A unit of Lasting Forests evolving since March 30, 1999
A Total Forest Management Plan and Wildland Management Decision Support System
[ HOME | The Trevey Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]

Boundaries

Boundaries define what is inside an ownership or important piece of land. They may be as important in defining what is outside of the property. In the past, in the eastern U.S. boundaries were defined by survey, corners and line-directions (called metes and bounds). These surveys were well done but errors did occur and in some cases there was illegal action. Old corners were often "the big white oak tree"but that tree is no longer there. Other marks are under water, destroyed by farming and developments, etc. It is important to gain a sound, modern survey of the property. It is good if costs can be shared with neighbors, but that is often difficult.

A boundary is typically an expression of area but within the system it is merely a line around the middle of a volume.

Insert standard Figure and that for the property.

Global positioning satellite (GPS) work can assist in developing a clear analysis of the corners and the property boundary marks. Computer programs are available to compute areas based on metes and bounds . Only after a clear survey is available can the nearly-exact area be determined. For large tracts, it is often assumed that losses in land to neighbors are about the same as gains along the boundaries. Surveyors (and computer programs) make adjustments in corners and lengths of lines to assure proper geometry of a tract. Legal action may be needed to clarify certain corners and lines.

Boundary lines must be clearly marked with paint so that the line is clearly visible. Thess provides "prim facie " evidence that if a thief is caught taking timber there is clear intent to steal timber. Proving timber theft can be much more difficult if boundary marking is not done properly or is not done at all.

Since taxes are based on area of land, it may be beneficial to have taxes based on a sound survey. A computer map analysis of the area within the boundary can suggest the needs for further surveys.

The success of a land ownership is often as much a function of its surrounding as the interior holding or land within the boundary and its characteristics. Within the system the concept of "the surround" is used, developing all of the major external factors and forces common to effective land management.

The northern boundary of the coterminous US is 3,987 miles.

The southern boundary of the coterminous US is 1,933 miles.

Progressively, the system will attempt to address:

1. The number of adjacent owners
2. The frequency of owners by boundary length classes
3. Area per boundary length class
4. Boundary to ownership area ratio
5. Circularity index
6. Hexagonality index
7. Access index
8. Openness Index (access points (roads, trails, boat landing sites per 1000 meters of boundary)
9. Support index (perceived tendency of adjacent owners to support the objectives of the landowner)
10. Dominance index (Simpson diversity applied to the proportions of boundary-length classes))
11. Cumulative boundary ownership (public-private)
12. Perceived Willingness-to-sell or trade index (of neighbors; a stability index)
13. Resolution Index ( percent of uncontested boundary)
14. Nearness-to-boundary zones (a-local; b-national travel distances)
15. Edge habitat index (probability for a 30-year old similarity of exterior habitat to be within 90% of that of the interior)
16. Conventional juxtaposition indices for key species
17. Marking index (geometric series on time since last painting or marking of the boundary for each exterior ownership length)
18. Fire risk index (perceived risk of fire from the outside (probability per length by ownership))
19. Fire zones (Probability of fire based on records from zones)
20. Flowage index (whether runoff from an adjacent ownership is likely to flow toward or away from the ownership)
21. Boundary lengths within watersheds, anthropogenic units, counties, planning districts, and states
22. Local land use zoning categories by proportion of the total boundary.

It is clear that boundaries are not just a "survey and paint" or fencing problem. There is essential information needed for the boundary and it needs to be collected and passed on to future managers. Education, enforcement, and other actions (and resources for such action) need to be carefully allocated). Of course such knowledge suggests where acquisition may be considered (to reduce costs of needed actions as well as to increase the productive volume of the current ownership.

Easements and other arrangements may be useful for the ownership. One contact is the Land Trust Alliance.

Estimates of boundary marking costs and time requirements can be made. The assistance of James A. Allen, Mr. Lawrence E. Dew of the USFS, M Leon Powell. consulting forester, and Mr. Donald V. Reynolds, Jr., forest economist, was valuable.

