[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81182-81212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32465]



[[Page 81181]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part VI





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Plant Lesquerella Thamnophila (Zapata 
Bladderpod); Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 81182]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG24


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for the Plant Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata 
Bladderpod)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for the plant Lesquerella thamnophila (Rollins & Shaw) 
(Zapata bladderpod). Critical habitat includes seven sites on 2,088 
hectares (ha) (5,158 acres (ac)) of Lower Rio Grande Valley National 
Wildlife Refuge property in Starr County, Texas, and a privately owned 
0.55 ha (1.36 ac) site also located in Starr County, Texas. Section 7 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. As required by section 4 of the 
Act, we considered economic and other relevant impacts prior to making 
a final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 22, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the complete file for this rule, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services Field Office, c/o TAMUCC, Box 338, 6300 
Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78412.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Strand, Field Supervisor of the 
Ecological Services Field Office in Corpus Christi, Texas (Telephone 
361/994-9005; facsimile 361/994-8262).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Lesquerella thamnophila, a member of the Brassicaceae (= Cruciferae 
or Mustard) family, was first collected by Neally in Starr County 
during his collections between 1882 and 1894. The first type specimen 
was collected in Zapata County, Texas, by R. C. Rollins in 1959. The 
species was named L. thamnophila in 1973 by R. C. Rollins and E. A. 
Shaw in their work on the genus Lesquerella (Rollins and Shaw 1973). 
Most of the collected specimens of L. thamnophila have come from Starr 
and Zapata Counties in Southern Texas. One specimen has been identified 
from Tamaulipas, Mexico.
    Lesquerella thamnophila is a pubescent (overlaid with short hairs), 
somewhat silvery-green, herbaceous perennial plant, with sprawling 
stems 43 to 85 centimeters (cm) (17 to 34 inches (in)) long. It 
possesses narrow basal leaves, 4 to 12 cm (1.5 to 4.8 in) long, and 7 
to 15 millimeters (mm) (0.3 to 0.6 in) wide, with entire-to-wavy or 
slightly-toothed margins. Stem leaves are 3 to 4 cm (1 to 1.5 in) long 
and 2 to 8 mm (0.1 to 0.3 in) wide, with margins similar to basal 
leaves. The inflorescence (arrangement of flowers on a single stalk) is 
a loose raceme of bright yellow-petaled flowers. The flowers appear at 
different seasons of the year depending upon timing of rainfall, and 
are arranged along an axis with the lower flowers maturing first. 
Fruits are round and 4.5 to 6.5 mm (0.2 to 0.8 in) in diameter on 
short, downward curving pedicels (slender stalks) (Poole 1989). Little 
is known of the population genetics, structure, or dynamics of the 
species.
    All known populations of Lesquerella thamnophila in the United 
States occur in Starr and Zapata Counties, Texas, within approximately 
3.2 kilometers (km) (2 miles (mi)) of the Rio Grande. Populations of L. 
thamnophila typically occur in upland sites that have not had extensive 
previous soil disruption. Soil types at known population sites suggest 
that the species is not closely tied to a specific soil texture; while 
many of the known populations occur on soils with moderate alkalinity, 
soil textures range from clay (Catarina soils) to fine sandy loam 
(Copita soils).
    Lesquerella thamnophila can occur on graveled to sandy-loam upland 
terraces above the Rio Grande flood plain. The known populations are 
associated with three Eocene-age geologic formations--Jackson, Laredo, 
and Yegua--which have yielded fossiliferous (containing fossils) and 
highly calcareous (comprised of calcium carbonate) sandstones and 
clays.
    Known Starr County populations occur within the Jimenez-Quemado 
soil association and on Catarina Series soils. Jimenez-Quemado soils 
are well-drained, shallow, and gravelly-to-sandy loam underlain by 
caliche (a hard soil layer cemented by calcium carbonate). This soil 
association is broad, dissected, and irregularly shaped, and occurs on 
huge terraces 5 to 6 meters (m) (20 to 50 feet (ft)) above the flood 
plain of the Rio Grande. In most areas, the Jimenez soils occupy the 
slope breaks extending from the tops of ridges to the bottoms of the 
slopes, and the narrow valleys between them. Quemado soils occur as 
narrow areas on ridge tops, where the slope range is 3 to 20 percent. 
Steep escarpments can be present with rocky outcrops adjacent to the 
river flood plain.
    Catarina Series soils consist of clayey, saline upland soils 
developed from calcareous, gypsiferous (containing gypsum), and/or 
saline clays that usually contain many drainage and erosional features. 
The underlying material of the soils contain calcareous concretions 
(rounded masses of mineral matter), gypsum crystals, and marine shell 
fragments (Thompson et. al. 1972).
    Zapata bladderpod populations in Zapata County occur within the 
Zapata-Maverick soil association. Zapata soils are shallow, loamy or 
mixed, hyperthermic (high temperature), well-drained, and nearly level 
with undulating slopes ranging from 0 to 18 percent, primarily on 
uplands occurring over caliche. The upper portion of the soil horizon 
ranges 5 to 25 cm (2 to 10 in) in thickness, with chert gravel and 
coarse fragments consisting of a few to 25 percent of angular caliche 
2.5 to 20 cm (1 to 8 in) long.
    Maverick soils consist of upland clayey soils occurring over 
caliche with underlying calcareous material containing shale and gypsum 
crystals (Thompson et al. 1972). The upper zone consists of well-
drained, moderately deep soft shale bedrock, sloping 1-10 percent and 
forming clayey sediments. Ancient deposition of rock material from the 
Rio Grande can be found in portions of these soils, and rock and Indian 
artifact collection has become a pastime for residents and visitors in 
the area.
    Lesquerella thamnophila grows opportunistically; that is, the 
density of L. thamnophila plants and the size of populations fluctuate 
in response to availability of rainfall during the time of year with 
adequate temperatures for plant growth. Populations can respond 
dramatically to rainfall events, going from barely detectable to a 
substantial assemblage of thousands of individuals.
    Lesquerella thamnophila occurs as an herbaceous component of an 
open Leucophyllum frutescens (cenizo) shrub community that grades into 
an Acacia rigidula (blackbrush) shrub community. Both plant communities 
dominate upland habitats on shallow soils near the Rio Grande (Diamond 
1990). These shrub lands are sparsely vegetated due to the shallow, 
fast-draining, highly erosional soils and semi-arid climate (Poole 
1989). Other related plant species in the cenizo and blackbrush

[[Page 81183]]

communities include Acacia berlandieri (guajillo), Prosopis sp. 
(mesquite), Celtis pallida (granjeno), Yucca treculeana (Spanish 
dagger), Zizyphus obtusifolia (lotebush), and Guaiacum angustifolium 
(guayacan). The coverage of an aggressively invasive, nonnative grass, 
Cenchrus ciliaria (buffelgrass), is extensive at some of the sites. 
Dichanthium annulatum (Kleberg bluestem grass), which is used for 
erosion control on roadways, has also begun to invade natural areas and 
is present at all L. thamnophila sites, although not as extensively as 
buffelgrass.
    Biologists have located and described a total of 10 populations of 
Lesquerella thamnophila, including the type locality discovered by R. 
C. Rollins in Zapata County in 1959. Six of the ten populations were 
found in Starr County and four in Zapata County. Of these ten 
populations, four are still known to support plants in varying numbers. 
Service personnel have visited populations at the locations where 
access is available. Following substantial rainfall in October 2000, 
Service biologists documented Zapata bladderpod plants at the Lower Rio 
Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge's Cuellar Tract in Starr County, 
and at the Siesta Shores subdivision (5-10 plants) and the U.S. Highway 
83 ROW site adjacent to the Siesta Shores subdivision (5-10 plants) in 
Zapata County. The October 2000 site visit failed to find the 
population on the U.S. 83 ROW near the Tigre Chiquito Bridge in Zapata 
County, where we proposed critical habitat. Other earlier attempts to 
relocate this population have also been unsuccessful and it is likely 
that this population has been extirpated due to vehicle disturbance and 
the encroachment of buffelgrass, despite a management agreement between 
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department (TPWD) designed to protect the site by excluding 
grass mowing during the plant's active growing season, and use of a 
six-inch mowing height to avoid damage to late-flowering or early-
growing plants. The fourth Zapata County site, Falcon Heights West 
Subdivision (private land), is the type locality discovered in 1959 by 
Rollins and Shaw, and is also believed to be extirpated due to 
construction activity and invasion of buffelgrass.
    In Starr County, biologists verified extant populations at two of 
the six sites previously known to have plants; the Lower Rio Grande 
Valley National Wildlife Refuge's Cuellar Tract and a private ranch 
near Roma/Los Saenz-West. Service biologists visited the private ranch 
site in July 2000 and documented bladderpod plants. The four remaining 
Starr County sites are located on private land where access is limited 
or the exact location is unknown, making it difficult to survey for the 
plants.
    Lesquerella thamnophila likely occurs in other areas in south 
Texas, in addition to these documented population sites. However, while 
the extent of potentially occupied habitat can be estimated from mapped 
soils, access to most of the land where L. thamnophila may occur is in 
private ownership, with limited access for survey efforts.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal action involving this species began with section 12 of the 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on plants considered to be 
endangered, threatened, or extinct. The report, designated as House 
Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. On 
July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 
27823) accepting the Smithsonian report as a petition within the 
context of section 4(c)(2) of the Act, now section 4(b)(3)(A), and 
announcing that we would initiate a review of the status of those 
plants. Lesquerella thamnophila was included as threatened in the 
Smithsonian report and in our notice.
    On June 16, 1976 (41 FR 24523), we published a proposed rule to 
determine approximately 1,700 species of vascular plants as endangered, 
including Lesquerella thamnophila. However, the 1978 amendments to the 
Act required the withdrawal of all proposals over 2 years old (although 
a 1-year grace period was allowed for those proposals already over 2 
years old). On December 10, 1979 (44 FR 70796), we published a notice 
withdrawing that portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not 
been made final, which included L. thamnophila.
    On December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82823), we published a list of plants 
under review for listing as threatened or endangered, which included 
Lesquerella thamnophila as a category 2 candidate. ``Category 2 
candidates'' were those species for which available information 
indicated that listing as threatened or endangered may have been 
appropriate, but for which substantial data were not available to 
support preparation of a proposed rule.
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that we make findings on 
petitions within 12 months of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 
1982 amendments to the Act required that all petitions pending as of 
October 13, 1982, be treated as having been submitted on that date. We 
accepted the 1975 Smithsonian report as a petition, and we treated all 
the plants noted within the report, including Lesquerella thamnophila, 
as being newly petitioned on October 13, 1982. In each subsequent year 
from 1983 to 1993, we determined that listing L. thamnophila was 
warranted, but precluded by other listing actions of higher priority, 
and that additional data on vulnerability and threats were still being 
compiled.
    A status report on Lesquerella thamnophila was completed on August 
8, 1989 (Poole 1989). That report provided sufficient information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to warrant designating the species 
as a category 1 candidate and to support preparation of a proposed rule 
to list L. thamnophila as endangered. ``Category 1 candidates'' were 
those species for which we had substantial information indicating that 
listing under the Act was warranted.
    We published notices revising the 1980 list of plants under review 
for listing as endangered or threatened in the Federal Register on 
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39626), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51171). We included Lesquerella thamnophila 
in the September 30, 1993, notice as a category 1 candidate.
    Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 
7605), we ceased using category designations for candidate species and 
included Lesquerella thamnophila simply as a candidate species. 
Candidate species are those for which we have on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
proposals to list them as threatened or endangered species. We retained 
L. thamnophila as a candidate species in the September 19, 1997, Review 
of Plant and Animal Taxa (62 FR 49398).
    On January 22, 1998, we published a proposed rule to list 
Lesquerella thamnophila as endangered, without critical habitat (63 FR 
3301), and invited the public and State and Federal agencies to comment 
on the proposed listing. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical 
habitat at the time we determine a species to be endangered or 
threatened. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 state that critical habitat 
designation is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be

