Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57053 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HUD 

announces its intention to sell in SFLS 

2010 certain unsubsidized nonperforming mortgage loans (Mortgage 

Loans) secured by single family 

properties located throughout the 

United States. A listing of the Mortgage 

Loans will be included in the due 

diligence materials made available to 

bidders. The Mortgage Loans will be 

sold without FHA insurance and with 

servicing released. HUD will offer 

qualified bidders an opportunity to bid 

competitively on the Mortgage Loans. 

The Mortgage Loans may be stratified 

for bidding purposes into several 

mortgage loan pools based on the 

geographic location of the underlying 

properties. Qualified bidders may 

submit bids on one or more pools of 

Mortgage Loans. 

The Bidding Process 

The BIP describes in detail the 

procedure for bidding in SFLS 2010. 

The BIP also includes a standardized 

non-negotiable Conveyance, Assignment 

and Assumption Agreement (CAA 

Agreement). Bidders will be required to 

submit a deposit with their bid. 

Deposits are calculated based upon each 

bidder’s aggregate bid price. 

HUD will evaluate the bids submitted 

and determine the successful bid or 

bids, in terms of the best value to HUD, 

in its sole and absolute discretion. If a 

bidder is successful, the bidder’s 

deposit will be non-refundable and will 

be applied toward the purchase price. 

Deposits will be returned to 

unsuccessful bidders. Closings are 

expected to take place on September 22, 

2010 and October 27, 2010. 

This notice provides a summary of 

some of the essential terms of sale. The 

CAA Agreement, which is included in 

the BIP, contains additional terms and 

details. To ensure a competitive bidding 

process, the terms of the bidding 

process and the CAA Agreement are not 

subject to negotiation. 

Due Diligence Review 

The BIP describes how bidders may 

access the due diligence materials 

remotely via a high-speed internet 

connection. 

Mortgage Loan Sale Policy 

HUD reserves the right to remove 

Mortgage Loans from SFLS 2010 at any 

time prior to the Award Date. HUD also 

reserves the right to reject any and all 

bids, in whole or in part, without 

prejudice to HUD’s right to include any 

Mortgage Loans in a later sale. Mortgage 

Loans will not be withdrawn after the 

Award Date except as is specifically 

provided in the CAA Agreement. 

This is a sale of unsubsidized 

mortgage loans, which are to be 

assigned to HUD pursuant to section 

204(a)(1)(A) of the National Housing Act 

(the NHA), amended under Title VI of 

the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 

Housing and Urban Development and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 1999. The sale of the loans is 

pursuant to section 204(g) of the NHA. 

Mortgage Loan Sale Procedure 

HUD selected a competitive sale as 

the method to sell the Mortgage Loans. 

This method of sale optimizes HUD’s 

return on the sale of these Mortgage 

Loans, affords the greatest opportunity 

for all qualified bidders to bid on the 

Mortgage Loans, and provides the 

quickest and most efficient vehicle for 

HUD to dispose of the Mortgage Loans. 

Bidder Eligibility 

In order to bid in the sale, a 

prospective bidder must complete, 

execute and submit both a 

Confidentiality Agreement and a 

Qualification Statement acceptable to 

HUD. After receiving the BIP, bidders 

will also complete a Bid Terms 

Acknowledgement Form which will 

provide them access to HUD online 

bidding site. The following individuals 

and entities are ineligible to bid on any 

of the Mortgage Loans included in SFLS 

2010: 

(1) Any employee of HUD, a member 

of such employee’s household, or an 

entity owned or controlled by any such 

employee or member of such an 

employee’s household; 

(2) any individual or entity that is 

debarred, suspended, or excluded from 

doing business with HUD pursuant to 

Title 24 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 24, and Title 25 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2424; 

(3) any contractor, subcontractor and/ 

or consultant or advisor (including any 

agent, employee, partner, director, 

principal or affiliate of any of the 

foregoing) who performed services for or 

on behalf of HUD in connection with 

SFLS 2010; 

