Hickam_Harbor_Beach_Improvements_Statement_of_Work_Functional_Concept_Design_Final.pdf

Statement of Work (SOW) Functional Concept Design

Hickam Harbor Beach and Seawall Permanent Repair Plan, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

NAVFAC Pacific, EV24

June 5, 2019

Ref: 2012. SEI. Beach/Shoreline Loss Mitigation Engineering Study of the Seawall at Hickam Harbor. Final

Report. Prepared by Sea Engineering, Inc. for the AES Design Group, Inc. August 2012

Encl: 2012. SEI. Beach/Shoreline Loss Mitigation Engineering Study of the Seawall at Hickam Harbor. Final

Report. Prepared by Sea Engineering, Inc. for the AES Design Group, Inc. August 2012

1. Introduction and Background

Hickam Harbor is located immediately adjacent to the east side of the Pearl Harbor entrance channel on the south shore of Oahu, Hawaii. It is a Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facility for the Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam (JBPHH), used primarily for beach and water recreation. Hickam Beach is located landward of what used to be a 5,000-foot wide shallow reef. Since the 1950’s, there has been considerable alteration of the reef, and historical, aerial photographs of the area (ca. 1951) chronicled significant changes to the beach size and orientation. Now, the dredged basin and reef runway blocks the new sand to feed the beach. Changes in the direction of wave approach results from the offshore alterations and has affected the stable beach orientation.

Coupled with the natural attrition of sand due to its relatively fragile (i.e. friable) nature and storm events, these factors move sand offshore into the dredged areas, thereby reducing the beach area.

In 2012, Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI), prepared a Beach/Shoreline Loss Mitigation Engineering Study of the Seawall at Hickam Harbor and reported that recent aerial photographs and a topographic survey had indicated that the existing beach has been relatively stable for about the past 12 years. However, without maintenance or nourishment, the beach will not grow beyond its existing area over time and may slowly erode and retreat.

Constructing or nourishing a protective beach (e.g. placing sand in an appropriately designed manner on a shoreline) can be an effective and attractive means of protecting the backshore area and providing for recreational and aesthetic enjoyment. Additionally, the study determined appropriate coastal and oceanographic criteria for beach improvement and developed three alternative, beach improvement plans to permanently repair the entire 355 linear feet (ft.) of seawall (extending from the Hickam Beach to the boat ramp [east of Foster’s Point]), as well as replace the two floating docks in Hickam Harbor Marina (Figure 1). The preliminary, recommended improvements included:

• Construction of approximately 190 linear ft. of energy-dissipative, sloping rock revetment seaward of the existing vertical seawall adjacent to the Sea Breeze restaurant. This would protect the seawall and help with sand retention along the shoreline.

• Construction of a 90-ft. long, rock rubble-mound groin extending perpendicular to the southwest corner of the existing seawall. This would help stabilize sand fill placed in its lee.

• Excavation/grading behind 300 ft. of existing seawall to form a sloping subgrade for sand placement, removal of the seawall, and placement of sand fill to create additional beach area. This would create about 14,000 square ft. of additional dry (above the high tide line) beach area, approximately doubling the total beach area. About 9,100 square ft. of existing grassy, backshore area would be lost to create the additional beach area.

Figure 1. Location of proposed Hickam Beach and Harbor Marina permanent repair, which includes the shoreline and adjacent nearshore water from Foster’s Point to Hickam Beach.

2. Scope

JBPHH intends to proceed with implementation of SEI’s recommended improvements from 2012. To support this effort, the scope of this Statement of Work (SOW) is for SEI (the Contractor) to:

a) verify that the 2012 recommended plan elements are still valid and feasible

b) develop the functional concept design for the beach improvement plan in sufficient detail (e.g. size, materials, quantities, footprints etc.) to support regulatory coordination with reasonable expectation that the project will not change significantly in scale and scope during the final detailed design and preparation of construction drawings and specifications.

Based on the results of the validation study, the functional concept design will support Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) environmental consultations and compliance with: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Endangered Species Act; National Environmental Protection Act; Clean Water Act; and Department of the Navy policy, as well as associated instruction and guidance, such as the OPNAV M-5090.1 Environmental Readiness Program Manual.

