A yearly elevation would sure come in handy showing how much sand disappears each year.

Do you mean elevation on Tina Bar? That varied depending on location.

Agents were concerned to know both the average erosion loss at Tina Bar and river elevation and flood records affecting the bar. Turned out neither Palmer or anyone else projected erosion loss at Tina Bar which is surprising; at least so far as I have been able to determine. The agents wanted to know but never got any data or estimates about that from anyone. Tom is the only one to concern himself with that, so far as I know. Erosion at Tina Bar has been a historical fact and the reason for beach renewal efforts, until that program was stopped because of the environmentalists. It matters because: did the Ingram money erode out from an earlier placement or was it as Palmer says a late arrival. Palmer was challenged by the agents on that point. So far as I know, Palmer first stated the money had arrived 'just before' it's discovery, then he backs off and says 'a year prior', then he backs off again and says 'with the last several years', then he backs off again and refers to the money having arrived 'much earlier'? The agents were looking for a date-certain!    A little maddening. If I understand Tom's theory, he says the money arrived between 71 and 74 then eroded out. Tom places Palmer's dredging clay-lump layer as a much earlier-deeper strata! Tom seems to be saying by 1980 all dredging spoils were eroded and gone. The issue is crucial. Either Tom is correct or Palmer is. They can;t both be correct.

What is needed here is an accurate comprehensive profile and dating of the strata in Feb 1980. The story of erosion at Tina Bar will help determine that.

The NEW issue of a higher elevation that previously thought also becomes crucial, in several ways. That goes directly to the issue of erosion (gravity + river force/flow), and to the issue of the fragment field found. It turns out the agents involved recorded their fragment field so it can now be placed in the context of higher elevation data, at a new higher elevation that previously thought ... the net effect of all of these factors is hopefully a more sensible and comprehensive account which agrees with what the agents actually found and recorded.
     

Well, according to them the dredge spoils have nothing to do with that area? I believe it does. I don't believe the money has been on the beach since 71. does anyone know how flooded this area was with the storms from 74 till 79? how long did it take each time to go back to normal water levels 

They claim the sand wasn't pushed that far, so why is it brought up by Palmer ?

Apparently, the only way to now determine the daily river levels at Vancouver in the early 1970s is if a local newspaper published them routinely and if those papers were eventually microfilmed.  If this happened, it would probably be the Portland newspaper.  Does anyone know if such a thing happened? 

According to Clark County's website for flooding, parcels etc. has a map you can view. it shows aerials from 1968,74,78 etc. what I found in the 1974 aerial shows a lot of beach missing around the money area, or the entire coastline for that matter. we need to verify the year this was taken. if it's right they put sand up and down the entire coastline.

Again, this is not confirmed, but this is 3 photo's into one from 1968, 1974, and 1978. If they are correct it shows the 1974 photo prior to the dredging.

Well, according to them the dredge spoils have nothing to do with that area? I believe it does. I don't believe the money has been on the beach since 71. does anyone know how flooded this area was with the storms from 74 till 79? how long did it take each time to go back to normal water levels 

They claim the sand wasn't pushed that far, so why is it brought up by Palmer ?

Again, Palmer who should know a lot about erosion, is cited n journals as being an expert on sediment erosion, who was supposedly sent to help the USGS during Mr St Helens ... says not one word about erosion at Tina Bar. This will sound crass, or funny, but the closest he comes in the Palmer report is commentary about how one distinguishes newer from older strata (near the surface) by the presence of rusty vs non-rusted ... nails and old vs new aluminum cans! I laughed when I read this. Not one word about the erosion history at Tina Bar or on beachfronts, etc... nada. One must presume reading his report that he did not feel any discussion about erosion at Tina Bar mattered.

Again, Palmers says the dredge spoils and the money are entirely independent of each other.

Tom Kaye says the dredge spoils and the money are independent of each other, but because the dredge spoils did not exist in 1980 .... had all washed away!

Since nobody did any chemistry on the issue how are we to know?

The agents that excavated the beach did not concern themselves with this technical matters of geology, per se. They would not have know anything about strata identification except in crude terms ie. surface vs 4 feet below surface = different strata by common sense.

Interestingly however, two agents decided to dig trenches to try and determine the distribution of shards or fragments through the strata there, whatever those strata were and they did not know. One of the reason {Palmer was brought in, as agents explain it to me was: (1) to try and determine the distribution of fragments, and (2) to identify the strata present. So far as the two agents I'm talking to are concerned the frags were distributed in places to 4 feet deep, they say their trenches and frags found determined that... not just confined to the surface. So Palmer is brought in to shed light on the matter and (a) he never says one word about erosion or the formative history of Tina Bar, and (2) he never mentions fragments at all! Once Palmer found his clay-lump layer he thought that was a determiner and he wrapped up his work and left! The issue of frags and erosion never addressed at all in his report...

And of course Tom thinks fragments are a myth.

 

 

 
 

   

Again, this is not confirmed, but this is 3 photo's into one from 1968, 1974, and 1978. If they are correct it shows the 1974 photo prior to the dredging.

where did these come from? Are they dated other than year?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Again, this is not confirmed, but this is 3 photo's into one from 1968, 1974, and 1978. If they are correct it shows the 1974 photo prior to the dredging.

where did these come from? Are they dated other than year?

Clark County MapsOnline... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They only give the year of the photo. the maps show this in the lower right corner.  "Esri, DeLorme, IFL, NGA, NOAA, USGS"

I know of USGS, and NOAA. DeLorme is famous for street mapping. I'm not familiar with  IFL, or Esri ...