5202 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Notices 

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 

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. 

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 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? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Notices 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 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 

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 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture 

(USDA). 

ACTION: Notice of approval of the revised 

land management plan for the Ashley 

National Forest. 

SUMMARY: 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 

be posted on the Ashley National 

Forest’s website described above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1