Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect Information, 5202-5203 [2024-01506]
Download as PDF
5202
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Notices
meeting is expected to last up to 2 hours
and comprise 10 or fewer participants
not counting facilitators.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To
Collect Information
Agricultural Research Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) regulations, this notice
announces the Agricultural Research
Service’s intent to conduct focus groups
to understand insights and experiences
of manureshed managers.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by March 26, 2024 to be
assured of consideration.
Comments: You may submit
comments by emailing Sarah Beebout at
Sarah.Beebout@usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheri Spiegal at 415–264–2906,
Sheri.Spiegal@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Focus Groups to Understand
Insights and Experiences of Manureshed
Managers.
OMB Number: 0518–XXXX.
Expiration Date: Three years from
approval date.
Type of Request: Approval for focus
groups.
Abstract: This is a request, made by
ARS National Program Leader and ARS
Rangeland Management Specialist, that
the OMB approve, under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, a 1-year generic
clearance for the ARS to conduct focus
groups to understand the perspectives
and experiences of agricultural and
natural resource professionals who
facilitate collaborative ‘‘manureshed’’
management. A manureshed is the land
geographically and economically
connected to confined animal feeding
operations where manure from the
operations can be recycled to meet
social, economic, and environmental
goals. The USDA–ARS Manureshed
Working Group will use focus group
results to design research and extension
activities that address the knowledge
gaps and opportunities illuminated by
practitioners on the ground.
SUMMARY:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Description of Focus Groups
Five focus groups will be held in
three states for a total of 15 sessions. At
each focus group meeting, facilitators
will follow a predetermined research
instrument consisting of a preamble, a
presentation of materials, and 13
interactive questions. Each focus group
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Jan 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
Estimate of Burden
Responding to an invitation for a
focus group meeting is estimated to take
3 minutes. If the respondent agrees to
attend, the participant will spend 120
minutes (2 hours) at the meeting.
Respondents: Animal farmers, crop
farmers, manure professionals, natural
resource management professionals, and
other stakeholders who each have a key
role in facilitating manureshed
management in Colorado, Minnesota,
and New Mexico.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
300.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 315 hours.
Comments
Manure management poses grand
challenges for modern agriculture.
While surplus manure nutrients exist in
some places, great deficits persist in
others. This uneven distribution can
harm ecosystems, social systems, and
producers’ bottom lines. Recycling
manure nutrients from areas of surplus
to agricultural fields in need is a
traditional approach that has become
increasingly difficult as agriculture has
become specialized, with crops and
animals increasingly grown on separate
farms, and concentrated, with
specialized crop and animal farms
consolidating in certain areas of the U.S.
landscape. Manuresheds bridge the gaps
between otherwise disparate
components of modern agriculture.
The USDA-Agricultural Research
Service (USDA–ARS) Manureshed
Working Group was founded in 2018 to
develop viable strategies for cooperative
manure management. The group
comprises federal and university
researchers at ten sites across the United
States and Canada in the USDA–ARS
Long-Term Agroecosystem Research
Network, along with members from
producer groups, federal action
agencies, cooperative extension, private
manure management entities, and
animal industry groups. The
Manureshed Working Group has begun
to define the issues and describe
potential solutions using its own
research-based and extension-based
knowledge with geospatial mapping and
modeling.
Despite the new understanding
developed by the working group, much
remains unknown about how
manuresheds can be managed for
desirable outcomes for all stakeholders
involved. The variability of animal
manures, the complexity of agricultural
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
systems, the social separation of
different types of farmers, and persistent
technological challenges create social,
economic, and technological barriers to
manureshed management in the United
States—some of which are barely
understood. The next critical step for
manureshed researchers is to engage
directly with people on the ground who
recycle manure, to incorporate their
insights into targeted, solutions-oriented
research and extension.
At each focus group, facilitators will
first present materials and then ask 13
interactive questions related to the
materials:
Facilitators present manureshed maps
and diagrams on PowerPoint projector
and in handouts:
1. Map of manureshed originating
from animal farms in focal manure
‘‘source’’ county. Depending on focus
group location, map will represent
Chavez County, New Mexico; Weld
County, Colorado; or Morrison County,
Minnesota.
2. Map of trans-regional manureshed
originating from the region containing
the focal source county.
3. Conceptual diagram of manureshed
management: components and actors.
Facilitators ask interactive focus
group questions:
1. What is your role in the
manureshed system? How long have
you been in this role? [Display
‘‘Conceptual Diagram of Manureshed
Management’’]
2. What is the spatial scale of the
manureshed that you operate in?
3. Manure starts with feed, grown
locally or imported. Please tell me about
the feed ration in your area. Of the total
feed supplied, what approximate
percent is forages? Grains? Pasture
usage? Where does animal feed in your
manureshed come from originally?