[[Page 81184]]

expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or
    (ii) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial 
to the species.
    In the proposed rule, we indicated that designation of critical 
habitat was not prudent for Lesquerella thamnophila because of a 
concern that publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical 
habitat in the Federal Register could increase the vulnerability of 
this species to incidents of collection and vandalism. We also 
indicated that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because 
we believed it would not provide any additional benefit beyond that 
provided through listing as endangered. However, after consideration of 
recent court decisions overturning ``not prudent'' determinations for 
other species, we reconsidered the issue. We published a final rule 
listing L. thamnophila as endangered on November 22, 1999 (64 FR 
63745), and stated that, based on limited funding for our listing 
program, we would defer critical habitat designation until other 
higher-priority listing actions were completed.
    Subsequent to the final rule listing the species as endangered, the 
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed suit to compel us to 
designate critical habitat for several species, including Lesquerella 
thamnophila (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. 
Babbitt--Civil No. 99-D-1118). We entered into settlement negotiations 
with the plaintiff and agreed to propose critical habitat with a final 
determination to be made no later than December 15, 2000. We proposed 
critical habitat for the species on July 19, 2000 (65 FR 44717).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule to designate critical habitat, we requested 
all interested parties to submit factual reports or information that 
might contribute to the development of a final rule. In addition, we 
prepared an Environmental Assessment of this action pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act. We made the draft Environmental 
Assessment available for public review and comment. We also contacted 
appropriate Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties and requested their 
comments before the closing date of September 18, 2000. We published 
newspaper notices in the Rio Grande Herald and the Zapata News on 
August 13, 2000, inviting general public comment. We posted 
approximately 200 letters soliciting comments on the proposed rule, 
announcing the public hearing, and providing information on the Zapata 
bladderpod. One Texas State agency representative reviewed the proposal 
and provided valuable biological and habitat information and commented 
on the selection of critical habitat areas.
    On August 24, 2000, we held an informal meeting and formal public 
hearing at Fort Ringgold in Rio Grande City to discuss the proposal and 
accept formal comments from the public. Fifteen individuals attended 
the meeting and hearing. One State representative provided formal 
comments at the public hearing.
    Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
An analysis of the economic effects of Zapata bladderpod critical 
habitat designation was prepared (Industrial Economics, Incorporated, 
2000) and made available for public review and comment on October 3, 
2000 (65 FR 58981). In that notice we solicited data and comments from 
the public on all aspects of the proposal, including data on economic 
impacts and other impacts of the designation. We also reopened the 
comment period, extending it until November 2, 2000.
    We addressed written comments and oral statements presented at the 
public hearing and received during the comment periods in the following 
summary. The issues and our response to each issue is discussed below. 
Comments that we incorporated into this final rule are discussed in the 
Changes Between Proposed and Final Rules portion of this document.
    Issue 1: Private land should not be included in critical habitat 
designation without the acknowledgment and consent of the owner.
    Service Response: We made several attempts to contact the owner(s) 
of the private land site proposed as critical habitat. While a 
landowner's permission is not required to designate an area as critical 
habitat, it is our practice to contact landowners to the extent 
practicable. In the near future, we hope to work with the landowner(s) 
to conserve the native habitat that supports Zapata bladderpod, as well 
as other endangered plant and rare animal species.
    Issue 2: Comments from one reviewer indicated that in the final 
rule listing Lesquerella thamnophila as endangered, we identified a 
historical L. thamnophila locality along a roadside cut of Highway 83. 
The commenter questioned why that site was not proposed as critical 
habitat.
    Service Response: We have not found Lesquerella thamnophila plants 
at this site in a number of years, nor have we heard from other 
agencies that the plant has been relocated at this location. We believe 
the species to be extirpated from this site and therefore, do not 
consider this essential to the conservation of the species.
    Issue 3: Critical habitat designation will do little to benefit 
Lesquerella thamnophila. The areas proposed on State and private land 
are extremely small, probably too small to support viable populations. 
While the amount of acreage on Federal land is certainly adequate, the 
occupied habitat should already receive adequate protection. The areas 
of unoccupied habitat on Federal land are best guesses at what might 
provide suitable habitat for reintroduction.
    Service Response: We agree that lands within the geographic range 
occupied by Lesquerella thamnophila already receive protection through 
section 7 of the Act for activities that a Federal agency carries out, 
funds, or permits; however, critical habitat may provide additional 
benefits by focusing conservation activities in areas determined to be 
essential for recovery of L. thamnophila. Although some of the areas 
are small, they still support the bladderpod and the small number of 
known populations of this species makes protection of those sites 
essential. We selected the refuge sites that are of unknown occupancy 
as critical habitat, on the basis of soil surveys and vegetation 
studies by refuge biologists and botanists familiar with the tract 
sites. Additionally, results of a habitat suitability modeling study, 
contracted by TxDOT and designed to predict habitat for rare plant 
species along the southern portion of the Rio Grande, indicates that 
the refuge sites are favorable for recovery efforts (Wu & Smeins 1999). 
Since there is still much that needs to be learned about the biology, 
distribution, and habitat of the species, we chose as critical habitat 
the sites most likely to either yield as-yet discovered populations or 
be most suitable for translocation of the bladderpod, if this becomes 
necessary for the species recovery.
    Issue 4: The Texas Transportation Commission approved U.S. Highway 
83 as part of the Priority One Texas Trunk System by Minute Order 
107484. This type of highway would be built to a minimum of a four-lane 
divided highway to connect cities with populations of 20,000 or more. A 
completed feasibility study has determined that a future freeway would 
be possible along this route. The costs

[[Page 81185]]

for compensatory mitigation, biological assessments, and alternative 
analysis are anticipated to be extremely high and may cause 
construction delays on the expansion of U.S. 83 in the area of the 
Tigre Chiquito proposed critical habitat site.
    Service Response: No Zapata bladderpod plants have been found at 
the Tigre Chiquito site since 1997. Biologists surveyed the site in 
March and October 2000 after significant rainfall in the area. 
Buffelgrass is now the dominant cover in the area of the ROW where the 
Zapata bladderpod plants historically grew, and the population appears 
to be extirpated. We removed the Tigre Chiquito site from the final 
critical habitat designation since it does not have the features and 
habitat characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We 
do not consider this area to be essential habitat for the conservation 
of the species.
    Issue 5: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that 
we should evaluate Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations, in our economic analysis.
    Service Response: Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal 
agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 
policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. We 
do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for endangered 
and threatened species results in any changes to human health or 
environmental effects on surrounding human populations, regardless of 
their socioeconomic characterization. As such, we do not believe that 
Executive Order 12898 applies to critical habitat designations.
    Issue 6: The EPA provided detailed comments on additional 
information that they felt should be included in the economic analysis 
to better characterize the economic effects on the refuge and the local 
economy, including the addition of figures and tables showing economic 
and population growth, an evaluation of historical patterns and current 
information describing section 7 consultations, including time and 
costs, and an evaluation of refuge visitation statistics.
    Service Response: We attempted to estimate economic impacts that 
are reasonably certain to result from designation of critical habitat. 
We did this by considering what specific activities are likely to occur 
on the refuge, TxDOT, and private lands included in the proposed 
designation. We identified whether these activities are likely to 
involve a Federal nexus, whether such a nexus will result in a section 
7 consultation and, in turn, whether the consultation will result in 
modifications to projects. We do not feel it necessary to include the 
additional information described above in this economic analysis. We 
feel that the methodology used is adequately designed to distill the 
salient and relevant aspects of any potential economic impacts of 
designation. We also do not believe that the designation of critical 
habitat will affect refuge visitation, as the designation only affects 
Federal activities that are likely to destroy or adversely modify the 
area of critical habitat.
    Issue 7: The EPA felt that the economic analysis should rely on 
established sources of information and not only the opinions of Fish 
and Wildlife staff.
    Service Response: In addition to contacting Fish and Wildlife 
staff, personal communications were made with the TxDOT and attempts 
were also made to contact the private landowner(s) (see Issue 1). 
Unfortunately, since comments and information on land uses and the 
effects of the designation were not available from the private 
landowner, Fish and Wildlife staff could only speculate as to 
activities likely to occur on the private land. In this particular 
designation, we also note that the majority of land proposed for 
critical habitat is part of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National 
Wildlife Refuge; therefore, it was appropriate to contact Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge staff as the primary source of information on specific 
activities that would likely take place on the refuge, and the possible 
effect of the designation on these activities.
    Issue 8: The EPA commented that the economic analysis does not 
adequately address potential benefits associated with the critical 
habitat designation.
    Service Response: The primary purpose of critical habitat 
designation is to protect areas that are needed to conserve endangered 
and threatened species. However, we expect the benefits associated with 
this designation to be limited. We conclude this because the 
designation is unlikely to have any significant effect on both current 
and planned economic activities within the designated areas. For 
reasons previously stated, Federal agencies are already required to 
consult with us on activities that may affect the Zapata bladderpod. 
While critical habitat designation for the Zapata bladderpod may have 
some benefit by focusing conservation activities in areas considered 
essential for recovery of the bladderpod, we expect the benefit to be 
minimal due to the fact that Federal agencies are already aware of the 
importance of these areas.
    Issue 9: EPA commented that the U.S. Geological Survey or similar 
agency should be contacted to determine whether locations of oil and 
gas reserves or leases/claims exist for the critical habitat areas.
    Service Response: According to Fish and Wildlife refuge staff there 
are mineral right claims in the critical habitat areas. However, the 
refuge already requires any party seeking to use National Wildlife 
Refuge land to perform surveys and environmental assessments, and the 
refuge manager must make a written determination of compatibility with 
the refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, regardless of whether the proposed project will take place in 
critical habitat. A project can take place on the Refuge only if the 
Service deems that the project does not materially detract from the 
fulfillment of the refuge purpose or System mission. Therefore, we 
believe that any costs associated with project modifications or 
administrative effort would be due to the refuge's requirement to 
comply with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, not 
due to the designation of critical habitat. We appreciate the comment 
and have incorporated the information on mineral rights into the final 
economic analysis.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy of July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we sent the proposed rule to four knowledgeable biologists and/
or botanists who are familiar with the Zapata bladderpod. Only one of 
the peer reviewers provided comments on the proposed designation. Those 
comments included clarifications on the status of known populations and 
additional biological information that we incorporated into this final 
rule, and also discussed in the ``Summary of Comments'' section 
(above).

