Klaipda port jetties impact on the Baltic Sea shoreline dynamics, Lithuania

2167

Klaipda port jetties impact on the Baltic Sea shoreline dynamics,

Lithuania
Donatas Pupienis, Simona Jonukait, Darius Jarmalaviius, Gintautas ilinskas
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vilnius
University, M.K. iurlionio 21/27, LT03101, Lithuania
donatas.pupienis@gf.vu.lt
simona.jonusk@gmail.com

Institute of Geology and Geography,

Nature Research Centre, evenkos 13,
03223 Vilnius, Lithuania
jarmalavicius@geo.lt
zilinskas@geo.lt

ABSTRACT
Pupienis, D., Jonukait, S., Jarmalaviius, D., and ilinskas, G., 2013. Klaipda port jetties impact on the Baltic Sea
shoreline dynamics, Lithuania. In: Conley, D.C., Masselink, G., Russell, P.E. and OHare, T.J. (eds.), Proceedings 12th
International Coastal Symposium (Plymouth, England), Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, pp. 21672172, ISSN 0749-0208.
www.JCRonline.org

Port of Klaipda is Lithuanian Baltic Sea harbour, which construction began in 1835. From 1835 to 2002, Klaipda port
gate (jetties and Klaipda port entrance channel) saw several stages of reconstruction. Within the last reconstruction
works of Klaipda port gate in 2002, the southern and northern port jetties were extended reaching 1300 m and 1400 m
respectively, and the entrance channel was dredged to the depth of 14.5 m. The objective of this paper is to determine
the tendencies of shoreline variations in the northern part of Klaipda harbour, at the Melnrag, on the basis of the
analysis of cartographic material from different periods (18352010), as well as monitoring data on coastal dynamics
(19962012) and by applying empirical mathematical functions: the parabolic bay equation. The analysis of

cartographic material showed that in the northern part of Klaipda port at Melnrag (within a sector of 2 km),
from 1835 until the end of 19th century shoreline was advancing seaward, and from the beginning of the 20 th
century until 2002 shoreline was slowly retreating. Since 2002 shoreline erosion has begun, which has
particularly intensified in the recent years, i.e. 20102012. From 1878 to 2002, the greatest shoreline retreat
ranged from 30 to 150 m, whereas in the last two years, shoreline has retreated from 20 to 30 m. It was
determined based on field data analysis that the shoreline in the northern part of Klaipda port develops in
accordance with the parabolic bay equation. Also, on the basis of the parabolic bay equation, it was found out
that after the jetties reconstruction (2002) in 2012 the beach static equilibrium was reached. The extension of the
northern jetty as well as its new deflection angle determined the change of wave diffractions point position, and
consequently led to shoreline retreat and beach bay formation at Melnrag .
ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Klaipda port, shoreline dynamics, parabolic bay.

INTRODUCTION
The shoreline of sandy beaches is one of the most dynamic
places on earth. Shoreline development is determined by natural
processes (wind, waves, current, water level, neotectonic activity)
and human activities (various hydraulic facilities and harbour
construction, port basin dredging, introduction of coastal
protection means etc.) Generally the negative impact of human
activity in coastal zones appears downcoast from harbours, where
the shoreline is eroded and bay is formed.
To resolve problems relating to formation of bays and changes
in shoreline configuration, mathematical models were created
(Yasso, 1965; Silvester, 1970; Hsu and Evans, 1989; Moreno and
Kraus, 1999) which application allows the evaluation of shoreline
stability. The sandy shoreline stability may be in three different
conditions: static or dynamic equilibrium, or unstable (Hsu and
Silvester, 1996). The traditional engineering harbour constructions
determines the evolution of coastal zones due to the disturbed
balance of natural littoral drift existing over hundreds or thousands
of years (Herron and Harris, 1966; Hsu et al., 1993; ilinskas,
1998).
It is considered that cessation of sediments supply for upcoast
induces beach erosion downcoast of harbours (Herron and Harris,
1966; Komar, 1983), and thus bay formation (Lausman et al.,