Boundary lines of areas are essential in land management. They can discourage trespass, prevent ingress to critical areas, improve user satisfactions, avoid conflicts of many types, and secure the ownership of increasingly valuable lands. Many public and privately held lands are not marked. The primary reason is that boundary marking is very expensive for even modest-sized areas. Boundaries are assumed to be known; only when conflicts are perceived is action initiated about the real placement of the line. In some areas, especially in rough terrain and where metes-and-bounds surveys exist, lines are not visible or known. Historic reference points (e.g. trees or rocks) have long since disappeared. As a result, wildlife and related areas are violated and timber poaching and squatting occur. Conscientious users of public lands, e.g. hunters and nature observers, experience anxiety and reduced recreational quality in attempting to avoid trespass. Boundaries can be of great assistance in field location for recreation, research, and, of course, preparing prescriptions for use. Some observers say it is a practice that, better than any others, allows (or requires) managers to learn their areas well.

Because marking costs are high, they may be assumed exhorbitant and dismissed in budget planning. They have so many benefits, many of which are not quantified, that benefit-to-cost ratio analyses should not, in our opinion, be assumed to be much less than 1.0. Determining or estimating the costs of boundary marking is usually difficult and tedious, and when managers are poorly disposed to use marking as a bona fide technique of resource management (Giles 1978:310), it may be ignored.

It is possible to make a brief computer program requiring only four entries: (1) the area of the total property (digitized) (2) the price of paint of the type selected, (3) the average wages of laborers to be used, (4) the perimeter of the area (digitized) and (5) approximate painting density (1 gallon per 0.5 miles).

Most values can be fixed such as the policy setting distance between marks (e.g., 50 feet); the size of the mark, 4 inches x 4 inches ; the daily transportation cost ($55); and equipment costs of a two-person crew (e.g., $50 for the first mile and $0.50 per mile thereafter). A two-person crew is specified for safety and other reasons. In all cases, boundary paint is used; some surface debarking of trees is done; a brush is used. Time may be determined by policy about costs, desired quality or visibility of the marks, available labor force, and funds. Planning concerns such as using a cheap paint may be cost-effective, given certain policies. Boundary must be maintained so present discounting of the recurring investment is recommended.

The well-developed boundary unit will work from the following notes and measures:

1. Length (various units)
2. Relative lengths (related to a circle of the same area)
   • C = 2 r
   • A = r ²
   • r = (A/) ^0.5
   • C=2 (A /) ^0.5
3. Buffer zones on both sides of the line (areas within each)
4. Viewscapes from the line
5. Number of owners outside the line
6. Mean distance of each outside owner
7. Standard deviation of ownership lengths
8. Shoreline index and fire edge / area length index (circularity)
9. Patton's diversity index
10. Number of favorable owners
11. Number of public owners
12. Recently surveyed (GPS etc) line / line to be completed
13. Contested line and corners
14. Contiguity or joins in a triangular matrix (relative to interspersion index)
15. Cost of maintenance (painting markers and patrol)
16. Probable durability of boundary markers as function of elevation and aspect
17. Access for maintenance
18. Boundary units at risk of fire
19. Boundary units at risk of timber poaching
20. Boundary units at risk of game or 'seng' poaching
21. Area to boundary ratio
22. Island biogeography measure enhancement (species area-curve relations)
23. Maximum latitude (and ecological relations of latitude) (the window for the area)
24. Minimum latitude
25. Maximum longitude
26. Minimum longitude
27. Latitude / longitude map related to phenology
28. Latitude as related to solar relations
29. Maximum and minimum elevations within the boundary
30. Boundary on difficult slopes (maintenance or fIfe potentials)
31. Clarifying area relations for taxation and other precision-needs
32. Clarifying relevant areas for analyzing resource production (density and yield)
33. The boundary draped over a DEM in 3-D space
34. The "wiped out" outside-the-boundary within the window
35. The micro-area as a black or colored shape in a region or state (a location map)

Consider relations with proposed Rural System, Law and Justice Group related to claims and court action.

References

Giles, R.H., Jr. 1978. Wildlife management. W.H. Freeman Co., San Francisco, Calif. 419 pp.

Forbes, R.D. (Ed.) 1975. Forestry handbook. Ronald Press, New York. Variously paged. (for estimating perimiter distance around an irregular area (such as a forest fire).

Go to top of page.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.