Changes Between Proposed and Final Rules

    Locations of extant populations. The TPWD provided information 
clarifying the locations and status of some Lesquerella thamnophila 
populations. Although the proposed rule discussed population locations 
and status based on information in our files which came from various 
sources over time, drought conditions and inaccessibility to most 
private lands have hampered efforts to

[[Page 81186]]

survey for the species. Surveys of known populations following rain 
events even as recently as October 2000 have confirmed the plant's 
presence at three of the four sites.
    Agreement between TxDOT and TPWD. In the proposed rule we stated 
that the agreement between these two agencies was to exclude mowing 
practices at the two highway ROW sites. The final rule clarifies that 
the agreement was for TxDOT to mow only between June and January, thus 
avoiding what was considered to be the active growing season. Also, a 
recommended six-inch mowing height is specified in the agreement to 
avoid damaging any late-flowering or early-growing plants.
    Mapping errors. The TPWD pointed out two corrections to map 2: The 
TxDOT site in the vicinity of Lopeno is south rather than north of 
Lopeno, and the Cuellar's tract shape was incorrect. We appreciate the 
corrected information and applied it to the final rule, although we 
determined that the TxDOT sites will not be included in the final 
critical habitat designation.
    Removal of Proposed Sites. Based on the results of the October 2000 
and earlier surveys, we removed the two TxDOT Highway 83 ROW sites from 
this final critical habitat designation since we determined that these 
sites are no longer considered essential for the conservation of the 
species. No Lesquerella thamnophila plants have been found at the Tigre 
Chiquito site since 1997. Since buffelgrass is now the dominant cover 
in the area of the ROW where Lesquerella thamnophila plants 
historically grew, and biologist found no plants during surveys of the 
site in March and October 2000 after significant rainfall in the area, 
we believe it is highly likely the population is extirpated. The U.S. 
Highway 83 ROW site adjacent to the Siesta Shores subdivision does not 
appear to be a viable population due to the low number of plants 
(approximately 5 plants). In addition to the low number of plants, the 
site is located on a high bluff that is eroding away and the area is 
invaded by buffelgrass. Since the proposal, the site has continued to 
degrade and we no longer consider it essential for the conservation of 
the species. We removed these two sites from this final critical 
habitat designation since the areas do not have, and are unlikely to 
develop, the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to 
sustain the species; we do not consider these areas to be essential for 
the conservation of the species.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the 
point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary. We have 
designated critical habitat sites based on the regulatory, educational, 
and informational benefits that may further protect the species and its 
associated habitats. Designation of critical habitat can help focus 
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas, both 
within and outside the geographical range occupied by the species, 
which contains one or more of the essential habitat features (primary 
constituent elements) described below in the critical habitat units 
section, and that are essential for the conservation of a listed 
species. Designation of critical habitat alerts the public as well as 
land-managing agencies to the importance of these areas.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at 
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. We 
selected critical habitat areas to provide for the conservation of 
Lesquerella thamnophila within a large portion of its geographic range 
in the United States. One segment of critical habitat contains the 
largest known population of the species. Another area is known to 
support a smaller extant population. The additional segments provide 
the necessary primary constituent elements and are believed capable of 
supporting the species. It is unknown whether the plant occurs on these 
sites, since Service biologists have not been able to survey at a time 
when the plants presence would likely be evident (i.e., following 
significant rainfall). These areas are within the historical range of 
the species, contain habitats that are protected from disturbance, and 
support the ecological requirements of Lesquerella thamnophila.
    The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment of the areas needed for the species' conservation. Because 
of this species' precarious status, mere stabilization of Lesquerella 
thamnophila populations at their present levels will not achieve 
conservation. Maintenance and enhancement of the two larger extant 
populations, plus translocation of the plant in suitable areas of 
historical range, are necessary for the species' survival and recovery. 
One of the most important conservation actions will be establishment of 
secure, self-reproducing populations in suitable habitats. Thus, we 
find that it is essential for the conservation and recovery of the 
species that critical habitat for Lesquerella thamnophila include both 
areas that currently sustain the species, and areas of unknown 
occupancy that contain the primary constituent elements. We selected 
the following sites based on suitable soil types, as taken from survey 
maps and vegetation types similar to the plant communities in which the 
bladderpod currently exists. Additionally, selection of these sites is 
supported by the results of a habitat suitability modeling study which 
indicates these sites to be favorable for recovery efforts (Wu & Smeins 
1999).
    Seven Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge tracts in Starr 
County are designated as critical habitat, including the Cuellar, 
Chapeno, and Arroyo Morteros Tracts located south/southwest of the 
Falcon Heights sub-division; Las Ruinas, Los Negros, and Arroyo Ramirez 
tracts located west and northwest of the City of Roma; and the La 
Puerta Tract located southeast of Rio Grande City. These areas include 
both the largest known population of Zapata bladderpod as well as 
additional suitable habitat of uncertain occupancy, as described above. 
One private land site northeast of the town of Salineno has also been 
designated as critical habitat in Starr County. This site supports the 
largest known population of Zapata bladderpod outside the refuge.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed 
or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities 
(public or private) which may destroy or adversely modify such habitat 
or be affected by such designation. Activities which may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the primary 
constituent elements to the extent that the value of critical habitat 
for both the survival and recovery of Lesquerella thamnophila is 
appreciably

[[Page 81187]]

reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species when areas currently occupied by the species 
are affected. Such activities may include those that appreciably 
degrade or destroy native Tamaulipan thornscrub communities. Activities 
such as road building, land clearing for oil/gas exploration, soil 
disturbance for pasture improvement, livestock overgrazing, introducing 
or encouraging the spread of nonnative species, and heavy recreational 
use may likely destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    Designation of critical habitat on the National Wildlife Refuge 
tracts could affect the following actions and agencies. These effects 
may be direct, due to actions on the refuge tracts, or indirect effects 
from actions taken on surrounding lands. Actions include, but are not 
limited to, recreation management, road construction, granting of 
utility rights of way, and habitat restoration projects by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service; oil and gas exploration, extraction, and/or 
transportation permitted by the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; road construction and brush 
clearing by the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and range 
improvement projects, including establishment of non-native grasses, 
funded through or assisted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Natural Resource Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of 
critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat if 
such exclusion would result in the extinction of the species concerned.
    Economic effects caused by listing the Zapata bladderpod as an 
endangered species and by other statutes are the baseline against which 
the effects of critical habitat designation are evaluated. The economic 
analysis must then examine the incremental economic effects and 
benefits of the critical habitat designation. Economic effects are 
measured as changes in national income, regional jobs, and household 
income. We made the draft economic analysis available for public review 
and comment as described in the ``Summary of Comments'' section of this 
document. The final analysis, which reviewed and incorporated public 
comments as appropriate, concluded that no significant economic impacts 
are expected from critical habitat designation above and beyond that 
already imposed by the listing of the Zapata bladderpod under the Act 
and other statutes.
    A copy of the final economic analysis is included in our 
administrative record and may be obtained by contacting our office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through designating critical habitat encourages 
and results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private 
agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery 
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required 
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities 
involving listed species are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as endangered or 
threatened and with respect to its critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 
to confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed or critical habitat is designated subsequently, section 7(a)(2) 
requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, 
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical 
habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its 
critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
consultation with us. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
reinitiation of consultation on actions for which consultation has been 
completed on effects to the species, but that did not consider the 
effects of the action on critical habitat.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect Lesquerella thamnophila 
or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities 
on non-Federal lands requiring a permit or utilizing funding from a 
Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or funding of a highway 
project by the Federal Highway Administration, would also be subject to 
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting the 
species, as well as actions on non-federal lands that are not federally 
funded or permitted, would not require section 7 consultation.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this rule is a 
significant regulatory action and has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).
    (a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or more, or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. We conducted an 
analysis of the economic impact of the designation prior to making this 
final determination.
    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. Table 1 shows a comparison of the effects on Federal actions 
resulting from the species' listing versus those expected to result 
from critical habitat designation. Federal agencies have been required 
to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of Lesquerella thamnophila since the species was listed. We will 
continue to review proposed activities with other Federal agencies as 
afforded through section 7 interagency consultation per the Endangered 
Species Act regulations.

[[Page 81188]]



Table 1.--Federal Actions Potentially Affected by Listing of Lesquerella Thamnophila and Additional Effects That
                                  May Result From Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Additional activities potentially
       Categories of activities          Activities potentially affected by      affected by critical habitat
                                              species listing only \1\                 designation \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Potentially          Activities which remove or destroy   Same activities which appreciably
 Affected \3\.                           occupied habitat whether by          degrade or destroy unoccopied
                                         mechanical, chemical, or other       critical habitat.
                                         means (e.g. soil disturbance for
                                         purposes including pasture
                                         improvement, heavy recreational
                                         use, inappropriate application of
                                         herbicides, etc.); sale, exchange,
                                         or lease of Federal land that
                                         contains occupied habitat that is
                                         likely to result in the habitat
                                         being destroyed or appreciably
                                         degraded.
Private and other non-Federal           Activities which require a Federal   Same activities which appreciably
 Activities Potentially Affected \4\.    action (permit, authorization, or    degrade or destroy unoccupied
                                         funding) and which: (1) remove or    critical habitat.
                                         destroy occupied habitat, whether
                                         by mechanical, chemical, or other
                                         means (e.g. road building and
                                         other construction projects,
                                         inappropriate application of
                                         herbicides, land clearing for
                                         purposes including oil and gas
                                         exploration, soil disturbance for
                                         purposes including pasture
                                         improvement, significant
                                         overgrazing, etc.); or (2)
                                         appreciably decrease habitat value
                                         or quality through indirect
                                         effects (e.g. introducing or
                                         encouraging the spread of
                                         nonnative species).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents the activities potentially affected by listing the Zapata bladderpod as an endangered
  species under the Endangered Species Act (November 22, 1999; 64 FR 224).
\2\ This column represents the activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation beyond the
  effects resulting from the species' listing.
\3\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\4\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
  funding.

    (c) This final rule will not significantly impact entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients. Federal agencies are currently required to ensure 
that their activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species and we do not anticipate that the adverse modification 
prohibition (resulting from critical habitat designation) will have 
significant incremental effects.
    (d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This 
final rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat 
contained in the Endangered Species Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    In the economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act), we 
determined that the designation of critical habitat will have no 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. As 
discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review above, this rule is not 
expected to result in any significant restrictions in addition to those 
currently in existence.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of 
critical habitat will not cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) an increase in costs or prices for consumers; 
individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or 
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment 
is not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical 
habitat affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase 
or decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning 
take of Lesquerella thamnophila. Critical habitat designation does not 
preclude development of habitat conservation plans and issuance of 
incidental take permits. The private landowner whose property is 
included in the designated critical habitat will continue to have 
opportunity to utilize their property in ways consistent with the 
survival of Lesquerella thamnophila.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), we are required to assess the effects of 
critical habitat designation on tribal lands and tribal trust 
resources. We are not designating any tribal lands as critical habitat, 
and we do not anticipate any effects on tribal trust resources.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
    b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in 
any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat 
imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from and coordinated development of this critical 
habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Texas. 
We will continue to coordinate any future designation of critical 
habitat for Lesquerella thamnophila with the

[[Page 81189]]

appropriate State agencies. The designation of critical habitat will 
impose few additional restrictions beyond those currently in place and, 
therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local governments 
and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these 
governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements 
of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are 
specifically identified.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor determined that this rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor 
reviewed this final determination. We made every effort to ensure that 
this final determination contains no drafting errors, provides clear 
standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is clearly 
written such that litigation risk is minimized.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside these areas covered by the U.S. 
Tenth Circuit Court, we do not need to prepare an environmental 
analysis as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 
connection with designating critical habitat. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts 
of the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt), 48 F.3d 1495 (Ninth 
Circuit Oregon 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). However, when 
critical habitat involves states within the Tenth Circuit, pursuant to 
the ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Circuit 1996), we undertake a NEPA 
analysis for critical habitat designation. Although Lesquerella 
thamnophila does not occur in any 10th Circuit states, this designation 
is subject to 10th Circuit review because the case compelling the 
settlement agreement was filed in New Mexico. Thus, we prepared an 
Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact for 
this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required. This rule references incidental take permits 
which contain information collection activity. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service has OMB approval for the collection under OMB Control Number 
1018-0094. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

References Cited

Diamond, D. 1990. Plant Communities of Texas (series level). Texas 
Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas.
Poole, J. 1989. Status Report on Lesquerella thamnophila. U. S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Rollins, R. C. and E. A. Shaw. 1973. The Genus Lesquerella. Harvard 
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Thompson, C.M., R.R. Sanders, and D. Williams. 1972. Soil Survey of 
Starr County, Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil 
Conservation Service, Temple, Texas.
Wu, Ben X., and Fred E. Smeins. 1999. Multiple-Scale Habitat Models 
of Rare Plants: Model Development and Evaluation. TxDOT (Pharr 
District-Environmental Affairs Division).

Author

    The author of this final determination is Loretta Pressly (see 
ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
record-keeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entry for ``Lesquerella 
thamnophila'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         FLOWERING PLANTS
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Lesquerella......................  Zapata..............  U.S.A..............  Brassicaceae.......  E                       671     17.96(a)          N/A
thamnophila......................  bladderpod..........  (TX)...............
                                   ....................  Mexico.............
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. In Sec. 17.96 add critical habitat for Lesquerella thamnophila, 
Zapata bladderpod, in alphabetical order by scientific name under 
Family Brassicaceae to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 17.96  Critical habitat-plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata bladderpod)

    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Starr County, Texas, on 
the maps below. Critical habitat includes National Wildlife Refuge 
tracts and one private land site. Maps are for general informational 
purposes only; the legal descriptions precisely define critical habitat 
boundaries.

    2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include:
    (a) Arid upland habitats of various soil types, including highly 
calcareous

[[Page 81190]]

sandy loam to loamy sand, with low to moderate salinity levels on low 
sloping hills;
    (b) Absence of substantial previous soil disturbance and seeding or 
sodding of exotic grasses; and
    (c) A sparse overstory of shrub species typical of the Tamaulipan 
biotic province, but lacking a complete canopy as might be provided by 
a continuous overstory dominated by mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa).
    3. Existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, 
railroads, urban development, and other features not containing primary 
constituent elements, are not considered critical habitat.

[[Page 81191]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.008


[[Page 81192]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.009


[[Page 81193]]


Critical Habitat on Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 
Tracts, Starr County, Texas (Area measurements are approximate.):
    Unit 1, Cuellar Tract (18 hectares (ha); 45 acres (ac))--(Segment 
669). Note: All bearings are based on the Texas State Plane Coordinate 
System, South Zone, as referenced by the National Geodetic Survey 
Triangulation Station ``LABRA'' (not found) having State plane 
coordinates of N = 331,881.065, E = 1,794,777.75. The scale factor used 
is 0.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32". All areas and 
distances are true surface measurements. Beginning at a standard U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) aluminum monument set for corner on the 
southeasterly line of Porcion No. 59 and the northeast corner of Share 
35 and stamped ``Tract 669, COR. No. 1, R.P.L.S. #4303'' and having a 
State plane coordinate value of N = 320,083.51, E = 1,799,578.77, from 
which triangulation station ``LABRA'', bears N 22 deg. 08' 38"W, 
12,737.98 feet; thence, in a southwesterly direction along the common 
line of Porcion 59 and 60, S 54 deg. 32' 24"W, 2,290.19 feet, to a 
standard FWS aluminum monument set for corner, being the common corner 
of Shares 35 and 26 and stamped ``Tract 669, COR. No. 2, R.P.L.S. No. 
4303; thence, in a northwesterly direction along the common line of 
Share 35 with Shares 26 and 27, N 35 deg. 27' 36"W, 640.00 feet to a 
standard FWS aluminum monument set for corner, being the most southerly 
common corner of Shares 35 and 34 and stamped ``Tract 669, COR. No. 3, 
R.P.L.S. No. 4303''; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the 
common line of Shares 35 and 34; N 54 deg. 32' 24"E, 2,290.19 feet to a 
standard FWS aluminum monument set for corner, being the most northerly 
common corner of shares 35 and 34 and stamped ``Tract 669, COR. No. 4, 
R.P.L.S. No. 4303; thence, in a southeasterly direction along the 
common line of Shares 35 and 36 Parcel-A; S 35 deg. 27' 36" E, 640.00 
feet to the point of beginning and containing 33.648 acres of land.
    (Cuellar Tract--Segment 672). Note: All bearings are based on the 
Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, as referenced by U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service GPS Monument No. 105 having State plane 
coordinates (NAD 27) of N = 311,099.90, E = 1,799,824.45. The scale 
factor used is 0.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32". All 
areas and distances are true surface measurements. Beginning at a 
standard FWS aluminum monument set for corner on the common line 
between Porcions 59 and 60, and being the northeast corner of Share 26 
and stamped ``Tract 672, COR. No. 1, R.P.L.S. No. 3680'' and having a 
State plane coordinate value of N = 318,737.64, E = 1,797,725.36, from 
which FWS GPS Monument No. 105 bears S 15 deg. 22' 02" E, 7,920.94 
feet; thence, in a southeasterly direction along the common line of 
Porcion 59 and 60, S 54 deg. 27' 12"W, 806.50 feet to a standard FWS 
aluminum monument set for corner, being the southeast corner of said 
north one-half (\1/2\) of Share 26, same being the northeast corner of 
the south one-half (\1/2\) of Share 26 and stamped ``Tract 672, COR. 
No. 2, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a northwesterly direction along 
the common line of said north and south one-half (\1/2\) of Share 26; N 
35 deg. 27' 36" W, 463.31 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument set 
for corner in the common line between Shares 26 and 27 and stamped 
``Tract 672, COR. No. 3, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a northeast 
direction along the common line of Shares 26 and 27; N 54 deg. 
32Prime;; 24" E, 806.50 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument set 
for corner, being the most northerly common corner of Shares 26 and 27 
in the south line of Share 35 and stamped ``Tract 672, COR. No. 4, 
R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a southeasterly direction along the 
common line of Shares 35 and 26; S 35 deg. 27' 36" E, 462.09 feet to 
the point of beginning and containing 8.567 acres of land.
    (Cuellar Tract--Segment 673). Note: All bearings are based on the 
Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, as referenced by FWS 
GPS Monument No. 105 having State plane coordinates (NAD 27) of N = 
311,099.90, E = 1,799,824.45. The scale factor used is 0.9999252, and 
the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32". All areas and distances are true 
surface measurements. Beginning at a standard FWS aluminum monument set 
for the common north corner of Shares 26 and 27, in the south line of 
Share 35 and stamped ``Tract 672, COR. No. 4, R.P.L.S. No. 3680'' and 
having a state plane coordinate value of N = 319,114.02, E = 
1,797,457.29, from which FWS GPS Monument No. 105 bears S 16 deg. 27' 
21" E, 8,356.40 feet; thence, in a southwesterly direction along the 
common line of Shares 26 and 27, S 54 deg. 32' 24" N, 806.50 feet to a 
standard FWS aluminum monument set for corner, being the southeast 
corner of said north one-half (\1/2\) of Share 27, same being the 
northeast corner of the south one-half (\1/2\) of Share 27 and stamped 
``Tract 672, COR. No. 3, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a 
northwesterly direction along the common line of said north and south 
one-half (\1/2\) of Share 27; N 35 deg. 27' 36" W, 592.30 feet to a 
standard FWS aluminum monument set for corner in the common line 
between Shares 27 and 28 and stamped ``Tract 674, COR. No. 3, R.P.L.S. 
No. 3680''; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the common line 
of Shares 27 and 28, N 54 deg. 32' 24" E, 806.50 feet to a standard FWS 
aluminum monument set for corner, being the most northerly common 
corner of Shares 27 and 28 in the south line of Share 34 and stamped 
``Tract 674, COR. No. 2, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a 
southeasterly direction along the common line of Shares 34 and 27, S 
35 deg. 27' 36" E, 592.30 feet to the point of beginning and containing 
10.966 acres of land.
    (Cuellar Tract--Segment 672). Note: All bearings are based on the 
Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, as referenced by FWS 
GPS Monument No. 105 having State plane coordinates (NAD 27) of N = 
311,099.90, E = 1,799,824.45. The scale factor used is 0.9999252, and 
the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32". All areas and distances are true 
surface measurements. Beginning at a standard FWS aluminum monument set 
replacing a 1-inch iron pipe found for the common north corner of 
Shares 28 and 29, in the south line of Share 33 and stamped ``Tract 
674, COR. No. 1, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; and having a state plane 
coordinate value of N = 320,078.90, E = 1,796,770.06, from which FWS 
GPS Monument No. 105 bears S 18 deg. 47' 11" E, 9,484.36 feet; thence, 
in a southeasterly direction along the common line of Share 28 and 
Shares 33 and 34, S 35 deg. 27' 36" E, 592.30 feet to a standard FWS 
aluminum monument set for corner, being the common northerly corner of 
Shares 28 and 27 and stamped ``Tract 674, COR. No. 2, R.P.L.S. No. 
3680''; thence, in a southwesterly direction along the common line of 
said Share 28 and 27; S 54 deg. 32' 24" W, 806.50 feet to a standard 
FWS aluminum monument set for the southeasterly corner of said north 
one-half (\1/2\) of Share 28, same being the northeasterly corner of 
the south one-half (\1/2\) of Share 28 and stamped ``Tract 674, COR. 
No. 3, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a northwesterly direction along 
the common line of the north and south one-half (\1/2\) of Share 28, N 
35 deg. 27' 36" W, 592.30 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument set 
for corner in the common line between Shares 28 and 29 and stamped 
``Tract 674, COR. No. 4, R.P.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a northeasterly 
direction along the

[[Page 81194]]

common line of Shares 28 and 29; N 54 deg. 32' 24" E, 806.50 feet to 
the point of beginning and containing 10.966 acres of land.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.010


[[Page 81195]]


    Unit 2, Chapeno Tract (28 ha; 69 ac)--(Chapeno Tract--Segment 660). 
Note: All bearings and distances are based on the International 
Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced by the U.S.C. & G.S. 
Triangulation Station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor used is 0.9999252, 
and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). All areas shown are 
true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the U.S.C. & G.S. 
triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate values: x = 
1,794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 02 deg. 08' 43" W, a distance 
of 9,020.47 feet to the northwesterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre 
tract for the northmost corner of said Share No. 17 and being corner 
No. 1 and the northernmost corner and place of beginning of the tract 
herein-described; thence, along the northeasterly boundary line of 
Share No. 17 and the southwesterly boundary line of a 35-foot perpetual 
easement, S 32 deg. 11' 36" E, 840.62 feet to the easternmost corner of 
said Share No. 17 and being corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, along 
the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 17 and the northwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 18, S 47 deg. 29' 30" W, 293.59 feet to a 
said point on a fence line along the southwesterly boundary line of 
said 44.900-acre tract for the southernmost corner of said Share No. 17 
and being corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, following said fence line 
along the southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 17 and the 
southwesterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, N 30 deg. 16' 
28" W, 166.16 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract 
(660), R.P.S. No. 4731'' set for a corner of said 44.900-acre tract and 
being corner No. 4 of this tract; thence, continuing along said fence 
line along the southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 17 and the 
southwesterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, N 31 deg. 04' 
59" W, 684.02 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract 
(660), R. P. S. No. 4731'' set for the westernmost corner of said 
44.900-acre tract and being corner No. 5 of this tract, thence, 
following a fence line along the northwesterly boundary line of Share 
No. 17 and the northwesterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, N 
48 deg. 42' 36" E, 273.46 feet to the place of beginning and containing 
5.396 acres of land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 661). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1,794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 00 deg. 48' 20" E, 
a distance of 9,702.45 feet to the northernmost corner of said Share 
No. 18 and being corner No. 1 and the northernmost corner and place of 
beginning of the tract herein-described; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 18 and the southwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 19, S 42 deg. 40' 05" E, 623.01 feet to a 
point on a fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of said 
44.900-acre tract for the easternmost corner of said Share No. 18 and 
being corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, following said fence line 
along the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 18 and the 
southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 54 deg. 58' 
43" W, 14.82 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract 
(661), R. P. S. No. 4731'' set for a corner of said 44.900-acre tract 
and being corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, continuing along said 
fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 18 and 
the southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 54 deg. 
17' 40" W, 442.61 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped 
``Tract (661), R. P. S. No. 4731'' set for the southernmost corner of 
said 44.900-acre tract and being corner No. 4 of this tract; thence, 
following a fence line along the southwesterly boundary line of Share 
No. 18 and the southwesterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, N 
30 deg. 16' 28" W, 581.86 feet to a point for the westernmost corner of 
said Share No. 18 and being corner No. 5 of this tract; thence, along 
the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 17 and the northwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 18, N 47 deg. 29' 30" E, 329.16 feet to the 
place of beginning and containing 5.396 acres of land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 662). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1,794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 00 deg. 53' 22" E, 
a distance of 9,308.09 feet to the northernmost corner of said Share 
No. 19 and being corner No. 1 and the northernmost corner and the place 
of beginning of the tract herein-described; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 19 and the southwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 20, S 41 deg. 14' 45" E, 941.54 feet to a 
point on a fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of said 
44.900-acre tract for the easternmost corner of said Share No. 19 and 
being corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, following said fence line 
along the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 19 and the 
southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 55 deg. 22' 
51" W, 8.49 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract 
(662), R. P. S. No. 4731'' set for a corner of said 44.900-acre tract 
and being corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, continuing along said 
fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 19 and 
the southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 54 deg. 
58' 43" W, 243.72 feet to the southernmost corner of Share No. 19 and 
being corner No. 4 of this tract; thence, along the northeasterly 
boundary line of Share No. 18 and the southwesterly boundary line of 
Share No. 19, N 42 deg. 40' 05 W, 623.01 feet to a corner of Share No. 
19 and being corner No. 5 of this tract; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of a 35-foot perpetual easement and the 
southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 19, N 32 deg. 08' 41" W, 
293.64 feet to the westernmost corner of said Share No. 19 and being 
corner No. 6 of this tract; thence, along the southeasterly boundary 
line of a 35-ft. perpetual easement and the northwesterly boundary line 
of Share No. 19, N 48 deg. 23' 35" E, 219.73 feet to the place of 
beginning and containing 5.396 acres of land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 663). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U. S. C. & G. S. triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1,794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 01 deg. 55' 50" E, 
a distance of 9,166.26 feet to the northernmost corner of said share No 
20, and being corner No. 1, and the northernmost corner and place of 
beginning of the tract herein-described; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 20 and the southwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 21, S 44 deg. 17' 45" E, 975.87 feet to a 
point on a fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of said 
44.900-acre tract for the easternmost corner of said Share No. 20 and 
being corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, following said fence line 
along the

[[Page 81196]]

southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 20 and the southeasterly 
boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract; S 55 deg. 22' 51" W, 273.48 
feet to the southernmost corner of Share No. 20 and being corner No. 3 
of this tract; thence, along the northeasterly boundary line of Share 
No. 19 and the southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 20, N 41 deg. 
14' 45'' W, 941.54 feet to the westernmost corner of Share No. 20 and 
being corner No. 4 of this tract; thence, along the southeasterly 
boundary line of a 35-ft. perpetual easement and the northwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 20, N 48 deg. 23' 35" E, 219.73 feet to the 
place of beginning and containing 5.396 acres of land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 664). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1,794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 03 deg. 00' 15" E, 
a distance of 9,027.56 feet to the northernmost corner of said Share 
No. 21 and being corner No. 1 and the northernmost corner and place of 
beginning of the tract herein-described; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 21 and the southwesterly 
boundary line of Share No 22, S 46  deg. 18' 57'' E, 1,008.60 feet to a 
point on a fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of said 
44.900-acre tract for the easternmost corner of Share No. 21 and being 
corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, following said fence line along the 
southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 21 and the southeasterly 
boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 54 deg. 17' 59" W, 56.04 
feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract (664), R. P. 
S. No. 4731'' set for a corner of said 44.900-acre tract and being 
corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, continuing along said fence line 
along the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 21 and the 
southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 55 deg. 22' 
51" W, 202.51 feet to the southernmost corner of Share No. 21 and being 
corner No. 4 of this tract; thence, along the northeasterly boundary 
line of Share No. 20 and the southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 
21, N 44 deg. 17' 45" W, 975.87 feet to the westernmost corner of Share 
No. 21 and being corner No. 5 of this tract; thence, along the 
southeasterly boundary line of a 35-foot perpetual easement and the 
northwesterly boundary line of Share No. 21, N 48 deg. 23' 35" E, 
219.73 feet to the place of beginning and containing 5.396 acres of 
land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 665). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. Triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U.S.C. & G.S. Triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 04 deg. 06' 38" E, a 
distance of 8,892.12 feet to the northernmost corner of said Share No. 
22 and being corner No. 1 and the northernmost corner and place of 
beginning of the tract herein-described; thence, following a fence line 
along the northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 22 and the 
southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 23, S 47 deg. 33' 31" E, 
1,036.06 feet to a point on a fence line along the southeasterly 
boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract for the easternmost corner of 
said Share No. 22 and being corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, 
following said fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of 
Share No. 22 and the southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre 
tract, S 54 deg. 17' 59" W, 245.67 feet to the southernmost corner of 
Share No. 22 and being corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 21 and the southwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 22, N 46 deg. 18' 57" W, 1,008.60 feet to 
the westernmost corner of Share No. 22 and being corner No. 4 of this 
tract; thence, along the southeasterly boundary line of a 35-foot 
perpetual easement and the northwesterly boundary line of Share No. 22, 
N 48 deg. 23' 35" E, 219.73 feet to the place of beginning and 
containing 5.396 acres of land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 666). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U.S.C. & G.S. Triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1,794,777.75, y =331,881.06; thence, S 05 deg. 15' 03" E, a 
distance of 8,710.10 feet to the northernmost corner of said Share No. 
23 and being corner No. 1 and the northernmost corner and place of 
beginning of the tract herein-described; thence, following a fence line 
along the northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 23 and the 
southwesterly boundary line of said Share No. 24, S 48  deg. 10' 23" E, 
1,061.62 feet to a point on a fence line along the southeasterly 
boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract for the easternmost corner of 
Share No.23 and being corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, following 
said fence line along the southeasterly boundary line of Share No. 23 
and the southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 
54 deg. 17' 59" W, 234.95 feet to the southernmost corner of Share 
No.23 and being corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, along the 
northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 22 and the southwesterly 
boundary line of Share No. 23, N 47 deg. 33' 31" W, 1,036.06 feet to 
the westernmost corner of Share No. 23 and being corner No. 4 of this 
tract; thence, along the southeasterly boundary line of a 35-ft. 
perpetual easement and the northwesterly boundary line of Share No. 23, 
N 48 deg. 23' 35" E, 219.73 feet to the place of beginning and 
containing 5.396 acres of land.
    (Chapeno Tract--Segment 667). Note: All bearings and distances are 
based on the International Boundary Commission Monuments as referenced 
by the U.S.C. & G.S. Triangulation station ``LABRA.'' The scale factor 
used is 00.9999252, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32" (NAD 1927). 
All areas shown are true ground areas. Commencing for reference at the 
U.S.C. & G.S. Triangulation station ``LABRA,'' having coordinate 
values: x = 1,794,777.75, y = 331,881.06; thence, S 06 deg. 25' 32" E, 
a distance of 8,631.65 feet to the northeasterly boundary line of said 
44.900-acre tract for corner No. 1 and the place of beginning of the 
tract herein-described; thence, following a fence line along the 
northeasterly boundary line of share No. 24 and the northeasterly 
boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 51 deg. 42' 47" E, 679.97 
feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract (667), R. P. 
S. No. 4731'' set for a corner of said 44.900-acre tract and being 
corner No. 2 of this tract; thence, continuing along the fence line 
along the northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 24 and the 
northeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 01 deg. 11' 
48" E, 136.46 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``Tract 
(667), R. P. S. No. 4731'' set for a corner of said 44.900-acre tract 
and being corner No. 3 of this tract; thence, continuing along the 
fence line along the northeasterly boundary line of Share No. 24 and 
the northeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 54 deg. 
15' 17" E, 309.21 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped 
``Tract (667), R. P. S. No. 4731'' set on a fence line for the 
easternmost corner of Share No. 24 and

[[Page 81197]]

being on the southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract and 
being corner No. 4 of this tract; thence, following said fence line 
along the southeasterly boundary line of share No. 24 and the 
southeasterly boundary line of said 44.900-acre tract, S 54 deg. 17' 
59" W, 197.94 feet to the southernmost corner of Share No. 24 and being 
corner No. 5 of this tract; thence, following said fence line along the 
southwesterly boundary line of Share No. 24 and the northeasterly 
boundary line of Share No. 23, N 48 deg. 10' 23" W, 1,061.62 feet to 
the westernmost corner of Share No. 24 and northernmost corner of Share 
No. 23 and being corner No. 6 of this tract; thence, along the 
southeasterly boundary line of a 35-ft. perpetual easement and the 
northwesterly boundary line of Share No. 24, N 48 deg. 23' 35" E, 
219.73 feet to the place of beginning and containing 5.396 acres of 
land.

[[Page 81198]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.011

    Unit 3, Arroyo Morteros Tract (41 ha; 102 ac)--Note: All bearings 
are based on the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, (NAD 
27), as referenced by FWS GPS Monument No. 105 having State plane 
coordinates of N

[[Page 81199]]

= 311,099.90, E = 1,799,824.45. The scale factor used is 0.9999252, and 
the theta angle is -00 deg. 37' 32". All areas and distances are true 
surface measurements. Beginning at a \1/2\-inch iron rod found for 
corner No. 1 on the common line between Porcions 59 and 60, and being 
the northwest corner of that certain 127.71-acre tract and having a 
State plane coordinate value of N = 315,746.07, E = 1,793,538.58, from 
which FWS GPS monument No. 105 bears S 53 deg. 31' 49" E, 7,816.59 
feet; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the common line of 
Porcion 59 and 60; N 54 deg. 27' 12" E, 510.43 feet to a standard FWS 
aluminum monument set for corner replacing a \1/2\-inch iron rod found, 
being the northwest corner of the herein described tract and stamped 
``Tract 670, Cor. No. 2, R. P. L. S. No. 3680''; thence, in a easterly 
direction through the interior of said 536.485 acre tract; S 35 deg. 
20' 27" E, 3,621.01 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument set for 
corner replacing a \1/2\-inch iron rod found, being the northeast 
corner of the herein-described tract and stamped ``Tract 670, Cor. No. 
3, R.P.L.S. No. 3680''; thence, in a southerly direction continuing 
through the interior of said 536.485 acre tract; S 61 deg. 18' 54" W, 
219.24 feet to a fence corner post found for a northwesterly corner of 
that certain 17.408 acre tract and being corner No. 4; thence, in a 
easterly direction along the common line between said 17.408 acre tract 
and the herein described tract; S 88 deg. 47' 16" W, 110.41 feet to a 
fence post found for angle point and corner No. 5; thence, in a 
easterly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; N 79 deg. 11' 33" W, 67.63 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 6; thence, in a 
easterly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 71 deg. 49' 04" W, 50.57 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 7; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 15 deg. 40' 49" W, 44.43 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 8; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 00 deg. 18' 59" E, 253.83 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 9; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 06 deg. 36' 21" W, 182.88 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 10; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 26 deg. 38' 19" W, 125.18 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 11; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 67 deg. 33' 26" W, 129.76 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 12; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408-
acre tract and herein described tract; S 45 deg. 58' 19" W, 73.00 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 13; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 35 deg. 10' 19" W, 113.60 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 14; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408 
acre tract and herein described tract; S 19 deg. 34' 19" W, 42.80 feet 
to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 15; thence, in a 
southerly direction continuing along said common line between a 17.408-
acre tract and herein described tract; S 15 deg. 23' 41" W, 28.84 feet 
to a \1/2\-inch iron rod found on the apparent gradient boundary of the 
Rio Grande for the southeast corner hereof and corner No. 16; thence, 
in a westerly direction along said apparent gradient boundary of the 
Rio Grande; N 62 deg. 26' 09" W, 81.47 feet to a point on said apparent 
gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 7; thence, in a 
northwesterly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; N 36 deg. 34' 14" W, 122.63 feet to a point 
on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 18; 
thence, in a northerly direction continuing along said apparent 
gradient boundary of the Rio Grande; N 20 deg. 15' 10" W, 58.91 feet to 
a point on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner 
No. 19; thence, in a northwesterly direction continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande; N 34 deg. 02' 20" W, 
118.95 feet to a point on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for Corner No. 20; thence, in a westerly direction continuing 
along said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande; S 73 deg. 36' 
56" W, 17.73 feet to a point on said apparent gradient boundary of the 
Rio Grande for corner No. 21; thence, in a northwesterly direction 
continuing along said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande; N 
43 deg. 36' 30" W, 118.21 feet to a point on said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande corner No. 22; thence, in a northerly 
direction continuing along said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande; N 28 deg.12' 58" W, 168.21 feet to a point on said apparent 
gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 23; thence, in a 
northwesterly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; N 49 deg. 09' 29" W, 149.82 feet to a point 
on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 24; 
thence, in a westerly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; N 66 deg. 23' 26" W, 123.27 feet to a point 
on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 25; 
thence, in a westerly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; N 77 deg. 18' 49" W, 240.49 feet to a point 
on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 26; 
thence, in a westerly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; S 80 deg. 06' 32" W, 129.98 feet to a point 
on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 27; 
thence, in a westerly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; N 79 deg. 54' 48" W, 218.17 feet to a point 
on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande for corner No. 28; 
thence, in a westerly direction continuing along said apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande; S 81 deg. 13' 28" W, 136.03 feet to a \1/
2\-inch iron rod found on said apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for the southeast corner of the aforementioned 127.71 acre 
tract, same being the southwest corner hereof and corner No. 29; 
thence, in a northerly direction along the common line between said 
127.71-acre tract and the herein described tract; N 06 deg. 09' 33" W, 
237.00 feet to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 30; 
thence, in a northerly direction continuing along the common line 
between said 127.71-acre tract and the herein described tract; N 
05 deg. 51' 34" W, 198.49 feet to a fence post found for angle point 
and corner No. 31; thence, in a Northerly direction continuing along 
the common line between said 127.71-acre tract and the herein described 
tract; N 07 deg. 49' 27" E, 161.97 feet to a fence post found for angle 
point and corner No. 32; thence, in a Northerly direction continuing 
along the common line between said 127.71-acre tract and the herein 
described tract; N 07 deg. 47' 00" E, 302.39 feet to a fence post found 
for angle point and corner No. 33; thence, in a northerly direction 
continuing along the common line between said 127.71 acre tract and the 
herein described tract; N 07 deg. 17' 37" E,

[[Page 81200]]

493.82 feet to a fence post found for angle point and corner No. 34; 
thence, in a northeasterly direction continuing along the common line 
between said 127.71-acre tract and the herein described tract, as 
fenced; N 46 deg. 28' 41" E, 643.50 feet to a fence post found for 
angle point and corner No. 35; thence, in a northwesterly direction 
continuing along the common line between said 127.71 acre tract and the 
herein described tract; N 47 deg. 51' 47" W, 1,087.49 feet to a fence 
post found for angle point and corner No. 36; thence, in a northerly 
direction continuing along the common line between said 127.71-acre 
tract and the herein described tract; N 21 deg. 22' 25" W, 375.05 feet 
to the point of beginning and containing 89.90 acres of land.

