Arlington's Natural Resources Management Plan

Home , Land (economics), Land use, Natural heritage, Natural resource, Resource

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

AN ELEMENT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED November 13, 2010 State Champion Post Oak Natural Resources Management Plan November 2010

Arlington County Board Jay Fisette, Chairman, Christopher Zimmerman, Vice-Chairman, and Members Barbara A. Favola, Mary Hughes Hynes and J. Walter Tejada Barbara M. Donnellan, County Manager Dinesh Tiwari, Director, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Caroline Temmermand, Division Chief, Parks and Natural Resources Division

The Natural Resources Management Plan was prepared by Greg Zell, Natural Resource Specialist, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpretation Section. The following individuals provided assistance in the development of the Natural Resources Management Plan: Jamie Bartalon, Landscape and Forestry Section Supervisor; Larry Finch, Chairman, Urban Forestry Commission; Mary Ann Lawler, Urban Forestry Commission; Steve Campbell, Urban Forestry Commission; Dean Amel, Environment and Energy Conservation Commission; Shannon Cunniff, Chairman, Environment and Energy Conservation Commission; Caroline Haynes, Park and Recreation Commission, and Jim Olivetti, Park and Recreation Commission.

Front Cover Photo Credits: John White, Gary Fleming, Greg Zell, and the Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development. Other report photos by Greg Zell, unless otherwise indicated. Map Credits: Arlington County Department of Environmental Services – GIS Mapping Center.

Natural Resources Management Plan

Executive Summary

Introduction 4

Arlington’s Natural Resources: Past, Present and Future 5

The Natural Heritage Resource Inventory: Laying the Groundwork 8

Natural Resources Management and Protection: Discussion and Recommendations 10

General Natural Resources Management Strategy 11 Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements 14 Water Resources 14 Vegetation and Natural Lands Management 18 Geological Resources 24 Wildlife Resources 25 Resource-Related Park Management Issues 26 Partners in Cooperative Local Resource Management 27 Public Education and Outreach 28

Appendix 1 - Natural Resource Conservation Areas 29 Appendix 2 - List of Resource References 38 Appendix 3 - Definitions 40 Acknowledgements 42 Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y

he Natural Heritage Resource Inventory unified system rather than a set of unrelated natural (NHRI), which was conducted between 2005 features. and 2008, provides Arlington County with Tnatural resources data so it can systematically define There are 19 primary recommendations, with and address issues relating to the protection and additional suggestions offered throughout the body management of natural resources within the County. of the Plan. Discussion and recommendations This Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP), focus on natural lands management; urban which resulted from the NHRI and was called for in forest management; native vegetation; invasive the 2005 Public Spaces Master Plan, defines natural plant species; geological resources; wildlife resource problems and recommends policies and resources; park management and planning issues; actions to preserve Arlington’s documented natural land acquisition and conservation easements; resources for future generations. In offering a cooperative management opportunities; partnership strategic approach, this Plan views natural resource development and natural resource education. A management through both broad and narrow lenses. number of appendices at the end of the Plan provide This layered strategy, in addition to offering new supporting information and maps. It’s important to concepts, identifies areas for agency cooperation, note that the timing of implementation strategies for reduces redundancies and leverages current efforts. the 19 primary recommendations will be subject to Most importantly, this approach emphasizes the the availability of resources, including funding. importance of managing natural resources as a

Recommendation Priority 1 Adopt a general policy goal of “Zero-Loss” of County-owned natural lands. Priority 1 Establish a new administrative category of County-owned open space, known as Natural Resource Priority 1 2 Conservation Areas (NRCAs). Develop a new GIS-based environmental review process to protect significant individual natural Priority 1 3 resources on Arlington County-owned open space from ongoing maintenance activities, redevelopment or new construction on County-owned properties or private properties within 100’ of a designated natural resource feature. Revise current Administrative Regulation 4.4 (Environmental Assessment Process) to incorporate the use of this GIS layer into the review process for all County-initiated land-disturbing activities. Explore expansion of current County review processes to help ensure that land-disturbing activities on private property would not adversely impact documented natural resources on property owned and/or managed by Arlington County Government, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, Arlington Public Schools, Northern Virginia Conservation Trust, or any other land trust. Effectively manage Arlington’s natural resources by establishing a single management unit with Priority 1 4 specialized skills in natural lands preservation and natural resources management. Develop an individual natural resources management plan for each County-owned park designated Priority 1 5 as a Natural Resource Conservation Area, or containing NRCAs. Actively pursue opportunities to identify and preserve additional open space through conservation Priority 2 6 easements, voluntary dedications, partnerships and fee simple acquisition. Potential acquisitions with natural lands or significant natural resources present should be the highest priority. Parcels offering additional protection to surface streams or serving as green corridors between natural areas should also be considered for their environmental benefit. Citizens should be educated about opportunities for voluntary participation in these programs. Update and submit to the County Board for approval a revised edition of the Resource Protection Priority 2 7 Area (RPA) Map and GIS Layer.