(4) any individual or entity that uses 

the services, directly or indirectly, of 

any person or entity ineligible under 

subparagraphs 1 through 3 above to 

assist in preparing any of its bids on the 

Mortgage Loans; 

(5) any individual or entity which 

employs or uses the services of an 

employee of HUD (other than in such 

employee’s official capacity) who is 

involved in SFLS 2010; 

(6) any entity or individual that 

serviced or held any Mortgage Loan at 

any time during the 2-year period prior 

to the bid is ineligible to bid on such 

Mortgage Loan or on the pool containing 

such Mortgage Loan, and 

(7) also ineligible to bid on any 

Mortgage Loan are: (a) Any affiliate or 

principal of any entity or individual 

described in the preceding sentence 

(subparagraph 6); (b) any employee or 

subcontractor of such entity or 

individual during that 2-year period; or 

(c) any entity or individual that employs 

or uses the services of any other entity 

or individual described in this 

subparagraph in preparing its bid on 

such Mortgage Loan. 

Freedom of Information Act Requests 

HUD reserves the right, in its sole and 

absolute discretion, to disclose 

information regarding SFLS 2010, 

including, but not limited to, the 

identity of any successful bidder and its 

bid price or bid percentage for any pool 

of loans or individual loan, upon the 

closing of the sale of all the Mortgage 

Loans. Even if HUD elects not to 

publicly disclose any information 

relating to SFLS 2010, HUD will have 

the right to disclose any information 

that HUD is obligated to disclose 

pursuant to the Freedom of Information 

Act and all regulations promulgated 

thereunder. 

Scope of Notice 

This notice applies to SFLS 2010 and 

does not establish HUD’s policy for the 

sale of other mortgage loans. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23182 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R1–R–2010–N146; 

1265–0000–10137 S3] 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge, 

Jefferson County, ID; Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), intend to 

prepare a comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) for Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge (refuge) in Hamer, ID. We will 

also prepare an environmental 

assessment (EA) to evaluate the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
57054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

potential effects of various CCP 

alternatives. We are providing this 

notice in compliance with our CCP 

policy to advise the public, Federal and 

State agencies, and Tribes of our 

intentions, and to obtain suggestions 

and information on the scope of issues 

to consider during the CCP planning 

process. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, please 

send your written comments by October 

18, 2010. We will announce 

opportunities for public input in local 

news media throughout the CCP 

planning process. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for more information by any of 

the following methods: 

E-mail: brian_wehausen@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘Camas CCP/EA’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

Fax: Attn: Brian Wehausen, (208) 

662–5525. 

U.S. Mail: Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge, 2150 East 2350 North, Hamer, 

ID 83425. 

In-Person Drop-off: You may drop off 

comments during regular business hours 

(8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) at 370 Webster St., 

Montpelier, ID 83254. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Wehausen, (208) 662–5423. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we initiate our 

process for developing a CCP for the 

Camas Refuge. This notice complies 

with our CCP policy to (1) Advise other 

Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and 

the public of our intention to conduct 

detailed planning on this refuge and (2) 

obtain suggestions and information on 

the scope of issues to consider in the 

environmental document and during 

development of the CCP. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, requires us to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge. The 

purpose for developing a CCP is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and our policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update the CCP at least every 15 years 

in accordance with the Administration 

Act. 

Each unit of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System was established for 

specific purposes. We use these 

purposes as the foundation for 

developing and prioritizing the 

management of goals and objectives for 

each refuge within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission, and to 

determine how the public can use each 

refuge. The planning process is a way 

for us and the public to evaluate 

management goals and objectives that 

will insure the best possible approach to 

wildlife, plant, and habitat 

conservation, while providing for 

wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities that are compatible with 

each refuge’s establishing purposes and 

the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Our CCP process provides 

participation opportunities for Tribal, 

State, and local governments; agencies; 

organizations; and the public. At this 

time we encourage input in the form of 

issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions 

for the future management of Camas 

Refuge. 