4. What factors drive the decisionmaking of the suppliers and recipients
about where manure is redistributed?
[Prompt: Examples include soil type,
land ownership, trucking infrastructure,
social networks, friendship, cropping,
water availability for crop or range,
diesel price, weather, urban
encroachment, contaminants, local
technologies for manure transformation
and transport, and availability of
information.]
5. What is a ‘‘point of pride’’ or best
aspect of manure/nutrient management
in your manureshed? What is the most
worrisome aspect of manure/nutrient
management in your manureshed?
6. In general, what factors or systems
make it easy to redistribute manure from
places of surplus to agricultural fields in
need? What are the barriers?
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Notices
7. In general, what is the percentage
of manure that stays on animal farms vs.
manure exported to other properties?
How far does manure generally travel
off the farm? How is it transported?
Does the distribution shown in the
‘‘Map of Manureshed Originating from
Animal Farms’’ reflect what you see in
your area?
8. Who are the main suppliers and
recipients of transported manure? How
do the suppliers and recipients know
each other? Is a broker or other
intermediary involved in manure
exchange? Have you ever heard about
the need to supply or receive more
manure without a recipient or supplier?
9. Is the market value of manure
correct? What creates the value,
recognizing this could be a negative
price for situations where there is a cost
for manure to be removed? Are there
ways to improve/create functional
manure markets? Does anyone have
plans to shift manure management to
participate in carbon markets?
10. What are the main types of
manure treatment and storage
technologies available? Are there
technical innovations (e.g., solid
separators, chemical amendments,
vermiculture, biochar, digesters) that
anyone is considering? What research is
needed on these? Is financing available?
11. Tell me about the role of
regulations. Which seem reasonable or
appropriate for maintaining
environmental health and social
wellbeing in your manureshed? Are
there any changes you would make to
these regulations to improve efficiency?
12. What are your pie-in-the-sky
nutrient recycling dreams? What would
your ideal form of manure nutrient
recycling look like if no barriers existed?
Without barriers, what spatial scale
would you operate at? For instance,
would the vision in the ‘‘Map of TransRegional Manuresheds’’ come into play?
[Prompt: Would that dream entail local
manure recycling or commercialization
of standardized manure nutrient
products or something else entirely?]
13. What type of information is
necessary for collaborative manureshed
management to be effective/possible? If
you want information on nutrient
management, who do you turn to?
The USDA–ARS Manureshed
Working Group will use focus group
results to design research that addresses
the knowledge gaps and opportunities
illuminated by practitioners on the
ground. For example, if focus groups in
a state reveal that land use change is a
major hindrance to successful
manureshed management, subsequent
research and extension in that state will
focus on that issue. If focus groups
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Jan 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
reveal that a lack of social relationships
between animal farmers with surplus
manure and crop farmers who could use
it, the ensuing research and extension
would focus thusly. This honing of
research, designed to support
practitioners, is impossible without
learning from practitioners directly.
Focus group results will also direct
extension activities in each state,
structuring future discussions among
the otherwise-disparate focus group
populations with an eye toward
advancing collaborative management
opportunities. This proposed work is a
form of ‘‘participatory action research’’
in which researchers and stakeholders
work together to examine an issue and
change it for more desired outcomes.
Jeffrey Silverstein,
Acting Associate Administrator, ARS.
[FR Doc. 2024–01506 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–03–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Final Record of Decision for the Ashley
National Forest Land Management
Plan
Forest Service, Agriculture
(USDA).
ACTION: Notice of approval of the revised
land management plan for the Ashley
National Forest.
AGENCY:
Susan Eickhoff, the Forest
Supervisor for the Ashley National
Forest, Intermountain Region, signed
the final record of decision (ROD) for
the Ashley National Forest revised Land
Management Plan (LMP). The final ROD
documents the rationale for approving
the revised LMP and is consistent with
the Reviewing Officer’s responses to
objections and instructions.
DATES: The revised LMP for the Ashley
National Forest will become effective 30
days after the publication of this notice
of approval in the Federal Register (36
CFR 219.17(a)(1)).
ADDRESSES: To view the final ROD, final
environmental impact statement (FEIS),
revised LMP, and other related
documents, please visit the Ashley
National Forest project page at: https://
www.fs.usda.gov/project/
?project=49606, or visit the Forest’s
planning website at: https://
www.fs.usda.gov/main/ashley/
landmanagement/planning.
A legal notice of approval is also
being published in the newspaper of
record, The Vernal Express (Vernal,
Utah). A copy of this legal notice will
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5203
be posted on the Ashley National
Forest’s website described above.
