St.

Paul, MN

Slope Protection
For Dams and
Lakeshores
Minnesota Technical Note 2
October 1997
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-
720-2600 (voice and TDD).
CHAPTER 1: WIND AND WATER .....................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................2
IDENTIFYING THE EROSION .........................................................................................................................4
SHORELINE PROCESSES ...............................................................................................................................4
Overland Runoff and Erosion................................................................................................................4
Vegetation Removal ..............................................................................................................................4
Watercraft Waves ..................................................................................................................................5
Wind-Generated Wave Action ...............................................................................................................5
Sediment Transport ...............................................................................................................................5
Shoreforms............................................................................................................................................6
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................10
Revetments..........................................................................................................................................10
Wind Setup and Runup ........................................................................................................................11
Vegetative Protection ..........................................................................................................................11
Ice Action............................................................................................................................................11
Causes of Revetment Failure...............................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: REVETMENT DESIGN ..............................................................................................17
WAVE FREQUENCY...................................................................................................................................17
Definitions ..........................................................................................................................................17
WIND DATA .............................................................................................................................................18
DESIGN PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................................18
RIPRAP DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................19
Overtopping Protection.......................................................................................................................26
End Protection ....................................................................................................................................26
Toe Protection.....................................................................................................................................26
Filter and Bedding Materials ..............................................................................................................30
CONCRETE PAVING BLOCK DESIGN ...........................................................................................................32
GABIONS .................................................................................................................................................33
SOIL BIOENGINEERING .............................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 3: SAMPLE PROBLEMS ................................................................................................35
SAMPLE PROBLEM #1 ...............................................................................................................................35
SAMPLE PROBLEM #2 ...............................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 4: MAINTENANCE .........................................................................................................46

CHAPTER 5: STATE REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................51

PERMITS ..................................................................................................................................................51
POLLUTION CONTROL ..............................................................................................................................51
SEEDING AND MULCHING DISTURBED AREAS ............................................................................................51
CHAPTER 6: WATERCRAFT CONCERNS....................................................................................52

1
9/23/97
Chapter 1: Wind and Water

Introduction

This technical release has been developed to specifically address lakeshore protection in Minnesota. It
replaces the Soil Conservation Service’s Minnesota Technical Release No. 2, Slope Protection for Dams
and Lakeshores, dated April 1988, which itself replaced a 1976 document with a similar name.

A demonstration project in Itasca and Aitkin Counties in northern Minnesota installed protection on
lakeshore sites beginning in 1988. The subsequent monitoring of these installed sites has provided new
information on what is effective under various circumstances. The lessons learned from this monitoring
and other experiences are being incorporated into this document.

The basic design method in this document is based on the information in the Shore Protection Manual,
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1984. Policy information for these designs is described
in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly SCS) National Engineering Manual, part
501.50. The guiding standard is #580, entitled “Streambank and Shoreline Protection”.

The procedure in this document is limited to locations where 1) the effective fetch is less than 10 miles
and 2) the wave height is less than five feet. The design charts and information are for sites where the
waves are fetch-limited as this condition is typical on Minnesota’s inland lakes. For conditions outside
these limits, special studies and design will be required. Documents listed in the bibliography may be of
help.

NRCS appreciates the assistance of many in preparing and reviewing this document. Special thanks go to

Sonia M. M. Jacobsen, Hydraulic Engineer, St. Paul, MN

James G. Dusek, Area Engineer, NRCS, Duluth, MN
Michael Oja, District Conservationist, NRCS, Grand Rapids, MN
Steven Gorecky, District Conservationist, NRCS, Aitkin, MN
Ferris Chamberlain, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN
Allan Kean, Chief Engineer, Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
Gene Clark, Lakeshore Engineer, Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
Morris Lobrecht, Design Engineer, NRCS, Des Moines, Iowa
James Axell, CADD Operator, St. Paul, MN

2
9/23/97
 3
9/23/97
 rates (more than 1 foot per year) (reference 42).
Identifying the Erosion The priority of sites may also be governed by the
affects of erosion - economic and environmental.
Over a period of time, measure the distance to
The most basic prerequisite to managing the shore from a prominent, immovable object.
shoreline erosion is to identify the forces that are Old photographs (aerial photos or snapshots)
causing it. This is often difficult because the can help determine where the shoreline was in
processes responsible are not directly observable the past.
and only the aftermath of the erosion is evident.
(reference 42)
Shoreline processes
Any change which occurs on the shoreline can
affect the erosion and sediment balance of the The first step in addressing a shoreline erosion
entire lake. It may be necessary to examine problem is understanding the processes and
conditions up and down the shoreline in forces at work. The following sections present
addition to those at the site. Noting events basic information about shoreline processes as a
which occurred in the past and anticipating foundation for considering alternatives.
likely future events will help guide the planning
process.
Overland Runoff and Erosion
The best way to monitor and assess erosion
problems is to check the shoreline regularly and
In shoreline areas where excessive runoff or bare
be observant for warning signs of accelerated
soils are found, overland erosion may result.
erosion. Signs of serious problem situations
The toe of the bank may be stable with rills or
include:
gullies present on the upper bank. Both natural
• A large area of bare soil along the shore, conditions (slope, soil type, drainage pattern) or
especially on a steep, high shoreline bank; human activities (impervious surfaces,
• Slumped material from landslides; vegetation removal, construction in progress)
• Large or small gullies caused by overland may increase the volume or velocity of overland
runoff along the shoreline; runoff. Runoff may originate quite a distance
• A noticeable recession of the shoreline over away from a shoreline erosion site.
a period of time;
• Leaning or downed trees with exposed roots
on the shoreline; Vegetation Removal
• Large patches of unusually clouded (turbid)
water near the lakeshore.
The root systems of woody shoreline vegetation,
Most erosion is likely to occur during periods of and some herbaceous plants as well, augment
high water, extreme wetness and/or high winds. the strength of all types of soil. Many shoreline
Watching what happens on a shoreline during erosion problems occur simply because too much
these times and comparing it to normal natural woody vegetation has been removed,
conditions or water levels can provide some decreasing the strength of the shoreline soils.
insight into the causes of shoreline instability. The above-ground portions of plants can
dampen wave energy and hence their loss may
Identifying the erosion rate (number of feet that also expose the shore to more erosive energy.
the shoreline recedes per year) is helpful to
identify the severity of the problem. The erosion The conversion of shoreline vegetation from
rate is probably not constant, but occurs in small forest to lawn has occurred in many areas of
and large increments, corresponding to storm development. Bank trampling and soil
events and wet periods. The highest priority for compaction by cattle, humans, and vehicles are
erosion control may be sites with rapid recession

4
9/23/97
also important causes of vegetation loss and the wave height). At any given time and
shoreline erosion. location on a lake, waves of many different sizes
are present. This is because not all waves start
Watercraft Waves at the same point, but are being created
continuously across the water surface. In
addition, different waves move at different
Power boats and other watercraft generate waves
speeds.
which can cause shoreline erosion, especially on
smaller water bodies where the waves’ energy is
As a wave moves through deep water, its basic
not dissipated before the waves reach shore.
characteristics do not diminish. However, when
Some lakes have “no wake” ordinances in an
the water depth becomes shallower than 1/2 the
attempt to reduce wave erosion and noise
wave length, the wave motion begins to
pollution.
encounter friction from the bottom. The wave
speed slows, with a corresponding decrease in
The size of waves created by boats are
wavelength and an increase in height
determined by the volume of water displaced by
(steepening). The range of depths at which this
the boat and the speed at which the boat is
usually occurs may be observed on the lake
traveling. The wave size does not always
bottom as the area where ripple marks form.
increase with boat speed because at high speeds
When the water depth is less than 1.3 times the
many boats “skim” across the surface (called
wave height, the wave can steepen no further,
planing) and therefore displace less water.
and it collapses (breaks) in a cascade of foam
Wave heights of up to three feet have been
and trubulence. Although much energy is lost
reported from boats operating on inland lakes.
in this nearshore “surf zone,” diminished waves
Boat waves are of a different physical nature
continue to move shoreward.
than wind-generated waves, and contain more
energy than a wind-generated wave of equal
Example water depths and wave heights where
size. The operation of large, high speed boats
breaking occurs:
on small water bodies can create waves greatly
exceeding the size and erosive energy of any
naturally occurring from wind. See Chapter 6. Wave Height, Feet Water Depth, Feet
1.0 1.3
2.0 2.6
Wind-Generated Wave Action 3.0 3.9
5.0 6.5
While waves are often present on the open coast,
they are not continuous in sheltered waters. When waves break either on a beach or against a
Nonetheless, they are often the major cause of structure, the uprush of water after breaking is
erosion in these areas. The basic configuration called runup. It expends the wave’s remaining
of a wave is shown in Figure 1-1 to explain energy. The runup height depends on the
basic terminology. Wave height is the vertical roughness and steepness of the structure or
distance between the wave crest and wave beach and the characteristics of the wave.
trough. Wave period is the time (in seconds) it Increased roughness and flatter shore slopes
takes two successive wave crests to pass a reduce the height of runup.
stationary point. Wavelength is the distance
between successive crests.
Sediment Transport
On inland lakes, the size of waves created by
wind depends primarily on two factors: wind Shoreline material can include anything from
speed and fetch (the over-water distance across bedrock to clay. Sand is the most common
which the wind blows). Wind duration and shoreline material. Slumping or erosion of a
water depth also influence wave size but are bluff causes material to be deposited at the base.
major factors only on the oceans and Great Waves sort this material and carry fine-grained
Lakes. Wave energy is roughly proportional to silts and clays far offshore where they settle to
the size of the wave (specifically to the square of the bottom. The original deposit is eventually

5
9/23/97
reduced to sand, gravel and/or cobble fractions Shoreforms are those distinct shapes or
which form a beach. Eventually, if no other configurations which mark the transition
littoral material is carried to the site by waves, between land and sea. Cliff shorelines consist
even the sand and fine gravel will disappear primarily of relatively resistant rock. On the
down the coast or offshore, leaving only cobbles other hand, bluff shorelines are composed of
or coarse gravel behind. However, a new supply such sediments as clays, sands, and gravels, or
of material may be deposited on the beach by a erodible rock. Cliffs rarely suffer severe or
fresh failure of the bluff and the process begins sudden erosion but undergo slow steady retreat
again. In many cases, therefore, littoral under wave action over a long period. Such
materials comprising beaches are often derived shorelines often cannot be protected at a low
from erosion of the adjacent shoreline. cost because available alternatives may not be as
durable as the rock forming the cliff.
Littoral (shoreline) materials are transported
along the shore by waves (Figure 1-2). This Erosion problems are common along bluff
alongshore sediment is also known as littoral shorelines where a variety of forces and
drift. As waves approach the shore, they move processes act together (Figure 1-3). The most
to progressively shallower water where they prevalent causes of bluff erosion and recession
bend or refract until finally breaking at an angle are scour at the toe (base) by waves and
to the beach. The broken wave creates instability of the bluff materials themselves. As
considerable turbulence, lifting bottom materials Figure 1-3 illustrates, a typical bluff often
into suspension and carrying them up the beach consists of layers of different soils, which do not
slope in the general direction of the wave stand permanently at a vertical face. Failure of
approach. Some distance up the beach, the the slope depends on the nature of the material.
motion reverses direction back down the beach A cohesive material (clay) will move as large
slope. In this case, the downrush does not blocks either by toppling due to undercutting or
follow the path of the advancing wave but by sliding out in a curved arc. Granular
instead, moves down the slope in response to material (sand or gravel) will erode easily by
gravity. The next wave again carries material flowing water and wave action. Vertical sided
upslope, repeating the process, so that each blocks will drop due to an undercutting of the
advancing wave and the resulting downrush slope or the soil will suddenly flow down an
move material along the beach in the downdrift inclined plane. Height is a factor because high
direction. As long as waves approach from the bluffs (over 20 feet) impose greater stresses and
same direction, the alongshore transport are likely to have more severe stability problems
direction remains the same. than low bluffs.

