Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 49703 

Alternative B: Provide a high level of 

environmental protection for wildlife 

habitat and other resource values, while 

allowing the production of resource 

commodities. 

Alternative C: Maximize the 

production of resource commodities 

while providing an adequate level of 

environmental protection for other 

resources. 

Alternative D: (BLM’s Preferred 

Alternative): Optimize the mix of 

resource outputs, including production 

of resource commodities and wildlife 

habitat, while providing enhancement 

of environmental protection for all 

resources. 

The key issues addressed by the 

alternatives are: (1) Development of 

domestic energy sources, including 

wind power; (2) off highway vehicle/ 

snowmobile use and outdoor recreation; 

(3) National Historic Trails and cultural 

resources management; (4) management 

of wildlife habitat, including special 

status plant and animal species; (5) 

special management designations; and 

(6) travel management planning. 

The Draft RMP/EIS included analysis 

of nine new areas proposed for 

consideration as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC). The 

BLM found that these areas meet 

relevance and importance criteria as set 

forth in 43 CFR 1610.7–2, and the 

impacts of including these proposed 

ACECs were analyzed as part of the 

alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

With Alternative D (BLM Preferred 

Alternative), the BLM proposes to 

establish the Bridger Butte ACEC (727 

acres); Special status plant species 

ACEC (907 acres); and Cushion plant 

community ACEC (61 acres); and retain 

the Raymond Mountain ACEC (13,926 

acres). 

In addition, in Alternative D, the BLM 

analyzed the effects of opening 3,963 

acres for consideration of future coal 

leasing. The proposed coal lease area is 

situated in T. 17 N., R. 117 W., Section 

18, 20, 30, and 32; T. 16 N., R. 118 W., 

Section 2; 17 N., R. 118 W., Section 24. 

Comments on the Draft RMP/EIS 

received from the public and internal 

BLM review were incorporated as 

appropriate into the proposed plan. 

After careful consideration of the 

comments received, adjustment and 

clarifications were made to Alternative 

D, BLM’s Preferred Alternative. As 

modified, Alternative D is now 

presented as the Proposed Kemmerer 

RMP in the PRMP/FEIS. The Proposed 

Kemmerer RMP would provide 

comprehensive, long-range decisions for 

the use and management of resources in 

the planning area administered by the 

BLM and focus on the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield. 

Instructions for filing a protest with 

the Director of the BLM regarding the 

PRMP/FEIS may be found in the Dear 

Reader Letter of the Kemmerer PRMP/ 

FEIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5–2. E-mailed 

and faxed protests will not be accepted 

as valid protests unless the protesting 

party also provides the original letter by 

either regular or overnight mail 

postmarked by the close of the protest 

period. Under these conditions, the 

BLM will consider the e-mailed or faxed 

protest as an advance copy and it will 

receive full consideration. If you wish to 

provide the BLM with such advance 

notification, please direct faxed protests 

to the attention of the BLM protest 

coordinator at 202–452–5112, and emails to Brenda_HudgensWilliams@blm.gov. All protests, 

including the follow-up letter (if emailing or faxing) must be in writing 

and mailed to the appropriate address, 

as set forth in the ADDRESSES section 

above. Before including your address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

protest, you should be aware that your 

entire protest—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your protest to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Martin G. Griffith, 

Acting State Director. 

[FR Doc. E8–19387 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

60-Day Notice of Intention To Request 

Clearance of Collection of Information; 

Opportunity for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 

CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Record 

Keeping Requirements, the National 

Park Service (NPS) invites public 

comments on a proposed new collection 

of information (1024-xxxx). 

DATES: Public comments will be 

accepted on the proposed Information 

Collection Request (ICR) on or before 

October 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: 

Margaret Littlejohn; Park Studies Unit, 

College of Natural Resources, University 

of Idaho; P.O. Box 441139, Moscow, 

Idaho 83844–1139; or via phone at 208/ 

885–7863; or via fax at 208/885–4261; or 

via e-mail at littlej@uidaho.edu. Also, 

you may send comments to Leonard E. 

Stowe, NPS Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, 1849 C St., NW., 

(2605), Washington, DC 20240; or via email at leonard stowe@nps.gov. All 

responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval. All comments 

will become a matter of public record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

James Gramann, NPS Social Science 

Program, 1201 ‘‘Eye’’ St., Washington, 

DC 20005; or via phone at 202/513–

7189; or via e-mail at 

James_Gramann@partner.nps.gov . You 

are entitled to a copy of the entire ICR 

package free of charge. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Programmatic Approval for the 

National Park Service Visitor Services 

Project 

Bureau Form Number: None 

OMB Number: To be requested. 

Expiration Date: To be requested. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Description of Need: The National 

Park Service (NPS) relies on accurate 

information concerning park visitors to 

inform planning and management 

aimed at better serving the visiting 

public. The NPS collects information on 

visitors’ characteristics, opinions, 

preferences, and trip expenditures by 

means of visitor surveys, including 

those conducted by the NPS Visitor 

Services Project (VSP). Each year, the 

VSP completes up to 18 visitor surveys 

and focus groups in individual units of 

the National Park System. The NPS 

currently has a programmatic approval 

for NPS-sponsored public surveys 

(1024–0224). This programmatic 

approval has resulted in dramatic 

improvements in the agency’s ability to 

conduct social science research in and 

around NPS units. The proposed VSP 

Programmatic Approval would extend 

these benefits by allowing this relatively 

homogeneous subset of information 

collections to go through its own review 

process. This will reduce the time that 

it takes for VSP information collections 

to be reviewed and fielded, benefiting 

parks that depend on VSPs to collect 

timely and accurate data from visitors 

for planning and management purposes. 