Lars
Christensen, Collaboration Specialist,
Ashley National Forest; email
lars.christensen@usda.gov or call 435–
781–5126.
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
or hard of hearing (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–
8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the
year, including holidays. Written
requests for information may be sent to
Ashley National Forest, Attn: Ashley
National Forest Plan Revision, 355
North Vernal Ave., Vernal, UT 84078.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Ashley National Forest covers more
than 1.4 million acres across seven
counties in northeastern Utah and
southwestern Wyoming. The LMP was
developed pursuant to the 2012 Forest
Service Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and
will replace the 1986 LMP. The LMP
describes desired conditions, objectives,
standards, guidelines, and land
suitability for project and activity
decision-making and will guide all
resource management activities on the
Forest. The Ashley National Forest
plays an important role supporting and
partnering with communities in
northeastern Utah and southwestern
Wyoming by providing economic
benefits including fuelwood gathering,
livestock grazing, and abundant
recreational opportunities. The
development of the LMP was shaped by
the best available scientific information,
current laws, and public input.
The Ashley National Forest initiated
plan revision in 2016 and engaged the
public frequently throughout the
process. This engagement effort has
included conventional public meetings,
collaborative work sessions and
technical meetings, information sharing
via social media, and working with
cooperating agencies. The Forest invited
State, local, and Tribal governments,
and other Federal agencies from around
the region to participate in the process
to revise the LMP. The Forest engaged
in government-to-government
consultation with two Tribes during
LMP revision, ensuring tribal-related
plan direction accurately reflects the
Ashley National Forest’s trust
responsibilities and government-togovernment relationship with tribes. An
Ashley National Forest-Ute Indian
Tribal Task Force met regularly
throughout the plan revision effort.
During the 90-day comment period
November 2021 through February 2022
for the draft LMP and draft EIS, the
Ashley National Forest received 191
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5202-5203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01506]
[[Page 5202]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect Information
AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice
announces the Agricultural Research Service's intent to conduct focus
groups to understand insights and experiences of manureshed managers.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by March 26, 2024 to be
assured of consideration.
Comments: You may submit comments by emailing Sarah Beebout at
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri Spiegal at 415-264-2906,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Focus Groups to Understand Insights and Experiences of
Manureshed Managers.
OMB Number: 0518-XXXX.
Expiration Date: Three years from approval date.
Type of Request: Approval for focus groups.
Abstract: This is a request, made by ARS National Program Leader
and ARS Rangeland Management Specialist, that the OMB approve, under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 1-year generic clearance for the
ARS to conduct focus groups to understand the perspectives and
experiences of agricultural and natural resource professionals who
facilitate collaborative ``manureshed'' management. A manureshed is the
land geographically and economically connected to confined animal
feeding operations where manure from the operations can be recycled to
meet social, economic, and environmental goals. The USDA-ARS Manureshed
Working Group will use focus group results to design research and
extension activities that address the knowledge gaps and opportunities
illuminated by practitioners on the ground.
Description of Focus Groups
Five focus groups will be held in three states for a total of 15
sessions. At each focus group meeting, facilitators will follow a
predetermined research instrument consisting of a preamble, a
presentation of materials, and 13 interactive questions. Each focus
group meeting is expected to last up to 2 hours and comprise 10 or
fewer participants not counting facilitators.
Estimate of Burden
Responding to an invitation for a focus group meeting is estimated
to take 3 minutes. If the respondent agrees to attend, the participant
will spend 120 minutes (2 hours) at the meeting.
Respondents: Animal farmers, crop farmers, manure professionals,
natural resource management professionals, and other stakeholders who
each have a key role in facilitating manureshed management in Colorado,
Minnesota, and New Mexico.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 315 hours.
Comments
Manure management poses grand challenges for modern agriculture.
While surplus manure nutrients exist in some places, great deficits
persist in others. This uneven distribution can harm ecosystems, social
systems, and producers' bottom lines. Recycling manure nutrients from
areas of surplus to agricultural fields in need is a traditional
approach that has become increasingly difficult as agriculture has
become specialized, with crops and animals increasingly grown on
separate farms, and concentrated, with specialized crop and animal
farms consolidating in certain areas of the U.S. landscape. Manuresheds
bridge the gaps between otherwise disparate components of modern
agriculture.
The USDA-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) Manureshed
Working Group was founded in 2018 to develop viable strategies for
cooperative manure management. The group comprises federal and
university researchers at ten sites across the United States and Canada
in the USDA-ARS Long-Term Agroecosystem Research Network, along with
members from producer groups, federal action agencies, cooperative
extension, private manure management entities, and animal industry
groups. The Manureshed Working Group has begun to define the issues and
describe potential solutions using its own research-based and
extension-based knowledge with geospatial mapping and modeling.