Littoral materials are also moved alongshore by The internal strength of soils can decrease when
another process. The waves generate a it becomes saturated by groundwater and
somewhat weak, downdrift-moving current in seepage flows within the bluff. The added
the breaker zone, but the turbulence places weight of buildings and other structures can
material temporarily in suspension and permits increase stresses on the soil and contribute to
the alongshore current to carry it downdrift. slope failure.
The material generally settles out again within a
short distance, but the next wave provides the The other major cause of bluff shoreline
necessary turbulence for additional movement. problems is wave action at the toe. Figure 1-3
The downdrift movement of material is thus shows a beach formed of fallen materials. As
caused by zigzag motion up and down the described earlier, waves sort this material,
beach, and the turbulence and action of the moving clays and silts offshore while leaving
wave-generated alongshore current. sands and gravels for the beach. During storms,
the waves can reach the bluff itself and erode or
undercut the toe. The slope of the offshore
Shoreforms bottom is important to wave action on a bluff. If
the offshore slopes are steep, deep water is
closer to shore, more severe wave activity is
possible and maintaining a protective beach is

6
9/23/97
more difficult. Flat offshore slopes result in inhibits the heavy wave action from reaching the
shallower water near the shoreline, which bluff.

7
9/23/97
The most common shoreforms are beaches and has been noted with soil bioengineering
erodible plains which are composed of those techniques alone or in combination with
sediments ranging from silts to gravels that revetment. The reader is referred, however, to
slope gently up and away from the water’s edge. other documents for detailed information on the
Because they seldom reach more than 5 to 10 design of soil bioengineering protection.
feet above the still water level of a lake, such
shorelines are susceptible to flooding as well as The Natural Resources Conservation Service in
erosion. Minnesota does not provide technical assistance
for protection measures which use materials
Figure 1-4 depicts an idealized beach profile. such as old tires and car bodies for revetment
Waves approach from offshore, finally breaking protection. These materials are not wise choices
and surging up the foreshore. At the crest, the for ecological and aesthetic reasons.
profile flattens considerably, forming a broad
berm inaccessible to normal wave activity. The Revetments
beach berm is often backed by a low scarp
formed by storm waves, a second berm and
A revetment is a heavy facing (armor) on a slope
eventually a bluff or dune. During periods of
to protect it and the adjacent upland against
either increased water levels or wave heights,
wave scour (Figure 1-5). Revetments depend on
the sand above the low water level is eroded,
the soil beneath them for support and should,
carried offshore and deposited in a bar.
therefore, only be built on stable foundations.
Eventually, enough sand collects to effectively
Slopes steeper than 3:1 (3 feet horizontal for
decrease the depths and cause the storm waves
every 1 foot vertical distance) are less desirable
to break farther offshore. This reduces the wave
for revetments. Fill material, when required to
action on the beach and helps re-establish
achieve a uniform slope, must be properly
equilibrium.
compacted. Revetments only protect the land
immediately behind them and not adjacent
areas. Also a downdrift shore may experience
Design Considerations increased erosion if formerly supplied with
material eroded from the now-protected area.
In response to an erosion problem, three basic
alternatives are usually pursued: (1) do nothing, Revetments are comprised of three components:
(2) relocate endangered structure, and (3) take the armor layer, the filter layer, and toe
positive action to halt the erosion. This third protection. The primary component, the armor
alternative is the subject of the rest of this layer, must be stable against movement by
Technical Release. waves. Typical armor components include
rough, angular rock and variously shaped
Bulkheads and seawalls typically require concrete blocks. The second layer, the filter,
significant structural design, difficult supports the armor against settlement, allows
construction, and are quite costly. Additionally, groundwater drainage through the structure, and
they can relfect waves rather than dissipate them prevents the soil beneath from being washed
and many consider such walls unattractive. through the armor layer by waves or
Breakwaters and groins restrict shoreline access, groundwater seepage. This may be commercial
may be detrimental to wildlife habitat, and can filter fabric or a gradation of sand and gravel.
cause other downshore problems. Due to these The third component, toe protection, prevents
drawbacks, these practices are not viewed undermining, settlement or removal of the
favorably by the NRCS or Minnesota revetment’s waterward edge.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for
Minnesota’s inland lakes. Publications 6 and 15 Overtopping (not including spray) which may
in the bibliography are helpful for information erode the top of the revetment can be limited by
on these measures. The primary type of a structure height greater than the expected
protection available is revetment to protect the runup height or by protecting the land at the top
lakeshore from further erosion. Some success of the revetment with an overtopping apron.

10
9/23/97
Flanking, a potential problem with revetments, Revetments are suited for protecting features
can be prevented by tying each end into adjacent directly behind the beach in a low-plain
shore protection structures or the existing bank. situation, since they absorb wave energy and are
If the bank later retreats, the ends must flexible if settlement occurs. However, they can
periodically be extended to maintain contact. have an adverse aesthetic effect on the beach,
Flanking is the erosion of the shoreline on either and can limit use or access to the shore.
side of a protective measure. (See Figure 1-5)
The armor layer maintains its position under The full-page diagram labeled Figure 1-6
wave action either through the weight of, or depicts the importance of a rough, slanted face
interlocking between, the individual units. for minimizing wave runup. Note that these
Revetments are either flexible, semi-rigid or values are relative to each other and NOT
rigid. Flexible armor retains its protective absolute numbers to be used in design. This
qualities even with severe distortion, such as chart was included to clarify the theory that has
when the underlying soil settles or scour causes been used in developing the design charts. The
the toe of the revetment to sink. Riprap designer is encouraged to use flatter slopes, and
(quarrystone, field stone or concrete “man- angular materials wherever possible.
made” stone) and gabions are considered to be
flexible shore protection measures. A semi-rigid
armor, such as interlocking concrete blocks, can Wind Setup and Runup
tolerate minor distortion, but the blocks may be
displaced if moved too far to remain locked to
The sketch in Figure 1-7 illustrates wind setup
surrounding units. Once one unit is completely
and wave runup. The setup is an increase in the
displaced, such revetments have little reserve
still water level (SWL) of the lake due to “piling
strength and generally continue to lose units
up” of the water caused by the force of the wind.
(unravel) until complete failure occurs. The
If the water returns to a calm condition, the
principal drawback to the use of precast paving
wave setup disappears. The wave runup is
blocks is that they are only one layer, and when
caused by the dissipation of the energy of the
their strength is undermined, there is no reserve
wave against the shore. It is the highest point in
protection. Concrete blocks can be cabled
elevation reached by a wave as its energy is
together or linked by plastic rods. This enables
dissipated.
the mat to withstand significant distortion
without failure. Rigid structures may be
damaged and fail completely if subjected to
differential settlement or loss of support by Vegetative Protection
underlying soil. Grout-filled mattresses of
synthetic fabric and reinforced concrete slabs are In some situations, vegetation may be part of a
examples of rigid structures. lakeshore protection package. Some success has
been noted in planting bulrushes and other
Revetments are sometimes effective in bluff vegetation in shallow water offshore. These
situations. Low bluffs that can be regraded to a plants dissipate the wave energy before it
stable slope may be effectively protected by reaches the shore. Information on the design of
revetments. The toe of a high bluff can be vegetative protection is contained in reference
protected by revetment, either alone or in 43. Vegetation has been planted in shallow
conjunction with other measures such as a water on berms to reduce the impact of waves.
buttress to stabilize a landslide. Drainage Also, vegetation has been planted above
controls are mandatory if groundwater and revetments to extend the area of protection in
seepage adversely affect slope stability. The the wave runup zone.
stability of a slope and its suitability for
protection will need to be determined on an Ice Action
individual basis. The slope must be reasonably
stable to justify revetment on the toe or the The freeze and thaw cycles caused by changing
entire slope. weather can exert tremendous ice pressure on
the shoreline. The probable maximum pressure

11
9/23/97
that can be produced by water freezing in an inch.
enclosed space is 30,000 pounds per square

12
9/23/97
Figure 1.6 Wave Runup Heights

13
9/23/97
As ice changes from a temperature of -20o F. to up on the riprap and the incoming ice sheet was
32o F, the total expansion of an ice sheet that is forced to go between the riprap and the piled-up
one mile long is 3.75 feet (reference #15, page ice. Some of the rock was removed from the bed
7-254). Any protection installed on a shoreline and brought to the surface of the ice pile. The
will be tested by these forces. Observations most severe damage occurred at or below the
indicate that protection must have enough mass waterline. It has been suggested that riprap
to resist large movements and enough slope to should have a D50 in excess of the maximum
cause the ice to deflect upwards. Normal ice winter ice thickness to avoid plucking of rock by
thickness in Minnesota lakes may be 24 to 30 rising ice sheets. The study concluded that the
inches. In shallow water, the shore bottom may D100 of the rock should be 2-3 times the
freeze and move with the ice. Open water thickness of ice to avoid damage by ice shoving
beneath the ice provides a flexure point to allow for slopes flatter than 3:1 and D100 should be
buckling. Water beneath the ice can exert a three times the ice thickness for a slope that is
hydrostatic pressure to assist in lifting the ice up 1.5:1 (H:V). Rock of this size is not practical to
the face of the shore protection. Some success use on Minnesota’s inland lakes, since ice is 24
has been noted with aeration systems which to 30 inches thick in a typical year. The study
keep the ice open for a distance. This area gives did note that a literature review revealed
the ice a place within which to expand, or a practically no guidance for design of riprap in
weak spot where the buckling can occur without regions subject to ice that considered ice in the
damaging valuable property. Figure 1-10 shows design.
three possible interactions between ice and shore
that are experienced on Minnesota lakes. Two schools of thought continue to pervade
discussions of protection against ice action. 1)
Ice damage may occur in a number of different Make the riprap large and heavy to resist the
ways: 1) breakdown of rocks due to freeze-thaw forces of ice. The sizing recommendations
action, 2) plucking of rocks by rising and falling mentioned above from reference #36 follow this
ice sheets due to water level changes, 3) shoving theory. 2) Make the rock size as small as
action by moving ice sheets (moving by possible that will still withstand the forces of
expansion during the freeze-thaw process, or wave erosion. Then the ice may move the rock,
moving by wind forcing ice sheets against a but the landowner(s) can easily put it back in
shore). place without a lot of expense that often results
when a contractor is hired. The second school
A study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of thought has been followed more often in
(Corps or COE) (reference #36) indicated that Minnesota and is believed to be working well
little or no damage occurred to riprap when ice here as a balance between installation and
rode up the riprapped slope (3:1 or flatter). maintenance costs, and saitsfactory for long-
Most of the damage occurred when ice was piled term erosion protection.

15
9/23/97
 6. A poorly designed filter or bedding caused
Causes of Revetment Failure pore pressure to build up in materials
beneath the filter or bedding layers. The
permeability of the filter was then less than
Many reasons for failure of lakeshore protection
the permeability of the base material. This
measures have been identified. They are listed
lifted or moved the slope protection. This
here to caution the designer and those
action occurs primarily at the still water
overseeing installation of possible problems.
level or at a break in the slope.
Some of these causes can be controlled, or
7. If the riprap is too small and light-weight, it
designed for, but others, such as icejacking, may
can be moved by the direct force of the
be unpredictable or produce forces too great to
wave. This is especially a problem on
be reasonably handled by revetments.
steeper slopes.
8. The riprap may deteriorate by weathering.
1. Riprap was not graded as specified. This
9. Ice sheets may expand and contract as
includes skip grading.
weather changes cause growth in the ice
2. The riprap segregated during placement.
sheet. This may push up the shore material
This produced pockets of finer material and
into ridges and move revetment. This can
groupings of large rock.
be a maintenance problem only, or it can
3. The bedding or filter layers were eroded
destroy an installation.
downslope by backwash. (See Figures 1-8
10. The wind may push large ice chunks into
and 1-9.) This may occur during
the shoreline.
construction before the rock is installed or
11. The stability of the bank on which the
the material may be leached out (sucked)
revetment is placed was not adequately
through the rocks due to incompatible
evaluated and considered.
bedding/rock design.
4. Poor placement of rock on filter cloth
caused holes and rips in the cloth which
allowed bank material to erode.
5. The toe of the riprap was not properly keyed
into the lakebed or designed to allow ice
rideup.

