Department of Transportation (ODOT)

Surveyors Conference April 20, 2021 I5 Interstate Bridge/Jantzen Beach Interchange Record of Survey. Pacific Highway (I5) Interstate Bridge History

Location: Crossing of the , Columbia River Slough and nearby railroad tracks between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Date Range: 1916-1958 Significance: Prior to the completion of the first Interstate Bridge and associated structures, a ferry provided the only means for an automobile to cross the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington. By the early 20th century, the ferry had become inadequate and Multnomah County, Oregon and Clark County, Washington joined together to build a permanent crossing. When completed in 1917, the bridge carried automobile, pedestrian, and street car traffic for a small toll. By the middle of the century, the bridge had again become inadequate, and once again the states joined forces to create a parallel structure. The 1958 bridge, which now carries I-5 Southbound, imitates the design of the original bridge. As a part of the 1958 construction, spans on the south end of the original bridge were raised and replaced with longer spans to allow a secondary shipping channel. The project also involved widening the approach bridges so that they could accommodate the additional lanes of traffic.

From ODOT 2013 Historic Bridges Field Guide. From Pinterest, Historic Picture. IN THE FALL OF 2019 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE WANTED TO PUT A FENCE 2004 - 2018 PRELIMINARY ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE TO TOPO/ALTA SURVEY FOR ADJOINING CLOSE THE AREA OFF FROM VAGRANTS PROPERTY AND TO SECURELY PARK VEHICLES AND “PROVIDED BY THE ADJOINER” SUPPLIES FOR THE BRIDGE.

THE ADJOING PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST MOVED DUMPSTERS INTO THE NOTCHED AREA CLAIMING IT WAS THEIR PROPERTY. THE “PRELIMINARY” TOPO/ALTA SURVEY SHOWS OR PUT A JOG IN THE WESTERLY RW OF THE BRIDGE.

REGION 1 SURVEY DID AN ANALYSIS AND DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO JOG.

(THEN FESTUS WENT ON VACATION)

THAT’S HOW I GOT ROPED INTO THIS PICTURE AS “AN INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL OPINION”. BASED ON BASIC DATA TO CREATE AN OPINION THAT WE CAN GIVE TO DOJ TO PRESENT TO THE OWNER. THE RW NORTH OF THE MEANDER LINE 5B-7-26 RW Map 1937 1860 PLAT 1948 SURVEY

Definition of a Meander Line: A survey line (not a boundary line) on a portion of land, usu. following the course of a river or stream. [Cases: Boundaries (key) 12. C.J.S Boundaries 25.] Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition. Meander lines are run in surveying fractional portions of the public lands bordering on navigable rivers, not as boundaries of the tract, but for the purpose of defining the sinuosities of the banks of the stream, and as means of ascertaining the quantity of land in the fractional subject sale, which is to be paid for by the purchaser. In preparing the official plat from the field notes, the meander line is represented as the border line of the stream, and shows to a demonstration that the watercourse, and not the meander line as actually run on the land, is the boundary. Railroad Co. v. Schurmeir, 74 us. 272 (1868). Manual of Surveying Instructions (1973) 1960 ODOT FINAL JUDGEMENT ACQUIRED THE WEST PROPERTY

ODOT file No. 23605 Parcel 3 is an 83 foot strip of land extended from the meander line South to the North line of the interchange.

Most all older descriptions reference the “Meander Line” 2004 DEED FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY WEST OF THE BRIDGE

…thence South 63° 06’ East 55.91 feet, more or less, to the intersection with the Westerly right of way of the Highway; thence North 22°48'10" East along said right of way 575 feet, more or less, to the high water line on the North bank of Hayden Island; … VISUAL DEPICTION OF DISPUTED AREA