3. Tasks/Requirements

Task 1: Bathymetric Survey of Reef Edge In 2018, SEI completed a multi-beam sonar survey of the nearshore area of Hickam Harbor beach and marina. However, the survey supported the regulatory consultations for an emergency repair of the seawall at Hickam Beach, and no further in-water actions nor environmental mitigation were required. In contrast, the proposed permanent repair of Hickam Beach will substantially alter the coastline and likely require mitigation to the essential fish habitat. Thus, for this validation study, a single-beam, bathymetric survey will be conducted of the shallow, nearshore area to define the edge of the reef flat/dredge cut.

Additional depths soundings will also be collected within the harbor basin to improve the wave numerical model. Thus, this focused bathymetric survey data is needed to supplement the 2018 data, as well as available LIDAR data, and support the environmental impact and risk assessment for the proposed actions.

Task 2: Sand Source Verification Locating a source of suitable sand is a key requirement for the successful completion of the Hickam Beach permanent repair. The sand source identified in the 2012 study is either no longer available, or likely cost-prohibitive to acquire. Subsequent to the 2012 study, the Iroquois Point Beach Nourishment and Stabilization project on the opposite/western side of the Pearl Harbor entrance channel was constructed.

This project used beach sand recovered from the west side of the Pearl Harbor entrance channel, where it had deposited after being eroded from the beach and transported into the channel. It is possible that sufficient, beach-quality sand remains at this location and will meet the needs of the Hickam Beach permanent repair plan. However, the deposited sand must be surveyed and sampled for validation of feasibility on Hickam Beach and compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g., United States Army Corps of Engineers, State of Hawaii Department of Health), such as analyzing for grain size distribution and compatibility, contamination, etc. The Contractor will obtain grain size characteristics by mechanically shaking a sand sample through a series of sieves with successively finer screens, and then weighing each sieve fraction and plotting the results graphically to determine grain size distribution curves. The Contractor will measure the variation of grain size throughout the sample (i.e. sorting) and present a description of sorting values in the results and reporting.

Task 3: Develop Functional Concept Design for Hickam Beach Permanent Repair Plan

a) Verification of site conditions, including beach topographic survey and results from Tasks 1 and 2.

b) Analyze the oceanographic design parameters, with an emphasis on wave approach to the shore.

Current state of the science numerical wave models will be used to determine design wave conditions, which is the primary factor affecting beach alignment and the groin design.

c) Revise the project plan (if needed) based on current shoreline conditions. Refine the proposed Hickam Beach configuration and the details of the groin wall (e.g. length and design).

d) Develop Hickam Beach Permanent Repair Plan with elements in sufficient scale and detail to determine:

i. Maps and/or figures of beach improvement location and layout

ii. design plan and section views

iii. types and quantities of materials

iv. on-land and in-water work

v. construction methodologies.

Task 4: Validation Study Report The validation results (Tasks 1–2) and the revised, functional concept design (Task 3) will be collated and documented in a Validation Study Report, which shall be in scientific format and include (but not limited

to) the following:

a) Title page showing title, prepared by and for listings, date, and recommended citation

b) Table of contents

c) Abstract or Executive Summary

d) Detailed methodology describing techniques, methods, and equipment used

e) Validation Results (Tasks 1 and 2)

f) Fundamental Concept Design (Task 3)

g) Maps and figures

h) References/Citations.

A draft report will be prepared for Navy review. After the Navy revisions are incorporated and comments addressed, a final report will be submitted in electronic format (i.e. MS Word documents and PDFs) to NAVFAC Pacific.

4. Meetings/Coordination

a) Kick-off Meeting. Within 14 calendar days of the contract execution, the Contactor shall schedule a

Kick-off Meeting (in-person) with NAVFAC Pacific, NAVFAC Hawaii, sub-contractors and/or other necessary parties to ensure coordination of activities. The agenda for this meeting will include discussion of access to the site locations, methods, equipment, scheduling, and other issues related to this SOW.

b) Post-Study Meeting. The Contractor shall coordinate and participate in a final, post-study meeting (in-person) at the completion of all of the validation studies (Tasks 1 and 2) and design development (Task 3), but before the draft Validation Study Report is submitted (Task 4). The meetings may include NAVFAC Pacific, NAVFAC Hawaii, other Navy personnel and sub-contractors (as needed) to provide updates on the status of the work and to discuss any problems or difficulties encountered.

c) The Contractor shall be available on an intermittent basis throughout the contract award period for consultation and status updates with NAVFAC Pacific on matters involving data collection, analysis, reporting, or other matters related to this SOW.

5. Performance Standard and Quality of Work

Each Task of this SOW has an associated performance objective and standard (with other related information;

Table 1), with the intension of ensuring the highest quality of work. The Contractor will be responsible for the professional and technical accuracy and the coordination of all work or services rendered. The Navy will review products submitted by the Contractor and ensure that they represent the best data and solutions possible and for compliance with government requirements and criteria.