16
9/23/97
Chapter 2: Revetment Design
These design procedures and criteria are Table 2-2 relates the design wave frequencies in
recommended for revetment used as protection Table 2-1 to practical situations by assigning
against wind-generated wave action. They are them to a hazard class. Imminent danger to
intended for use on small inland lakes and with property of value is the primary consideration
dams and reservoirs receiving assistance from when selecting a safety factor for the design.
the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Generally, these have an effective Table 2-2. Design Factor Selection
fetch of less than 10 miles and a significant Hazard Riprap Riprap Gabions &
wave height of less than five feet. C. Block ♠
Runup & Rock
Research has indicated that it is important that WPH ∗ Size
the protection be an inclined plane. If the
Low 1.27 1.0 1.27
surface is vertical or nearly so, it increases the
Moderate 1.37 1.27 1.37
wave runup and overtopping. Vertical shore
High 1.67 1.27 1.67
protection also causes wave reflection downward
as well as upward, which increases the scour. ♠ C. Block is precast concrete block, any style
The inclined plane absorbs some of the energy ∗ WPH is wave protection height
of the wave, especially if it is rough. Research
has also indicated that the wave’s remaining Definitions
energy may be safely dissipated by having a
berm at the top of the protection. Low Hazard: Failure of the protective measure
does not endanger anything of value; distance
Wave Frequency from shore to anything of value exceeds 40 feet.
The raw bank height is less than 5 feet.
Significant wave height (Hs) is the average of
Moderate Hazard: Failure of the measure
the highest 1/3 of waves in the spectrum
increases the threat to something valuable;
experienced at a given point. Real waves are
distance form shore to anything of value exceeds
not all the same size at a given point in time and
20 feet. The raw bank height is less than 10
location; hence real waves cover a range or
feet.
spectrum of sizes.
High Hazard: Failure of the measure would
The Corps of Engineers (reference #15) and the
threaten existence of a valuable structure or
American Railway Engineering Association
property; distance from shore to anything of
(reference #1) vary the significant wave height
value is less than 20 feet.
(Hs) by the frequency of the wave. In this way,
the value of the property being protected can be
Note: When Hs is used, some damage may
a factor in the design. Table 2-1 shows the
result to the shoreline in extreme events. Where
factors used to increase significant wave height
this is unacceptable, or maintenance may be
in the Corps’ design procedure (reference #15,
poor, it is advised to increase the design wave
page 7-2).
frequency. Raw bank height may be only the
lower portion of the total bank height. Use the
Table 2-1. Design Frequency Factors for Waves
two terms with caution.
Definition Notation Factor
Highest 1/3 * Hs 1.0
Highest 10%* H10 1.27
Highest 5% * H5 1.37
Highest 1% * H1 1.67
* Average of _____ of all waves

17
9/23/97
 Design Procedure
Wind Data
The procedure followed here is adapted from the
The principal factor affecting the design for 1984 edition of the Shore Protection Manual
slope protection is wind generated wave action. published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The mechanics of wave generation are (reference #15). The Corps is the leader in
extremely complex. The forces causing erosion research and application of shore protection
during wave attack on an earthen slope are both measures. The 1984 Shore Protection Manual’s
varied and complex. To evaluate wave height, design procedure supersedes the design method
the following factors that create waves in open published in the 1977 version of the Corps’
water must be analyzed: (1) design wind Shore Protection Manual, upon which the 1983
direction, (2) effective fetch, and (3) wind version of the SCS’s TR69 is based.
velocity and duration. Each revetment material
has different design considerations so each is The inland lakes in Minnesota in general are not
addressed separately in this chapter. extremely deep lakes. Experience has shown
that designs in Minnesota fit the criteria for
Appendix A contains information on wind for using deep water wave design procedures.
the first-order weather stations in and around Hence, the reader is referred to the Corps’ Shore
Minnesota. The map at the beginning of the Protection Manual’s design procedure for the
appendix identifies the counties in Minnesota shallow waves if it is needed, since the situation
which are to use each first-order station for is rare.
design. The fastest mile wind can be a sudden,
short-lived gust (as short as two minutes) while Computation sheets are given in appendix B for
the prevailing wind tends to blow for long the design procedure which follows. Sample
periods. Research has indicated that the fastest problems are in Chapter 3.
mile wind lasts for too short of a time to be used
for design. Step 1. From knowledge of the site conditions,
determine whether the site hazard is high,
Although the 1983 edition of the SCS National medium or low.
Technical Release No. 69 uses fastest mile wind
data to determine critical wave height, the state- Step 2. Using an aerial photograph, USGS quad
of-the-art methods use a wind speed with a map or other planimetric view of the lake, locate
longer duration. The wind records for the site needing protection. Draw a line across
Minnesota indicate the fastest wind speed that the open water of the lake from the design point,
has ever been recorded for a given point on the in a nearly perpendicular manner. This line’s
compass, and the probability of a given wind location may be varied within reasonable
speed for any point on the compass. This judgment to reflect long expanses of water
information has been evaluated in Appendix A which may be key in the production of wind-
with definitive values given for the wind stress generated waves. The dominant wind direction
factor for each compass direction. Wind stress during open water months should be considered.
factors were determined using the steps in the Measure the length of any possible radials to
Corps’ Shore Protection Manual (reference determine the fetch length, F, of each. Choose a
#15). Wind data from the National Climatic critical fetch length for the design and use it as
Center in Asheville, NC was examined for the the effective fetch, Fe.
thirteen stations in and around Minnesota. The
wind speed that was calculated for use in Step 3. Describe the fluctuation of the lake level
determining the wind stress factor was the speed and determine reasonable still water elevation(s)
which equals or exceeds 95% of the observed, to use. DNR has information on lake levels on
recorded wind speeds for the years of record. many Minnesota lakes. If the bounce in the lake
See Appendix A for more information on these level is small, it may be satisfactory to use only
calculations. one elevation as the still water level. Otherwise,
it may be wise to use different numbers for the
low and high still water elevations so that the

18
9/23/97
designed protection covers the range of lake the larger Ho value as appropriate. See Chapter
levels typically experienced. These water levels 6 for information on watercraft waves.
should be not extremes but “typical” high and
low points for the lake level. Step 9. Record the slope ratio chosen for the
site, based on site characteristics. Use Figure 2-
Step 4. Note the direction of the wind that 2 with Ho/L to determine the runup (R) of the
would affect the site if it blew directly toward waves. For revetment other than angular riprap,
the site along the radial chosen in Step 2 for the multiply R by 1.2. This accounts for the
effective fetch. Find the compass point (1 of 16) smoother surface and the lower unit weight and
that most nearly falls on this radial. therefore less energy dissipation. The setup (S)
is 0.1 times the design wave height (Ho), but no
Step 5. The wind data available for Minnesota more than 0.5 feet.
has been summarized in Appendix A. Using the
map in Appendix A, note which weather station Step 10. The lower limit for the riprap is 1.5
provides information for the design site. Find times the design wave height (Ho). The
the wind stress factor in Appendix A for the minimum upper limit for the riprap is the sum
compass point chosen in Step 4. of the wave runup (R) and the wind setup (S).
Add these two values (R and S). This sum is the
Step 6. Use the chart in Figure 2-1 or equation wave protection height (WPH). If the elevation
2-1 with the effective fetch (Fe) and the wind of the lower limit extends below the existing
stress factor (Ua) to determine the period of the lake bottom, the designer may elect to use a type
wave (T). Equation 2-2 below relates the wave a or type c toe protection as illustrated in
period (T) to the wave length (L). Figures 2-5 and 2-6. The upper limit may be
increased to account for the Ordinary High
T = 0.559 {UaFe}1/3 (Eq’n 2-1) Water elevation (OHW). See Chapter 5 for
information on state requirements.
L = 5.12 T2 (Eq’n 2-2)
Step 11. Fluctuations in the lake level are
Step 7. Use equation 2-3 below or the chart in important to consider. The upper limit amount
Figure 2-1 to determine the significant wave should be added to the highest “typical” water
height (Hs) for the effective fetch (Fe) and use level determined in Step 3 to find the maximum
the wind stress factor (Ua) determined in step 4. elevation of the protection. The lower limit
If the effective fetch is less than 0.5 mile, use Fe value should be subtracted from the lowest
as 0.5 mile. “typical” water level determined in Step 3 to
find the lowest elevation where protection is
Hs = 0.0301 Ua (Fe)0.5 (Eq’n 2-3) needed.

Step 8. Choose a design frequency for the site The procedure below guides the selection of a
from Table 2-2 and note the appropriate design revetment such as riprap by choosing rock size
factor (DF) from Table 2-2. Note that these are and gradation.
minimum design factors that may need to be
increased for local circumstances. Multiply the Riprap Design
Hs calculated in Step 7 by the design factor, DF,
to obtain the design wave height (Ho). Note that
the design factor is different for determining The principal influence on the resistance to
runup and wave protection height compared to displacement provided by durable riprap is the
what is used to determine rock size. size of rock. For successful performance, the
riprap must be placed so that individual rock
Also, if waves generated by watercraft are particles will not be displaced by the forces of
believed to be larger and more critical than waves or by the erosion of underlying bedding,
those generated by wind, at this point substitute filter, or embankment materials.

19
9/23/97
The factors involved in selecting the optimal two quarrystones in thickness, the
rock size for a satisfactory installation are : stones comprising the primary cover
layer can range from about 0.75W to
• Weight of the rock 1.25W, with about 50% of the
• Gradation of the riprap individual stones weighing more than
• Thickness of the riprap layer W. The gradation should be uniform
• Roughness of the riprap surface across the face of the structure, with no
• Slope of the embankment face pockets of smaller stone. The
• Conditions of filter, bedding or both maximum weight of individual stones
• Rock shape (angular or rounded) depends on the size or shape of the
unit. The unit should not be of such a
Step. 12. Note the slope ratio selected in Step 9 size as to extend an appreciable
and record it again here. Using Table 2-2, select distance above the average level of the
the design factor (DF) that is appropriate for the slope.
revetment to be used. Find the significant wave
height (Hs) determined in step 7 and multiply wr = unit weight (saturated surface dry) of an
this by the design factor (DF) for revetment. armor unit in N/m3 or lb/ft3. Note: the
substitution of ρr, the mass density of
Step 13. Determine the needed rock weight. the armor material in kg/m3 or
The size of rock needed is determined from slugs/ft3, will yield W in units of mass
relationships of wave heights, wave velocities, (kilograms or slugs). A unit weight of
and drag on the rock relative to the stable size of 165 lbs/ft3 corresponds to a specific
rock needed to resist these forces for a given gravity of 2.65 and a unit weight of 156
location. This is principally determined using lbs/ft3 has a specific gravity of 2.50.
what is known as “Hudson’s equation,” given
here as equation 2-4. This is used for the weight Ho = design wave height at the structure site in
of an armor unit of nearly uniform size. For a meters or feet
graded angular riprap armor stone, equation 2-5
is used. The values commonly used for the “K” Sr = specific gravity of the armor unit, relative
factors are shown in Table 2-4, which is from to the water at the structure (Sr =
Chapter 7 of reference #15. The tables in wr/ww)
Appendix C identify possible families of
equations that can be computed using a given ww = unit weight of water; for fresh water this is
specific gravity, slope angle, and assumptions 62.4 lbs/ft3
about the angularity and roundedness of the
rock. The weight and size may be determined θ = angle of structure slope measured from
using equations 2-4 through 2-7 or the tables in horizontal in degrees
Appendix C. Note that the wave height (Ho)
value used here may have been determined KD = stability coefficient that varies primarily
using a design factor from Table 2-2 that was with the shape of the armor units,
different from that used for determining wave roughness of the armor unit surface,
runup. sharpness of edges and the degree of
interlocking obtained in placement (see
wr Ho3 Table 2-4).
W = _____________________ (Eq’n 2-4)
Krr = stability coefficient for angular, graded
KD (Sr-1) cot θ
3 riprap, similar to KD. (See Table 2-4)

where,
W = the weight in newtons or pounds of an wr Ho3
individual armor unit in the primary W50 = __________________ (Eq’n 2-5)
cover layer. (When the cover layer is Krr (Sr - 1)3 cot θ

22
9/23/97
 for equations 2-4 and 2-5. If the terms of
For rock that is partially angular and partially equation 2-6 are rearranged, it can also be
rounded, a combination of K factors may be expressed as
used. For example, with 2 layers of rock under
breaking wave conditions, rock that is W = d3(wr)/1.52 (Eq’n 2-7)
considered to be 30% angular and 70% rounded
has a K of 0.3(Krr) + 0.7(KD) = Step 14. After a W50 has been determined for
0.3(2.2)+0.7(1.2) = 1.5. the riprap gradation, the entire gradation will
The tables in Appendix C or equation 2-6 need to be specified. The entire gradation is
should be used to convert W50 to d50, being determined using Table 2-5. The gradation may
certain to use the correct specific gravity for the be expressed as weight or size in the
rock that will be installed. Over much of specifications.
Minnesota, a specific gravity of 2.50 is
reasonable; in northeastern Minnesota, often A gradation envelope should be specified in the
rock is used with a specific gravity of 2.65. construction specifications or on the drawings.
A rule of thumb for size difference between
d = 1.15 (W/wr)1/3 (Eq’n 2-6) envelope sides is 20-30% on a particle size for
the major part of the envelope. Figure 2-3
where, d = equivalent stone dimension in feet illustrates the concept.
and the other parameters are the same as defined

                          

Table 2-4. Suggested KD or Krr Values for Use in Determining Armor Unit Weight
Non-Damage Criteria and Minor Overtopping
Armor Units Number of Placement KD or Krr Value KD or Krr Value
Units in Layer Breaking Wave Nonbreaking Wave
Quarrystone (KD)
Smooth, rounded 2 Random 1.2 2.4
Smooth, rounded >3 Random 1.6 3.2
Rough angular 1 Random not recommended 2.9
Quarrystone (Krr)
Rough Angular any Random 2.2 2.5
(graded)
Minimal toe** any Random 3.5 4.0
Note: The KD values for smooth, rounded quarrystone for breaking waves are unsupported by test results
but were estimated by the authors of the Corps’ Shore Protection Manual, 1984.
** Meant to be used when a minimal riprap toe is installed in combination with bioengineering
techniques.
                          