We will conduct the environmental 

review of this project and develop an 

EA in accordance with the requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA regulations 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508); other 

appropriate Federal laws and 

regulations; and our policies and 

procedures for compliance with those 

laws and regulations. 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

The Camas Refuge was established by 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 

for the purpose of serving as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds 

and other wildlife. The refuge is located 

36 miles north of Idaho Falls, near the 

community of Hamer, Idaho. The refuge 

lies in the upper Snake River plain at 

approximately 4,800 feet in elevation. 

The refuge was historically comprised 

of a diverse mosaic of wetland and wet 

meadow habitats, surrounded by an 

expansive sea of sagebrush, termed the 

‘‘high desert.’’ The wetlands and wet 

meadows were once fed by surface 

water from the perennial flow of Camas 

Creek, and natural artesian wells which 

discharged groundwater and continually 

flooded the wetlands during the drier 

summer and fall months. 

The upper Snake River climate and 

soils are favorable to agricultural uses, 

principally ranching and farming. In the 

late 1800s, large livestock and ranching 

operations were established in the area. 

The grazing lands were later divided 

into smaller units, and crops were 

cultivated for livestock feed. Agriculture 

further developed in the area to support 

the thousands of people working in 

mines. By the time mining diminished, 

railroads had begun connecting farmers 

and ranchers to markets far beyond rural 

southeast Idaho. 

About half of the refuge’s 10,578 acres 

are lakes, ponds, and marshlands, with 

the remainder consisting of grass/ 

sagebrush uplands and meadows. There 

are 292 known species of wildlife that 

utilize the refuge during various periods 

of the year. Approximately 100 species 

of migratory birds nest at the refuge, and 

it is especially important to migrating 

land birds. A large number of songbirds 

use the refuge’s cottonwood groves, 

which are also a significant winter roost 

site for bald eagles. Greater sandhill 

cranes gather on the refuge prior to fall 

migration. Sage grouse use the refuge 

during brood rearing. During migration, 

which peaks during March and April, 

and again in October, up to 50,000 

ducks, 3,000 geese, and several hundred 

tundra and trumpeter swans may be 

present on the refuge. The refuge also 

hosts elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, 

pronghorn, and moose. 

Scoping: Preliminary Issues, Concerns, 

and Opportunities 

We have identified preliminary 

issues, concerns, and opportunities that 

we may address in the CCP. We have 

briefly summarized the issues below. 

During public scoping, we may identify 

additional issues. 

• Are the refuge’s water quantity 

management and groundwater pumping 

capabilities adequate for maintaining 

nesting and migratory waterbird 

habitats? 

• Are we protecting the refuge’s water 

rights adequately, and how can we 

improve water quality for fish and 

wildlife? 

• What actions should we take to 

minimize disturbance to waterbirds 

nesting and migrating on the refuge, as 

well as other wildlife? 

• How the refuge can meet increasing 

demands for recreational opportunities 

and conduct quality visitor services 

programs in a manner that protects 

wildlife from disturbances? 

• What is the refuge’s role in 

managing the established nonnative 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57055 

cottonwood gallery forest for migratory 

landbirds? 

• What are our options for preventing 

the introduction and dispersal of 

invasive plants and animals? 

• What is the refuge’s role in 

supporting native fish and restoring 

riparian habitat in Camas Creek? 

• How can we maintain, manage, and 

restore the refuge’s sagebrush, wet 

meadow, and upland habitats to support 

the long-term viability of native wildlife 

populations, and maximize habitat 

values for key wildlife species? 

• How can the refuge adaptively 

manage habitat in response to climate 

change issues? 

• How can we protect the refuge’s 

cultural and historical resources? 

• What is the most appropriate refuge 

land management strategy for providing 

contiguous and quality habitats for focal 

wildlife resources? 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—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 5, 2010. 

Theresa E. Rabot, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, 

Oregon. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23243 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R6–ES–2008–N188; 60120–1113– 

0000; C2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Draft Revised Recovery 

Plan for Utah Prairie Dog 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of document availability 

for review and comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) announces the 

availability of a draft revised recovery 

plan for the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys 

parvidens). This species is federally 

listed as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The Service solicits 

review and comment from the public on 

this draft revised plan. 

