diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/00-document-info.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..28e23ffa7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/00-document-info.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: Document Info
+reportDate: November 2023
+reportType: Computer Program Document
+reportTitle: RMC Breach Toolbox
+reportSubTitle: RMC Internal Erosion Suite
+reportAuthors: ['Damon Amlung, Risk Management Center']
+reportAbstract: The spreadsheet tools contained in this toolbox help assess the likelihood of breach due to gross enlargement of a concentrated leak pipe using the excess shear stress equation, unraveling of the downstream slope due to flows through the rockfill, and sinkhole development, in addition to providing general guidance for assessing slope instability.
+reportSubjectTerms: ['Internal erosion', 'breach', 'gross enlargement', 'unraveling', 'sinkhole development', 'slope instability']
+responsiblePersonName: Tim O'Leary
+responsiblePersonNumber: (502) 315-6599
+citationGuide: 'D. Amlung, RMC Breach Toolbox Technical Manual, Lakewood, CO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, 2023. Accessed on {enter current date here}.'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import DocumentMetadata from '@site/src/components/DocumentMetadata';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+
+
+# Document Information
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/00-version-history.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..958ff8ebd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/00-version-history.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: Version History
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableVersionHistory from '@site/src/components/TableVersionHistory';
+
+
+
+# Version History
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/01-preface.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/01-preface.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d425d097a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/01-preface.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: 'Preface'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Preface
+
+The Risk Management Center (RMC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed a suite of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to support risk
+assessments for dam and levee safety. Each analysis suite is composed of multiple toolboxes (Microsoft Excel workbooks), and each toolbox contains
+multiple spreadsheet tools or calculation worksheets (Microsoft Excel worksheets). The RMC Breach Toolbox is part of the RMC Internal Erosion Suite.
+
+The information from these spreadsheet tools, along with other pertinent information, informs judgment when developing a list of more and less likely
+factors and estimating probabilities. USACE best practice for estimating probabilities is to use the best available and multiple methods, but all
+final probabilities are estimated using team elicitation based on the totality and strength of the evidence.
+
+The RMC continuously works to improve the performance of RMC software; report possible bugs directly to the RMC at the address listed below. Ideally,
+report suspected errors in written form with a description of the problem and the steps that lead to its occurrence. Suggestions for improvement are
+also welcomed.
+
+U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
+Institute for Water Resources
+Risk Management Center
+[RMC.software@usace.army.mil](mailto:RMC.software@usace.army.mil)
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/02-terms-and-conditions-for-use.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/02-terms-and-conditions-for-use.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c357f7b7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/02-terms-and-conditions-for-use.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+title: 'Terms and Conditions for Use'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Terms and Conditions for Use
+
+By using Institute for Water Resources (IWR) software, users voluntarily accept the following terms and conditions. Users that do not agree to these
+terms and conditions should uninstall the IWR software and return any program materials to IWR and its technical centers. If users downloaded the
+software and do not have disk media, delete all copies and cease using the software.
+
+## Terms and Conditions for Use of Institute for Water Resources Software
+
+The United States Government, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (“IWR”), and IWR’s technical centers including the Risk
+Management Center (“RMC”) and Hydrologic Engineering Center (“HEC”) grant to the user the rights to install “IWR Software” (either from a disk copy
+obtained from IWR and IWR’s technical centers, a distributor or another user or by downloading it from a network) and to use, copy and/or distribute
+copies of the IWR Software to other users, subject to the following Terms and Conditions of Use:
+
+- All copies of the IWR Software received or reproduced by or for user pursuant to the authority of this Terms and Conditions of Use will be and
+ remain the property of IWR.
+
+- User may reproduce and distribute the IWR Software provided that the recipient agrees to the Terms and Conditions for Use noted herein.
+
+- IWR and IWR’s technical centers are solely responsible for the content of the IWR Software. The IWR Software may not be modified, abridged,
+ decompiled, disassembled, unobfuscated or reverse engineered. The user is solely responsible for the content, interactions, and effects of any and all
+ amendments, if present, whether they be extension modules, language resource bundles, scripts, or any other amendment.
+
+- The name of the IWR Software must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from the IWR Software. Products derived from the IWR Software
+ may not be called the IWR Software nor may any part of the IWR Software name appear within the name of derived products.
+
+- No part of this Terms and Conditions for Use may be modified, deleted or obliterated from the IWR Software.
+
+- No part of the IWR Software may be exported or re-exported in contravention of U.S. export laws or regulations.