1 Natural Resources Management Plan Develop a strategy for the protection and preservation of seeps, springs and first-order streams Priority 2 8 found on Arlington County-owned parkland or open space. Develop a clear objective-based methodology and process for the management of streams, artificial Priority 2 9 wetlands and ponds located on Arlington County-owned open space. Amend Chapter VI of the Urban Forest Master Plan to reflect policy changes in forest Priority 2 10 management practices for natural lands. Promote the use of native plant species in County-sponsored plantings and enhance the ability to Priority 3 11 procure local ecotype plant stock. Within Natural Resource Conservation Areas restrict, to the maximum extent practicable, Priority 2 12 all vegetation plantings to those included in objective-based restoration plans reviewed or developed by the Natural Resources Management Unit. Develop a new long-term, objective-based invasive plant removal strategy combining volunteers, Priority 2 13 County staff and contractual services in order to maximize efforts and environmental benefit to Arlington’s natural resources. Seek Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding to support large-scale invasive plant removal and natural land restoration and preservation efforts. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of County departments in relation to invasive plant control Priority 3 14 efforts to identify leadership and foster cooperation. Include an invasive plant monitoring and maintenance component in the design of Priority 3 15 all future stream restoration projects (DES), new trail side “no-mow and grow” zones (PRCR) and riparian buffer restoration and plantings (DES/PRCR). Inventory and prepare an analysis of existing riparian zones on County-managed open Priority 3 16 space in order to assess the feasibility of reestablishing natural vegetation along stream corridors in the future. Initiate the formation of a local inter-jurisdictional Natural Resources Working Group Priority 2 17 for the purpose of strengthening existing partnerships and developing new cooperative working relationships. Establish a Natural Resources Advisory Group to enable Board-appointed advisory Priority 3 18 commissions to advise more effectively on natural resource issues. Arlington County staff should seek and embrace opportunities to educate residents Priority 2 19 and landowners of the importance of environmental sustainability, natural resource protection and habitat enhancement on private properties.

Abbreviations: prcr--Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources; des-- Department of Environmental Services; UFC- -Urban Forestry Commission and e2c2- -Environment and Energy Conservation Commission; and VCE--Virginia Cooperative Extension. Only a single small colony of Red Salamanders remains in Arlington. Natural Resources Management Plan 2 Beaver L odge (Photo by A lan Schreck)

Historic Carlin Spring in Arlington

3 Natural Resources Management Plan Introduction develop a management strategy protect the County’s natural for natural resources protection: resources. • Create a Natural Resources • Develop a classification system Arlington County is required by Policy and Management of the various types of natural the Code of Virginia to adopt a Plan (Recommendation resources. Define the lines of Comprehensive Plan to be used 2.1). The County lacks a authority and responsibility as a community-planning tool. countywide database of for management of the The current Comprehensive natural resources, including resources among County, Plan, initially adopted in 1960, flora, fauna and habitat regional and federal agencies. is composed of nine elements or evaluations. These resources • Create an additional layer separate plans that cover such need to be evaluated, their for the County’s Geographic disparate themes as land use, significance rated, and a Information System to identify transportation, storm water, water management plan developed and characterize significant distribution, sanitary systems, to guide how to manage natural resource management recycling, historic preservation, and protect them. A Natural areas and habitats. (Chapter public spaces and preservation of Resources Management Plan 5, Recommendations/Public the Chesapeake Bay. The Public should be developed to Spaces Master Plan. Adopted Spaces Master Plan, adopted in help facilitate the County’s December 10, 2005.) 2005, makes recommendations for ongoing commitment to the protection and management of enhance and preserve its Statement of Purpose natural resources. natural resources. The Plan’s primary goals should be to: The purpose of this Natural The Public Spaces Master Plan • Bring together various plans, Resources Management Plan is calls upon the County to create a practices, programs and to provide Arlington County natural resources inventory and options that identify and staff and residents with the

Photo by Gary Fleming, DCR knowledge, methods and tools necessary to assume the role of a world-class steward of the local environment. The primary goal of the Plan is to bring together the various elements of field research, current practices, existing plans and policies and best management practices to create an achievable set of actionable recommendations relating to the protection of those natural resources under the control of County government. This Plan is intended to complement the current Urban Forest Master Plan (July 28, 2004), Watershed Management Plan (January 2001) and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance (February 8, 2003). Collectively, these documents serve as a roadmap for future natural resources management Virginia Mallow -- one of 14 state-listed rare plants found in Arlington. planning.