3, “Loose Riprap Protection.” It is advisable to
Table 2-5. Riprap Gradation place the bedding or filter material just ahead of
Size of Stone Percent of total weight the riprap. The installer should check that the
smaller than the given size bedding is in the proper location, and hasn’t
2.0 to 2.5 x d50 100 moved, just before the riprap is placed. The
1.6 to 2.1 x d50 85 materials should be deposited as close to their
1.0 to 1.5 x d 50 final location as possible.
50
0.3 to 0.5 x d50 15
Step 15. The thickness of the riprap should be
1.25 x the maximum d100 size, but not less than
Practical tips on sizing and installing riprap are
12 inches. This is to ensure that the rock
contained in Minnesota Technical Release No.
thickness will be larger than the maximum rock

23
9/23/97
size, expecting to have more than one layer of
rock over most of the revetment. The Corps’
Shore Protection Manual (reference #15, page
7-207) recommends limiting use of graded
riprap to design wave heights less than or equal
to five feet. One exception is noted here. When
using a type d toe protection with a d50 of 4” or
less, a thickness of 9 inches is adequate.

24
9/23/97
 breaking waves will “scrape along the bottom”
Overtopping Protection causing a scour that will try to undermine the
revetment. Four alternate toe protection designs
are offered in Figures 2-5, 2-6 and 2-7, using
Step 16. Check whether overtopping protection
either a granular bedding/filter or a geotextile
is required. Figure 2-4 shows possible
cloth. It is important to anchor the edge of the
configurations to protect the top and ends.
geotextile, if used, by burying the end in a 6”
When the wave runup height reaches an
trench, or curling the geotextile into the riprap
elevation higher than the top of the bank,
in a “Dutch Toe”. When the geotextile is
protection of the top must include an overflow
installed under water, the best alternative for
apron. The width of the overtopping apron
anchoring the lower edge may be covering it
(Wo) should be three feet horizontally for every
well with larger rock.
foot of runup not protected by embankment but
not less than 1.5 feet in any case. See Figure 2-
A type a toe (with either a geotextile or a
4 for an illustration of this. The overflow apron
granular bedding/filter) is meant for lakeshores
prevents soil particles from moving lakeward as
with shallow water and a flatter lakebed slope.
the wave recedes back to the lake.
A trench is cut in the bottom to install the toe.
The type a toe is preferred for sites where ice
The overtopping apron may be adjusted based
action is known to have taken place. It
on Ordinary High Water (OHW) information for
encourages ice to ride up and over the riprap,
the lake. See Step 10 of the design procedure
especially if the slope of the riprap is flatter than
and
5:1. The ice does not have a protruding riprap
Chapter 5 of this document for state
toe to push as illustrated in Figure 1-10.
requirements.
Based on experience, the critical length, La, for
this type of toe should be between 3 and 6 feet.
End Protection The length needed is based on a comparison
between what is needed for the rock size vs. the
Step 17. The ends are subject to attack by anticipated scour. For rock size, the toe length
outside forces and must be reinforced against is estimated by 15 x d50. For scour protection,
possible failure. End protection is needed if the the length is calculated by subtracting the lower
rock is terminated at a point that is not known to limit elevation calculated in step 10 from the
be stable. Figure 2-4 shows the two types of end lake bottom elevation near shore, and
protection. If the rock is terminated at a stable multiplying that result by 3. Figures 2-5 and 2-
point such as a controlling structure, natural 6 illustrate the toe layout.
rock outcropping, etc., Method A in Figure 2-4
may be used. In some cases, some questions A type b toe (with either a geotextile or a
will exist as to the stability of the end section. granular bedding/filter) is meant for lakes with
Method B should then be used as shown in deep water at the shore. This type of toe
Figure 2-4. In cases where the lake bottom protection stabilizes the bank through a region
slope is flatter than 5:1, Method A end where scour is likely to occur. The thickened
protection may be used in the water and Method section of riprap is to extend to the elevation
B on the bank at the designer’s discretion. calculated for the lower limit of the riprap. This
Method B has a deepened and expanded toe to type of toe should be used where a drop-off
hold against scour forces. Figure 2-4 illustrates occurs within 50 feet of the shore, or where a
the sizing of this section. steep bank is encountered. This may mean that
the toe is beneath the lake bottom a short
distance to limit potential scour.
Toe Protection
In the type b toe, the thickness is increased to 5
Step 18. A critical part of the design of x d50 to provide a source of rock. The site will
shoreline revetment is protection of the toe. The armor itself if the wave scour does infringe on
the toe if sufficient rock is available in the toe.

26
9/23/97
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 illustrate the critical length
 Filter and Bedding Materials
of the toe protection, Lb. This is used as 8 x d50
based on practical experience.
Step 19. Determine what filter or bedding will
be used. A filter may be a graded granular
A type c toe (with either a geotextile or a
material or a geotextile or a combination of
granular bedding/filter) is intended for sites that
these. Filter or bedding may be described as a
have experienced little or no ice action. The
layer or combination of layers of pervious
rock is placed on top of the existing lake bottom.
materials graded in such a manner as to provide
When the riprap is placed on the lake bottom, it
drainage, yet prevent the movement of soil
may protrude above the water, be at or near the
particles through the layer due to flowing water.
still water level, or be significantly below the
Figures 1-8 and 1-9 show the purpose of a filter
water level, or vary among these three
or bedding layer. In order for the filter material
depending on fluctuations in lake level. This
to function as intended, it must restrict
should be discussed with the landowner, as
movement of the base material and must not be
liability issues may arise with water craft
leached out through the riprap by wave action.
traveling close to shore. This toe may be needed
where a site has limited access for large
Bedding is a layer of material which primarily
equipment, and hence means to dig a toe trench
distributes the load of the overlying material,
are not available.
such as riprap. It may not act as a filter for
underlying material but must be graded such
Based on experience, the critical length, Lc, for
that it will not be washed or leached out through
this type of toe should be between 3 and 6 feet.
the overlying material. A bedding is normally a
The length needed is based on a comparison
graded granular material but may be a geotextile
between what is needed for the rock size vs. the
designed to be load-bearing.
anticipated scour. For rock size, the toe length
is estimated by 15 x d50. For scour protection,
Commercially made filter fabric or geotextile is
the length is calculated by subtracting the lower
acceptable, and even preferred, in place of a
limit elevation calculated in step 10 from the
granular filter in many instances. The physical
lake bottom elevation near shore, and
durability of a geotextile fabric is evaluated by
multiplying that result by 3. Figures 2-5 and 2-
its tear resistance, puncture and impact
6 illustrate the toe layout.
resistance, resistance to ultraviolet damage,
flexibility and tensile strength. Filter fabric is
A type d toe (with either a geotextile or a
normally used over sandy soils and can only
granular bedding/filter) is intended for sites
safely protect soils having not more than 50%
where it is difficult to distinguish a slope change
passing the 0.1 mm sieve. When filter cloth is
from the shore to the lake, and it is desired to
used, the ends should be buried - at least 6
place the riprap on top of the existing lakebed.
inches and preferably 12 inches. The Corps of
Such a toe is susceptible to ice damage as the
Engineers recommends use of a Dutch toe
rock is on top of the lakebottom and may be
(wrapping the end of the filter fabric into the
pushed when the ice freezes to the lake bottom
protection) as illustrated in Figure 2-5. Many
or to the riprap.
prefer use of a 6” trench at the top and sides of a
slope to bury the ends of the geotextile so it
The toe should be extended to the calculated
can’t pull back out of the rock.
lower limit, or at least 4 feet waterward of the
normal low lake level elevation, whichever is
A 4 to 6 inch layer of sand may be desirable
shorter. This is illustrated in Figure 2-7 for both
between the filter cloth and the riprap as a
geotextile and granular bedding. Note that the
cushion to prevent tearing of the cloth during
geotextile is to be anchored at the bottom with
installation of the rock. Limiting the drop
larger rock. If underwater installation allows for
height for the rock placement also helps
it, a “Dutch Toe” or 6” toe trench may be used.
minimize the damage to the geotextile. Some
designers require bedding material on top of a
geotextile to anchor the geotextile against the
soil as the
 hazard as well, so covering it entirely is
contact between layers is critical for the total important for this reason also.
filter system to function as intended.
A filter is required beneath rock riprap when 1)
The filter or bedding layer thickness shall be the the base soil is non-plastic or has a plasticity
greater of 1) 1.33 times the maximum grain size index (PI) less than 15 and is not coarse enough
of the bedding, 2) six inches, or 3) 1/3 the to meet the gradation required to prevent
thickness of the riprap, whichever is greater, but leaching through the riprap; or 2) a phreatic line
shall not be more than 12 inches. The gradation will outlet seepage from the shore above the lake
of the filter and bedding material should be level. The granular filter material must meet
designed in accordance with SCS Soil the requirements in the Minnesota Material
Mechanics Note 1 and the information Specification No. 521. Bedding material is
contained here. required for materials having a PI greater than
15 except for materials classified as CL or CH
In general, nonwoven geotextiles are with a liquid limit (LL) greater than 40.
recommended for lakeshore installations as they Bedding is not required for CL soil or CH soils
are not as slippery, can stretch more before with a LL greater than 40, unless the engineer
tearing, and they help build the underlying determines it is needed to distribute the load on
natural filter better than woven geotextiles. the foundation soils.
Refer to Minnesota Material Specification MN-
592 - Geotextile for detailed information. The following equations shall be used to make
Geotextile products may be subject to the filter compatible with the riprap gradation.
deterioration when exposed to ultraviolet rays, The filter gradation curve should approximately
as in sunlight. To avoid shortening the life of parallel the rock riprap curve or have a flatter
the geotextile, follow the manufacturer’s slope.
recommendations for handling and storing
geotextile. Exposed geotextile can be a fire

d15 (bedding- minimum) > d15(riprap-maximum)/40 > 0.42 mm (No. 40 sieve) (Eq’n 2-8)

d15(bedding-maximum) < d15 (riprap-minimum)/4 (Eq’n 2-9)

d85 (bedding-minimum) > d15(riprap-maximum)/4 (Eq’n 2-10)

d50 (bedding - minimum) > d50 (riprap-maximum)/40 (Eq’n 2-11)

This situation may be desired by landowners to

make the lakeshore more attractive for
Concrete Paving Block recreational uses. The blocks will be laid in a
single layer and provide only one layer of
Design protection. When this layer is disturbed, little
protects the bank underneath. The armor layer
When formed using a dense concrete, precast can rapidly unravel during a storm event. The
concrete paving blocks can provide excellent weight of the blocks alone cannot provide the
shore protection. The Corps of Engineers has same resistance to movement as riprap, so
done research on the use of many kinds of interlocking, cabled, or rod-tied blocks are
precast concrete paving block, such as those preferred over those that merely lay side-by-side.
illustrated in Figure 2-8. The designer should
consider the fact that the resultant surface will The individual types of precast concrete block
be smooth, and therefore less effective at vary in effectiveness for lakeshore protection.
dissipating wave energy than a rougher surface. Manufacturer’s literature should be read

32
9/23/97
carefully. References 4, 6 and 15 in the found in National Engineering Handbook
bibliography may be helpful for designing a Section 20 (NEH 20), should be followed for
protection measure which uses precast concrete design and placement. The filter and bedding
paving blocks. requirements are the same as stated for riprap
above.
When designing lakeshore protection using
precast concrete paving block, follow the steps When designing lakeshore protection using
in the design procedure. The runup must be gabions, follow the steps in the design
increased by a factor of 1.2 to account for the procedure. The runup must be increased by a
smooth surface as noted in step 9 of the design factor of 1.2 to account for the smoother surface
procedure. Criteria for bedding and filter design as noted in step 9 of the design procedure. It is
should be followed as for riprap. recommended to follow the criteria for bedding
and filter design asis used for riprap.

