I went back to the PDF. I think they are stating 16 feet as the normal level of flooding?


The Columbia River has a long history of flooding. Flood stage for the river, as routinely measured near the Port of Vancouver, is 16 feet. It was recently exceeded in May‐June 2011.
The following are the 20 highest historical crests of the Columbia, as well as what you can expect when the river reaches certain levels.
All information is courtesy of the National Weather Service.
1) June 13, 1948 31.00 feet
2) June 1, 1948 30.80 feet
3) Dec. 25, 1964 27.70 feet
4) June 4, 1956 27.60 feet
5) Feb. 9, 1996 27.20 feet
6) June 19, 1933 26.30 feet
7) May 31, 1928 26.20 feet
08) June 12, 1921 26.00 feet
9) June 26, 1950 25.90 feet
10) June 16, 1903 25.60 feet
11) Jan. 19, 1965 25.44 feet
12) June 22, 1917 25.30 feet
13) June 3, 1916 25.30 feet
14) June 13, 1913 25.20 feet
15) Jan. 3, 1997 22.55 feet
16) June 12, 1972 21.50 feet
17) June 22, 1974 21.10 feet
18) Jan. 24, 1970 19.54 feet
19) June 5, 1997 19.03 feet
20) Dec. 1, 1995 18.50 feet

Above 16 feet
Expect some flooding of islands and low areas, with minor impacts for parks and trails along the Columbia River.

Above 17 feet
Expect flooding of some lowland access roads, parking areas and trails on Sauvie Island, around Vancouver Lake and near downtown Vancouver. Access to some houseboat communities will be affected, along with recreation and camping areas at Cottonwood Beach near Washougal and on Government Island.

Above 18 feet
Expect flooding of undiked lowland, pasture and farmland to begin. Historically, the main areas affected have been from Sauvie Island downstream.

I went back to the PDF. I think they are stating 16 feet as the normal level of flooding?


The Columbia River has a long history of flooding. Flood stage for the river, as routinely measured near the Port of Vancouver, is 16 feet. It was recently exceeded in May‐June 2011.
The following are the 20 highest historical crests of the Columbia, as well as what you can expect when the river reaches certain levels.
All information is courtesy of the National Weather Service.
1) June 13, 1948 31.00 feet
2) June 1, 1948 30.80 feet
3) Dec. 25, 1964 27.70 feet
4) June 4, 1956 27.60 feet
5) Feb. 9, 1996 27.20 feet
6) June 19, 1933 26.30 feet
7) May 31, 1928 26.20 feet
08) June 12, 1921 26.00 feet
9) June 26, 1950 25.90 feet
10) June 16, 1903 25.60 feet
11) Jan. 19, 1965 25.44 feet
12) June 22, 1917 25.30 feet
13) June 3, 1916 25.30 feet
14) June 13, 1913 25.20 feet
15) Jan. 3, 1997 22.55 feet
16) June 12, 1972 21.50 feet
17) June 22, 1974 21.10 feet
18) Jan. 24, 1970 19.54 feet
19) June 5, 1997 19.03 feet
20) Dec. 1, 1995 18.50 feet

Above 16 feet
Expect some flooding of islands and low areas, with minor impacts for parks and trails along the Columbia River.

Above 17 feet
Expect flooding of some lowland access roads, parking areas and trails on Sauvie Island, around Vancouver Lake and near downtown Vancouver. Access to some houseboat communities will be affected, along with recreation and camping areas at Cottonwood Beach near Washougal and on Government Island.

Above 18 feet
Expect flooding of undiked lowland, pasture and farmland to begin. Historically, the main areas affected have been from Sauvie Island downstream.

excellent - thanks.

I went back to the PDF. I think they are stating 16 feet as the normal level of flooding?


The Columbia River has a long history of flooding. Flood stage for the river, as routinely measured near the Port of Vancouver, is 16 feet.

Okay, so the 16 foot reference is the "official flood stage" level.  This means that the money could have arrived at Tina Bar when the river was several feet below flood stage.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Now we have a confirmed date of May 5, 1974. I'll have Georger, or someone else help confirm any flooding during this period. the PDF chart I have shows high levels June 22, 1974 at 21.10 feet. the normal level is 16 feet. I think more sand was spread around than history has shown IMHO. the water level in May of 74 is right at the money hole.

Water up to the money wouldn't even be considered flooding.  Probably rather common high water level.  Remember that G. posted a graphic showing water levels at the Vancouver gage station over time.  About the sand spreading, it would not surprise me at all to find (if it were possible to find) that the Fazios spread some sand from out of their big "sandbox" (pile) after '74.   What they received into their pile could have come from afar on the river.