Natural Resources Management Plan 4 Scope natural resources within Arlington protection. The recommendations County. A full list of reports, plans, within the Plan are prioritized A number of official public studies and resources reviewed according to recommended needs documents, including the Report for the preparation of this Natural for implementation, with Priority on the Task Force on the Physical Resources Management Plan is 1 being the highest priority. Upon Environment (1986), the Potomac shown in Appendix 2. The scope of adoption of the Plan, Arlington Palisades Task Force Final Report this NRMP is intentionally narrow County will serve as a role model (1990), the Arlington County so that its recommendations for environmental stewardship Riverfront Inventory and Analysis can be implemented within a within the region by providing (July 1993), the Open Space reasonable period, are fiscally cooperative leadership in the area Master Plan (1994) and others achievable and, when completed, of natural resources management, have recognized the need to will have a measurable, positive resource protection and public develop a strategy to better protect impact on natural resources education.

Ar l i n g t o n ’s Na t u r a l Res o u r c es : Pa s t , Pr ese n t a n d Fu t u r e The Past ment have been less documented, generations of Native American but are no less important to the inhabitants, periods of European Lying directly across the Potomac lives of residents today. The land exploration and later colonial River from the original federal upon which Arlingtonians reside influences, many of the historic city and the Nation’s Capital, the and the environment that sur- natural resources of Arlington rich human history associated rounds them are products of that County remained largely intact with Arlington County and the history. While a full accounting of until relatively modern times. surrounding region has been the past could fill volumes, a brief Prior to the 20th century, major thoroughly documented over the summary of the major events that impacts to the local environment past several hundred years. The shaped environmental change is included railroad construction in patterns of land development warranted. the mid-1800s, a lengthy period of associated with that history and quarrying stone along the Poto- its impact on the natural environ- While the earliest history includes mac Gorge, early and continuous development along the Potomac

Photo by Gary Fleming, DCR River in south Arlington and the construction of defensive forts and large-scale forest removal during the Civil War. In spite of this land use, the community of Arlington/ Alexandria County in 1900 was composed of only 6,430 residents, 379 farms, several villages and few improved roads. Between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the richness of local natural resources was well-documented by scientists associated with the Smithsonian Institution and government agencies. These scientists have provided an invaluable record of the historical flora and fauna of the region, Old Age Oak Forest at Donaldson Run 5 Natural Resources Management Plan with a large number of local collec- Remaining Natural Lands (acres) tions housed at the Smithsonian’s Department of Botany and Natural History Museum. Arlington County: 16000 15,576 acres The 20th century ushered in great 14000 General Open Space: change, and the period from the 12000 2,940 acres - 18.9% Total Natural Lands: 1920s through the present can 10000 be fairly described as an age of 738 acres - 4.7% 8000 growth, development and envi- County-owned Natural Lands: 248 acres - 1.6% ronmental impact. The singular 6000 NRCAs: 126 acres - 0.8% events and activities that most 4000