+
+## Waiver of Warranty
+
+THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PROVIDE THE IWR
+SOFTWARE “AS IS,” WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OR CONDITION, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE,
+MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Depending on state law, the foregoing disclaimer may not apply to you, and you
+may also have other legal rights that vary from state to state.
+
+## Limitation of Liability
+
+IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS,
+BE LIABLE FOR LOST PROFITS OR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF THE IWR SOFTWARE REGARDLESS
+OF CAUSE, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S LIABILITY, AND THE LIABILITY OF ITS AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND
+EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS, TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIMITED TO THE REPLACEMENT OF CERTIFIED COPIES
+OF THE IWR SOFTWARE WITH IDENTIFIED ERRORS CORRECTED. Depending on state law, the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
+
+## Indemnity
+
+As a voluntary user of the IWR Software you agree to indemnify and hold the United States Government, and its agencies, officials, representatives,
+and employees, including its contractors and suppliers, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, made by any third
+party due to or arising out of your use of the IWR Software or breach of this Agreement or your violation of any law or the rights of a third party.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/03-general-overview.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/03-general-overview.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ff21a2194
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/03-general-overview.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+---
+title: 'General Overview'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Figure from '@site/src/components/Figure';
+import FigureInline from '@site/src/components/FigureInline';
+import FigReference from '@site/src/components/FigureReference';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# General Overview
+
+## Getting Started
+
+Copy or download the toolbox file to the computer. To open the toolbox file, either:
+
+- Find the file on the computer and double-click it. This opens the file in Microsoft Excel.
+
+- Open Microsoft Excel and use the application to open the file: Once Microsoft Excel is open, go to the File menu at the top of the window and select
+ Open.
+
+The toolbox is an Excel binary workbook (.xlsb) that uses macros. You may need to enable the macros, either before opening the file or by clicking
+“Enable Content” in the yellow Security Warning message bar with a shield icon that appears after the file is opened. The actual message in the
+message bar will vary depending on the computer’s settings and installed add-ins. displays examples of different
+wordings that may appear in the message bar.
+
+
+
+## Organization
+
+Although the toolbox does not provide a calculation cover sheet, adding one is strongly recommended. A calculation cover sheet captures project
+information, a description and purpose of the calculation, the assumptions for critical input parameters, a summary of the major conclusion and
+results, and a revision history.
+
+Each toolbox has a similar appearance and organizational structure:
+
+- The first worksheet, About, summarizes the purpose of the toolbox and gives contact information for the RMC software development team.
+
+- The second worksheet, Terms and Conditions, contains the terms and conditions for use of the toolbox (IWR software).
+
+- The third worksheet, Version History, contains the revision history. Semantic versioning is used in the format of MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH:
+ - MAJOR – significant worksheet changes not compatible with previous versions.
+
+ - MINOR – additional features or enhancements that do not fundamentally change the calculations.
+
+ - PATCH – backward-compatible bug fixes.
+
+- The fourth worksheet, References, lists the references cited for each calculation worksheet.
+
+The workbook and worksheets are not protected to prevent unwanted changes. However, because the toolbox has user-defined functions (UDFs) and
+subroutines in Visual Basic, you cannot directly copy worksheets to another workbook without potentially losing functionality. A note in a bold red
+font at the upper right margin indicates if the selected worksheet includes such features.
+
+At the top of each calculation worksheet, input information for the preparer and checker for quality control (QC) documentation and the calculation
+title in case multiple copies of the worksheet are created for different analysis scenarios (). The footer of each
+calculation worksheet contains the version number, which can be cross-referenced with the revision history on the third worksheet.
+
+
+
+User-specified input includes values and selections from drop-down lists. User input cells are light yellow, and these cells are unprotected. When
+cells use drop-down lists, a note in blue font in the right margin of the row alerts the user to use the drop-down list. Conditional formatting
+applies a gray background to cells that are not based on a user selection. When a user-specified value or calculated value is outside of acceptable
+ranges, the cell is orange to indicate caution to the user.
+
+All units for user-specified input values are clearly labeled. Most user-specified input values use English units. However, values may be in metric
+where metric units are more common in practice (e.g., particle size in millimeters or permeability in centimeters per second). The toolbox may convert
+English units to metric units to perform some calculations or if required for a specific formula based on the reference material for the equation.
