slope, while the 1 3 • 4-f t waves caused some armor-stone displacement in these 

 same areas. Based on these observations, Plan 3 (Photos 32-34) was exposed to 

 the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph A. During Step 1, two stones at the 

 swl were displaced downslope and one crown stone was displaced down the 

 harbor-side slope. Two additional stones were displaced downslope from the 

 swl during Step 2. Five additional armor stones (one on the crown and four at 

 the swl) showed moderate to significant in-place rocking throughout the test. 

 Mo armor-stone displacement occurred during Step 3 and the structure was in 

 good condition (slight to minor spot damage on crown and around swl) at the 

 end of the test (Photos 35-37). The displaced armor stone and stone exhibit- 

 ing in-place rocking during this test ranged in weight from the smallest to 

 largest in the graded armor-stone mix. 



27. The 9- to 20-ton armor stone was rebuilt (Photos 38-40) and Plan 3 

 was once again exposed to Hydrograph A. The structure accrued less damage 

 during this testing. Three armor stones were displaced (two on the crown and 

 one at the swl on the lakeside slope) during Steps 1 and 2. No displacement 

 occurred during Step 3, but two armor stones on the crown and three at the swl 

 continued to show minor to significant in-place rocking and reorientation 

 throughout the test. Photos 41-43 show that the structure was in good condi- 

 tion (slight spot damage on crown and around swl) at the end of the test. 



16 