Supposedly the money was found 60 feet from the waterline. that's a rater large amount of coverage to reach?
Also when looking through the years, it's about the same spot where the erosion stops. a pattern if you will.

Could be!!  However keep in mind everyone Ive ever considered knowledgeable about the find says the find was 40ft from the water's edge... not 60 feet, not 20 feet, not 40 yards as per Tom's chart!

Tom's photo shows a 50 yard line. If his line is correct his Ingram location is 40 yards from the water edge.

Now we have a confirmed date of May 5, 1974. I'll have Georger, or someone else help confirm any flooding during this period. the PDF chart I have shows high levels June 22, 1974 at 21.10 feet. the normal level is 16 feet. I think more sand was spread around than history has shown IMHO. the water level in May of 74 is right at the money hole. 

Here is the chart again -

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Now we have a confirmed date of May 5, 1974. I'll have Georger, or someone else help confirm any flooding during this period. the PDF chart I have shows high levels June 22, 1974 at 21.10 feet. the normal level is 16 feet. I think more sand was spread around than history has shown IMHO. the water level in May of 74 is right at the money hole.

Water up to the money wouldn't even be considered flooding.  Probably rather common high water level.  Remember that G. posted a graphic showing water levels at the Vancouver gage station over time.  About the sand spreading, it would not surprise me at all to find (if it were possible to find) that the Fazios spread some sand from out of their big "sandbox" (pile) after '74.   What they received into their pile could have come from afar on the river.

Supposedly the money was found 60 feet from the waterline. that's a rater large amount of coverage to reach?
Also when looking through the years, it's about the same spot where the erosion stops. a pattern if you will.

The USA Corps of Engineers water levels at the Vancouver gage are given as 14.3 feet on May 5, 1974 and 21.00 feet on June 22, 1974.  These agree with Shutter's numbers.  However, the "normal" water level at Tina Bar (in non-flooding conditions) is usually given as about 5 to 7 feet (instead of 16) with less than about a two foot daily fluctuation due to the tidal action from the Pacific.

Based on a guess made from looking at where the FBI agents were digging, they were about another 5+ feet above the river's water level.  So they would have been digging at about the 10-12+ feet level.

Also, it should be noted that the vertical datum for sea level was changed about 1988 and from looking at the USA COE's "gage" readings at Vancouver, it is not very clear (at least to me) how the "gage" readings are adjusted to indicate the present day values in the new vertical datum.  Hopefully, a hydrologist will explain this better.

excellent. Would you care to speculate about erosion at Tina Bar (during any high water cycle)  

Bad, really bad!

 

The 74 photo's clearly show sand collecting being done on the property. I don't think 1976 would be correct according to JT's statement.

I have no idea then, when the Fazio began their sand business & collecting dredging sand...

On the issue of the Ingram find location something is wrong. If it was 40ft from the water line, Tom's graphic does not reflect that. Tom's gps position (verified by others) is 40 yards from the water line, not 40 feet. And in fact Tom never states 40 yards or 40 feet, or any other figure on his website - he only gives a gps coordinate and if you use his 50 yard scale line, then the find pin is "40 yards" from the water line, not 40 feet. I wish we could get this resolved somehow ...
 

Either JT is wrong, or it's possible that's when they took over the property? I don't know, but obviously you can see sand operations in the 74 photo's, and further back.

The money location is a question as well. I don't know about the beaches in Washington, but the sand is dry up past the wave line down here. how was the money found wet inches below, or just at the surface "soaked", "soggy" is what I'm reading often. the weather shows light rain during this period. would money "soaking wet' be "brittle" to the touch? it almost sounds as if it was dry prior to it's removal? seems to me it wouldn't be brittle in a soaking wet, or soggy condition?

The new 74 photo. are we saying it's flooded and covering existing beach front? or is it showing it's usual signs of erosion?

I don't see the sand operation in the '74 pix.  In fact, the sand operation was located further south than your May 74 pic covers.  Are you referring to the circular slumps by the shore?  That is not the way the sand was placed after '74.  That approach was supposedly stopped after the '74 dump because of river water coming out of the dredge washing stuff (that was originally pulled out of the river) back down into the river and thereby "polluting" it.   You can clearly see the sand operation further south in the '79 pic.

Much of the beach is covered in the May 74 aerial, but the level was low (apx .8') in the 9/6/74 aerial.  On the days when the money was found and the searching was done, the level was about 3.3'.  The levels had dropped for about 4 weeks from a high of about 13'.