shaped the transition from a 2000 resource-rich rural community to an urban center with accompany- 0 ing environmental challenges can be directly tied to the expansion of Remaining Natural Lands in Arlington County the federal government in nearby century development forever Washington, D.C. Some of the the vast majority of future residen- changed Arlington from a rural to notable impacts upon the environ- tial or business construction will, by a suburban to an urban community ment within that period were: definition, be considered redevelop- within a span of 60 years. Farmland, • Introduction of the electric trol- ment or infill. forest and field were transformed ley and expansion of local rail into residential neighborhoods with lines early in the century that According to the Public Spaces the entire attendant infrastructure ushered in the age of commuting. Master Plan and other public docu- required, including roads, above- • Development associated with in- ments, the total amount of “open and below-ground utilities, schools creased jobs and housing needs space” in Arlington currently totals and service industries (gas stations, during WWI and the New Deal. approximately 2,940 acres, repre- office space and shopping). • Periodic growth of Arlington Na- senting about 18.9% of the County’s tional Cemetery and Joint Base area. These figures include Arling- The Present Myer-Henderson Hall (formerly ton County parks and open spaces, Fort Myer Military Community). Arlington Public Schools (APS) At just under 26 square miles in area • Construction of Reagan National properties, various federal proper- with a 2009 population of about Airport (1941). ties, Northern Virginia Regional 217,000, Arlington County has one • Rapid local expansion during Park Authority parkland and larger of the highest population densi- WWII, concurrent with the con- privately-owned parcels. Of this ties among counties nationwide. In struction of the Pentagon (36,000 total open space, GIS (Geographic addition to the large number of resi- employees) and Navy Annex Information System) analysis of dential properties, Arlington boasts (1944) and the resulting housing recent natural resources inventory a vibrant business community with boom. data indicates that only 738 acres of more than 43 million square feet • Construction of the George “natural lands” remain in Arlington of office space either built or under Washington Memorial Parkway County. This figure is equal to 25% construction. The “smart growth” from 1932 to 1960. of all open space or 4.7% of Arling- policy initiated by the Arlington • Construction of Shirley Highway ton’s landmass. Well over half of County Board has helped to con- (opened in 1949) and I-66/I-395/ the defined natural lands occur on centrate new commercial develment Metrorail (late 1960s through the properties owned by the National along the Metrorail corridor and ex- early 1980s). Park Service as part of the George isting major transportation arteries. Washington Memorial Parkway Arlington is now so developed that The accumulated effects of 20th system. The remaining acreage con- Natural Resources Management Plan 6 sists almost entirely of parcels found within larger publicly-owned, greater detail in the body of this within Arlington County-owned forested parkland. Development Plan under the section titled parkland, on two properties owned within or near these parcels has Natural Resource Management by the Commonwealth of Virginia been limited by soil instability, and Protection: Discussion and and within two parks managed by topography (stream valleys) and Recommendations. the Northern Virginia Regional current restrictions imposed by Park Authority. A few small parcels the Chesapeake Bay Preservation The Future of natural lands are found on private Ordinance. property. Unfortunately, these high- Arlington County is at an environ- value parcels of natural lands are The quality or rating of these mental crossroads. Current envi- scattered across the County, often remaining natural resources var- ronmental conditions in Arlington isolated, and in some cases bisected ies widely according to location paint a mixed picture. Most of the by roadways, widely-paved trails and size of ecological unit, and historical natural resources once and other urban infrastructure. both historical and contemporary found in the County have disap- degradation through development peared and, of those remaining, Considering the amount of de- and current use. Unfortunately, many suffer from some form of velopment and the associated many of the parcels consisting of degradation. With the completion reduction of natural lands within extant natural communities and of its first comprehensive Natu- Arlington, an impressive number wetlands, while intact, are con- ral Heritage Resource Inventory, of significant natural resources sidered to be remnants of much County staff is for the first time were documented and mapped larger systems and are of vary- able to quantify what resources in the preparation of the Natural ing ecological quality. A num- exist, rate their significance or Heritage Resource Inventory. In ber of point resources, such as ecological value, and identify all, more than 1,000 acres of open State Champion Trees or a single their exact locations. It is impos- space received some level of biotic specimen of a rare plant, are found sible to know how many valuable inventory. Identified natural re- within developed portions of natural resources have been lost, sources include parcel-size natural multi-use parks. Over time, the even in recent years, because this ecological units (i.e. plant commu- ecological stresses associated with information had not been gath- nities and wetlands) and indi- forest fragmentation, isolation of ered. Arlington County govern- vidual point resources (rare plant species and loss of habitat have ment now has the opportunity to locations, significant trees, geolog- created a patchwork of significant, move forward, serve as a leader ical exposures and outcrops, seeps but scattered, resources. Descrip- and develop a new urban model and springs, etc.). The parcel-sized tions of existing resources and for wise natural resource protec- units occur almost exclusively resource types are discussed in tion and stewardship. Taking no

Photo by Chris Bright, Earth Sangha action will place the remaining natural environment at risk of continued degradation and disap- pearance over time. Comparison of Arlington’s current and historic records of native flora provides a contrast between the resource-rich past and uncertain future. While the documentation of at least 600 remaining native plant species is impressive within this small, highly urbanized community, it is estimated that more than 200 historically-documented species Virginia Sweetspire rediscovered after 100 years. have disappeared, with more than 7 Natural Resources Management Plan 30% of the species present today classified as locally rare (A1/A2).