Gabions
Soil Bioengineering
Gabions also can provide acceptable shoreline
protection. However, note that wave action will NRCS encourages the use of soil bioengineering
move the rocks around within the exposed practices where appropriate and reasonable.
gabion baskets, wearing through the wire over These techniques have been used on Minnesota
time, possibly shortening the life of the shore lakeshores. However, at this time, insufficient
protection. Filling the gabions as compactly as data exists to prepare specific design guidelines
possible helps reduce this concern. Use of the on bioengineering techniques for lakeshores.
gabions above the lake level, where wave action References 38-41 in Appendix E describe soil
is less frequent, is also a useful design strategy. bioengineering techniques and guide choices for
sites needing protection.
The designer is encouraged to follow the steps in
the design procedure for determining the extent Steps 1-11 of the design procedure in this
of the gabion protection. Design of the gabions chapter are to be used for determining protection
themselves should follow manufacturer’s for sites which will use soil bioengineering
recommendations. The wave runup should be techniques. Consideration must be given to
increased by a factor of 1.2 as noted in step 8 of overtopping protection, end protection and toe
the design procedure. NRCS construction protection as well.
specification No. 64, “Wire Mesh Gabions,”

33
9/23/97
Chapter 3: Sample Problems
interested in using a granular filter if needed as
This chapter contains two sample problems to he owns a quarry in the area. He is open to
clarify the use of this technical release. The using geotextile if it is more cost-effective. The
design forms from Appendix C are used to critical open water distance was measured to be
record the design information. The figures and 1380 feet on an aerial photo of the site, as
tables contained in this document are used to shown in the illustration below.
calculate the design parameters.
Find. The site needs a design for lakeshore
erosion protection that uses rock.
Sample Problem #1

Given: A cabin located on Lake Lovely in the

southern part of Otter Tail County, Minnesota is
experiencing erosion. The cabin and garage are
about 70 feet from the shoreline. The rock
available in the area weighs about 156 lbs/ft3
and is very angular.

With a little grading, the site seems to lend itself

well to a 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) finished
slope. The still water elevation is typically
around 946.8 with little fluctuation. The
elevation at the top of the bank is 947.2. The
lake bottom just off shore is at an elevation of
946.0. The property on both sides of this cabin
is covered with trees and shrubs which appear to
have stabilized both sides. The landowner is

35
9/23/97
 Find. Determine an appropriate design for rock
riprap to protect this site.
Sample Problem #2
Discussion. Two primary directions could be
Given. A homeowner on Splithead Lake in considered as the critical fetch direction for this
Itasca County, Minnesota, desires lakeshore site. The line that is drawn to the east is
protection. The Minnesota Department of significantly shorter than the line to the
Natural Resources (DNR) keeps records of the southeast. If the wind stress factors for Bemidji
lake levels on Splithead Lake and has indicated are examined in Appendix A, it appears to make
that the lake level fluctuates between 822.7 and little difference because the two values are 34
823.5. The rock available in Itasca County has and 35 miles per hour, respectively. A
both rounded corners and angular corners, in a judgment, therefore, needs to be made for the
ratio of about 50% of each. Its specific gravity design. One possibility is to average the two
is 2.50. lengths. Another is to use the “worst case”, that
being the longest distance and the highest wind
The top of the bank was surveyed to be at stress factor for maximum protection; this may
elevation 827.0 The bottom of the lake just off be recommended where something of significant
shore is 817.0. The distance from the home to value is being protected. A third possibility is to
the shoreline is about 35 feet. From a site visit, use the shortest distance and lowest wind stress
and the survey notes, it was determined that a factor; this should only be considered when the
4:1 slope will fit the site well after a small damage potential is low, should the design be
amount of grading. exceeded and the revetment is to be coupled
with soil bioengineering techniques above the
The landowners on either side of this property minimal rock toe, to provide a second level of
are also experiencing erosion; thus no secure protection. For the example, the “worst case”
end points for the protection measure are scenario was chosen. A still water elevation
available. The two fetch lengths to be which is the average of the range of fluctuation
considered are 3770 feet to the east and 8080 is chosen.
feet to the southeast.

41
9/23/97
Chapter 4: Maintenance
instructed on maintenance of their measure
The Natural Resources Conservation Service should this occur.
(NRCS) policy in Minnesota requires that all
maintenance is the responsibility of the Geotextile products may be subject to
landowner(s). Before any assistance is provided, deterioration when exposed to ultraviolet rays,
the landowner(s) must sign an agreement stating as in sunlight. To avoid shortening the life of
that they are responsible for the maintenance of the geotextile, cover any geotextile which
the installed practice. NRCS may assist with becomes exposed. Exposed geotextile can be a
recommendations for maintenance only. fire hazard as well.
Lakeshore protection may be disturbed by ice
action or by waves larger than those used in The NRCS policy in Minnesota does not allow
design. These conditions can be addressed by installation of high-maintenance protection,
designing flexible protection and protection that such as artificial nourishment, for a single
is easy to repair or replace with a moderate landowner without a proven means to maintain
maintenance effort. The design and installation the installation. This is fully described in the
will be done to the best of the designers’ ability National Engineering Manual.
and knowledge, and maintenance is totally the
responsiblity of the landowner(s). The technician, conservationist, or engineer
involved in the project should discuss
An unpredictable source of problems for maintenance with the landowner(s) prior to the
lakeshore protection measures is ice jacking. design of the measure. A maintenance plan
When the ice expands in freezing, it pushes up should be prepared by the designer for the
and outward against the shores of the lake with specific job. It should be discussed with the
very large pressure which can move almost any landowner(s). The landowner(s) must be aware
type of protection measure. Flexible measures of their responsibility in this area, and sign a
such as riprap can be pushed up and out of place maintenance agreement prior to installation of
leaving holes in the protective layer. These the measure. The plan must be attached to the
holes can allow undermining of the protective maintenance agreement signed by the
layer and loss of its effectiveness. Semi-rigid landowner.
measures, such as a concrete wall, can be
cracked beyond repair. This technical release The following pages are sample maintenance
does not try to design specifically for this agreements that have been used for lakeshore
unpredictable force, although consideration is sites.
given to the phenomenon. The landowner
should be told of the possiblity of ice action, and

46
9/23/97
 Operation and Maintenance Plan
Rock Riprap Lakeshore Protection

Cooperator:______________________________________Date:________________________

By: ________________________________________Title:_____________________________

Project Location:_______________________________________________________________

The owner or sponsor of this project is responsible for the rock riprap lakeshore protection. Although
these projects are designed with the best available technical knowledge, it must be recognized that any
project needs to be properly operated and maintained including periodic inspection. Properly maintained
lakeshore protection should last a minimum of ten (10) years. The following guidelines have been
prepared for the operation and maintenance of this protection measure.

1. Immediately after completion of the project, all disturbed areas, such as wheel ruts and patches of
bare soil, should be filled with clean topsoil, fertilized, seeded and mulched. Refer to the seeding
specification in the design packet for this site. Nuture the vegetation so that it forms a dense
stand to prevent erosion.

2. Inspect the project regularly, especially following strong winds and spring break-up of the ice.
Repair damage immediately by replacing any dislodged rock. Be especially careful to cover all
exposed filter material (granular or geotextile).

3. Equipment used on the lakeshore (for dock removal, boat launching, yard maintenance, etc.)
must be kept away from the project to avoid damage to the project and the shore it is protecting

4. All trees and woody growth should be kept off the project site, whether it is alive and growing, or
loose, dead material, unless the site is specifically designed to incorporate soil bioengineering
techniques using woody materials.

5. This design considers potential damage by ice, but it was primarily designed for wind erosion
protection. Repairs need to be made to rock moved about by ice if any areas become exposed
such that waves may reach the natural soil and erode it. Contact the local NRCS office for
assistance.

6. The rock has been designed to withstand forces of wave action for many circumstances. Extreme
events may still occur which may alter the layout of the rock. It is important to restore the
integrity of the revetment following such events. Contact your local NRCS office for assistance.

I have read the guidelines for the maintenance of the lakeshore stabilization project and agree to follow
the guidelines.

Cooperator’s signature:_______________________________________Date:__________________

I have discussed the maintenance guidelines with the above cooperator.

Conservationist’s signature:____________________________________Date:___________________

47
9/23/97
 Operation and Maintenance Agreement
This agreement, made on _________________________ is between the ________Soil and Water
Conservation District, hereafter referred to as the SWCD; the Natural Resources Conservation Service of
the United States Department of Agriculture, hereafter referred to as NRCS; and __________________,
hereafter referred to as the Sponsor.

The Sponsor, SWCD, and NRCS agree to carry out the terms of this agreement for the operation and
maintenance of the practice in the State of Minnesota. The practices covered by this agreement are
identified as follows : (name of project)_______________________________________________.

I. General:
A. The Sponsor will:
1. Be responsible for operating and performing or having performed all needed
maintenance of practices, as determined by either NRCS or the Sponsor, without cost to
the SWCD or NRCS.

2. Obtain prior NRCS approval of all plans, designs, and specifications for the
maintenance work deviating from the O&M plan, and of plans and specifications for
any alteration to the structural practice.

3. Be responsible for the replacement of parts or portions of the practice (s) which have a
physical life of less duration than the design life of the practice(s).

4. Prohibit the installation of any structure or facility that will interfere with the operation
or maintenance of the practice(s).

5. Comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws.

6. Provide SWCD and NRCS personnel the right of free access to the project practice at
any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out terms of the agreement.

B. NRCS will:

1. Upon request of the Sponsor and SWCD and to the extent that its resources permit,
provide consultative assistance in the operation, maintenance and replacement of
practices.

II. Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan)

An O&M plan for each practice included in this agreement is attached to and becomes part of this
agreement.

III. Inspection and Reports

A. The Sponsor will inspect the practices as specified in the O&M Plan.

B. The SWCD and NRCS may inspect the practice(s) at any reasonable time during the
period covered by this agreement. At the discretion of the appropriate administrative
person, NRCS personnel may assist the Sponsor with the inspections.

C. A written report will be made of each inspection and provided to the SWCD, NRCS, and
(others if needed)______________________________.

48
9/23/97
IV. Time and Responsibility

The Sponsor’s responsibility for operation and maintenance begins when a practice is partially done or
complete and accepted or is determined complete by NRCS. This responsibility shall continue until
expiration of the design life of the installed practice(s). The Sponsor’s duties and liabilities for the
practice(s) under other Federal and State laws are not affected by the expiration of this O&M agreement.
Failure of the Sponsor to meet the requirements of this agreement shall require finanacial reimbursement
to the ________________________________.

V. Records

The sponsor will maintain in a centralized location a record of all inspections and significant actions
taken, cost of the work, and completion date, with respect to operation and maintenance. SWCD or
NRCS may inspect these records at any reasonable time during the term of this agreement.

Name of Sponsor________________________________________________________

Authorized Signature:________________________________Date:_________________

This action was authorized at an official meeting of the Sponsor named immediately above on
_________________________ at ___________________________.

Attested to:_______________________________________Title:______________________

_______________Soil and Water Conservation District

Authorized Signature:______________________________________Title:________________

U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service

Authorized Signature:__________________________________Title:_____________________

49
9/23/97
 Rock Riprap Shoreline Protection Measure
Site:___________________________________________________________________

The following is a list of maintenance items that may be needed:

1. Remove any obstructions from the lake which may direct unnatural flow against the
riprap lining.

2. Repair any areas of damaged riprap or filter material promptly. Failure to do this
promptly could result in serious damage to the lakeshore.

3. Remove any trees or brush within the riprapped area.

4. Maintain vegetation by controlling weeds, fertilizing, etc. as needed.

Inspection will be made after the spring ice break-up for each year in the anticipated life of the measure
(10 years).