The VSP conducts site-specific 

information collections, including indepth visitor surveys and focus groups, 

at up to 18 parks per year. These studies 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
49704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 

are similar in terms of the populations 

contacted, the types of questions asked, 

and the research methods employed. 

Due to these similarities, the NPS is 

proposing to the OMB an alternative 

approach to complying with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act by allowing 

individual VSP information collection 

requests to be submitted to OMB under 

the proposed Programmatic Approval. 

Implementation of this proposal will 

lead to less time involved in creating 

submissions for individual VSP 

collections and decreased review times 

for studies submitted under the 

Programmatic Approval. The obligation 

to respond is voluntary. 

Automated data collection: This 

information will be collected via mailback surveys or standard focus group 

protocols. No automated data collection 

will take place. 

Description of respondents: A sample 

of visitors to parks and/or residents of 

communities near parks. 

Estimated average number of 

respondents: The program does not 

identify the number of respondents 

because that number will differ in each 

information collection, depending on 

the purpose and design of the project. 

Estimated average number of 

responses: The program does not 

identify the number of responses 

because that number will differ in each 

information collection. For most 

projects, respondents will be asked to 

respond only one time. In those cases, 

the number of responses will be the 

same as the number of respondents. 

Estimated average burden hours per 

response: Completion times for 

individual visitor surveys conducted by 

the VSP average around 20 minutes per 

respondent. Average contact times are 

one minute per contact. Focus groups 

average two hours in length. 

Frequency of Response: 1 time per 

respondent. 

Estimated total annual reporting 

burden: The program identifies the 

requested total number of burden hours 

annually for all information collections 

to be 10,000 burden hours per year. The 

total annual burden per project for most 

studies conducted under the auspices of 

this program will be within the range of 

100 to 900 burden hours. 

Comments are invited on: (1) the 

practical utility of the information being 

gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden 

hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden hour to 

respondents, including use of 

automated information techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment—may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comment to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS, Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–19427 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

60-Day Notice of Intention To Request 

Clearance of Collection of Information; 

Opportunity for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 

CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Record 

Keeping Requirements, the National 

Park Service (NPS) invites public 

comments on a proposed new collection 

of information (1024–xxxx). 

DATES: Public comments will be 

accepted on the proposed Information 

Collection Request (ICR) on or before 

October 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Tatjana 

Rosen, School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, Yale University, 

205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 

06511; or via e-mail at 

Tatjana.Rosen@yale.edu. Also, you may 

send comments to Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, 1849 C St., NW., (2605), 

Washington, DC 20240; or via e-mail at 

leonard_stowe@nps.gov. All responses 

to this notice will be summarized and 

included in the request for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will become a 

matter of public record. 

To request a draft of proposed 

collection of information contact: 

Tatjana Rosen, School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, Yale University, 

205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 

06511; or via e-mail at 

Tatjana.Rosen@yale.edu. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

James Gramann, National Park Service 

Social Science Program, 1201 ‘‘Eye’’ St., 

Washington, DC 20005; or via phone at 

202/513–7189; or via e-mail at 

James_Gramann@partner.nps.gov. You 

are entitled to a copy of the entire ICR 

package free of charge. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: 

Economic Study of Roadside Bear 

Viewing in Yellowstone National Park. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

OMB Number: To be requested. 

Expiration Date: To be requested. 

Type of Request: New Collection. 

Description of Need: Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP) now attempts to 

enhance opportunities for roadside bear 

viewing by leaving bears in proximity of 

park roads and devoting resources to 

managing ‘‘bear jams’’ (traffic jams 

created by visitors stopping to view the 

bears) and their associated challenges. 

Three questions arise with respect to 

this policy. First, what economic value 

does the opportunity to view bears near 

roads in YNP have to the visitors 

themselves; second, what are visitors’

perceptions about the current roadside 

bear management policy; and third, 

what impact does the policy to allow 

bears to remain in roadside locations 

have on YNP visitation rates and on 

visitors’ broader views of bears, other 

wildlife, and other natural resources. 

To explore these questions, YNP is 

planning to use a mail-back 

questionnaire designed to systematically 

collect data from visitors in the 

following areas: Visit and individual 

characteristics, importance of different 

natural resources to the trip, 

acceptability of different wildlife 

management practices for roadside bear 

viewing, effects of management policy 

changes on the decision to return to the 

park (including regional economic 

impact) and perspectives on roadside 

bear viewing. The information acquired 

will help determine the effectiveness of 

current bear roadside management 

practices and—if the results so show—

provide a credible basis to seek 

additional funds to manage roadside 

bears. The Bear Management Office in 

YNP has collected data on ‘‘bear jams’’

reported in the park since 2000, 

including the number of personnel 

hours spent by park staff in order to 

keep bear jams safe and visitors 

satisfied. Currently there are more ‘‘bear 

jams’’ than park rangers to manage them 

and several visitors and ‘‘bear 

enthusiasts’’ have expressed some level 

of concern about that situation. 

The results of the survey will help 

define the costs and benefits associated 

with the current roadside bear 

management policy in YNP. In addition, 

it will provide park managers and others 

with important, accurate information 

about the YNP visitor population in 

general, as well as visitor and trip 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES