1099 See, e.g., Lambert Gravel Co. v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 835 F.2d 1105, 1111 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Avoca Island, 616 F.2d at 764-69 (noting government’s original legal description of property relied on disputed ordinary high-water mark, but after amendment to “describe the above water ridges in courses and distances, there was little question about the accuracy of the description”).1100 E.g., United States v. 13.20 Acres of Land in Lincoln Cty., 629 F. Supp. 242, 243-47 (E.D. Wash. 1986). Similarly, application of the scope of the project rule is also distinct from application of the navigational servitude, regardless of whether § 595a applies. See United States v. Birnbach, 400 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1968).