DATES: Comments on the draft revised 

recovery plan must be received on or 

before November 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft revised 

recovery plan are available by request 

from the Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton 

Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 

84119; telephone 801–975–3330. 

Submit comments on the draft recovery 

plan to the Field Supervisor at this same 

address. An electronic copy of the draft 

recovery plan is available at http:// 

www.fws.gov/endangered/species/ 

recovery-plans.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Field Supervisor, at the above address, 

or telephone 801–975–3330. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Restoring an endangered or 

threatened animal or plant to the point 

where it is again a secure, selfsustaining member of its ecosystem is a 

primary goal of the Service’s 

endangered species program. To help 

guide the recovery effort, the Service 

prepares recovery plans for the federally 

listed species native to the United States 

where a plan will promote the 

conservation of the species. Recovery 

plans describe site-specific actions 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species, establish objective, measurable 

criteria which, when met, would result 

in a determination that the species no 

longer needs the protection of the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and provide 

estimates of the time and cost for 

implementing the needed recovery 

measures. 

The Act requires recovery plans for 

listed species unless such a plan would 

not promote the conservation of a 

particular species. Section 4(f) of the 

Act, as amended in 1988, requires that 

public notice and opportunity for public 

review and comment be provided 

during recovery plan development. The 

Service will consider all information 

received during a public comment 

period when preparing each new or 

revised recovery plan for approval. The 

Service and other Federal agencies also 

will take these comments into 

consideration in the course of 

implementing approved recovery plans. 

It is our policy to request peer review 

of recovery plans. We will summarize 

and respond to the issues raised by the 

public and peer reviewers in an 

appendix to the approved recovery plan. 

The Utah prairie dog (Cynomys 

parvidens), found only in southwestern 

and central Utah, was listed as an 

endangered species on June 4, 1973 (38 

FR 14678). At the time of listing, the 

species was threatened by habitat 

destruction and modification, 

overexploitation, disease, and 

predation. Subsequently, Utah prairie 

dog populations increased significantly 

in portions of their range, and on May 

29, 1984 (49 FR 22330), the species was 

reclassified as threatened with a special 

rule to allow regulated take of the 

species. This special rule was amended 

on June 14, 1991 (56 FR 27438), to 

increase the amount of regulated take 

allowed throughout the species’ range. 

Recent Utah prairie dog population 

trends appear to be relatively stable, 

although the species remains vulnerable 

to several serious threats. These include 

habitat loss, plague, changing climatic 

conditions, unauthorized take, and 

disturbance from recreational and 

economic land uses. 

The recovery of Utah prairie dogs will 

rely on effective conservation responses 

to the issues facing the species, which 

remain varied and complex. These 

issues include plague, urban expansion, 

grazing, cultivated agriculture, 

vegetative community changes, invasive 

plants, off-highway vehicle and 

recreation uses, climate change, energy 

resource exploration and development, 

fire management, poaching, and 

predation. Strategically, these issues can 

be reduced to two overriding concerns: 

loss of habitat and plague. The recovery 

strategy for the Utah prairie dog focuses 

on the need to address colony loss and 

disease through a program that 

encompasses threats abatement, 

population management, research, and 

monitoring. We emphasize conserving 

extant colonies, many of which occur on 

non-Federal lands; establishing 

additional colonies on Federal and nonFederal lands via habitat improvement 

or translocations; controlling the 

transmission of plague; and monitoring 

habitat conditions. 

Request for Public Comments 

The Service solicits public comments 

on the draft recovery plan. All 

comments received by the date specified 

in DATES will be considered prior to 

approval of the plan. Written comments 

and materials regarding the plan should 

be addressed to the Field Supervisor 

(see ADDRESSES section). Comments and 

materials received will be available, by 

appointment, for public inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

above address. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1533(f). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1