Despite the new understanding developed by the working group, much
remains unknown about how manuresheds can be managed for desirable
outcomes for all stakeholders involved. The variability of animal
manures, the complexity of agricultural systems, the social separation
of different types of farmers, and persistent technological challenges
create social, economic, and technological barriers to manureshed
management in the United States--some of which are barely understood.
The next critical step for manureshed researchers is to engage directly
with people on the ground who recycle manure, to incorporate their
insights into targeted, solutions-oriented research and extension.
At each focus group, facilitators will first present materials and
then ask 13 interactive questions related to the materials:
Facilitators present manureshed maps and diagrams on PowerPoint
projector and in handouts:
1. Map of manureshed originating from animal farms in focal manure
``source'' county. Depending on focus group location, map will
represent Chavez County, New Mexico; Weld County, Colorado; or Morrison
County, Minnesota.
2. Map of trans-regional manureshed originating from the region
containing the focal source county.
3. Conceptual diagram of manureshed management: components and
actors.
Facilitators ask interactive focus group questions:
1. What is your role in the manureshed system? How long have you
been in this role? [Display ``Conceptual Diagram of Manureshed
Management'']
2. What is the spatial scale of the manureshed that you operate in?
3. Manure starts with feed, grown locally or imported. Please tell
me about the feed ration in your area. Of the total feed supplied, what
approximate percent is forages? Grains? Pasture usage? Where does
animal feed in your manureshed come from originally?
4. What factors drive the decision-making of the suppliers and
recipients about where manure is redistributed? [Prompt: Examples
include soil type, land ownership, trucking infrastructure, social
networks, friendship, cropping, water availability for crop or range,
diesel price, weather, urban encroachment, contaminants, local
technologies for manure transformation and transport, and availability
of information.]
5. What is a ``point of pride'' or best aspect of manure/nutrient
management in your manureshed? What is the most worrisome aspect of
manure/nutrient management in your manureshed?
6. In general, what factors or systems make it easy to redistribute
manure from places of surplus to agricultural fields in need? What are
the barriers?
[[Page 5203]]
7. In general, what is the percentage of manure that stays on
animal farms vs. manure exported to other properties? How far does
manure generally travel off the farm? How is it transported? Does the
distribution shown in the ``Map of Manureshed Originating from Animal
Farms'' reflect what you see in your area?
8. Who are the main suppliers and recipients of transported manure?
How do the suppliers and recipients know each other? Is a broker or
other intermediary involved in manure exchange? Have you ever heard
about the need to supply or receive more manure without a recipient or
supplier?
9. Is the market value of manure correct? What creates the value,
recognizing this could be a negative price for situations where there
is a cost for manure to be removed? Are there ways to improve/create
functional manure markets? Does anyone have plans to shift manure
management to participate in carbon markets?
10. What are the main types of manure treatment and storage
technologies available? Are there technical innovations (e.g., solid
separators, chemical amendments, vermiculture, biochar, digesters) that
anyone is considering? What research is needed on these? Is financing
available?
11. Tell me about the role of regulations. Which seem reasonable or
appropriate for maintaining environmental health and social wellbeing
in your manureshed? Are there any changes you would make to these
regulations to improve efficiency?
12. What are your pie-in-the-sky nutrient recycling dreams? What
would your ideal form of manure nutrient recycling look like if no
barriers existed? Without barriers, what spatial scale would you
operate at? For instance, would the vision in the ``Map of Trans-
Regional Manuresheds'' come into play? [Prompt: Would that dream entail
local manure recycling or commercialization of standardized manure
nutrient products or something else entirely?]
13. What type of information is necessary for collaborative
manureshed management to be effective/possible? If you want information
on nutrient management, who do you turn to?
The USDA-ARS Manureshed Working Group will use focus group results
to design research that addresses the knowledge gaps and opportunities
illuminated by practitioners on the ground. For example, if focus
groups in a state reveal that land use change is a major hindrance to
successful manureshed management, subsequent research and extension in
that state will focus on that issue. If focus groups reveal that a lack
of social relationships between animal farmers with surplus manure and
crop farmers who could use it, the ensuing research and extension would
focus thusly. This honing of research, designed to support
practitioners, is impossible without learning from practitioners
directly. Focus group results will also direct extension activities in
each state, structuring future discussions among the otherwise-
disparate focus group populations with an eye toward advancing
collaborative management opportunities. This proposed work is a form of
``participatory action research'' in which researchers and stakeholders
work together to examine an issue and change it for more desired
outcomes.
Jeffrey Silverstein,
Acting Associate Administrator, ARS.
[FR Doc. 2024-01506 Filed 1-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P