Please help us  get the message to your members that flag football registration is open for boys  and girls ages 6-11. Tidewater NFL Flag Football is the exclusive affiliate of  NFL Play 60 in Southside Hampton Roads. We are in our third year and offer kids  the opportunity to practice and play close to home on the north side of Virginia  Beach.  We are committed to providing a safe, healthy, high-quality  platform for our youth to learn the game of football.  The league is divided into age brackets  and numbers of teams depending on the number of players registered.  We follow the NFL Flag rules, but  modified to include some more traditional elements of the game, such as a full  kicking game and open hand blocking.  

Below is a link to a .pdf that includes all of this information. Parents can register online at www.tidewaterflag.org. Registration is  open through August 4, but will probably fill up, so we encourage parents to  register soon.

Tidewaterf Flag Football

We need your input on this Pleasure House  Point Land Use proposal.

Comments by Kevin DuBois, PHP Stakeholder (May 17, 2012)

You asked me to provide a narrative to go along with my land use concept.  It’s very rough, I’ll admit, but what I have tried to do with the concept is to balance human needs and desires with the conservation of habitat diversity and the potential for ecosystem restoration.

In general, wetland restoration activities would help to restore the estimated 40 acres of wetlands that were filled on the property.  Wetland restoration activities would enhance habitat for aquatic, wading bird, migratory songbird, and waterfowl species, reduce pollution and improve water quality, control erosion, provide for enhanced flood control, enhance habitat diversity, and make the ecosystem more resilient to the effects of sea level rise.  In addition it would enhance the aesthetic of the property for land-based visitors and boaters.  It would also provide enhanced educational opportunities for public grade schools, universities, home-schoolers, citizens from all over Virginia Beach and and for visitors to our city.

Berm removal would allow for proper and maximized functioning of wetland ecosystem services (both inside and outside of the existing berm locations).  Berm removal would take away a structural barrier to the natural landward migration of wetlands in response to sea level rise.  Berm removal would demonstrate proper natural area management (education opportunity).  Retaining berms that were created to retain fill and prevent natural tidal flooding (they were not designed as a public trail amenity) would also seem contrary to sustainable practices.

Area 1:  The is an area where wetlands were filled in the past.  The goal would be to expand the width of the existing marsh to restore lost wetlands.  This would also help to enhance the view of the property and Pleasure House Creek from the City’s multi-use path along Shore Drive.

Area 2:  Maritime forest would be preserved. A ring path and interpretive signage would educate the public about this resource.

Area 3:  The maritime forest path would connect with the ring path around the brackish pond.  The berm in this area would be retained preserving the pond and giving exceptional views of the pond (looking north) and would provide the closeness and great views of Pleasure House Creek that the public desires.

Area 4:  The berm would be removed in these locations and wetlands would be restored   consistent with a wetland mitigation study prepared for the City and the Trust for Public Land.  However, contrary to the wetland mitigation study, sufficient maritime forest buffer must be retained to provide habitat diversity for wildlife and migratory bird use, proper wetland buffering and function, a location for wetland migration with sea level rise, and a path that would link with other pathways throughout the property.  Bridges over ditch features could provide for enhanced views and aesthetics.

Area 5:  While this area may provide an important public access point to the shoreline for a water view (and perhaps an ADA accessible observation/education pier), others in the Stakeholder Committee have questioned whether a passive boat launch facility (and associated parking and support facilities) in this location is needed.  Where would necessary parking be provided?  Would the PHP launch facility and associated parking be redundant with the one provided by the City nearby on Crab Creek (Area 9)?  Ecotour companies have been running trips out of the City facility for a long time.

Area 6:  A kayak launch in this location would block navigation access for kayaks and canoes, would segment the existing marsh island with the potential to negatively affect wildlife usage, and would affect natural area aesthetics.  It would also necessitate that the berm be retained and that would negatively affect wetland preservation and restoration potential.  It would be a private facility on government land, and it raises the question of necessity given the redundant services already provided at the City launch site (area 9).  Perhaps a better option would be to enhance City launching facilities in Area 9 to accommodate future use needs.