Table 1. SOW Performance Objectives and Standards

Task Title Performance Objective Related Information Performance Standard

Bathymetric Survey of Hickam Beach and Marina

The Contractor shall complete a single-beam, bathymetric survey of the shallow, nearshore area to define the edge of the reef flat/dredge cut and with additional depth soundings if necessary.

Survey results and bathymetric maps provided to support consultation dialog with regulators.

Bathymetric data and documentation are robust and accurate, and provided within required timeframe.

2 Sand Source Verification

The Contractor shall locate an appropriate and available sand source, survey and sample the deposited sand, and verify feasibility of its use.

Sampling results with photographic documentation provided to support consultation dialog with regulators.

Sand source data and documentation are robust and accurate, and provided within required timeframe.

Develop Functional Concept Design for Hickam Beach Permanent Repair Plan

The Contractor shall develop a revised, functional concept design with sufficient scale, detail and scientific evidence to support the Navy’s Hickam Beach Permanent Repair Plan.

Design details with maps/drawings and supporting evidence from verification studies provided to support consultation dialog with regulators.

Functional concept design is robust and accurate, supported by the best available scientific evidence, and provided within required timeframe.

Task Title Performance Objective Related Information Performance Standard

4 Validation Study Report

The Contractor shall collated and document the validation results and revised, functional concept design in a Validation Study Report, Survey results, design details, photographs, maps, and drawings provided in a report to support consultation dialog with regulators.

Report products are robust, accurate, supported by the best available scientific evidence, and provided within required timeframe.

6. Completion Schedule and Deliverables

The anticipated work completion date is June 30, 2020. Electronic copies of all submittals/schedules/deliverables (e.g. draft and final reports; meeting agendas and minutes) will be provided for retention in the official agreement file. The Contractor shall adhere to the following schedule, unless otherwise approved by the Navy.

Table 2. Estimated timelines for completion of each Task in this SOW.

Task Event/Deliverable Due Date*

Kick-off Meeting Agenda Within 7 days after award Kick-off Meeting Within 2 days after agenda Kick-off Meeting Minutes Within 7 days after meeting

Draft bathymetric survey plan submitted for Navy review

Within 30 days after kick-off meeting Navy returns draft bathymetric survey plan for revision Bathymetric survey undertaken

2 Sand source verification (including sampling and surveying) Within 30 days after kick-off meeting 3 Functional Concept Design development Within 60 days after kick-off meeting

Post-Study Meeting Agenda Within 7 days after completion of Tasks 1–3 Post-Study Meeting Within 2 days after agenda Post-Study Meeting Minutes Within 7 days after meeting

Draft Validation Study Report submitted for Navy review Within 30 days after Post-Study Meeting Navy revisions and/or comments returned to Contractor Within 14 days after receipt of Draft Report Final Validation Study Report submitted to the Navy Within 30 days after receipt of Navy review

*Note: calendar days

7. General Information

Contracting Officer’s Representative:

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will be the point-of-contact for the Contractor on all associated technical matters. Ms. Andrea Von Burg Hall is designated as the COR for this SOW.

Dr. Michelle Bejder is designated as deputy COR. No other persons, except for the Contract Administrator (CA), are authorized to direct work under this scope or to affect decisions or evaluations.

The Contractor shall notify the COR of the individual designated as the Contractor’s project manager.

Routine correspondence to the COR should be addressed to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific Attn: Andrea Von Burg Hall (Code EV24AVBH) 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134 Email: andrea.vonburg-hall@navy.mil mailto:andrea.vonburg-hall@navy.mil

Phone: (808) 472-1425 Fax: (808) 474-5419

Michelle Bejder (Code EV24MB) Email: michelle.bejder@navy.mil 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134 Phone: (808) 472-1413

Purchase Order Administration:

The Contractor shall receive direction on all elements of this purchase order from Mr. Kristopher Tom, Contract Administrator (CA). Correspondence should be addressed to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific Attn: Kristopher Tom, ACQ 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860 Email: kristopher.tom@navy.mil Phone: (808) 474-6476

Any change in scope of work must be issued to the COR, in writing, to be binding on the government. No government employee has authority to change this SOW by oral or written directives, instructions, commitments and/or acceptances or any other manner.

mailto:michelle.bejder@navy.mil mailto:kristopher.tom@navy.mil