2010).
When planning new coastal structures of harbours (e.g. a new
breakwater or the extension of an existing one, a detached
breakwater, a groyne, etc.), it is essential to take into account how
this will affect the development of an adjacent coastal section.
Solving the above problems a planform model may be used to
predict the equilibrium planform towards which the shoreline will
evolve after the coastal structure has been built (Klein, 2003;
Iglesias et al., 2008; Lausman et al., 2010). In coastal engineering
applications a great number of static equilibrium-shape models
(logarithmic spiral, parabolic, hyperbolic tangent shape equation)
and formulations have been proposed (Yasso, 1965; Vichtepan,
1969, Silvester, 1970; Moreno and Kraus, 1999), but probably the
most popular model nowadays is the so-called parabolic model
(Hsu et al., 1987; Hsu and Evans, 1989; Silvester and Hsu, 1993).
The shoreline downcoast of Klaipda port in Lithuania has bay
shape, so the shoreline stability can be determined on the basis of
parabolic equation.
The effect of Klaipda breakwater on adjacent coastal zones on
various aspects was analyzed by many researchers: Knaps (1966),
ilinskas (1998) ir aromskis (1999, 2007, 2008), but until now
no future shoreline development trends have been evaluated as

____________________
DOI: 10.2112/SI65-366.1 receives07 December 2012; accepted 06
March 2013.
Coastal Education & Research Foundation 2013

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

2168

Pupienis, et al.

Figure 1. Location of the study area. 1 measuring profiles.

well as no modelling of shoreline planform evolution was
performed.
The objective of this paper is to determine the tendencies of
shoreline variations in the northern part of Klaipda port, at the
Melnrag, on the basis of the analysis of cartographic material
from different periods (18352010), as well as monitoring data on
coastal dynamics (19962012) and by applying empirical
mathematical functions: the parabolic bay equation.

PHYSICAL SETTING
Port of Klaipda is located in Lithuania, on the south-eastern
coast of the Baltic Sea (Figure 1.). Klaipda port construction
began in 1834. From 1834 to 2002, Klaipda port gate (jetties and
Klaipda port entrance channel) saw several stages of
reconstruction (Knaps, 1966; ilinskas, 1998; aromskis, 2008).
The jetties were several times extended until the northern jetty
reached a length of about 1400 m in 2002 and the southern 1300
m (Figure 2). Within the last reconstruction works of Klaipda
port gate in 2001 2002, the southern and northern port jetties
were extended and the entrance channel was deepened. The
northern jetty was lengthened by 205 m and the southern by 278
m (Jarmalaviius et al., 2012a). Besides, the northern jetty was
directed in NE-SW (Figure 2), while southern jetty was directed in
the same direction but at a lesser angle. The entrance channel was
dredged to the depth of 14.5 m. The history of the major coastal
works provided within the Klaipda port construction is described
in Table 1 and showed in Figure 2.

METHODS
Different data, ranging from cartographical charts (1835, 1845,
1878, 1910, 1947, 1978, 1990) to aerial photographs (1997, 2005,
2010) from as early as 1835 to 2010 were obtained at the National
Land service under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of
Lithuania and Vilnius University archive. The data covers time
span of 175 years. Cartographical chart were used to calculate the
shoreline dynamics trends and to analyse the effect of port jetties
on the morphology of the coast.
Prior to digitizing, all charts used in this study were
georeferenced and transformed to the same Lithuanian national
geographical reference system (LKS94) based on standard

Transverse Mercator projection with ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 software

using angular coordinate and fixed points for each chart (Pupienis
et al., 2012). The average error of the aligning was 1.17 m (r.m.s.).
On the basis of georeferenced topographic maps and aerial
photographs the shoreline position layer was created. Rate-ofchange statistics for time series of shoreline vector data, at every
100 m transect with DSAS 4.2 software were computed (Thieler et
al., 2009). Rates of shoreline change were calculated at each
transect using linear regression applied to all shoreline positions
from the earliest to the most recent. Linear regression was selected
because it has been shown to be the most statistically robust
quantitative method when a limited number of shorelines are
available (Crowell et al., 1997).
Shoreline change rates (m/year) were calculated for the three
different periods: 1834-1878 representing the construction of the
jetty, 1878-2002 first time extension of the jetty and 2002-2012
second time re-construction/extension of the jetty.
Since the last aerial photograph was done in 2010, also the
levelling of cross-profiles of the coast was performed (using
electronic tachometer TOPCON GTS 229) in 7 observation
stations installed along the researched coast sector (from the
northern jetty of Klaipda port till 2.0 km) in 1995 (Figure 1c).
The monitoring observations take place once a year in the first
decade of June when the weather is calm (fair weather), and the
sea level is close to the mean long-term (Jarmalaviius et al.,
Table 1. History of the major coastal works for the port of
Klaipda (Knaps, 1966; ilinskas, 1998; aromskis, 2007, 2008).
Year
Construction phase
1834
Start of construction of the northern jetty
1847
Start of construction of the southern jetty
1858
End of construction of the northern jetty (763 m)
1861
End of construction of the southern jetty (684 m)
1878
End of lengthening of northern jetty (432 m)
1902
End of lengthening southern jetty (338 m)
18351997
The dredging of the entrance channel from 5 up
to 12.5 m
2001-2002
The dredging of the entrance channel to the
depth of 14.5 m and end of lengthening of
northern (205 m) and southern (278 m) jetties

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

Klaipda port jetties impact on the Baltic Sea shoreline dynamics, Lithuania

2169

Figure 2. Klaipda sea port jetties before construction in: (a) 1834, (b) 1910, (c) 1997 and (d) 2005 after jetties reconstruction.
2012a). The levelling cross-profiles data allowed assessing
shoreline dynamics in 2011 and 2012. The shoreline position in
2012 was recorded in 28 February and 09 April of 2012 with
hand-held GPS system.
The cartographical charts and aerial photographs were used to
obtain two primary parameters (wave obliquity angle and
control line R0) for the parabolic bay shape equation (PBSE)
model (Hsu and Evans, 1989). The fact that the shoreline in the
northern part of Klaipda port develops in accordance with the
parabolic bay equation (1) the theoretical shoreline positions of
the PSBE model for 1878, 1997 and 2010 in the northern part of
Klaipda port were calculated.
PSBE model has been developed by Hsu and Evans (1989) for a
headland bay beach in static equilibrium in the form of
2

R
R0

C0

C1

C2

(1)

The R0 is the control line length and is the wave obliquity

angle, or the angle between the incident wave crest (assumed
linear) and the control line, joining the upcoast diffraction point to

Figure 3. Definition sketch for a parabolic bay shape model

showing major physical parameters.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

2170

Pupienis, et al.

point on the nearly straight downcoast beach (end point) (Hsu and
Evans, 1989; see Figure 3). The control line length R0 is also angle
to the tangent at the downcoast beach end. The radius R to any
beach point on the bay periphery in static equilibrium is at angle
from the same wave crest line radiating out from the point of wave
diffraction upcoast. The three C constants differ relatively with
angle (Hsu and Evans, 1989). These C values are bounded
within 2.5 and -1.0 for the usual range of angle from 10 to 80
have been tabulated for manual application (Silvester and Hsu,
1993, 1997).
The fact that Baltic Sea is non-tidal and partially enclosed sea,
the parabolic bay shape equation can be applied for the bay beach
stability projection in the northern part of Klaipda port. In terms
of beach stability, headland-bay beaches may be classified as
being in static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium or unstable
(Silvester and Hsu, 1993,1997; Hsu et al., 2000; 2008).

beach erosion is the dominant trend of shoreline change in the

adjacent 0.0-1.4 km-long sector. The beach at Melnrag is eroding
at an average rate for all shoreline measurement locations of 3.52
m/year. In the 1.4-2.0 km-long sector the beach accretion were

RESULTS
The analysis of cartographic material showed that from 1835
until 1878 the beach accretion is the dominant trend of shoreline
change in the northern part of Klaipda port at Melnrag (within 2
km-length sector). Annual accretion is the greatest in the adjacent
0.2-0.5 km-long sector from northern Klaipda port jetty with an
average shoreline change rate +5.45 m/year (Figure 4a). The
largest positive changes of the shoreline accretion - 304 m were
identified 0.2 km from northern Klaipda port jetty (Figure 4a).
An average shoreline advancing rate here reaches +2.35 m/year.
During the next 1878-2002 period the beach accretion
tendencies changed to erosion (Figure 4a). Over this period, which
is 2.8 times longer than previous one, an average shoreline change
rate increased 5.4 times. The beach at Melnrag is eroding at an
average long term rate for all shoreline measurement locations of
0.44 m/year. Annual erosion is the greatest in the adjacent 0.30.6 km-long sector from the northern jetty of Klaipda port, the
shoreline retreats on average by 0.97 m/year. The largest
negative changes of the shoreline erosion - 154 m were identified
within 0.4 km from northern Klaipda port jetty.
The analysis of cartographic material and monitoring of
shoreline position in 2012 showed that in 2002-2012 period the

Figure 4. Shoreline change rate (m/year) at Melnrag beach: (a)

in 1835-2012 period and (b) shoreline displacement (m)
2001-2012 year period.

Figure 5. Shoreline at Melnrag beach and the predicted

equilibrium plan form: (a) 1878, (b) 1997 and (c) 04 April
2012 year: 1 static bay shape, 2 actual shoreline.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

Klaipda port jetties impact on the Baltic Sea shoreline dynamics, Lithuania

2171

The theoretical shoreline positions calculation of the PSBE

model for 1878, 1997 and 2012 showed that the shoreline in the
northern part of Klaipda port develops according to the parabolic
bay equation (Figure 5). Based on the calculations, it was
determined that the beach in 1878, 1997 were in dynamic
equilibrium (Figure 5a, 5b). In the last year (2012) the beach static
equilibrium was reached (Figure 5c).

DISCUSSION

Figure 6. The shoreline development at Melnrag beach: (a)

05 May 1995, (b) 14 April 2011 and (c) 30 November 2012
year.
identified. The average rate of 1.92 m/year suggests accreting
beach (Figure 4a). During the last 2002-2012 period the shoreline
retreated on average 1.61 m/year in the northern part of Klaipda
port at Melnrag.
Considerably smaller rates of shoreline accretion (+0.08
m/year) or retreat (0.2 - 0.5m/year) were detected based on
profile levelling data (Figure 4b). However, according to the
profile levelling data, the shoreline retreats at 3.6 times slower
rate. During the last period, after the jettys lengthening, the bay
boundaries extended northward up to 1.1 km. Since 2007 the
inward advancement of shoreline has taken place, and it has
particularly intensified in the recent years, i.e. 20102012, when
the shoreline has retreated from 5 to 14 m instead of the bay
formation (Figure 4b).

Knaps (1966), ilinskas (1998) aromskis (2007, 2008)

mentioned that the reasons for bay formation downcoast of
harbour are: the jetties construction/re-construction, the dredging
of deep access channel and the changes of coastal slopes and
bottom topography. Similar reasons are stated by other authors,
who studied the impact of port jetties on shoreline (Sato and Irie,
1970; Hsu et al., 1993; Hsu and Silvester, 1996, Jarmalaviius et
al., 2012a). The analysis of shoreline change (1835-1878) showed
that the jetties reconstruction had a positive impact since
downcoast of the harbor an intense accumulation took place.
It must be admitted that the reason (the changes of coastal
slopes and bottom topography) emphasized in papers of authors
like Knaps (1966), ilinskas (1998), aromskis (2007, 2008),
more determines wave height and period changes. However, as
Hsu and Evans (1989) pointed out, these are wave height and
period that have only minor effect on the resulting bay shape in
static equilibrium.
The bay active formation was affected by westerly wind storms
in 1999, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2012 during which due to the
backwater occurrence, higher waves penetrated deeper inland and
intensively eroded the coast) (ilinskas et al., 2000, 2005;
Jarmalaviius et al., 2012b; see Figure 6). The wave height and
period is important during the storms. In storm periods the bay
formation becomes active, but in prevailing calm-weather
conditions the beach recovers and shoreline restores to the
previous state (Figure 4b).
However, it cannot be denied that the jetties construction/reconstruction determines the interception of littoral drift. It is one
of the reasons for a bay formation downcoast impediment (Hsu
and Silvester, 1996). In the present case the marginal bay, within
0-1.0 km-long sector, has only since 1910 started to form, namely
20 years later, when the construction works of the northern jetty
(in 1878) had been completed (Knaps, 1966; see Figure 2 and
Figure 4).
The reason, not mentioned in the previous papers (Knaps, 1966;
ilinskas, 1998; aromskis, 2007, 2008), is that the port jettys
extension and its NE-SW orientation provided during the
reconstruction led to the shoreline retreat, bay formation and
development. The change of wave diffractions point position in
2002 led to shoreline recession in the vicinity (1.2 km) of
Klaipda port. Hsu and Silvester (1996) reported that wave
diffraction is important cause of bay formation downcoast of
harbour. In addition, wave obliquity angle also changed, after the
jetties re-construction it increased from 8 (1878) to 25 (1997)
and 46 (2012). Wave obliquity angle changes determined the fact
that the beach previously being for a long time in dynamic
equilibrium (1878-1997), in 2012 reached static equilibrium
(Figure 5). According to Silvester (1960), Hsu and Evans (1989),
Silvester and Hsu (1993, 1997), Hsu et al., (2000) static
equilibrium is reached when the predominant waves are seen to be
breaking simultaneously around the whole bay periphery. At this
stage, littoral drift is almost non-existent, and the curved beach is
stable without long-term erosion or deposition, except a storm
period.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