Area 7:  Preserve (and/or create ADA) public access to the shoreline and sandy beach area.  Public access for wade fishing should be preserved and accommodated.  This would be a great location for beach seining for educational purposes and where LR Now could conduct the outdoor segment of their citizen wetland education workshop.  This area would be designated for higher public use as opposed to areas 1, 2, 3, and portions of 4.

Area 8:  Restoration of wetlands is proposed in the area where the majority of wetlands were filled in the past.  Because of its compelling narrative and educational potential, public access and educational opportunities in this area should be highly encouraged.  While access to other natural preserved areas on the property might be controlled dawn to dusk, perhaps this area should provide for greater access to accommodate historic pre-dawn and post-dusk fishing, river viewing, and wetland experiences (seeing, hearing the sounds of wildlife, etc).  “Expanded hour access” to the river is a benefit boaters already enjoy; perhaps pedestrians deserve the same opportunities in a limited, controlled area.  Something for the Stakeholder Committee to consider.

Connecting pathways would provide views of restored wetlands and would connect with paths to the shoreline and sandy beach areas (areas 7 and 10).

Area 9:  Public boat launch facility at Crab Creek.

Area 10:  Proposed CBF Educational Vessel Pier.  This location should also provide access for historic wade fishing access.  Access for pre-dawn and post-dusk fishing should be considered.

Area 11:  Ring path around the City’s existing stormwater pond.  Enhanced plantings and interpretive signage could provide for passive educational opportunities – especially in conjunction with the proposed CBF Living Building Challenge site and facility (area 12).

Area 12:  Proposed CBF Living Building Challenge site and facility

Additional info under Recent Posts.

Any comments you have should be directed via email to Grace Moran at grace@sdcc.info

Jack’s Beanstalk Cousin

It’s a fairy tale plant!

it must be kin to Jack’s beanstalk.

That’s all you can think when you come upon a blooming agave.

The bloom stem from the agave, commonly called a century plant, can grow between 20-and-30-feet tall.

The yellow flowers are as big or bigger than dinner plates and seem to be sky high.

Recently. I was reminded that it’s bloom time for some agaves by Anne Kane, who said there was one on Roanoke Avenue in Ocean Park in Virginia Beach and by Judy Kyle who reports there is one in Wareing’s Gym parking lot on 19th Street at the Beach where I took this photo.

There are 300 or more species of agaves, but the one that suspends belief is the century plant.

Though they do not take 100 years to flower, century plants may take decades to bloom.

The bloom stalk starts out as a spike growing up from a rosette of prickly cactus-like leaves, known as the mother plant.

The stalk slowly grows putting out its flowers as it reaches for the clouds.

For owners of a blooming agave, seeing the flowers is also tinged with sadness, because the bloom is the last hurrah of the mother plant.

But if she has been a good mother, there are smaller agaves, called pups, growing around the base of the main plant.

The pups, in turn, will take over and bloom some day.

But like their mama, you’ve got to give them plenty of time to grow up.

Click below for the City’s site on PHP planning:

www.phpstakeholders.wordpress.com

Re:  Kevin’s Initial Comments

Wetlands Restoration.  It is my understanding that DGIF will have oversight of approximately 85 acres for the purpose of wetlands conservation.  My comments would not be of any significance with regard to how to proceed with that process.

Berm Removal.  I have heard that others oppose this.  Kevin’s remarks make sense to me.  I would like to know the reason(s) why others prefer to keep them in place.

ADA Accessibility.  In conversation with Sharon Godfrey, recently tasked with oversight of the Lynnhaven Boat Launch and Beach Facility, we discussed the fact that the LBR (1) has ADA accessibility in place (2) is in possession of a beach wheelchair which would function quite well on soft trails (3) the LBR abuts the PHP acreage.

It would seem to me that it would be desirable to utilize the amenities of LBR to service the PHP property.  First, for the ADA factor.  Second, since there are trash receptacles there, it could be argued that a “Pack in/Pack out” policy, like the one at First Landing State Park, could be employed.  This would reduce the need for maintenance of scattered receptacles, although realistically, I expect some would be needed.

I am sure that when CBF comes up with their detailed site plan, they will also incorporate ADA features.