+
+If the calculation worksheet is a function of headwater level, up to seven headwater and tailwater levels may be specified at the top of the
+worksheet. Tailwater may be required to calculate the net hydraulic head and hydraulic gradient. Specify the elevation datum by selecting one of three
+options from the drop-down list: ft-NAVD88, ft-NGVD29, and Other. The two datum selections include English units of length (feet). If Other is
+selected, provide a user-specified datum along with feet (e.g., ft-MSL [Mean Sea Level]). through
+{"\n"} illustrate the three possible scenarios.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Most calculation worksheets break down complex analysis into computational steps following a logical sequence ().
+Some simpler worksheets do not have steps. Generally, different methodologies are unique worksheets. Some worksheets may include multiple
+methodologies, which are labeled as options ().
+
+
+
+
+
+Some calculation worksheets can perform either a deterministic or probabilistic analysis. Although not required to perform a probabilistic analysis,
+Palisade @RISK software (standalone version or as part of the Palisade DecisionTools Suite) can customize the probabilistic analysis. A note appears
+in a bold red font at the upper right-hand margin of a calculation worksheet indicating if this feature is included with the toolbox.
+
+User notes generally appear in the right margin of each calculation worksheet. Some notes are in blue or red font for heightened awareness. These
+notes include references to source materials for equations, figures, tables, pages, etc. If the RMC modified the source material, the reference
+citation says “adapted from” instead of “from.”
+
+Tabular and/or graphical summaries are generally the primary output of the toolbox. The UDFs in the PlotScale module change the minimum and maximum
+values of the x-axis and y-axis for charts. If the calculation worksheet is a function of headwater level, you can define up to five headwater levels
+of interest and plot them as vertical reference lines. By selecting the chart and then selecting the Filter icon to display the filter pane, you can
+choose which data series to display. This is useful when computing the results from multiple methodologies, but not all are applicable or desired to
+display.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/04-background.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/04-background.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9491e1d5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/04-background.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,394 @@
+---
+title: 'Background'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Background
+
+Breach is the final phase of internal erosion and is defined as a catastrophic failure characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of
+impounded water or liquid-borne solids (Federal Emergency Management Agency P-1025, 2015 ).
+Fell et al. (2008) lists four breach mechanisms caused by internal erosion and typically considered for earthen
+embankments.
+
+- Gross enlargement of a pipe or concentrated leak: When an erosion pathway or pipe connects to the impounded water, the earthen
+ sidewalls rapidly erode. This continues until the embankment collapses unless the impounded water level drops below the pipe entrance or the
+ impounded water level drops enough so that the hydraulic shear stress on the pipe sidewalls becomes less than the critical shear stress of the soil.
+ If the amount of crest drop is greater than the available freeboard, embankment overtopping could quickly lead to full breach formation. If
+ overtopping does not occur, the embankment could be severely damaged, and breach may still occur by concentrated leak erosion through cracks.
+
+- Downstream face sloughing or unraveling: Increased seepage into the downstream or landside zone of an embankment can over-steepen
+ the exit face, leading to progressive sloughing or unraveling. Sloughing requires a cohesionless material and progresses more rapidly with steep
+ slopes. In some cases, as soil particles erode, a void may grow near the exit face until a roof can no longer be supported, and the void collapses
+ (mass wasting), like sapping involving seepage erosion undercutting. Unraveling refers to progressive removal of individual rocks by large seepage
+ flows through a downstream rockfill zone. The sloughing and unraveling repeats and progresses until freeboard is lost.
+
+- Overtopping due to sinkhole development: Internal migration can create a sinkhole or depression in the embankment that must be
+ large enough to lead to overtopping. If the sinkhole is on the downstream slope away from the crest, progressive instability leads to breach.
+ Internal erosion can also lead to excessive crest settlement and overtopping due to embankment loss or foundation materials.
+
+- Downstream slope instability: Internal erosion may cause high pore pressures in the foundation or embankment, resulting in reduced
+ shear strength and slope failure. Breach could occur if the failure surface intersects the impounded water level, or if the slope deformations are
+ significant enough that the remnant embankment cannot resist the water load.
+
+All four breach mechanisms ultimately lead to crest settlement and embankment overtopping. The most likely breach mechanism depends on the internal
+erosion mechanism, embankment zonation, and the specific failure mode evaluated. , adapted from Fell et al.
+(2008) , lists the breach mechanisms based on the embankment zoning. Although one or more of the mechanisms may occur
+during the breach, risk assessment usually only considers the critical breach mechanism. The breach mechanism also informs time for intervention,
+warning issuance, and evacuation, and breach parameters.