50
9/23/97
Chapter 5: State Requirements
Pollution Control
Permits
During construction of a lakeshore protection
In Minnesota, the Department of Natural measure, it is not uncommon that the soil in the
Resources (DNR) requires a permit for lakebed and on the bank are disturbed. In many
modifications to lakeshores that exceed certain cases this causes a sediment plume which moves
minimum requirements. The Natural Resources into the lake and may disturb and/or damage
Conservation Service (NRCS) encourages aquatic plant and animal species. The designer
landowners to comply with this requirement. is strongly encouraged to require use of a
NRCS is willing to provide technical assistance floating silt curtain or other device to restrict the
to a landowner within the scope allowed in the disturbed sediment to as small an area of the
NRCS National Engineering Manual (NEM). lake as is practical. The items of work and
DNR publishes informational sheets on work construction details in the specifications may
that may be done without a permit. A copy may reference the Minnesota Department of
be obtained from a local DNR office, or through Transportation (MnDOT) specification 3887,
the state headquarters: Flotation Silt Curtain.
Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55146 Seeding and Mulching
Many lakes in Minnesota have been investigated Disturbed Areas
by DNR to determine the ordinary high water
(OHW) level. This is used for controlling NRCS requires wise planning of construction
development on and around lakes. The operations to disturb the minimum amount of
landowner should check with DNR before land possible during construction. This
beginning design to determine whether the lake minimizes erosion which may cause movement
has a defined OHW elevation. DNR has of soil particles and attached nutrients into the
determined that water has been to this elevation lake. One important technique to minimize the
for a period of time that is long enough to have impact of construction operations on the lake is
damage potential. Therefore, it is well to to seed and mulch disturbed areas as soon as
consider the OHW in a design. possible in the construction sequence. Also, the
vegetative cover on land is not to be disturbed
On many streams and lakes, a permit from the until it is needed for construction operations.
Corps of Engineers is required. A local permit
may also be needed, such as from a lake An NPDES permit may be required if the area
conservancy district, watershed district, or disturbed meets the requirements for such a
county. permit. It is the landowner’s responsibility to
obtain all permits.

51
9/23/97
Chapter 6: Watercraft Concerns
rather than from the larger and slower tanker
In sheltered harbors or bays, or along rivers and and cargo ships. Table 6-1 is a summary of the
streams with a narrow width, the waves numerical research done in references 19 and 20
generated by watercraft may be more critical in the bibliography. These values may be used
than those generated by the wind. Some to estimate a wave height for design, if the
research has been done on wave generation by designer feels that the wind-generated wave is
boats. References 19 and 20 in the bibliography not the critical condition for the site.
were used to provide the numerical data for this
section. Boating activity has increased on many water
bodies in recent years. Power boats and
A factor that must be considered is the distance personal watercraft generate waves which can
that a wave must travel to reach the shore. In cause shoreline erosion, especially on smaller
areas where boat speed is greatly reduced as they water bodies where the waves’ energy is not
approach shore, the erosion of shorelines due to dissipated before the waves reach shore. Some
boats will be minimal. The author of reference lakes have “no wake” ordinances in an attempt
21 indicates the following rules of thumb are to reduce wave erosion and noise pollution.
used for navigation channels:
The size of waves created by boats are
• If the center of the navigation channel is determined by the volume of water displaced by
less than 2000 feet from the bank, 50% or the boat and the speed at which the boat is
more of the bank erosion is due to traveling. The wave size does not always
navigation. increase with boat speed because at high speeds
many boats “skim” across the surface (called
• If the center of the navigation channel is planing) and therefore displace less water.
between 2000 feet and 3000 feet from shore, Wave heights of up to three feet have been
less than 50% of the bank erosion is due to reported from boats operating on inland lakes.
navigation. Boat waves are of a different physical nature
than wind-generated waves, and contain more
• If the centerline of the navigation channel is energy than a wind-generated wave of equal
more than 3000 feet from the bank, the size. The operation of large, high speed boats
erosion is principally due to natural causes, on small water bodies can create waves greatly
not navigation. exceeding the size and erosive energy of any
naturally occurring from wind.
The highest ship-generated waves are generally
from smaller vessels that operate at high speeds

52
9/23/97
Table 6-1. Wave Heights Generated by Vessels (Ref. 19 and 20)

Vessel Description Distance to Shore, feet Speed, miles/hour Wave Height, feet

Cabin Cruiser 100 7.0-19.0 0.7-1.2

300 19.0 0.8

500 6.9-11.5 0.4-0.8

Tugboat 100 6.9 0.6

100 11.5 0.3

500 6.9 1.5

500 11.5 0.9

Barge 100 11.5 1.4

300 11.5 0.7

500 11.5 0.3

Commercial Fishing 100 6.2-18.4 0.2-2.2

Boat

300 6.2-18.7 0.2-1.8

500 6.3-19.0 0.2-1.2

High Speed Pleasure 100 6-20 0.5-2.0

Boat

500 6-20 0.5-1.5

A cabin cruiser is described to be 23’ long with a beam of 8.3’ and a draft of 1.7 feet. Its displacement is
3 tons. A tugboat has a length of 45 feet, with a 13’ beam and 6’ draft. Its displacement is 29 tons. A
barge is 263 feet long with a 55’ beam and 14’ draft. Its displacement is 5420 tons. A commercial
fishing boat has a length of 64 feet with a 12.83’ beam and draft of 3 feet. Its displacement is 35 tons. No
further description was given for high speed pleasure boats.

49
9/23/97
APPENDIX A: WIND DATA ..............................................................................................................51
METHOD USED: ........................................................................................................................................51
Converting Wind Speeds to Wind Stress Factors: ................................................................................51
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORDS USED: .......................................................................................................54
APPENDIX B: BLANK DESIGN FORMS .........................................................................................57

APPENDIX C: ROCK WEIGHT AND SIZE AND EQUATIONS ....................................................62

APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY................................................................................................................67

APPENDIX E: NOMENCLATURE AND SYMBOLS.......................................................................71

APPENDIX F: REFERENCES.............................................................................................................72

50
9/23/97
Appendix A: Wind Data

The National Climatic Center in Asheville, North Carolina is the central repository for information on
wind for the weather stations in the United States. Thirteen stations in and near Minnesota have wind
data.

Station Record Length

Alexandria, Minnesota 6 years
Bemidji, Minnesota 5 years
Brainerd, Minnesota 5 years
Duluth, Minnesota 10 years
Fargo, North Dakota 3 years
Hibbing, Minnesota 3 years
International Falls, Minnesota 16 years
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota 10 years
Redwood Falls, Minnesota 5 years
Rochester, Minnesota 18 years
St. Cloud, Minnesota 7 years
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 4 years
Thief River Falls, Minnesota 6 years

A study by Donald Baker (reference #18) concluded that 10 years of record is ample when looking at wind
patterns. Many of the records above are partial records which were put together for the sake of wind energy studies
and wind frequency analysis. The lengths of record given above were deemed reasonable for the purpose here.

Figure A-1 is a map of Minnesota showing the thirteen recording stations. Lines have been drawn to denote
recommended boundaries for use of the data for any given weather station. For sites close to one of these
boundaries, the designer may wish to consider wind stress factors for more than one station.

Method used:

For each of the thirteen stations, the wind frequency data was examined. For each of the 16 compass points, a
speed was calculated which equaled or exceeded 95% of the recorded readings. This was a statistical procedure,
that, of necessity, assumed a linear and uniform distribution of the points when they were grouped in categories of
wind speeds. Using the procedure described below, the wind speeds were converted to wind stress factors.

Converting Wind Speeds to Wind Stress Factors:

The Corps of Engineers’ procedure given in the Shore Protection Manual (reference 15) pages 3-26 to 3-30 was
followed in preparing wind speed information for use as wind stress factors. That procedure calls for use of five
steps:

1. Correction for elevation of the anemometer - The standard height is 10 meters above the ground. if it is
less or more than that, the wind speeds are to be adjusted according to the equation given below. The
correction tends to be a small one, but can be significant.

51
9/23/97
 U10 = Uh(10/h) 1/7 Equation A-1

where,
U10 = wind speed measured at the 10 meter height
Uh = wind speed measured at height h
h = height above ground where wind speed is measured, meters
U = wind speed (often in miles per hour)

2. The second correction is to use a duration-averaged windspeed instead of the fastest mile windspeed, the
value most readily available. Since data is available for Minnesota for wind frequency, this step was
ignored and the available data was used.

3. A stability correction is to be applied for a difference in air and sea temperatures. However, with the size
of inland lakes in Minnesota that this Technical Release is meant for, this difference is negligible so the
correction is ignored.

4. The fourth correction is for location. The wind data is for stations on land, rather than at sea. Wind
speeds tend to be faster over water than over land. So Figure 3-15 from the Corps’ Shore Protection
Manual (reference 15) was used to convert over land speeds to over water speeds. This figure is given as
Figure A-2 in this appendix for reference.

5. The final correction is applied after the above four have been multiplied times the wind data. This
accounts for the coefficient of drag. The formula below converts the wind speed to a wind stress factor
which is used in design. The values given in Table A-1 are wind stress factors (UA), ready to be applied
in the design procedure.

UA = 0.589 U1.23 Equation A-2

where,
UA = wind stress factor, miles per hour
U = wind speed, miles per hour

Description of the Records Used:

Alexandria, Minnesota - Records summarized for Dec. 1, 1948 to Dec. 31, 1954, with 53,203 observations. Record
was on microfiche with wind speeds in meters per second.

Bemidji, Minnesota - Records summarized for April 1956 through March 1961, with 31, 903 observations. The
speeds were given in knots.

Brainerd, Minnesota - Records summarized for January 1958 to December 1962, with 30, 527 observations. The
speeds were given in knots. The observations were during daylight hours only.

Duluth, Minnesota - Records were summarized for the years 1973 through 1982. 85, 130 observations were
recorded in that time period.

54
9/23/97
Fargo, North Dakota - Records were summarized for three years in the period of January 1948 to September 1953.
Speeds were recorded in miles per hour. 50, 379 observations were included in the record.

Hibbing, Minnesota - Records were given quarterly for the years 1970 through 1972 ( months of January, April,
July and October). 8851 observations were used in the summary. The speeds were given in miles per
hour.

International Falls, Minnesota - Records were summarized for the years of 1949 to 1964, with a total of 100,163
observations. The speeds were given in knots.

Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota - Records were summarized for the years 1974 to 1983, with a total of 87,642
observations. The speeds were given in knots. The anemometer was located at the airport.

Redwood Falls, Minnesota - The records were summarized for November 1, 1949 to December 31, 1954, with a
total of 45,020 observations. The wind speeds were recorded in meters per second. The record is on
microfiche.

Rochester, Minnesota - The records were summarized for the period September 25, 1960 to December 31, 1978,
with a total of 53,365 observations. The speeds were recorded in meters per second. The record is on
microfiche.

St. Cloud, Minnesota - The records were summarized for February 14, 1972 to December 31, 1978, with a total of
15, 103 observations. The speeds were recorded in meters per second. The record is on microfiche.

Sioux Falls, South Dakota - The records were summarized for October 1942 to November 1945, with a total of 28,
357 observations. The speeds were recorded in miles per hour.

Thief River Falls, Minnesota - The records are summarized for April 1956 to March 1961 (less January 1959) with
a total of 32, 729 observations. The speeds were recorded in knots.

55
9/23/97
Table A-1. Design Wind Stress Factors in miles per hour
Compass Compass
Point Alexandria Bemidji Brainerd Duluth Fargo Hibbing Int’l Falls Point
N 27 35 32 27 41 26 27 N
NNE 26 35 29 30 43 25 27 NNE
NE 24 35 33 30 33 24 26 NE
ENE 29 36 34 39 33 26 34 ENE
E 27 34 26 34 32 26 26 E
ESE 26 34 31 28 34 26 27 ESE
SE 24 35 26 27 39 25 27 SE
SSE 27 35 26 27 40 26 27 SSE
S 26 34 26 28 33 26 27 S
SSW 26 34 26 28 33 26 31 SSW
SW 24 35 25 28 32 25 31 SW
WSW 27 36 26 28 32 26 33 WSW
W 29 36 31 28 41 26 34 W
WNW 33 36 36 28 53 29 34 WNW
NW 29 36 36 28 52 32 33 NW
NNW 29 36 36 28 48 26 32 NNW

Compass Mpls. Redwood St. Sioux Thief Compass

Point St. Paul Falls Rochester Cloud Falls River Falls Point
N 33 24 27 23 36 38 N
NNE 34 24 26 23 33 36 NNE
NE 28 25 26 23 32 36 NE
ENE 27 28 24 24 33 36 ENE
E 28 24 26 24 29 35 E
ESE 28 24 27 21 32 36 ESE
SE 28 25 27 20 33 36 SE
SSE 28 28 28 21 34 36 SSE
S 33 27 29 24 33 38 S
SSW 28 27 29 23 33 38 SSW
SW 28 24 28 21 29 36 SW
WSW 28 30 27 20 33 36 WSW
W 33 28 28 24 33 36 W
WNW 33 32 31 24 41 38 WNW
NW 34 30 31 25 41 38 NW
NNW 31 28 29 24 41 38 NNW

56
9/23/97
Appendix B: Blank Design Forms

57
9/23/97
 APPENDIX B
DESIGN OF LAKESHORE PROTECTION
Page 1

Project Name__________________________________County_____________Lake________________

By___________________Date_________Ckd By_______________ Date_________Job Class________

Step 1. Hazard: High Moderate Low

Step 2. Effective Fetch Computations:

From a map or aerial photograph, and information gathered, determine the critical open water distance
for wave generation (fetch). Consider the dominant wind direction in open water months.