This Plan focuses on the positive steps that Arlington County can take to model stewardship. Specific environmental issues are discussed. Recognized gaps in service and coordination of responsibilities are identified, solutions suggested and recommendations made. While Arlington alone cannot solve many of the broader environmental issues, such as global warming or endemic plant diseases, it does have the ability to protect the now identified ecological resources that occur Aging trees in Zachary Taylor Park Th e Na t u r a l He r i t a g e Res o u r c e In v e n t o r y : La y i n g t h e Gr o u n d w o r k n response to recommenda- Resources Management Plan, are Virginia Department of Game tions within the Public Spaces fourfold: and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Master Plan, Arlington Coun- 1. The County-wide database of Department of Conservation Ity staff began a comprehensive natural resources will assist and Recreation, the Smithso- inventory of Arlington’s natural park managers, park planners nian Institution, NatureServe, resources in October 2005, utiliz- and administrators in mak- George Mason University and ing special research permits from ing land-use decisions relative the National Arboretum, open- the National Park Service and the to open space master plan- ing the door to future coopera- Virginia Department of Game and ning and future development tion on natural resource protec- Inland Fisheries. Primary field- within County-owned and tion strategies. work was completed in fall 2008. managed parks. Sufficient data have been collected 2. The NHRI will provide infor- Project Elements and and analyzed in order to formulate mation to support possible fu- Deliverables to Date recommendations related to natu- ture zoning or administrative ral resource management deci- regulation changes to allow for The primary elements of the Natu- sions and protective strategies. the addition of a new category ral Heritage Resource Inventory of protected-class public open include water resources, geology, Objective and Benefits space. native flora, special tree resources, 3. The NHRI provides an ac- invasive plants, urban wildlife and Through an interdisciplinary team curate baseline of data that GIS mapping. As part of the pro- approach, the primary objective of will help speed the creation cess, a concerted effort was made the Natural Heritage Resource Inven- of environmental assessments to distinguish between elements tory has been to develop a compre- within pre-inventoried tracts or features that are historically hensive baseline database of remain- of County-owned properties. natural (native) and those that are ing ecologically significant natural 4. Data collected as part of the man-made or introduced. Field- resources within Arlington County, inventory process have been work accomplishments to date with an emphasis on County-owned shared with multiple part- include: and managed open spaces. ners, including the National Park Service, Northern Vir- Water Resources (hydrology) The benefits of the NHRI, in ginia Regional Park Author- Fourteen unmapped streams conjunction with this Natural ity, Department of Defense, or stream segments were docu-

Natural Resources Management Plan 8 mented and will be included in tion, Smithsonian Institution and an updated list of “target” in- the next Resource Protection Area Department of Botany, George vasive plants rated by threat level map in support of the Chesapeake Mason University Herbarium has been developed. Bay Preservation Ordinance. In and the National Arboretum. addition, six previously undocu- • Natural plant communities Urban Wildlife mented wetlands were classified, were classified, delineated and A comprehensive inventory of delineated and mapped. mapped in 24 public parks and wildlife species in Arlington has select privately-owned wood- been completed and analysis of Geology land sites. Twenty-two differ- data and preparation of technical Twenty-three parks or natural ent community classification reports is in progress. Targeted sites on public-owned properties types were identified, based inventory groups include mam- were inventoried and mapped for on criteria listed within the mals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, significant geological features. National Vegetation Classifica- butterflies/moths and dragonflies/ Areas of natural and historical soil tion System and developed by damselflies. disturbances were also mapped. the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. GIS Mapping Native Flora • A publication titled Native The following data layers, based Plant inventories were conducted Vascular Flora of Arlington on inventory data, have been in 32 parks and natural sites County, Virginia, is in produc- completed and are available to owned by Arlington County, the tion. County staff for the development Commonwealth of Virginia, the of a set of best practices relative National Park Service, the North- Tree Resources to natural resources manage- ern Virginia Regional Park Au- The Arlington County Champion ment and protection: Significant thority and private parties. Inven- Tree Program was developed Tree Layer, Champion Tree Layer, toried flora included trees, shrubs through data collected as part of Plant Community Layer, Invasive and vascular plants, but did not the flora inventory. The program Plant Layer, Wildflower Viewing include lichen, fungi and similar information and GIS mapping Areas of the W&OD Trail Layer species. To date: elements are currently available to and the Natural Resource Features • More than 600 native species both staff and the general public Layer (state and locally rare plants, have been documented. at www.arlingtonva.us, keywords significant geological features, and • More than 100 native species Champion Trees. A report docu- springs, seeps and ponds). were recorded in Arlington for menting and mapping dozens of the first time, each establishing ecologically significant trees a new County record. and shrubs found on various • Fourteen plants, listed by public properties was also the Virginia Department of completed. Conservation and Recreation as state rare, were documented Invasive Plants and mapped. The occurrence and gross • Two globally rare and a num- distribution of exotic invasive ber of state rare plant commu- plants were documented and nities have been documented, mapped in 19 parks, includ- delineated and mapped. ing three properties owned by • More than 300 plant speci- the National Park Service, the mens have been pressed Northern Virginia Regional and mounted as vouchers. Park Authority and the Com- Specimens will be housed at monwealth of Virginia. To the Arlington Herbarium, date, more than 500 acres of GIS map of locally rare plants, geological features National Park Service Collec- parkland have been mapped and springs at Donaldson Run. 9 Natural Resources Management Plan Na t u r a l Res o u r c es Ma n a g e m e n t a n d Pr o t e c t i o n : Di s c u ss i o n a n d Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s