+
+This toolbox informs the likelihood of breach due to gross enlargement of a concentrated leak pipe using the excess shear stress equation, downstream
+slope unraveling due to flows through the rockfill, and sinkhole development and provides general guidance for assessing breach due to slope
+instability.
+
+
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill can support a roof', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill can support a roof', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill can support a roof', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill can support a roof', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if existing dam has marginal stability', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if dam is gravel or low permeability', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if existing dam has marginal stability', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'Exclude, except if downstream fill is cohesionless', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ ],
+ [
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ { value: 'Exclude', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ {
+ value: (
+ <>
+
+
+ ),
+ rowSpan: 1,
+ colSpan: 1,
+ },
+ ],
+ ]}
+ alt="Breach mechanism screening by zoning type (adapted from Fell et al. 2008)."
+ caption={
+ <>
+ Breach mechanism screening by zoning type (adapted from Fell et al. 2008) .
+
+ }
+ footnotes={['✓ Breach mechanism can occur.', '✓* Breach mechanism can occur and is usually the more critical mechanism.']}
+/>
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/05-gross-enlargement.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/05-gross-enlargement.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..755ac33b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/05-gross-enlargement.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
+---
+title: 'Gross Enlargement'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef';
+import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference';
+import Figure from '@site/src/components/Figure';
+import FigReference from '@site/src/components/FigureReference';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Gross Enlargement
+
+For concentrated leak erosion, the resistance to initiation is characterized by the critical shear stress (_τ_). When the applied hydraulic
+shear stress exceeds the critical value (_τc_), concentrated leak erosion will initiate. The rate of pipe enlargement in the
+progression phase is characterized by the erodibility coefficient (_kd_). The rate of erosion () is the rate of volume of material
+removed per unit surface area per unit time and is calculated using the excess shear stress equation shown in
+{"\n"}.
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _kd_ = erodibility coefficient
+> τ = hydraulic shear stress
+> τc = critical shear stress
+
+The hydraulic shear stress (_τ_) on the surface of a circular pipe can be estimated using (see the
+[Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) section of the
+RMC Concentrated Leak Erosion (Initiation) Toolbox Technical Manual for more details).
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> γw= unit weight of water
+> _i_ = hydraulic gradient across the embankment core
+> _D_ = diameter of the pipe
+
+ shows the approximate time for a concentrated leak pipe in an embankment to enlarge from 1 inch (25 millimeters) to
+3 feet (1 meter) in diameter as a function of erosion resistance and hydraulic gradient based on Hole Erosion Test (HET) results and the following
+assumptions.
+
+- Cross-section of the pipe is uniform from upstream to downstream (waterside to landside).
+
+- Headwater remains constant.
+
+- Steady uniform flow occurs through the pipe.
+
+- Head loss is linear from upstream to downstream (waterside to landside).
+
+- Frictional resistance is uniform along the surface of the pipe.
+
+- Frictional resistance is equal to the driving force.
+
+Erosion resistance increases from left to right in . Even in the most resistant of soils, enlargement occurs in
+only 100 to 500 hours (4 days to 3 weeks). The approximate time to erode to 6 feet (2 meters) is about 20 percent greater.
+
+
+ Approximate time for pipe to enlarge to 3-foot diameter (adapted from Fell et al. 2008
+ ).
+
+ }
+ width="65%"
+/>
+
+This worksheet estimates the diameter of a cylindrical concentrated leak pipe through an earthen embankment as a function of time during erosion using
+Equations 1 and 2 and the method described in Wan and Fell (2002) . In addition to the previously listed assumptions,
+the enlarging pipe is assumed to sustain a roof up until collapse at failure. calculates the rate of
+erosion per unit surface area at a given time.
+
+
+
+where:
+
+{/* prettier-ignore */}
+> ψt = surface area of the pipe at time t
+> = rate of soil volume removal during erosion at time t
+> _kd_ = erodibility coefficient
+> τc = critical hydraulic shear stress
+
+The surface area of the pipe at any given time is equal to the wetted perimeter (_Pw_) multiplied by the length of the pipe
+(_L_), as shown in .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _Dt_ = pipe diameter at time _t_
+
+Combining and and dividing by _L_ obtains the erosion
+loss per unit length, as shown in and .
+
+
+
+
+
+Assuming the pipe enlarges the same amount radially in all directions and is not limited by a non-erodible boundary,
+to derive the change in pipe diameter at a given time (dφt) from the change in pipe
+volume per unit length .