2172

Pupienis, et al.

CONCLUSIONS
The investigations of shoreline fluctuation in the vicinity of
Klaipda port jetties after the reconstruction in 2002 year, when
the northern jetties was lengthened by 205 m, the southern ones by
278 m showed intensification of shoreline erosion. The main
reason was interception of litoral drift and the change of wave
diffraction points. The formation of the bay at Melnrag is a result
of reverse currents due to diffracted waves. It was determined,
based on cartographical charts (1878, 1997) and field data analysis
(2012) that the shoreline in the northern part of Klaipda port
develops according to the parabolic bay equation. The change of
wave obliquity angle led to shoreline retreat in the vicinity (1.2
km) of Klaipda port. Also, on the basis on the parabolic bay
equation, it was found out that the beach from 1878 to 1997 were
in dynamic equilibrium and after the Klaipda port jetties reconstruction (2002) the beach reached static equilibrium in 2012.

LITERATURE CITED
Crowell, M., Douglas, B.C., and Leatherman, S.P., 1997. On
forecasting future U.S. shoreline positions: A test of algorithms:
Journal of Coastal Research, 13, 1245-1255.
Herron, W.J., and Harris, R.L., 1966. Littoral bypassing and
beach restoration in the vicinity of port Hueneme California,
Proceedings of Tenth Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE,
651-675.
Hsu, J.R.C, Silvester, R., and Xia, Y.M., 1987. New
characteristics of equilibrium shaped bays. In: Proceedings of the
8th Australision Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 140144.
Hsu, J.R.C., and Evans, C. 1989. Parabolic bay shapes and
applications. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part
2. 87, 557570.
Hsu, J.R.C., and Silvester, R., 1996. Stabilizing beaches
downcoast of harbor extension. Proceedings 25th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 4, 39863999.
Hsu, J.R.C., Benedet, L; Klein, A.H.F., Raabe, A.L.A. Tsai,
C.P., and Hsu, T.W. 2008. Appreciation of static bay beach
concept for coastal management and protection. Journal of
Coastal Research, 24(1),. 812 835.
Hsu, J.R.C., Uda, T., and Silvester, R., 1993. Beaches
downcoast of harbours in bays. Coastal Engeenering, 19, 163
181.
Hsu, J.R.C., Uda, T., and Silvester, R., 2000. Shoreline
protection methods-Japanese expierence. In J. B. Herbich (Ed.),
Handbook of coastal engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 9.19.77.
Iglesias, R.J.G., Diz, L.G., and Taveira P.F. 2010. Artificial
intelligence and headland-bay beaches. Coastal Engeenering,
57(2), 176-183.
Jarmalaviius, D., ilinskas, G., and Pupienis D. 2012a. Impact
of Klaipda port jetties reconstruction on adjacent sea coast
dynamics. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape
Management, 20(3), 240-247.
Jarmalaviius, D., Satknas, J., ilinskas, G., and Pupienis, D.,
2012b. Dynamics of beaches of Lithuanian coast (the Baltic Sea)
for the period 1993-2008 based on morfometric indicators.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 65(6). 1727-1736.
Klein, A.H.F., Vargas, A., Raabe, A.L.A., and Hsu, J.R.C.
2003. Visual assessment of bayed beach stability with computer
software. Computers & Geosciences, 29, 12491257.
Knaps, R. J., 1966. Sediment transport near the coasts of the
Eastern Baltic. In: Development of sea shores under the conditions
of oscillations of the Earths crust, Valgus, Tallinn, 2129.