hile significant natural inventories have been conducted funding impacts and a timeline for resource features were on properties owned by others, implementation, are summarized found scattered across County staff has provided these in the Executive Summary WArlington County, the prime agencies or responsible owner- (and detailed further below). responsibility for environmental agents with written reports, data In order to track progress and protection lies with individual files, maps and GPS/GIS infor- timely implementation of the recommendations, staff should provide annual While it is possible to create future recreational space and construct new updates to key advisory facilities through land purchase and re-development, the loss of natural commissions such as Park lands covered in mature forest could not be replaced within a lifetime. & Recreation, Environment & Energy Conservation, and Urban Forestry.

landowners. In most states, natu- mation to assist and encourage General Natural ral resources are generally not voluntary protection. Resources Management protectred unless listed on the Strategy Federal Register as an endangered The complete set of In order to successfully protect species or state-endangered plant recommendations made in Arlington’s identified natural or animal. Natural features such this Plan, along with notations resources, a new strategy or way as state-listed rare plants, state regarding authority/responsibility, of thinking will be required. This

or globally rare plant communi- Photo by Gary Fleming, DCR ties and state Champion Trees are examples of significant resources found locally that have no benefit of state or federal protection. Like- wise, locally rare plants, springs and unique geological features are not specifically protected. Protec- tion can only be achieved through voluntary action.

The Plan is intended as a planning tool, with the majority of the recommendations directed to Arlington County departments. The National Park Service (George Washington Memorial Parkway), Department of Defense, Northern Virginia Regional Park Author- ity and a small number of private property owners have also been identified as responsible agents for resource protection on their respective properties. In those circumstances where resource Starry Solomon’s Plume -- one of 14 state-rare plants found in Arlington. Natural Resources Management Plan 10 reation and Cultural Resources (PRCR) should establish special resource management areas within existing parkland, to be identified as Natural Resource Conservation Areas (NRCAs). These delineated areas of natural land would provide for ecosystem-level protection to contiguous forests or plant communities of high value and encourage objective-based management by ecological unit (water, soil, flora and fauna) rather than focusing on a single resource. This special classification of parkland would apply in some cases to entire parks and, in other cases, to identified sections within multi-use parks Carex atlantica, a locally rare wetland sedge. that are considered to represent new, layered strategy includes 19 is possible to create future recre- ecologically significant natural recommendations, the first five of ational space and construct new lands. In most cases, these parks which provide essential tools for a facilities through land purchase or areas are represented by mature proactive natural resources man- and redevelopment, the loss of hardwood forests with a num- agement approach. natural lands covered by mature ber of significant natural features forest could not be replaced within present, such as locally rare plants, Recommendation 1: Adopt a gen- a lifetime. Adoption of a policy seeps or springs, unique geological eral policy goal of “Zero-Loss” of of “Zero-Loss” of County-owned features, wetlands or other attri- County-owned natural lands. Any development within defined Natural Resource Conservation Although County-owned general Areas, including the reconstruction of sanitary and storm- open space accounts for approximately 1,296 acres and includes water systems, would be required to undergo an environmental 142 individual parks and 34 public review demonstrating an overriding need and the ability of best school properties, the estimated management practices to minimize environmental impact. “natural lands” remaining within that total is fewer than 250 acres. With extremely limited opportu- natural lands would send a posi- butes. The primary management nities in the future to add to that tive signal and provide guidance to objective within an NRCA would inventory, it is critical to establish all County departments involved be conservation and preserva- a policy that protects natural lands in open space acquisition, develop- tion of existing natural resources. from loss or development. With ment and management. These areas would continue to increasing demands placed on provide passive-use opportunities County government to provide ad- Recommendation 2: Establish for visitors, such as bird watch- ditional space for active recreation, a new administrative category ing, botanical study and hiking. new park amenities, Community of County-owned open space Authorized work activities within Canine Areas and park infrastruc- known as Natural Resource Con- these sensitive sites would gener- ture improvements, there are likely servation Areas (NRCAs). ally be restricted to environmen- to be pressures to encroach into tal improvement activities such existing natural lands. While it The Department of Parks, Rec- as restoration projects, habitat

11 Natural Resources Management Plan enhancements, invasive plant control, erosion abatement and infrastructure repairs or projects to address public safety. As the primary proprietor for parkland in Arlington County, the decision for inclusion as an NRCA and specific management objectives would be made by designated staff within PRCR through consultation with the Parks and Natural Resources Division Chief.