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Because the change in pipe diameter cannot be negative, the negative root from the solution to the quadratic equation is neglected. The resulting
+solution is to calculate the diameter of a cylindrical pipe as a function of time during erosion.
+
+
+
+## Pipe Diameter Characterization
+
+Input the embankment crest elevation (_C_), initial pipe elevation (_B_), and length of pipe (_L_) at the beginning of step 1.
+Dam break analysis typically assumes the pipe diameter at failure (_Df_) occurs when the pipe diameter reaches twice the vertical
+distance from the crest to the roof of the pipe (_Hp_) (Visser et al. 2013 ). Based on this assumption,
+the pipe diameter at failure is equal to the difference between the crest elevation (_C_) and the initial elevation of the pipe (_B_), as shown in
+{"\n"}.
+
+
+ Failure criterion for gross enlargement of a pipe (adapted from Visser et al. 2013) .
+
+ }
+ width="40%"
+/>
+
+The initial estimate of pipe diameter at failure provides an anchoring value to help inform judgment for the user-specified input. Input the minimum,
+most likely (mode), and maximum values for the initial pipe diameter and the pipe diameter at failure at the end of step 1. Although these values
+represent a triangular distribution, a probabilistic analysis is not performed. Instead, the values are used to perform a sensitivity analysis.
+{"\n"} illustrates the pipe diameter characterization.
+
+
+
+## Erodibility Parameters
+
+In step 2, the erodibility parameters are defined. Input includes the minimum, most likely (mode), and maximum estimates for the critical shear stress
+and the erodibility coefficient of the embankment material, as shown . Although these values represent a
+triangular distribution, a probabilistic analysis is not performed. Instead, the values are used to perform a sensitivity analysis. The RMC
+Erodibility Parameters Toolbox contains empirical relationships and published values based on field and laboratory testing.
+
+
+
+## Hydraulic Gradient
+
+Step 3 calculates the average hydraulic gradient through the pipe by dividing the net hydraulic head across the pipe by the length of the pipe for
+each defined headwater-tailwater combination, as shown in . If the headwater elevation is below the pipe
+elevation, the upstream hydraulic head (_H_1) is zero; if the tailwater is below the pipe elevation, the downstream hydraulic head
+(_H_2) is zero.
+
+
+
+## Estimated Time to Failure
+
+In step 4, select the initial pipe diameter used in the subsequent plots from the drop-down list. The minimum, most likely (mode), and maximum values
+of initial pipe diameter from step 1 can be evaluated.
+
+Select the time increment for the pipe diameter calculations from the drop-down list. Time increments of 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes can be
+evaluated. Because gross enlargement is typically rapid, use care when selecting this time increment. The results of the analysis can be very
+sensitive to the time increment. Choose the smallest time increment possible to provide adequate resolution on how the pipe diameter changes with
+time, but it also must be large enough to allow enough time in the analysis for the pipe diameter to enlarge to failure. If the average hydraulic
+shear stress on the sidewalls does not exceed the critical shear stress for a given headwater level, concentrated leak erosion initiation is not
+predicted, and the pipe diameter remains constant with time. When the critical shear stress is exceeded, concentrated leak erosion initiation is
+predicted, and the pipe diameter increases with time. The rate of pipe enlargement also accelerates with time.
+
+ illustrates the input for time to failure calculations.
+
+
+
+Summary plots portraying the change in pipe diameter as a function of time are provided for each of the erodibility estimates in step 2.
+{"\n"} provides an example plot for the most likely erodibility parameters. The results for the most likely
+erodibility estimate use the most likely values for both the critical shear stress and the erodibility coefficient. The results for the low
+erodibility estimate use the maximum critical shear stress and the minimum erodibility coefficient. The results for the high erodibility estimate use
+the minimum critical shear stress and the maximum erodibility coefficient. Horizontal reference lines for the minimum, most likely, and maximum
+estimates of the pipe diameter at failure display on all three plots. A table summarizing the number of hours for the pipe to exceed each of the
+estimated pipe diameters at failure from step 1 is provided under each plot.
+
+
+
+ illustrates the plot options for this chart. The maximum value for the x-axis (time) is user-specified.
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/06-unraveling.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/06-unraveling.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..5d8821738
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/06-unraveling.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+---
+title: 'Unraveling'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef';
+import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference';
+import Figure from '@site/src/components/Figure';
+import FigReference from '@site/src/components/FigureReference';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Unraveling
+
+This worksheet evaluates the stable rock size for flow through a rockfill as a function of the unit discharge for a given downstream slope.