So when running out all the deeds I came up with a scenario that seemed to match why the private survey company put a jog in the Westerly right of way.. Remember the deed call; “thence South 63° 06 • East 55.91 feet, more or less, to the intersection with the Westerly right of way of the Interstate 5 Highway”. Well if you take the 55.91 feet literal it extends ~29 feet into the RW. So the ODOT deed said from the “meander line”. So the determination was that the surveyor interpreted that the land North of the “meander line” within the distance call went to the adjoiners deed??? This has now created the dispute. 93.310 Rules for construing description of real property. The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a So by collaborating with Region 1 Survey group and the DOJ conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful, attorneys I came up with a 4 page opinion to present to the and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it: adjoiner property owner. Basically it stated the we found a (1) Where there are certain definite and ascertained “latent ambiguity“: particulars in the description, the addition of others, which are (An ambiguity that does not readily appear in the language indefinite, unknown or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, of a document, but instead arises from a collateral matter but it is to be construed by such particulars, if they constitute a when the document’s terms are applied or executed. sufficient description to ascertain its application. (2) When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 88, (8th ed 2004)) monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are “When all of the mathematical deed models are put paramount. together, the distance call of 55.91 feet, if taken literally, (3) Between different measurements which are inconsistent overlaps into ODOT’s Right of Way approximately 28.5 feet. with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, This ambiguity is nullified by the qualifying phrase of; “more and that of lines paramount to both. or less” and the bound call of; “to the intersection with the (4) When a road or stream of water not navigable is the Westerly right of way of the Interstate 5 Highway; thence boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road, or the thread of the stream, are included in the conveyance, except North 22°48’ 10” East along said right of way”. See Deed where the road or bed of the stream is held under another title. to the adjoiner Property. Based on this use of language, (5) When tidewater is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the original intent is that the adjoining property and the low watermark are included in the conveyance, and also the right Right of Way are synonymous.” of this state between high and low watermark. (6) When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them, if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars. So DOJ presented this “Amazing”.. Piece of work to the adjoiner and their lawyer. Expecting them to drop their claim or dispute… but NO?? Ok well now what?? The DOJ then filed a “Quiet Title” claim for the disputed area… Now we’ll clear this up… NO?? Adjoiner countered and filed a “Reverse Condemnation” claim against us.. Now what? Why? Well the area in dispute is North “Filled Submerged lands” of the “meander line” ODOT did not have a “Perfected Title” deed to the area… Is the claim.. Well who does have ownership?

Oregon was admitted to the Union on February 14, 1859, and under the Equal Footing Doctrine became the owner of submerged and submersible lands under all tidal waters and navigable rivers and lakes. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 274.005(8) defines submersible lands as lands lying between the line of ordinary high water and the line of ordinary low water of all navigable waters and all islands, shore lands or other such lands held by or granted to this state by virtue of her sovereignty, wherever applicable, within the boundaries of this state as heretofore or hereafter established, whether such waters or lands are tidal or nontidal So the adjoiner says that they have claim to the submerged land as they have a deed that was granted to the original owner in 1975 from the Oregon Department of State Lands. The DSL is in charge of the submerged land for the State of Oregon. OK… but this description starts at:

“Beginning at the intersection of the ordinary high water line on the South Bank of the Columbia River with the Westerly right of way line of the Interstate Highway No. 5…”

And it ends:

“…through an interchange to a point on the right of way at the North End of the Interchange N 22° 41' 43" E, 1013.06 feet; thence N 22° 46' 30" E, 560.0 feet along the Westerly right of way line of Interstate 5 to the point of beginning.”

Both deeds say the Westerly right of way line.. And both are a straight line?? So more research began as the most current retracement or any survey of the boundary was the one for the CRC project in 2010 but none of these focused on or perfected the RW of the bridge area it’s self? So Region 1 Survey determined along with the DOJ attorneys that we needed a current Record of Survey filed with the County perfecting/ showing our deeded boundary for the interchange and the bridge. Reg. 1 was to busy with project work so they twisted my arm to help.. So this began in April, 2020 during COVID I went into the field with the Reg. 1 crews for a few days to tie control and monuments.. I then recreated each deed we acquired since ~1919 – 2004 along with our bridge easement with DSL. So finally a year later the 10 page ROS is sent in for the first round of review with Multnomah County. So one of the biggest things I decided to do was use and show the whole bridge as the Northbound original bridge was the largest and oldest monument still there! So I requested some mobile lidar data from the our Remote Sensing Group. They mapped the curb lines, stripping and joints. By bringing in this data I was able to rotate deed data that was laid out in their own bearing realm to a split of the South end of the Northbound bridge. This produced great results in my opinion as it was hard to determine which monuments to hold, as most were private monuments. The relationship to the few ODOT monuments was relatively good, along with the stationing calls from the 1955 bridge drawings for the joints and also the overall alignments. So there were approximately 15 separate acquisitions with up to 7 parcels in some of them.

The acquisitions are scattered over almost 100 years!

So a lot to piece together in a small area.

Also there are 15 separate alignments in this area. Many are tied to parts of the acquisitions..

This total adventure took approximately 350+ hours of billable time. There was so much curve data and information for the exterior of the ODOT deeds/exterior RW that I had to put it on it’s own page and describe it all by itself.

Notice the filled submerged land area. We separated it from our deeded RW and put it under the DSL easement area. So now we will see what the County has to say about the survey so we can finalize this. Then we will see what happens with the Quiet Title trial scheduled for this summer? It has been delayed for months due to COVID. 1936

Just some Cools old Pictures I found as I was doing research and put together. 1939 1948 1963 1969 1978 2018 ANY QUESTIONS??

THANKS

Michael R. Fallert, PLS - Senior Right of Way Surveyor – Oregon Dept. of Transportation - Engineering Automation Unit - Geometronics Group - (503)986-7143 [email protected]