Komar, P.D., 1983. Coastal erosion in response to the

construction of jetties and breakwaters. In: P.D. Komar (Ed.),
Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC Press Inc,
Boca Raton, Florida, 191-204.
Lausman, R., Klein, A. H.F. Stive, M. J.F. 2010. Uncertainty in
the application of the parabolic bay shape equation: Part 2. Coastal
Engineering. 57. 142-151.
Moreno, L. J., and Kraus, N. C., 1999. Equilibrium shape of
headland-bay beaches for engineering design. In: Proceedings of
Coastal Sediments 99, ASCE, 860-875.
Pupienis, D., Jarmalaviius, D., and ilinskas, G., 2012.
Coastline dynamics tendencies of the Baltic Sea in 1910-2010 (In
Lithuania). In: Ruknas, O., Turinaviien, J., Slapyt, G.,
Bukelskis, E., Valiukeviius G., Gadeikyt S. (eds.), Proceedings
7th Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences. Vilnius University, 141152.
Sato, S., and Irie, I., 1970. Variation of topography of sea-bed
caused by the construction of breakwaters. Proceedings 12th
International Conference of Coastal Engineering, ASCE, 2, 13011319.
Short, A.D., and Masselink G., 1999. Embayed and structurally
controlled beaches. In: A.D. Short (Ed.), Handbook of Beach and
Shoreface Morphodvnamics. Wiley, New York, 230-249.
Silvester, R., 1960. Stabilization of sedimentary coastlines.
Nature, 188, 467469.
Silvester, R., 1970. Growth of crenulate shaped bays to
equilibrium. Journal of the Waterways, Harbors and Coastal
Engineering Division, ASCE, 96(2), 275-287.
Silvester, R., and Hsu, J.R.C., 1993. Coastal stabilization:
Innovative concepts. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 578.
Silvester, R., and Hsu, J.R.C., 1997. Coastal Stabilization.
World Scientific, Singapore, 578 (Reprint of Silvester and Hsu,
1993)
Thieler, E.R., Himmelstoss, E.A., Zichichi, J.L., and Ergul, A.,
2009, Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) version 4.0An
ArcGIS extension for calculating shoreline change. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report. 2008-1278.
Uda, T., Sumiya, M. and Kobayashi, Y. 1986. Analysis of
beach erosion around large-scale coastal structures, Proceedings
20th International Conference of Coastal Engineering, ASCE,
2329-2343.
Vichetpan, N., 1969. Equilibrium shapes of coastline in plan.
M. Eng. thesis, No. 280, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Yasso, W. E. 1965. Plan geometry of headland bay beaches.
Journal of Geology, 73, 702-714.
aromskis R., 2008. Baltic sea ports Vilnius, 431.
aromskis, R., 1999. Influence of Klaipda port on the
nearshore load migration (In Lithuania). Geografija, 35(1), 2027.
aromskis, R., 2007. Impact of harbour moles and access
channels on the south-eastern Baltic shore zone. Geografija,
43(1), 12-20.
ilinskas, G., 1998. The peculiarities of shoreline dynamics in
the impact zone of Klaipda port (In Lithuania). The Geographical
Yearbook, 31, 99-109.
ilinskas, G., Jarmalaviius, D., and Kulviien G. 2000.
Assessment of the effect of huricane Anatoli on the Lithuanian
marine coast (In Lithuania). The Geographical Yearbook, 33, 191206.
ilinskas, G., Jarmalaviius, D., and Pupienis, D. 2005.
Assessment of the effect of huricane Ervin on the Lithuanian
marine coast (In Lithuania).. The Geographical Yearbook, 38(1),
49-65.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013