4.3.4.3. Physical Unity (Contiguity or Proximity).Under federal law, physical unity is considered within the context of integrated use rather than as a stand-alone test. As the First Circuit emphasized: 

Physical contiguity is important, however, in that it frequently has great bearing on the question of unity of use. Tracts physically separated from one another frequently, but we cannot say always, are not and cannot be operated as a unit, and the greater the distance between them the less is the possibility of unitary operation . . . .402 

Accordingly, the physical unity (proximity) or separation of a tract is an important consideration, but not necessarily determinative of the ultimate question of what constitutes a single tract.403 

The availability of replacement property for the part acquired must always be considered (as noted above) and can be particularly important in partial acquisitions involving noncontiguous parcels devoted to a unitary use, such as a livestock ranch or a timber and milling operation.404 The effect of the existence (or absence) of replacement property on the market value of the remainder property must be shown, as it will vary depending on the property, its use, and the relevant market. For example, in International Paper Co. v. United States, the Fifth Circuit found no unitary use between woodland acres and the same landowner’s paper mill in another state, as neither the existing operation nor any reasonable expectation in the foreseeable future showed any difference between the owner’s small woodland tracts and “the tracts of small owners whose products would be available on a competitive basis.”405 Moreover, the landowner could “turn right around and make its acreage whole by buying [similarly located timber property to replace that taken] with the proceeds of the condemnation award.”406 Meanwhile in United States v. Evans, different facts led the Tenth Circuit to uphold a finding that pastureland was part of a single economic unit with noncontiguous but “integrated” and “interdependent” croplands, feeding yards, and ranch headquarters with silage land within economical hauling distance.407 In Evans, there was evidence that such physical separation of integrated tracts was not only common for ranching in the area but considered desirable to take advantage of variations in rainfall, soil types, and other factors, and that “pasture land sold separately would bring a lower price than if sold as part of a ranch—a balanced unit.”408 Even so, the Tenth Circuit cautioned, the Evans case “must be considered to be an extreme one, as to the noncontiguous tract problem; however, the record shows unusually clear evidence on the point. The damages have been well limited to the integrated lands.”409 Critically, both Evans and International Paper “restricted damages to the realities of the situation . . . .”410 Of course, depending on “the realities of the situation,” even a demonstrated lack of available replacement property may not diminish the value of remainder property.411