Canoe and Kayak Launch.  Over the years, I have heard several complaints that the existing launch at LBR conflicts with the launch of motorized vessels.  If indeed the LBR function was joined with that of PHP, the canoes and kayaks could access somewhere other than Crab Creek.  In any case, the presentation on April 23, 2012, carried a map which indicated that CBF also plans a launch area for non-motorized vessels, in addition to the pier for their educational mission.  Why could not this be a shared amenity?  I agree with Kevin that the less intrusion, the better.

Which brings me to another point brought up in the Bayfront Advisory Committee meeting on May 17, 2012.  Echoing Mr. Norris’ concern that we could end up “loving the place to death,” Chairman Kal Kassir noted that too much traffic could be detrimental to the primary goal of conservation.  That would be foot traffic, boaters and fishermen.  Whatever the City officials decide, I hope they keep that risk first and foremost in their minds.

This property has been abused for decades.  Nature is a great healer, albeit a slow one.  I am confident that we have experts on board who are wise enough to know when to intervene in repairing the degradation, without getting in the way of the natural order of things.  My vision of perfection for PHP is maritime forest, marsh and weeds, with a bordering trail on some of the perimeter.

Restrictions to Access.  Many, if not all City parks close at sundown, for reasons of public safety, no doubt.  It would be a great shame to do so at PHP, but obviously some concessions must be made.  Could it be closed at dusk during critical phases of fish, fowl and wildlife development, and open at others?  How would the number of visitors be controlled to prevent disruption to habitat?

Comments or questions should be directed to Grace Moran via email at grace@sdcc.info.

How Do We Fund and Execute Capital Improvement Program Projects? The Case of Shore Drive

Planning capital improvement projects involves a complex series of steps.

The land acquisition, construction, expansion, maintenance, rehabilitation and upgrading of important public assets such as roadways and sidewalks; schools and city buildings; parks; bridges and other infrastructure are all organized from conception to construction by the Public Works Department. Executing these public projects places significant demands on the city’s financial resources and, as a result, they must be carefully planned and budgeted well in advance of breaking ground for construction.

For these reasons, the City Council annually outlines a six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to define needs, set priorities, plan funding and anticipate impacts of the city’s needs on the municipal operating budget.

Each CIP project outlines a related set of activities that result in either the purchase or construction of a capital asset or major improvement. To be considered a “capital project,” the total scope of work must cost at least $50,000.

The details of each capital project the city has defined are available to the public for review at www.vbgov.com/CIPprojectsearch.

In many cases, a large capital project may be broken down into multiple sub-projects. For instance, for more than 15 years, the city has been planning improvements along the Shore Drive corridor. These have been subdivided into multiple smaller projects that are currently in various stages of completion.

In 1996, the city commissioned the Urban Land Institute to do a study of the Bayfront/Shore Drive Corridor in the northern section of the city along the Chesapeake Bay. The study made the following observations, “… the Bayfront/Shore Drive area of Virginia Beach is a ‘resort community’ as opposed to a ‘resort destination.’ While this general community character is desirable, the area does not have a clear image or unifying identity, and both the Bayfront community and the city currently lack a definite vision of what the area should be like in ten years.”

Some of the major recommendations of the study entailed:

·         making Lesner Bridge a focal point

·         extending the bike path

·         retaining the four lane roadway

·         developing a landscape design plan

·         developing a public beach plan

·         improving development review and

      enforcement

·         creating an advisory commission

In 1998, City Council appointed the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, (renamed the Bayfront Advisory Committee in 2006). The Shore Drive Corridor Plan, which was adopted by council in 2000, establishes a vision for the area as part of the city’s comprehensive plan.

Today, many of the plan’s recommendations are currently underway in the form of various CIP projects.

In March, Mayor William Sessoms presided over a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of the Shore Drive Road Improvements, which included a new bike lane.  This particular project was expedited following several bicycle-involved accidents on the roadway. The Mayor and a group of concerned cyclists developed the Bike Safety Task Force, and adding the lane to improve the safety of cyclists riding on Shore Drive was one of the group’s first priorities. Under the advisement of both the Shore Drive Safety Task Force and the Bike Safety Task Force, the shoulder along eastbound Shore Drive was paved and widened from Kendall Street to 83^rdStreet, approximately 3.5 miles. Trees along the route were trimmed, rumble strips were added, landscaping was installed and the pavement was more clearly marked to designate the bike lane. The westbound improvements will be completed next year.

