strategy should include separate soil and well tests and that identifying priority locations (for example, sites with long histories of sludge spreading) is the immediate next step.","Ashland County Land Conservation Committee members urged a countywide PFAS profile and discussed restricted sewage-sludge land spreading, testing costs and next steps. Members requested the item be added to Health & Human Services and suggested pursuing grants, regional partnerships and public education.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6334737,"Ashland County committee approves 2024 wildlife damage crop prices and five claims totaling about $21,534",1053,279000,1332000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876&start=279&end=1332","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2295020-316b0dfa1d373e9655575cff44e6c876/thumbnail_279000.jpg","/articles/6334737/Ashland-County/Wisconsin/Ashland-County-committee-approves-2024-wildlife-damage-crop-prices-and-five-claims-totaling-about-21534","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334737-8037a42adde7d9ee6629a6f003231299/orig.mp4?Expires=1776141895&Signature=GCA6HuVumsMT1sEECioa2iIQ3t401Elz7WX-riOxe7zobNS5fBSAZf2rY2wVcHfBv0TwTnNfx~6Xc5iKbQvSb0i2vReVU~ix1EAYnxNIi~3n-16dsgteVp01spTUIZ56eBtEHFCk5TNduY00Lq8NV23nFHHmvnE7a~cGW-s7akn9oZoR1zpcR~-hbdHvzkkl~hhyRAA4u9fZKSMF6phnTNnECnu5aipPk1~js-IVWZXqVY0IfD1mh88onNBoD~7ovPjYr4vslCbv~fzkTvgCp90Rpw20dGH7zj748d4kgb4LcngGGJp5jsBQVM3yk3D3YxvQdIupC7NN8DCwmgDIkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ashland County Land Conservation Committee voted to adopt the 2024 wildlife damage crop prices used to calculate payments and approved five final damage claims from the 2024 season.

The price schedule and the claims were presented by Ethan Rosing, USDA Wildlife Services administrator for the DNR coverage area that includes Ashland, Bayfield and Iron counties. Committee members voted to set the crop prices as recommended and then voted to approve the five claims that together amounted to $21,533.93 in reported losses before program limits and deductions.

Why it matters: The committee’s action determines the base prices used to convert field sample losses into claim payments and clears the individual participant payments for state reimbursement. USDA Wildlife Services staff said higher-than-normal bear activity in 2024 produced more trapping and more claims than in 2023, and the payments will be routed through the Wisconsin DNR reimbursement process.

Ethan Rosing, identifying himself as “USDA Wildlife Services, administrator for the wildlife damage and abatement claims program for the DNR” for Ashland, Bayfield and Iron counties, told the committee the price sheet is produced by averaging market sources monthly over the year and that corn and soybean prices used for the calculations were the same across Ashland and Iron counties. He said the sheet lists the sources used to compute the averaged prices and that those prices were used to compute the five final participant claims.

Rosing provided an overview of the season: five enrolled participants filed claims that reached the required deductibles, producing combined submitted claims of $21,533.93; the program’s maximum single-participant payout is $10,000. He said the program trapped and relocated a large number of nuisance or agriculture‑raiding bears in 2024 (reporting 53 more bears trapped in the counties he serves compared with 2023) and that the DNR used repellents and bait crops in some places to reduce elk damage.

Committee questions focused on how beekeeping losses were valued and on the sampling method used to estimate bushels per acre. On beekeeping, Rosing said he had the claimant’s receipts for replacement equipment and that, in that case, the damage occurred after honey production was finished so there was no lost honey revenue to claim. On sampling, he described going to each affected field and taking three undamaged samples and three to four damaged-area samples to estimate the producer’s yield and the lost yield.

The committee handled the approvals in two steps. A member moved to set the USDA/DNR-recommended crop prices and the committee approved that motion. Later the committee moved to approve the five individual claims; the motion passed on a voice vote. The meeting record does not list individual recorded roll-call votes; the minutes state the motion was carried.

Program funding and payment flow were explained: the county pays for any abatement measures billed locally (for example, repellent spraying) and then seeks reimbursement from the DNR; approved claims are submitted to DNR, and DNR sends payments directly to participants. Rosing also noted the department receives a fixed, percentage-based reimbursement to help administer the program.

The packet identifies the five claimants and the committee record lists final claim payments (after applicable deductions) for four claimants: Mark Joma (final payment, $10,000), Morgan Peck (final payment, $6,398.86), Dave Kretschmar (final payment, $521.33) and Thomas Cunningham (final payment, $1,008.75). The transcript included a final payment figure for the fifth claimant, listed as John Bridal; that amount in the record was not clearly stated and is therefore not specified here.

The committee also discussed program effectiveness. Rosing said most trapped bears were relocated 20–40 miles into public lands and that return to fields in a crop-damage timeframe was rare; he said trapping and relocation, combined with repellents and targeted measures such as bait plots, helped reduce damage in several cases during 2024.

The committee approved the price schedule and the five claims and directed staff to obtain required signatures on the finalized paperwork so DNR reimbursement can proceed. The DNR will process the reimbursement to the approved participants under the program rules.

Votes at a glance: the committee adopted the USDA/DNR price schedule for 2024 (motion carried by voice vote) and later approved the five final claims listed in the handout (motion carried by voice vote). No roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript.

The committee moved on to other agenda items, including a separate discussion of contractor rates and a county comprehensive-plan input session.","The Ashland County Land Conservation Committee set standardized crop prices used to calculate wildlife damage claims and approved five claims from the 2024 season. USDA Wildlife Services staff described higher-than-usual bear activity and trapping and explained how claims were calculated and funded.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Land Conservation Committee updates 2025 contractor and equipment rental rates

Committee opens discussion on PFAS, recommends county testing and Health & Human Services briefing

Ashland County committee approves 2024 wildlife damage crop prices and five claims totaling about $21,534