County staff has identified a number of parks or areas that are recommended for initial inclusion within this new protective class of open space. Additional lands could be added in the future as appropriate. Recommendations are based Over 950 trees and shrubs were measured to determine the largest of each species on a combination of overall high quality or environmental sensitiv- or new construction on County- the Environmental Assessment ity of natural resources present, owned properties or private process, administered through existence of rare or significant fea- properties within 100’ of a des- A.R. 4.4, and restrictions or limita- tures and potential for restoration. ignated natural resource feature. tions applied by the Chesapeake This new protected class of open Revise current Administrative Bay Preservation Ordinance for space increases the opportunity Regulation 4.4 (Environmental projects within designated Re- for the County to obtain future Assessment Process) to incor- source Protection Areas (RPAs). grants for natural lands restoration porate the use of this GIS layer However, a number of categori- projects. The recommended list in- into the review process for all cal and blanket exemptions are cludes parcels within the following County-initiated land-disturbing provided within both processes parks: Gulf Branch Park (lower), activities. Explore expansion that allow certain types of projects Windy Run (lower), Donaldson of current County review pro- to proceed without environmen- Run, Fort C. F. Smith Historic Site, cesses to help ensure that land- tal review. The Natural Heritage Long Branch/Glencarlyn Park, disturbing activities on private Resource Inventory indicates that Barcroft Park and Arlington Forest property would not adversely there are a number of circum- Park. The combined area of the impact documented natural re- stances in which a project or recommended parcels totals ap- sources on property owned and/ maintenance regime that would proximately 126 acres. Staff recom- or managed by Arlington County be exempted from review could mended parcels are displayed by Government, Northern Virginia adversely impact now-identified map in Appendix 1. Regional Park Authority, Arling- significant natural resources ton Public Schools, Northern located along County streets, in Recommendation 3: Develop a Virginia Conservation Trust, or streams, on the edge of woodland new GIS-based environmental any other land trust. and paved trails and in close prox- review process to protect signifi- imity to picnic areas, playgrounds cant individual natural resources For proposed projects on Arling- and pavilions in developed multi- on Arlington County-owned ton County-owned properties, use parks. Regardless of location, open space from ongoing main- there currently exist two primary Recommendation #3 places all tenance activities, redevelopment environmental review processes: significant, individual natural re-