[[Page 81201]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.012

    Unit 4, Las Ruinas Tract (104 ha; 256 ac)--Note: All bearings are 
based on the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, as 
referenced by National Geodetic Survey (NGS.) Triangulation Station 
``GORGORA'' having State plane

[[Page 81202]]

coordinates (NAD 27) of N = 275,335.73, E = 1.833,217.01. The scale 
factor used is 0.9999421, and the theta angle is -00 deg. 16' 22". All 
areas and distances are true surface measurements. Beginning at a 2-
inch iron pipe having State plane coordinates of N = 280,488.40, E = 
1,804,584.01 for the northerly southeast corner of the herein described 
tract, from which said triangulation station ``GORGORA'' bears S 
79 deg. 47' 55" E, a distance of 29,092.93 feet, same being the 
southwest corner of Share 96, of said Porcion 66, and the southwest 
corner of a 1455.52-acre tract of land as described, same being in the 
north line of Share 94, of said Porcion 66, same being in the north 
line of Tract ``K'', a 26.82-acre tract of land as described, for 
corner No. 1 and point of beginning of the herein described tract of 
land. Thence, westerly along the common line between said northerly 
line of tract ``K'' and the southerly line hereof N 80 deg. 30' 29" W, 
871.09 feet to a 6" iron pipe found for corner No. 2, same being the 
northwest corner of said Tract ``K''; thence, southerly along the 
common line between the westerly line of said Tract ``K'' and the 
easterly line hereof S 09 deg. 22' 35" W, 837.18 feet, to a 1\3/4\" 
iron pipe found for the southwest corner of said tract ``K'' and the 
northwest corner of a 23.5131-acre tract of land at corner No. 3, 
thence, southerly along the common line between said 23.5131-acre tract 
and the most southerly easterly line hereof, S 09 deg. 22' 35" W, 
540.00 feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument set, said monument 
being in the north line of a 56.82-acre tract of land as described for 
corner No. 4 and stamped ``Tract 630, Ref. No. 4, RPLS 3680''; thence, 
westerly along the common northerly line between said 56.82 acre tract 
and the southerly line hereof, N 80 deg. 31' 16" W, 3295.18 feet to the 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande, and passing a standard 
FWS aluminum monument set for reference at a distance of 3,210.08 feet 
and stamped ``Tract 630, Ref. No. 5, RPLS 3680''; thence, northerly 
along the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 63 deg. 00' 
17" E, 192.97 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the 
Rio Grande for Corner No. 6; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 62 deg. 39' 49" E, 
398.99 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for Corner No. 7; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 60 deg. 14' 39" E, 
722.34 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 8; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 57 deg. 28' 43" E, 
416.75 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 9; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 57 deg. 55' 40" E, 
171.44 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 10; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 47 deg. 49' 48" E, 
287.44 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 11; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 43 deg. 00' 00" E, 
246.79 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 12; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 39 deg. 40' 14" E, 
295.08 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 13; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 35 deg. 41' 43" E, 
380.79 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 14; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 31 deg. 28' 24" E, 
370.58 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 15; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 33 deg. 19' 15" E, 
293.00 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 16; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 13 deg. 43' 08" E, 
146.31 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 17; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 11 deg. 00' 57" E, 
189.14 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 18; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 02 deg. 10' 54" W, 
305.51 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 19; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 01 deg. 31' 51" W, 
416.25 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 20; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 00 deg. 01' 29" W, 
441.45 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 21; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 03 deg. 29' 26" E, 
405.03 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 22; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 08 deg. 08' 02" E, 
308.09 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary of the Rio 
Grande for corner No. 23; thence, northerly continuing along said 
apparent gradient boundary of the Rio Grande N 39 deg. 03' 01" E, 
218.95 feet to a point on the apparent gradient boundary line of the 
Rio Grande, for corner No. 24 and northwest corner of this tract, same 
being the southwest corner of a 60.77-acre tract of land; thence, 
easterly along the common line between the south line of said 60.77-
acre tract and the northerly line hereof S 80 deg. 31' 16" E, 1942.92 
feet to a standard FWS aluminum monument set and stamped ``Tract 630, 
Ref. No. 25, RPLS 3680'' for corner No. 25, same being the southeast 
corner of said 60.77-acre tract, same being in the west line of Share 
339 of said Porcion 66, same being in the west line of said 1,455.52-
acre tract of land, and passing a standard FWS aluminum monument set 
for Reference at a distance of 38.95 feet and stamped ``Tract 630, Ref. 
No. 24, RPLS 3680''; thence, southerly along the common line between 
the west line of said Share 339, Share 319, Share 227, Share 231, Share 
230, Share 229, Share 518, Share 226, Share 225, Share 224, and said 
Share 96, same being the west line of said 1,455.52-acre tract and the 
east line hereof S 09 deg. 28' 44" W, 3,845.12 feet and passing a 2-
inch iron pipe found for the southwest corner of Share 339, same being 
the northwest corner of Share 319 at a distance of 315.48 feet, and 
being 0.46 feet easterly of and perpendicular to this line, and also 
passing a 1-\1/2\ inch iron pipe found for the southwest corner of 
Share 319, same being the northwest corner of Share 227 at a distance 
of 711.48 feet, and being 0.39 feet easterly of and perpendicular to 
this line, and also passing a 2-inch iron pipe found for the southwest 
corner of Share 231, same being the northwest corner of Share 230 at a 
distance of 1,320.71 feet, and being 0.09 feet easterly of and 
perpendicular to this line, to the point of beginning of the herein 
described tract and containing 254.42 acres of land.

[[Page 81203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.013

    Unit 5, Arroyo Ramirez Tract (273 ha; 675 ac)--Formal surveying of 
the tract has not been performed. Described as, ``All of Share 79, 
Porcion 68, Abstract 191, Former Jurisdiction of Mier, Mexico, now 
Starr County, Texas, and

[[Page 81204]]

all of Share 166, Porcion 69, Abstract No. 160, Former Jurisdiction of 
Mier, Mexico, now Starr County, Texas. Description by approximated 
latitude/longitude coordinates (attached maps): Beginning at Latitude/
Longitude 26 deg. 24 00.9"N/099 deg. 03' 23.9"W, westward to Latitude/
Longitude 026 deg. 24' 04.7"N/099 deg. 03' 46.5"W, northward to Lat/
Long 026 deg. 24' 25.2"N/099 deg. 03' 43.3" W, westward to Lat/Long 
026 deg. 24' 26.0" N/099 deg. 03' 49.8" W, northward to Lat/Long 
026 deg. 25' 05.5" N/099 deg. 03' 42.6" W, eastward to Lat/Long 
026 deg. 24' 56.6" N/099 deg. 02' 40.3" W to the apparent gradient 
boundary of the Rio Grande River.

[[Page 81205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.014

    Unit 6, Los Negros Creek Tract (47 ha; 116 ac)--The following 
described tract of land is located in Starr County, Texas, about 1 mile 
northwest of the town of Roma, being 111.67 acres out of Share 13, 
Porcion 70, and being more

[[Page 81206]]

particularly described as follows: Beginning at Cor. No. 1, an iron pin 
set for the northeast corner of Share No. 13 of Porcion No. 70 ; 
thence, along an old fence line and the dividing line between Share 
Nos. 13, 1-B and 12-A, S 09 deg. 15' W, 2,694.00 feet to Cor. No. 2 an 
iron pin set on the Old High Bank of the Rio Grande and the southeast 
corner of this tract; thence leaving said fence line and along said Old 
High Bank with the following two courses, N 63 deg. 17' 27" W, 1,161.54 
feet to Cor. No. 3 and N 87 deg. 10' 00" W, 612.00 feet to Cor. No. 4, 
a set iron pin and the southwest corner of this tract; thence leaving 
said Old High Bank and along the dividing line of Tract 2 and 3 of said 
Share 13 and an old fence line with the following three courses, N 
09 deg. 15' E, 841.30 feet to Cor. No. 5, a set iron pin; N 80 deg. 45' 
W, 397.50 feet to Cor. No. 6, a set iron pin; and N 09 deg. 15' E, 
1,572.60 feet to Cor. No. 7 & iron pin set for the northwest corner of 
this tract; thence leaving said dividing line and along the north line 
of this tract and an old fence line, S 80 deg. 45' E, 2,113.70 feet to 
Cor. No. 1 and the true place of beginning, containing 111.67 acres of 
land bounded on the West, North, and East by lands of unknown owner and 
on the South by the Rio Grande.