Public Works has also completed the Southside Pedestrian crossing at Lake Joyce. This project called for the construction of a 10-foot wide pedestrian bridge and sidewalk spanning approximately 700 feet to connect the south side of Shore Drive at the Lake Joyce crossing located just west of Treasure Island Drive. The pedestrian bridge and path were opened to the public in January of this year.

“The ultimate results of these types of capital improvement projects go beyond pot-hole-free streets, safe sidewalks and asbestos-free buildings,” says Phil Davenport, interim director of Public Works. “They impact not only our citizens’ quality of life, but the city’s ability to attract and retain businesses that ensure our continued economic vitality.”

Advisory lifted on 05/17/2012

The Virginia Beach Department of Public Health has issued a swimming and wading advisory for the Chesapeake Bay between Wake Forest Street and Rockbridge Road. Recent testing conducted by the Health Department showed that bacteria levels in the water exceeded the State Water Quality Standards. The advisory does not affect the Virginia Beach oceanfront or resort area.

Recreational waters are monitored for bacteria using indicator organisms such as Enterococcus, the indicator of choice in estuarine and marine waters.

“The coastal waters of Virginia are generally very clean, and we test them weekly from May through September,” said Venita Newby-Owens, M.D., Director of the Virginia Beach Department of Public Health.  “On the occasions when waters fail to meet the standards, we need to protect public health by letting residents and visitors know.”

Signs will be posted on the beach between Wake Forest Street and Rockbridge Road to alert the public of the swimming and wading advisory.

The signs will read:

WARNING!  SWIMMING ADVISORY

Bacteria levels do not meet state water quality standards

Swimming and wading are prohibited until further notice

Virginia Beach has conducted these tests since the mid-1970s. Health officials will continue testing the site until the water quality meets the state water quality standards.  When the sampling test results meet the standards, the signs will be removed.

Enterococci are a group of organisms used to determine the extent of the fecal contamination of recreational waters. While they do not cause illness, scientific studies indicate that their presence is closely correlated to the presence of other disease-causing organisms.  People swimming or playing in waters with bacteria levels higher than the standard have an increased risk of developing gastrointestinal illness, as well as skin, eye and respiratory infections.

“We encourage the public to protect their health by complying with this advisory,” said Newby-Owens. “Typically an advisory of this nature is temporary and will be withdrawn once the bacteria levels have returned to safe levels.”

The results of this and all other sampling are located on the Virginia Department of Health Web site at http://www.vdh.state.va.us/epidemiology/DEE/BeachMonitoring.

For additional information, contact the Virginia Beach Department of Public Health at (757) 518-2700.

PHP Stakeholder Meeting #2

The second PHP Stakeholder Meeting convened May 15, 2012, at the Bayside Rec Center, opened by Brian Solis.  After thanking the attendees for their participation, he announced that Pete Hangen, of VB Parks & Rec, would serve as facilitator for the meeting.  Solis stated that when the City, the Trust for Public Land and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) formed the partnership two years ago, they outlined in general terms the vision of what PHP might be, vis a vis low-impact access, educational opportunities, stewardship goals and the like.  He enumerated basic groups that the City and CBF were seeking to accomplish long-term, such as establishing “Sustainable Site” guidelines for any improvements, attention to LEED certification, to offer a center for environmental and educational opportunities, as well as natural-history education, and to invest in additional oyster restoration.

The agenda for the Stakeholder’s Meeting was set forth to include a briefing by David Norris, of the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), regarding the $1 million dollar grant received by the City toward the purchase of PHP, followed by a breakout session to gather input from stakeholders in creating a vision and guiding principles for PHP.  Input from stakeholders and their constituents could be shared via a Wikispaces Website, if they can figure out how to use it.

Following the opening remarks, Mr. Norris explained that the inclusion of the DGIF grant in the financing altered the mission of the City with regard to land use.  In ordinary circumstances, “multi-use” applications guided the City in the improvement of public land, but the introduction of DGIF principles allowed the designation to be changed from “multi-use” to “special use.”  This is made possible by the mission of the DGIF to protect and restore wetlands.  Norris stated that over 20 grant applications were received, from which PHP was chosen based on the following criteria:

Lynnhaven Estuary Protection Plan

1.   Will the project reverse wetlands loss?

2.   Will coastal maritime forests benefit?  (Norris stated that points were almost never awarded                              for this criterion, but that PHP qualified.)