+
+At the beginning of the worksheet, input the slope cotangent, estimates of the unit discharge for each headwater level being considered, and the
+median rock size. Input the minimum, most likely (mode), and maximum values for both the unit discharge through the rockfill and the median rock size.
+The mean estimate of the median rock size is calculated as the average of the minimum, most likely (mode), and maximum values. Although these values
+represent a triangular distribution, a probabilistic analysis is not performed. Instead, the values are used to perform a sensitivity analysis. The
+slope, unit discharge, and median rock size characterization input are illustrated in .
+
+
+
+## Solvik (1991) and Olivier (1967)
+
+Option 1 evaluates the minimum stable rock size needed to withstand a given unit discharge through rockfill using
+{"\n"} developed by Solvik (1991) based on sloping flume test
+results. It is the same method presented in Olivier (1967) but converted to metric units.
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _ds_ = minimum stable rock size (m) for the rockfill, assumed to be the median rock size ()
+> _qt_ = unit discharge through the rockfill (m3/s/m)
+> _So_ = downstream slope (measured as V/H)
+
+The minimum stable rock size is calculated as a function of unit discharge and the downstream slope for the minimum, most likely (mode), maximum, and
+mean unit discharges. The critical unit discharge is also calculated for the mean _d50_ , and the headwater elevation where that
+critical unit discharge is first exceeded is linearly interpolated from the user-specified headwater-mean unit discharge relationship.
+{"\n"} illustrates the calculations for this option.
+
+
+ Option 1 of Unraveling worksheet: Solvik (1991) and Olivier (1967) .
+
+ }
+ width="60%"
+/>
+
+## EBL (2005) Method
+
+Option 2 evaluates the minimum stable rock size needed to withstand a given unit discharge through rockfill using
+{"\n"} from EBL (2005) based on model tests of flow through rockfill
+dams up to 20 feet tall. The calculations are the same as in Option 1, except for the equation to calculate rock size.
+illustrates the calculations for this option.
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _d50_ = median rock size (m) needed for stability
+
+
+ Option 2 of Unraveling worksheet: EBL (2005) .
+
+ }
+ width="60%"
+/>
+
+## Summary
+
+The mean unit discharge through the rockfill is plotted as a function of headwater level and mean value of _d50_ at the bottom of
+the worksheet, as shown in . Reference lines for the critical _d50_ (median rock size needed for
+stability) for Solvik (1991) and Olivier (1967) (black dashed line) and
+EBL (2005) (black solid line) are also plotted as a function of unit discharge through the rockfill. When a unit
+discharge through the rockfill at a given headwater level plots right of a line of critical _d50_ , the rockfill is predicted to be
+unstable. A blue box is also plotted showing the parameter limits for unit discharge through the rockfill and median rock size.
+
+
+
+ illustrates the plot options for this chart. The maximum values for the y-axis (median rock size) and x-axis (unit
+discharge) are user-specified.
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/07-sinkhole.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/07-sinkhole.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..878a7caa1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/07-sinkhole.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
+---
+title: 'Sinkhole'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef';
+import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference';
+import Figure from '@site/src/components/Figure';
+import FigReference from '@site/src/components/FigureReference';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Sinkhole
+
+This worksheet assesses the stability of residual soil as a function of potential soil void diameter to assess the impact of a sinkhole developing at
+a given location on the likelihood of breach. Drumm et al. (2009) developed a dimensionless stability chart to evaluate the
+stability of residual soils in karst where subsurface voids may exist near the rock contact and collapse of these voids may result in a sinkhole.
+
+The sinkhole size and location and impounded water level at the time of the sinkhole are critical to evaluating the likelihood of breach due to
+sinkhole development. If the sinkhole occurs near the embankment crest with an elevated water level, it may lower the crest quickly and lead to
+overtopping with breach. If the sinkhole occurs downstream of the embankment centerline, progressive instability is needed to eventually cause loss of
+freeboard, but for this scenario, there is usually sufficient time for intervention and corrective action.
+
+ shows the idealized profile from Drumm et al. (2009) with residual soil
+thickness (_h_) above a subsurface void of diameter (_D_) overlying bedrock. A weak zone of thickness
+overlying the rock surface is also shown in the figure, which is discussed in [Undrained Stability (Short-Term
+Conditions)](#undrained-stability-short-term-conditions).