Fe = _____________________ feet = _______________mile(s)

Note: If Effective Fetch (Fe) < 0.5 mile, use Fe = 0.5 mile Use Fe = _________mile(s)

Step 3. Describe fluctuation of lake level:

Still Water Elevation(s)___________________________________________

Step 4. Wind direction along critical fetch _______________ (compass point)

Step 5. First Order Weather Station______________________________ (Appendix A)

Wind Stress Factor (Ua) __________miles/hour (Appendix A)

Step 6. Wave Period (T) (Eq’n 2-1 or Figure B-1) T = 0.559[Ua x Fe]1/3 = __________seconds

Wave Length (L) (Eq’n 2-2) L = 5.12 T2 = ___________feet

Step 7. Significant Wave Height (Hs) (Eq’n 2-3 or Fig. B-1) Hs = 0.0301 Ua (Fe)0.5 = ___________ feet

Step 8. Design Factor (DF) (Table 2-2) __________

Design Wave Height (Ho) = Hs x DF = ___________ x ___________ = ___________ feet

Step 9. Slope Ratio ________ (such as 3:1, 4:1) Ho/L = ________/________ = ___________

R/Ho (Figure 2-2) __________ If material is not riprap, multiply: R/ Ho x 1.2 = _________ (new R/Ho)

Runup (R) = Ho x R/Ho = __________ x __________ = ____________

Setup (S) = 0.1 x Ho = 0.1 x _____________ = ______________ (not more than 0.5 feet)

58
9/23/97
 APPENDIX B
DESIGN OF LAKESHORE PROTECTION
Page 2

Step 10. Lower Limit = 1.5 x Ho = 1.5 x ___________ = _______________ feet

Upper Limit (WPH) = R + S = ___________ + ____________ = ____________ feet

Step 11. Upper elevation of protection: (upper) SWL + upper limit = _________ + _________ = ___________

Lower elevation of protection: (lower) SWL - lower limit = __________ - _________ = ___________

RIPRAP DESIGN -

Step 12. Slope Ratio __________ Design Factor (DF) (rock size only) (Table 2-2) ____________

Ho = Hs x DF = ____________x __________ = ___________ feet

(Hs is the same as determined in Step 7)

Step 13. Determine W50 (Use Eq’n 2-4 and/or Eq’n 2-5 or select from the chart in Appendix C)
Determine or estimate the density, wr___________ lbs/ft3 or specific gravity Gs ____________of the rock

Describe rock expected: ___________% rounded and ____________% angular

wr Ho3
W50 = _____________________ = ________________________

(KD or Krr) (Sr-1)3 cot θ

W50 = _____________lbs. = D50 ____________ inches

(Use Table C-4 or C-5 to convert weight to equivalent size, or Eq’n 2-6 below)

d = 1.15 (W/wr)1/3 = __________ feet (Eq’n 2-6) Use D50_________________ inches

Step 14.
Gradation calculated for this location:

D100 2.0 x D50 = ____________ 2.5 x D50 = ___________

D85 1.6 x D50 = ____________ 2.1 x D50 = ___________

D50 1.0 x D50 = ____________ 1.5 x D50 = ___________

D15 0.3 x D50 = ____________ 0.5 x D50 = ___________

Step 15. Thickness of Riprap = 1.25 x maximum D100 = 1.25 x ____________ = ___________

59
9/23/97
 APPENDIX B
DESIGN OF LAKESHORE PROTECTION
Page 3

Step 16. Overtopping Protection

Step a) Elevation of top of bank (determined in field) _____________________

Step b) Upper elevation of protection (calculated on page 2, step 11)= _______________

Step c) If step b is higher than step a, an overtoppping apron is required. {(step b)-(step a)} x 3 = width
of apron shoreward (must be >1.5 feet)

Width of overtopping apron (Wo) = (_______ - _______) x 3 = _________ feet (not less than 1.5 feet)
Use Wo = ______________ feet

Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW) from DNR if available __________

Special considerations related to the OHW elevation:

Step 17. End Protection: Method A ______ Method B ______ (Choose one - see Figure 2-4)
Rationale for this choice:

Step 18. Toe Protection: (Figures 2-5 and 2-6)

Follow steps a through f for an La or Lc toe; use step g for an Lb toe. Use step h for a type d toe.

Step a. 1.25 x D50 (riprap) = ________________ inches

Step b. Elevation of existing lake bottom near shore = _______________

Step c. Lower elevation of protection (computed in Step 11) = _______________

Step d. {(step b) - (step c)} x 3 = __________________ feet

Step e. Determine whether step a or step d results in a larger value. Write it here. _________

Step. f. The value in step e must not be less than 3 feet (if it is, use 3.0 feet) nor larger than 6 feet (if it is,
use 6 feet). This value is the length La or Lc as depicted in Figures 2-5 and 2-6.

La or Lc = __________________ feet Go to Step 19

Step g. Lb = 8 x d50 = _____________________; use Lb = ___________ feet

Step h. Ld = the shorter value of 1) 6’ (more at engineer’s discretion) or 2) the lower elevation of
protection calculated in step 11 on page 2. ______________________________ See Figure 2-7.

60
9/23/97
 APPENDIX B
DESIGN OF LAKESHORE PROTECTION
Page 4

Step 19. Filter or Bedding Requirements:

Use Geotextile ________ or Use granular filter or bedding ________ (select one)

Granular Filter Design: 1 inch = 25.4 mm

d15 (bedding) > d15 (riprap)/40 > 0.42 mm (No. 40 sieve)

(min.) (max.)

d15 (bedding) < d15 (riprap)/4

Minimum Maximum (max.) (min.)

d100
d85 d85 (bedding) > d15 (riprap)/4
(min.) (max.)
d50
d15 d50 (bedding) > d50 (riprap)/40
(min.) (max.)

Geotextile:
Woven________ Non-woven _________
Description:

61
9/23/97
Appendix C: Rock Weight and Size and Equations

62
9/23/97
Appendix D: Glossary
Alongshore - Parallel to and near the shoreline; Breakwater - Structure aligned parallel to shore,
same as longshore. sometimes shore-connected, that
provides protection from waves.
Artificial Nourishment - The periodic addition
of beaching materials to maintain a Bulkhead - A structure or partition to retain or
beach. prevent sliding of the land. A
secondary purpose is to protect the
Beach or shore - Zone of sand or gravel upland against damage from wave
extending from the low waterline to a action.
point landward where either the
topography abruptly changes or Clay - Extremely fine-grained soil with
permanent vegetation first appears. individual particles less than 0.00015
inches in diameter.
Beach fill - Sand or gravel placed on a beach by
a mechanical means. Cliff - High steep bank at the water’s edge. In
common usage, a bank composed
Beaching - The wave energy dissipation that is primarily of rock. See Bluff.
provided by the washing of sands and
gravels up and down a beach slope Cobbles - Rounded stones with diameters
within the range of wave effectiveness. ranging from 3 to 10 inches. Cobbles
are intermediate between boulders and
Bedding material - A layer or zone of material gravel.
placed on the base or foundation to bed
the designed structure. The bedding Crest length, wave - The length of a wave along
may distribute the applied load, fill the its crest. See Figure 1-1. Same as
interface voids, or provide a transition wavelength.
in intergranular void size.
Current - Flow of water in a given direction.
Berm - A shelf that breaks the continuity of the
slope. Current, longshore - Current in the breaker
zone moving essentially parallel to the
Bluff - High, steep bank at the water’s edge. In shore and usually caused by waves
common usage, the bank is composed breaking at an angle to shore. Also
primarily of soil. (See Cliff also) called alongshore current.

Boulders - Large stones with diameters over 10 D50 - The particle diameter corresponding to the
inches. point where 50% of the material is
finer by dry weight on the gradation
Breaker - A wave as it spills, plunges, or curve.
collapses on a shore, natural
obstruction, or man-made structure. D85 - The particle diameter corresponding to the
point where 85% of the material is
Breaker Zone - Area offshore where waves finer by dry weight on the gradation
break. curve.

Breaking Depth - The still water depth where D100 - The particle diameter corresponding to
waves break. the point where 100% of the material is
finer by dry weight.

67
9/23/97
Deep Water - Area where the surface waves are
not influenced by the bottom. Impermeable - Not allowing the passage of
Generally a point where the depth is water.
greater than one-half the surface
wavelength. Lee - Sheltered; part or side facing away from
wind or waves.
Design Wave Height (Ho) - The wave height
used for computing wave protection Littoral - Of or pertaining to a shore.
height (WPH).
Littoral drift - The sedimentary material moved
Downdrift - Direction of alongshore movement in the littoral zone under the influence
of littoral materials. of waves and currents. Also called
littoral material.
Dune - Hill, bank, bluff, ridge or mound of loose
wind-blown material, usually sand. Littoral transport - The movement of littoral
drift in the littoral zone by waves and
Duration - Length of time the wind blows in currents. This includes movement
nearly the same direction across a fetch parallel (longshore transport) and
(generating area). perpendicular (on-offshore transport) to
the shore.
Fetch (F) - The continuous distance over which
the wind blows upon water in an Littoral zone - Indefinite zone extending from
essentially constant condition, the shoreline to just beyond the breaker
generating waves. zone.

Filter - A layer or combination of layers of Longshore - Parallel to and near the shoreline;
pervious material designed and same as alongshore.
installed in such a manner as to provide
drainage, prevent the movement of soil Longshore transport rate - Rate at which
particles due to flowing water, and littoral material is moved parallel to the
which will not be leached out through shore. It is usually expressed as cubic
the riprap. yards per year.

Filter Cloth - Synthetic textile that allows water Low water - The lowest elevation that can
to pass through but which prevents the normally be expected for the lake
passage of soil particles. Also called surface.
geotextile.
Maximum diameter (D100) - The diameter
Flanking - Erosion of the shoreline on either or which equals the largest grain size in
both sides of a protective measure. See the material.
Figure 1-5.
Median diameter (D50) - The diameter which
Gravel - Small, rounded granules of rock with marks the point at which 50% of the
individual diameters ranging from 0.18 material is larger and 50% is smaller.
to 3 inches. Gravels are intermediate
between cobbles and sand. Natural high water - The elevation of the lake
under normal circumstances. Also
Groin - A shore protection structure usually known as still water level.
built perpendicular to the shoreline to
trap littoral drift or retard erosion of the Normal high water - Same as “natural high
shore. water”.

High Water (HW) - The maximum elevation

reached by the lake surface.

68
9/23/97
Nourishment - Process of replenishing a beach Setup, wind - Vertical rise in the still water
either naturally by longshore transport level of a body of water caused by
or artificially by delivery of materials piling up of water on the shore due to
dredged or excavated elsewhere. wind action. Synonymous with wind
tide and storm surge.
Offshore - Lakeward from the low water
elevation. Shallow water - Commonly, water of such a
depth that surface waves are noticeably
Onshore - Landward from the landward edge of affected by bottom topography. It is
the beach. customary to consider water of depth
less than 1/20 of the surface
Ordinary High Water (OHW) - The highest wavelength as shallow water.
elevation which the lake has
maintained long enough to leave Shore - Narrow strip of land in immediate
evidence on the landscape. This is contact with the sea, including the zone
often higher than the still water level or between high and low water lines. See
the normal high water. also beach.

Overtopping - Passing of water over a structure Significant Wave Height (Hs) - The average of
from wave runup or surge action. the highest one-third of the waves
being generated.
Permeable - Having openings large enough to
or simply allowing free passage of Silt - Generally refers to fine-grained soils
appreciable quantities of either (1) sand having particle diameters between
or (2) water. 0.00015 and 0.003 inches.
Intermediate between clay and sand.
Revetment - A facing of stone, concrete, or
other materials built to protect a bluff, Slope - Degree of inclination to the horizontal.
embankment, shoreline or structure Usually expressed as a ratio, such as
against erosion by wave action or 1:25, indicating 1 unit vertical rise in
currents. 25 units of horizontal distance.