3.   Will the project ensure long-term preservation?

4.   Will the project accomplish natural resource objectives of one or more formal coastal

eco-system management plans?

5.   Will the project protect endangered species?

6.   Will the project benefit fish?

7.   Will the project benefit local and migratory birds?  (Norris noted that although there were

nearby natural areas, including First Landing State Park, PHP is the first available stop for

migratory birds.)

8.   Will the project prevent or reduce contamination of soil and water?

9.   Will the project provide a catalyst for future conservation?

10.   Will the project produce beneficial partnerships?

11.   Will the project enhance federal/state cost sharing?

12.   Will the project provide educational/outreach opportunities?

13.   Are there other factors to be considered?

Norris went on to explain that the site must be managed with conservation goals in mind.  Those goals are 1) to maintain habitat values 2) to maintain the coastal maritime forest 3) to maintain water quality

4) to maintain and enhance educational and recreational value while not being detrimental to other aspects.  He also mentioned that the existing shoreline trail was a unique amenity for the public to appreciate the coastal environment.  A copy of his presentation may be found  on the Web at http://www.vbgov.com/pleasurehousepoint.  Mr. Norris can be contacted at david.norris@dgif.virginia.gov.

Solis then noted that over the next 3 – 5 years, the City would be developing a management plan in co-operation with DGIF, with a timeline for periodic reviews.  The short-term goal is to manage access to the property so as to prevent abuse and to initiate restoration wherever possible.

The group then separated into five groups to consider, in rotation, five elements of planning, based on the Plus/Delta method.  (A format which identified already known benefits…plus… and areas of possible concern…Delta.)

Natural Area:  Pluses included goals to protect the environmental habitat and wildlife; retaining berms to manage trails and run-off; to manage for diversity; to offer educational/environmental opportunities.

Deltas included concerns about abuse by irresponsible dog-walkers and litterers, as well as unauthorized vehicular traffic; effects on nearby shellfish harvests; degradation of berms; concern that excessive foot traffic will “love it to Death.”

Land Access:  Pluses noted that parking possibilities exist on Marlin Bay Drive and at the Pump Station.

Deltas called for caution in realigning Marlin Bay Drive; access for adjacent property owners of undeveloped plats; negative impacts to street parking in the adjacent community; planning the number of access points; restriction of access for shoreline and fishing; sensitivity to wildlife.

Water Access:   Pluses praised the restriction of watercraft to non-motorized craft; opportunity to wed the functions of the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp and Beach Facility to PHP as mutual support and not competition.

Delta notes included cautions about using the area as launch for crew teams;  ADA access through LBR’s beach wheel-chair (probably should have been listed as a “plus”); concern that proposed operation of a permanent dredge spoils transfer station at Crab Creek would impede water access to PHP and educational activities conducted by both the City and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; desire that all water access be sensitive to wetlands.

Connectivity:  (Bringing the public to the site and the site to the public)

Pluses remarked the opportunity for the public to legally transverse the area; the opportunity to educate the public to environmental issues.

Deltas focused on the lack of an HRT bus stop designated for the nearest major intersection; fire and rescue access to the land and the water; access to adjacent property, as yet undeveloped.  Deltas also urged caution when addressing how to retain or change berms and suggested that bike racks be installed at access points.

Behavior:            Pluses want planning to consider “pack in/pack out” approach with the judicious placement of receptacles and/or signage; to consider the dog-owning and non-dog-owning users with regards to the “No Pet/Pets on Leash Only” question; opportunity to develop sense of “ownership” among residents.

High on the Delta list was the potential for criminal activity; irresponsible use by dog-owners; litterers; risk to water quality; 24/7 access.

In looking ahead, the next meeting of the PHP Stakeholders Committee will be either June 27/28, from 4-5:30 p.m.  A Public Meeting may be planned as early as July 2012, in the evening.  An official celebration event could occur in October 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

Grace Moran