+
+
+
+The thickness (_h_) of the residual soil above the void at the rock surface is calculated using .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _H_ = embankment height above the rock contact
+> _D_ = void diameter
+
+Assuming no internal cavity pressure, the methodology compares a dimensionless stability number for a spherical void in residual soil overlying the
+rock surface for undrained (short-term) and drained (long-term) conditions to a critical dimensionless stability number. From the results of the
+numerical analyses, critical stability numbers were developed for different strength and geometric conditions as shown in
+{"\n"}.
+
+
+ Stability chart, Ncφ with effect of φ and inverted soil profile.
+
+ }
+ caption={
+ <>
+ Stability chart, Ncφ with effect of φ and inverted soil profile.
+
+ }
+ width="60%"
+/>
+
+## Embankment Characterization
+
+Step 1 characterizes the embankment. Input the unit weight of the residual clay soil and the height of the embankment as shown in
+{"\n"}.
+
+
+
+## Undrained Stability (Short-Term Conditions)
+
+Step 2 assesses the stability of residual soils in karst, where subsurface voids may exist near the rock surface, under undrained (short-term)
+conditions. Soils in karst often show a shear strength profile that decreases at depths near the rock contact, commonly known as an inverted residual
+soil strength profile. To account for the reduction in shear strength, the evaluation of undrained conditions includes a reduced cohesion value
+(_c\*_) for a weak zone overlying rock with a thickness of .
+
+Input the undrained cohesion (_c_) of the residual soil above the weak zone and the reduced cohesion of the weak zone above the rock surface
+(_c\*_) with thickness , as shown in .
+
+The dimensionless stability number (_Ncφ_) for undrained (short-term) conditions is calculated using .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> γ = unit weight of the residual clay soil
+> _h_ = soil thickness above the void
+> _c_ = undrained cohesion
+
+The critical dimensionless stability number for undrained (short-term) conditions as a function of is portrayed
+as a stability chart in and is calculated using .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _a_, _b_, _c_, and _d_ = constants (see )
+>
+> = ratio of the thickness of the residual soil above the void at the rock surface to void diameter
+
+To account for the inverted residual soil strength profile in the stability chart, also evaluated a weak zone of
+thickness overlying the rock surface with a reduced cohesion value (_c\*_). The inverted strength factor (_α_)
+relating to the two cohesion values is calculated using .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _c_ = undrained cohesion for the soil above the weak zone
+> _c\*_ = reduced cohesion for the soil in the weak zone
+
+The values of the constants for undrained (short-term) conditions are shown in for values of _α_ equal
+to 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 and undrained angle of internal friction (φ) equal to zero. Intermediate values are linearly interpolated.
+
+, rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'a', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'b', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'c', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: 'd', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: , rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ ]}
+ columns={[
+ [
+ { value: '1.0', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.5', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.25', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '0.0013', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.0014', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.0006', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '0.0766', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.0826', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.0400', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '1.9944', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '1.6923', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.8339', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '1.8914', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.6220', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.3145', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '0.9982', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.9959', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.9954', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ ]}
+ alt={
+ <>
+ Coefficients for stability number Ncφ,cr and corresponding R2 values for undrained conditions.
+
+ }
+ caption={
+ <>
+ Coefficients for stability number Ncφ,cr and corresponding R2 values for undrained conditions.
+
+ }
+/>
+
+When is greater than , the void is predicted to be unstable,
+and a sinkhole is likely to form. The factor of safety (_FScφ_) against undrained instability is calculated
+using .
+
+
+
+Input (in ascending order) up to seven different void diameters as shown in . If the void radius
+() exceeds the embankment height (_H_) input in step 1, the void diameter cells have an orange background.
+Cells with FS less than 1 have an orange background. The critical thickness of residual soil to void diameter
+ratio is linearly interpolated for a FS of 1. If possible, provide a sufficient range
+of void diameters to result in at least one computed FS greater than 1 and one less than 1, to
+calculate .
+
+Solving for the void diameter (_D_) yields .
+
+
+
+Substituting for in the denominator
+of , the critical void diameter (_Dcr_) is calculated
+using .
+
+
+
+The volume of eroded soil prior to void collapse (_V_), assuming a spherical void, is calculated using
+{"\n"}.
+
+
+
+The radius (_r_) in is calculated using :
+
+
+
+If the range of user-specified diameters of the void above the rock contact is not sufficient to interpolate a FS of 1, N/A is displayed
+for , _Dcr_, and _V_. The undrained (short-term) stability evaluation is
+illustrated in .