[[Page 81207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.076

    Unit 7, La Puerta Tract (1,577 ha; 3,895 ac) (Segment 590). Note: 
All bearings and distances are based on the Texas State Plane 
Coordinate System, South Zone, as referenced by National Geodetic 
Survey (NGS) triangulation

[[Page 81208]]

station ``Fordyce 2'' and NGS triangulation station ``Monument''. Scale 
factor used was 0.99993949; theta angle used was -00 deg. 06' 15". All 
areas are true ground measured areas. Beginning at corner No. 1, a 
standard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) aluminum monument stamped 
``TR 590 COR 1'' set in the west boundary of Porcion 86, said point 
being at the southwest corner of the aforementioned 8,061-acre tract, 
and also being the northeast corner of a 160-acre tract recorded in 
volume 60, pages 47-48, Deed Records, Starr County, Texas, from which 
NGS triangulation station ``Monument'' bears N. 68 deg. 59' 27" W, 
8,477.20 feet; thence, from corner No. 1, along the western boundary 
line of said 8,061-acre tract and Porcion 86, N 09 deg. 02' 27" E, 
25,125.17 feet to corner No. 2, a standard FWS aluminum monument 
stamped ``TR 590 COR 2'', set at a fence corner from which NGS 
triangulation station ``Monument'' bears S 28 deg. 34' 49" W, 24,795.18 
feet; said corner No. 2 also being the northwest corner of the herein 
described tract, thence, from corner No. 2, departing said western 
boundary line, with fence, S. 78 deg. 52' 36" E, 1,889.04 feet, to 
corner No. 3, a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 3'' 
set at fence corner; thence, from corner No. 3, continuing with fence, 
N 06 deg. 16' 07" E, 1,007.99 feet to corner No. 4, a standard FWS 
aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 4'' set at fence corner; thence, 
from corner No. 4, continuing with fence, S 78 deg. 42' 12" E, 2,691.33 
feet to corner No. 5, a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 
COR 5'' set for angle; thence from corner No. 5, continuing with fence, 
S 72 deg. 35' 38" E, 2,000.57 feet to corner No. 6, a standard FWS 
aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 6'' set at fence corner, said 
point being a perpendicular distance of 20.20 feet from the eastern 
boundary line of Porcion 87, said point also being the Northeast corner 
of the herein described tract; thence, from corner No. 6, continuing 
with fence, S 09 deg. 01' 08" W, 10,831.38 feet to corner No. 7, a 
standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 7'' set for angle 
adjacent to a found \5/8\-inch iron pin; thence, from corner No. 7, 
continuing with fence, S 08 deg. 56' 57" W, 10,030.04 feet, to corner 
No. 8, a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 8'' set 
for angle point, said point being at the intersection of said fence 
with the east boundary line of Porcion 87; thence, from corner No. 8, 
departing said fence, along the east boundary line of Porcion 87, S 
09 deg. 02' 27" W, 4,824.69 feet to corner No. 9, a standard FWS 
aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 9'' set for corner; thence, from 
corner No. 9, departing said east line, N 80 deg. 47' 09" W, 6,527.80 
feet to the place of beginning and containing 3,844.674 acres.
    (La Puerta 590a). Note: All bearings and distances are based on the 
Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, (NAD 27), as 
referenced by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Triangulation Station 
``Monument'' having a coordinate value of N = 250,167.56; E = 
1,912,489.81. Scale factor applied equals 0.99993949; theta angle 
equals -00 deg. 06' 15". All areas are based on true ground 
measurements. Beginning at corner No. 1, a standard FWS aluminum 
monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 1'' set over a 2-inch iron pipe found in 
the west boundary line of Porcion 87, east boundary line of Porcion 86, 
at the northwest corner of said Lot 22, also being the northeast corner 
of a 2.83-acre tract as described by deed recorded in Volume 516, Page 
62, Official Records, Starr County, Texas and being in the south 
boundary line of USA Tract (590) as described by deed recorded in 
Volume 608, Page 309, Official Records, Starr County, Texas said point 
having a coordinate value of N = 246,550.96; E = 1,923,962.74 and 
bearing S 72 deg. 30' 13" E, 12,029.47 feet from NGS Triangulation 
Station ``Monument''; thence from corner No. 1, with south boundary 
line of said USA Tract (590), the north boundary line of said Lot 22, S 
80 deg. 47' 09" E, 2,922.00 feet to corner No. 2, a standard FWS 
aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590 COR 9'' found at the southeast 
corner of said USA Tract (590), also being the northeast corner of said 
Lot 21, and being in the east boundary line of Porcion 87, west 
boundary line of Porcion 88 for the northeast corner of the herein-
described tract of land; thence, from Corner No. 2, with the said east 
boundary line of Porcion 87, west boundary line of Porcion 88, and also 
being the east boundary line of said Lot 21, S 08 deg. 18' 30" W, 
1,130.60 feet to corner No. 3, a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped 
``TR 590A COR 3'' set in the existing north right-of-way line of U.S. 
Highway 83 with the intersection of said east boundary line of Porcion 
87, west boundary line of Porcion 88 for the southeast corner of the 
herein described tract of land; thence, from corner No. 3, with and 
along the said existing north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 83, N 
66 deg. 14' 23" W, 18.20 feet to corner No. 4, a standard FWS aluminum 
monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 4'' set for an angle point; thence, from 
corner No. 4, continuing along said existing north right-of-way line, N 
60 deg. 31' 23" W, 100.39 feet to corner No. 5, a standard FWS aluminum 
monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 5'' set for an angle point; thence, from 
corner 5, continuing along said existing north right-of-way line, N 
66 deg. 14' 23" W, 499.97 feet to corner No. 6, a standard FWS aluminum 
monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 6'' set for an angle point; thence, from 
corner No. 6, continuing along said existing north right-of-way line, N 
71 deg. 57' 23" W, 100.39 feet to a corner No. 7, a standard FWS 
aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 7'' set for an angle point; 
thence, from corner No. 7, continuing along said existing north right-
of-way line, N 66 deg. 14' 14" W, 1,084.94 feet to corner No. 8, a \5/
8\-inch iron rod found at the intersection of the said existing north 
right-of-way line with the proposed north right-of-way line of U.S. 
Highway 83; thence, from corner No. 8, departing said existing north 
right-of-way line with and along the proposed north right-of-way line 
of U.S. Highway 83, N 60 deg. 43' 04" W, 200.90 feet to corner No. 9, a 
\5/8\-inch iron rod found for an angle point; thence, from corner No. 
9, continuing along said proposed north right-of-way line, N 69 deg. 
54' 31" W, 300.83 feet to corner No. 10, a \5/8\-inch iron rod found at 
the intersection of said proposed north right-of-way line with the 
existing north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 83; thence, from 
corner No. 10, with the said existing north right-of-way line of U.S. 
Highway 83, N 66 deg. 16' 51" W, 399.70 feet to corner No.11, a 
standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 11'' set over a 
\1/2\-inch iron rod found for an angle point; thence, from corner No. 
11, continuing along said existing North right-of-way line, N 64 deg. 
31' 54" W, 335.45 feet to corner No.12, a standard FWS aluminum 
monument stamped ``TR 590A COR 12'' set at the intersection of said 
existing north right-of-way line with the west boundary line of Porcion 
87, east boundary line of Porcion 86; thence, from corner No. 12, 
departing said existing north right-of-way line with the said west 
boundary line of Porcion 87, east boundary line of Porcion 86, N 
08 deg. 56' 59" E, 357.90 feet to corner No.1, the point of beginning 
and containing 50.033 acres of land.
    (La Puerta Tract--Segment 590b). Note: All bearings and distances 
are based on the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, (NAD 
27), as referenced by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Triangulation 
Station ``Monument'' having a

[[Page 81209]]

coordinate value of N = 250,167.56' E = 1,912,489.81. Scale factor 
applied equals 0.00003040; theta angle equals -00 deg. 06' 15". All 
areas are based on true ground measurements. Beginning at corner No. 1, 
a \5/8\-inch iron rod found at the intersection of the west boundary 
line of Porcion 87, east boundary line of Porcion 86 with the proposed 
south right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 83, said point bears S 08 deg. 
57' 33" W, 139.55 feet from a \5/8\-inch iron rod found in the existing 
south right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 83, said point having a 
coordinate value of N = 245,880.85, E = 1,923,857.21 and bearing S 
69 deg. 20' 18" E, 12,148.81 feet from NGS Triangulation Station 
``Monument''; thence, from corner No. 1, with the said proposed south 
right-of-way line, S 66 deg. 14' 23" E, 3,043.33 feet to corner No. 2, 
a \5/8\-inch iron rod found at the intersection of the east boundary 
line of Porcion 87, the west boundary line of Porcion 88 and the said 
proposed south right-of-way line, thence, from corner No. 2, with the 
said east boundary line of Porcion 87, west boundary line of Porcion 
88, S 08 deg. 59' 29" W, 2,925.70 feet to corner No. 3, a standard FWS 
aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590B COR 3'' set over a \1/2\-inch iron 
rod found at the intersection of said east boundary line of Porcion 87, 
west boundary line of Porcion 88 with the north right-of-way line of 
the Missouri-Pacific Railroad; thence, from corner No. 3, with the said 
north right-of-way line of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad, N 52 deg. 58' 
07" W, 3,333.49 feet to corner No. 4, a standard FWS aluminum monument 
stamped ``TR 590B COR 4'' set over a \3/8\-inch iron rod found at the 
intersection of the said north right-of-way line with the said west 
boundary line of Porcion 87, the east boundary line of Porcion 86, said 
point also being the southeast corner of a 39.492-acre tract, thence 
from corner No. 4, with the said west boundary line of Porcion 87, east 
boundary line of Porcion 86, N 08 deg. 56' 13" E, 1,715.55 feet to 
corner No. 5, a standard FWS aluminum monument stamped ``TR 590B COR 
5'' set over a \1/2\-inch iron rod found at the southeast corner of a 
2.0-acre tract, thence, from corner No. 5, continuing along said west 
boundary line of Porcion 87, east boundary line of Porcion 86, N 
09 deg. 08' 05" E, 418.93 feet to corner No. 1, the point of beginning 
and containing 170.950 acres of land.

[[Page 81210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.015

    Unit 8-Private ranch site comprises 0.552 hectares (1.36 acres) 
within the Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 14 and begins at UTM 
490706 E, 2929709 N; thence to 490729 E, 2929706 N; to 490748 E, 
2929720 N; to 490762 E,

[[Page 81211]]

2929722 N; to 490767 E, 2929704 N; to 490767 E, 2929679 N; to 490769 E, 
2929654 N; to 490770 E, 2929637 N; to 490770 E, 2929629 N; to 490760 E, 
2929619 N; to 490743 E, 2929614 N; to 490732 E, 2929612 N; to 490720 E, 
2929614 N; to 490709 E, 2929670 N; and thence to point of beginning.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.016


[[Page 81212]]


* * * * *

    Dated: December 14, 2000.
Kenneth L. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-32465 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C