Riprap - A layer, facing, or protective mound of Specifications - Detailed description of

stones randomly placed to prevent particulars such as the size of stone,
erosion, scour, or sloughing of a quality of materials, terms, contractor
structure or embankment; also stone so performance, and quality control.
used.
Still Water Level (SWL) - Elevation that the
Runup - The rush of water up a structure or surface of the water would assume if all
beach as a wave breaks. The amount of wave action were absent.
runup is the vertical height above still
water level that the rush of water Updrift - Direction opposite the predominant
reaches. movement of littoral materials in
longshore transport. See Figure 1-2.
Sand - Generally coarse-grained soils having
particle diameters between Wake - Waves generated by motion of a vessel
approximately 0.003 and 0.18 inches. through water.
Sands are intermediate between silts
and gravels. Wave - Undulation of the surface of a liquid.

Sandbag - Cloth bag filled with sand or grout Wave crest - Highest part of a wave or that part
and used as a module in a shore above the still water level.
protection device.

69
9/23/97
Wave direction - Direction from which a wave the slope of a shore as it dissipates its
approaches. remaining energy.

Wave Height (H) - The vertical distance Wave Steepness (H/L) - The ratio of wave
between a crest and the preceding height to its length.
trough. See Figure 1-1.
Wave trough - Lowest part of a wave form
Wave Length (L) - The horizontal distance between successive crests. Also, that
between similar points on two part of a wave below the still water
successive waves measured level.
perpendicularly to the crest. See Figure
1-1. Wind Duration - The minimum wind duration,
in minutes, required for the generation
Wave Period (T) - The time in seconds for a of the indicated wave height. Same as
wave crest to traverse a distance equal duration.
to one wave length; also time for two
successive wave crests to pass a fixed Wind Setup (S) - The vertical rise in the still
point. water level on the leeward side of a
body of water caused by wind pressure
Wave Protection Height (WPH) - Height above stresses on the surface of the water.
the still water elevation that will be See Figure 1-7.
affected by wave action.
Windward - Direction from which the wind is
Wave runup (R) - The vertical distance above blowing.
still water level that a wave will run up

70
9/23/97
Appendix E: Nomenclature and Symbols
PI Plasticity Index
a Wave amplitude, feet R Wave runup, feet
C Velocity, feet/second (also called S Wind setup, feet
celerity) SCS Soil Conservation Service, the former
Cd Drag coefficient, dimensionless name for the Natural Resources
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Conservation Service (NRCS)
d Depth of lake, feet SF Safety factor related to endangering
D100 Diameter of maximum rock size, inches valuable property if the lakeshore
or feet protection measure were to fail. See
D50 Diameter of median rock size, inches or Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
feet SWL Still water level, elevation in feet
D85 Diameter of rock in inches or feet, t Time, seconds
where 85% of the rock is smaller than tB Thickness of bedding, feet
this size tr Thickness of riprap, feet
DNR Minnesota Department of Natural T Wave period, seconds
Resources, a regulating agency for U Wind speed, in miles per hour, meters
Minnesota lakeshores per second or knots
F Fetch, miles U10 Wind speed at a height of 10 meters
Fe Effective fetch, miles above the ground (standard)
g Acceleration due to gravity, 32.16 UA Wind stress factor, miles per hour
ft/sec2 Ud Design wind velocity, miles per hour
G Specific gravity of rock, dimensionless UL Overland wind velocity, miles per hour
h height above the ground where the USGS United States Geological Survey
wind speed is measured UW Overwater wind velocity, miles per
H Wave height, feet hour
Ho Design wave height, feet Uh Wind speed at a height of h meters
Hs Significant wave height, feet above the earth, miles per hour
K Median grain size (D50) of riprap, feet W50 Weight of the median size rock, pounds
KD Stability coefficient for armor, used in Wmax Maximum rock size in a gradation,
Table 2-4 pounds
Krr Stability coefficient for angular, graded Wmin Minimum rock size in a gradation,
riprap; see Table 2-4 pounds
L Wave length, feet Wo Width of overtopping protection, feet
LL Liquid limit (See Figure 2-6)
m Dimension for riprap end protection, WPH Wave protection height, feet
feet (See Figure 2-6) z slope of a bank, where z units
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation horizontal change occurs in one unit of
Service, an agency in the United States vertical change, dimensionless
Department of Agriculture, formerly
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Conversion Factors:
OHW - Ordinary High Water; defined by DNR 1 knot = 1.152 miles per hour
for a given lake; stated in feet of 1 meter per second = 2.237 miles per hour
elevation 1 kg = 2.205 lbs.
p Dimension for riprap end protection, 1 foot = 0.3062 meter
feet (See Figure 2-6)

71
9/23/97
Appendix F: References

72
9/23/97
1. American Railway Engineering
Association, Bulletin No. 591, 12. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold
Proceedings Volume 66, February Regions Research and Engineering
1965. (Table taken from page 525) Laboratory, “Intermittent Ice Forces
Acting on Inclined Wedges”, by Per
2. Minnesota Department of Natural Tryde, October 1977, 26 pages.
Resources, Division of Waters, “Sand
Beach Blankets”, Information Sheet, 13. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1987. Coastal Engineering Research Center,
“A Primer of Basic Concepts of
3. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lakeshore Processes”, January 1975, by
“Coastal Engineering Research Center David Duane, Lee Harris, Richard
- Its Mission and Capabilities, May Bruno, and Edward Hands,
1980, 28 pages. Miscellaneous Paper No. 1-75, 29
pages.
4. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
“Construction Materials for Coastal 14. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold
Structures”, by Moffatt and Nichol, Regions Research and Engineering
Special Report No. 10, February 1983, Laboratory, “Shoreline Erosion
427 pages. Processes - Orwell Lake, Minnesota”,
December 1984, 101 pages.
5. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Help
Yourself” brochure. 15. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Department of the
6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Low Army Corps of Engineers, “Shore
Cost Shore Protection... a Guide for Protection Manual”, Volumes 1 and 2,
Engineers and Contractors”, 1981, 173 1984.
pages.
16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Low Waterways Experiment Station,
Cost Shore Protection... a Guide for “Revetment Stability Study, Fort Fisher
Local Government Officials”, 1981, State Historic Site, North Carolina”,
108 pages. November 1982, 93 pages.

8. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Low 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Cost Shore Protection... a Property Conservation Service, “Riprap for
Owner’s Guide”, 1981, 159 pages. Slope Protection against Wave Action”,
Technical Release No. 69, February
9. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Low 1983, 53 pages.
Cost Shore Protection: Final Report on
the Shoreline Erosion Control 18. Baker, Donald G., “Climate of
Demonstration Program”, Office of the Minnesota: Part 14 - Wind Climatology
Chief of Engineers, 1981b. and Wind Power”, Technical Bulletin
AD-TB1955; Agricultural Experiment
10. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Shore Station, University of Minnesota, 1983,
Protection Guidelines”, Part of the 48 pages.
National Shoreline Study, August 1971,
59 pages. 19. Sorenson, Robert M., “Investigation of
Ship-Generated Waves”, Journal of the
11. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Waterways and Harbors Division,
Orleans District, “Shoreline Erosion Proceedings of the American Society of
Control Demonstration Program”, Civil Engineers (ASCE), February
1981, colored pamphlet.

73
9/23/97
 1967, Volume 93, No. WW1, pages 85 Control”, Coastal Structures ‘83,
to 99. Editor: J. Richard Weggel, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings
20. Sorenson, Robert M., “Water Waves of the Conference held March 9-11,
Produced by Ships”, Journal of the 1983, pages 846-859.
Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal
Engineering Division, Proceedings of 27. Ahrens, John P., “Wave Runup on
the American Society of Civil Idealized Structures”, Coastal
Engineers, Volume 99, No. WW2, May Structures ‘83, Editor: J. Richard
1973, pages 245 to 256. Weggel, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Proceedings of the
21. Lubinski, Kenneth, Henry Seagle, Nani Conference held March 9-11, 1983,
Bhowmik, and others, “Information pages 925-938.
Summary of the Physical, Chemical,
and Biological Effects of Navigation”, 28. Thompson, E. F., and C. L. Vincent,
submitted to the Environmental Work “Prediction of Wave Height in Shallow
Team, Master Plan Task Force, Upper Water”, Coastal Structures ‘83, Editor:
Mississippi River Basin Commission, J. Richard Weggel, American Society
May 7, 1981. of Civil Engineers, Proceedings of the
Conference held March 9-11, 1983,
22. Weckman, Javier, and John M. Scales, pages 1000-1008.
“Design Guidelines for Cabled Block
Mat Shore Protection Systems”, Coastal 29. Shoreline Protection -- Proceedings of a
Structures ‘83, Editor: J. Richard Conference Organized by the
Weggel, American Society of Civil Institution of Civil Engineers and held
Engineers, Proceedings of the at the University of Southampton on
Conference held March 9-11, 1983, Sept. 14-15, 1982, Published by
pages 295-306. Thomas Telford, Ltd., London, 1983,
248 pages. (Several articles discuss the
23. Kenter, den Boer, and Pilarczyk, use of groins and artificial
“Large Scale Model Tests on Placed nourishment. Several papers discuss
Block Revetment”, Coastal Structures problems unique to the United
‘83, Editor: J. Richard Weggel, Kingdom.)
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Proceedings of the Conference held 30. “Technologies for Coastal Erosion
March 9-11, 1983, pages 307-319. Control”, by the Department of
International Economic and Social
24. Broderick, Laurie, “Riprap Stability - A Affairs, Ocean Economics and
Progress Report”, Coastal Structures Technology Branch of the United
‘83, Editor: J. Richard Weggel, Nations, New York, 1982.
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Proceedings of the Conference held 31. Kobayashi, Nobuhisa, and Brian K.
March 9-11, 1983, pages 320-330. Jacobs, “Riprap Stability Under Wave
Action”, Journal of Waterway, Port,
25. Eckert, James., “Design of Toe Coastal and Ocean Engineering,
Protection for Coastal Structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Coastal Structures ‘83, Editor: J. Volume 111.3, May 1985, pages 552-
Richard Weggel, American Society of 566.
Civil Engineers, Proceedings of the
Conference held March 9-11, 1983, 32. Bhowmik, Nani G., “Development of
pages 331-341. Criteria for Shore Protection Against
Wind-Generated Waves for Lakes and
26. Downie, K.A. and H. Saaltink, “An Ponds in Illinois”, Illinois State Water
Artificial Cobble Beach for Erosion Survey, Urbana, IL, Water Resources

74
9/23/97
 Center Research Report No. 107,
January 1976. 41. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Engineering Field Handbook
33. Thorne, Colin, Steven Abt, Frans Chapter 16: “Streambank and
Barends, Stephen Maynord, and Shoreline Protection”, December 1996,
Krystian Pilarczyk, Editors, River 134 pages.
Coastal and Shoreline Protection:
Erosion Control Using Riprap and 42. Fuller, Doug, “Understanding, Living
Armourstone, John Wiley and Sons, With, and Controlling Shoreline
1995, 764 pages. Erosion: A Guide Book for Shoreline
Property Owners”, Tip of the Mitt
34. U. S. Department of the Army, Corps Watershed Council, Conway,
of Engineers, Engineering Manual EM- Michigan, 1995, 90 pages.
1110-2-1614, “Design of Coastal
Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads”, 43. Soil Conservation Service, Technical
April 30, 1985. Release No. 56, “A Guide for Design
and Layout of Vegetative Wave
35. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Protection for Earth Dam
Corps of Engineers, Engineering Embankments”, Washington, DC,
Circular EC 110-2-289, September 30, 1974, 28 pages.
1996 (draft), Coastal Engineering
Manual, Part II, Hydrodynamics.

36. Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, CRREL
Report 96-12, “Ice Action on Riprap”,
by Devinder Sodhi, Sharon Borland,
and Jesse Stanley, September 1996.

37. Ashton, G.D., Editor, River and Lake

Ice Engineering, Water Resources
Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 1986.

38. Gray, Donald and Andrew T. Leiser,

Biotechnical Slope Protection and
Erosion Control, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, 1982,
263 pages.

39. Soil Conservation Service, Engineering

Field Handbook Chapter 18: “ Soil
Bioengineering for Upland Slope
Protection and Erosion Reduction”,
October 1992, 50 pages.

40. Gray, Donald and Robbin Sotir,

Biotechnical & Soil Bioengineering
Slope Stabilization: A Practical Guide
for Erosion Control, John Wiley &
Sons, 272 pages, 1996.

75
9/23/97