+
+
+
+## Drained Stability (Long-Term Conditions)
+
+Step 3 assesses the stability of residual soils in karst, where subsurface voids may exist near the rock surface, under drained (long-term)
+conditions. Input the effective cohesion (_c′_) and the effective angle of internal friction (_φ′_) of the residual clay soil as shown
+in .
+
+The dimensionless stability number (_Nc'φ'_) for drained (long-term) conditions is calculated using .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> γ = unit weight of the residual clay soil
+> _h_ = soil thickness above the void
+> _c′_ = effective (drained) cohesion
+
+The critical dimensionless stability number for drained (long-term) conditions as a function of is
+portrayed as a stability chart in and is calculated using .
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> _a_, _b_, _c_, and _d_ = constants (see )
+>
+> = ratio of the thickness of the residual soil above the void at the rock surface to void diameter
+
+The values of the constants for drained (long-term) conditions are shown in for various values of effective
+(drained) angle of internal friction (_φ'_). Intermediate values are linearly interpolated.
+
+, rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ ]}
+ columns={[
+ [
+ { value: '0', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '10', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '20', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '30', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '0.0013', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.0004', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '-0.0008', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '-0.0005', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '0.0766', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.0353', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '-0.0101', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '-0.0033', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '1.9944', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '2.0744', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '2.6131', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '3.2346', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '1.8914', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.6521', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.6484', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.6168', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ [
+ { value: '0.9982', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.9990', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.9994', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ { value: '0.9987', rowSpan: 1, colSpan: 1 },
+ ],
+ ]}
+ alt={
+ <>
+ Coefficients for stability number Nc'φ',cr and corresponding R2 values for drained conditions.
+
+ }
+ caption={
+ <>
+ Coefficients for stability number Nc'φ',cr and corresponding R2 values for drained conditions.
+
+ }
+/>
+
+When _Nc'φ'_ is greater than _Nc'φ',cr_, the void is predicted to be unstable, and a sinkhole is likely to form. The FS against drained instability (_FSc'φ'_) is calculated
+using .
+
+
+
+Input (in ascending order) up to seven different void diameters as shown in . If the void radius
+() exceeds the embankment height (_H_) input in step 1, the void diameter cells have an orange background.
+Cells with FS less than 1 have an orange background. The critical thickness of residual soil to void diameter
+ratio is linearly interpolated for a FS of 1. If possible, provide a sufficient range
+of void diameters to result in at least one computed FS greater than 1 and one less than 1, to
+calculate . The volume of eroded soil prior to void collapse (_V_) is calculated the same
+as in undrained (short-term) conditions. The drained (long-term) stability evaluation is illustrated in .
+
+
+
+## Summary
+
+In step 4, the stability numbers for undrained (short-term) conditions (blue circles) and drained (long-term) conditions (red circle) are plotted as a
+function of at the bottom of the worksheet, as shown in . Reference lines
+for the critical stability number for undrained (short-term) conditions (blue line) and drained (long-term) conditions (red line) are also plotted as
+a function of . When a stability number plots above the reference line, the void is predicted to be unstable,
+and a sinkhole is likely to form. The light gray lines provide the critical stability numbers for the undrained and drained conditions modeled by
+Drumm et al. (2009) for reference.
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/08-slope-instability.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/08-slope-instability.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6c0fb934c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/08-slope-instability.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: 'Slope Instability'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Slope Instability
+
+This worksheet does not assess the probability of breach by slope instability due to internal erosion. The recommended approach from Fell et al.
+(2008) is to assess whether internal drainage measures in the dam or levee prevent pore pressures from rising
+in the embankment and/or its foundation and use the estimated pore pressures to assess embankment stability using slope stability software.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/09-references.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/09-references.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e05799dd4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/09-references.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: 'References'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import Bibliography from '@site/src/components/Bibliography';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# References
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/10-appendix-acronym-list.mdx b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/10-appendix-acronym-list.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9486d8125
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/breach/v1.1/10-appendix-acronym-list.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+title: 'Appendix A - Acronym List'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import addBaseUrl from '@docusaurus/useBaseUrl';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableAcronyms from '@site/src/components/TableAcronyms';
+import VersionSelector from '@site/src/components/VersionSelector';
+
+
+
+# Appendix A - Acronyms
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/src/pages/changelog.js b/src/pages/changelog.js
index bf3baa1dc..127b51b27 100644
--- a/src/pages/changelog.js
+++ b/src/pages/changelog.js
@@ -15,17 +15,19 @@ export default function Changelog() {