Natural Resources Management Plan 12 sources, geological features, signifi- erty that will occur within 100 feet small jurisdictions to Division-level cant trees, rare plants, and seeps and of a documented natural resource work units in Fairfax and Montgom- springs within a Natural Resource feature on property under easement ery Counties. It is suggested that this Conservation Area, multi-use park, for protection of natural resources or new functional unit reside within street or general open space on a on property owned and/or managed the Parks and Natural Resources Di- new “Environmental Review” GIS by Arlington County Government, vision of the Department of Parks, layer. The content of this layer would Northern Virginia Regional Park Recreation and Cultural Resources. be a special compilation of resource Authority, Arlington Public Schools, Implementation should be accom- data already collected and mapped Northern Virginia Conservation plished as quickly as fiscally possible on other existing layers, and County Trust, or any other land trust. in order to maintain momentum in departments would be required the County government’s expressed to check this layer prior to plan- Recommendation 4: desire to serve as a responsible stew- ning any project on county-owned Effectively manage Arlington’s ard of the local environment. property. Any County-sponsored natural resources by project proposed within 100 feet of establishing a single a targeted resource would trigger an management unit with abbreviated environmental review specialized skills in by the County’s Natural Resource natural lands preser- Management Unit (see Recom- vation and natural re- mendation #4) prior to proceeding. sources management. Projects currently exempted from existing environmental review, Prior to the start of except certain emergency repairs to the Natural Heritage infrastructure, would be included Resource Inventory, Ar- in this review process. In addition, lington County lacked a County planning agencies should comprehensive knowl- consult this layer at the beginning of edge of the volume, Globally rare wetlands in Arlington each park Master Planning process. location or quality of re- This review would allow planners maining natural resources on either the opportunity to avoid potential public or private property within its design conflicts with significant boundaries. In order to implement Recommendation 5: Develop an natural resources in advance, rather the changes and recommendations individual natural resource man- than mitigating impact after the re- in this Plan, effectively manage doc- agement plan for each County quired Environmental Assessment. umented natural resources, maintain park designated as a Natural In addition to the suggested changes established GIS information, moni- Resource Conservation Area, or to A.R. 4.4, a separate abbreviated tor the health of the local natural containing NRCAs. environmental review process is environment, and liaise with other suggested to protect significant public landowners in Arlington, the Sufficient countywide natural natural resources on County-owned County should focus these respon- resource data have been collected property that may be adversely im- sibilities under a single management and mapped to permit staff to de- pacted by proposed development or function. This work unit would velop site-specific natural resource land disturbance on nearby private provide expertise in the areas of for- management plans. Preservation, properties. Staff will explore mecha- est ecology, urban wildlife manage- conservation and protection of nisms to design a process that would ment and other associated natural resources will be more effective allow the environmental review of sciences. Most of the jurisdictions in when applied at the local park level. any site plan, applications for special our region have addressed the need The development and production use permits, variances or other re- for natural lands management by of individual park plans would be quests for discretionary County ap- establishing staffing levels that range the responsibility of the natural proval for projects on private prop- from a single permanent position in resources management unit. Spe- 13 Natural Resources Management Plan cific park-level plans would ensure ships and fee simple acquisition. Arlington County was once rich in that cooperative management and Potential acquisitions with natu- water resources with many miles best management practices are ral lands or significant natural of naturally flowing streams and employed across divisional and resources present should be the beaver ponds, acres of tidal and departmental lines and support the highest priority. Parcels offering freshwater marsh along the Po- broad conservation goals of stew- additional protection to sur- tomac River, seasonally flooded ardship. Opportunities for natural face streams or serving as green back swamps along major streams resources restoration or habitat corridors between natural areas and an unknown number of small improvement projects would be should also be considered for wooded wetlands, known as seeps identified and the plans themselves their environmental benefit. Citi- or fens. However, the impact of could be incorporated into exist- zens should be educated about urban development on local water ing or future park master plans. opportunities for voluntary par- resources from the late 1940s Funding and labor for conserva- ticipation in these programs. through the 1990s was swift and tion and restoration projects would substantial. be leveraged from other agencies, During the course of preparing the secured through grants and could Natural Heritage Resource Invento- The current unnatural condi- include the use of volunteer groups ry, a number of public and private tions of local streams are similar such as Tree Stewards and Master Naturalists. The combination of issues and factors affecting our streams is complex and rooted in the development patterns that have caused almost 40% Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements of Arlington County’s area to be covered in impervious surfaces.

The Public Spaces Master Plan rec- properties (more than 40 acres to those found in other highly- ognizes that very few opportuni- total) were identified as presenting developed and densely-populated ties remain to add any substantial opportunities for either expansion communities. The cold, clean and “natural lands” to the Arlington of natural lands under County clear flowing streams that once County inventory through out- ownership and management or as supported native brook trout have right purchase. It recommends the candidates for voluntary conserva- been replaced with physically- development of a Land Acquisi- tion easement protection through and chemically-impaired, bank- tion Policy (Recommendation 1.2) the Northern Virginia Conserva- hardened or eroded conduits for that would address the need for tion Trust. All properties meet urban stormwater runoff. Today, additional natural lands to protect the criteria for natural lands and only an estimated 30 miles of sensitive resources through the contain documented significant surface freshwater streams remain, acquisition of conservation ease- natural resources*. Descriptions with at least twice that number of ments and collaboration between and GIS data for these properties miles piped underground into an agencies holding surplus proper- have been provided to the PRCR expansive 360-mile stormwater ties. In addition, Recommendation Planning Division for appropri- system. Impaired water resources 2.4 of the Public Spaces Master ate follow-up. The development and efforts to mitigate or restore Plan states that the County should of a GIS map layer showing all environmental quality to those “Pursue the Use of Easements to conservation easements within resources represent one of the Protect Natural Areas and Heri- Arlington would be an invaluable greatest challenges to the com- tage Resources.” tool for County planning staff and munity of Arlington in the area resource managers. of natural resources management. Recommendation 6: Actively pur- The combination of issues and fac- sue opportunities to identify and Water Resources tors affecting Arlington streams preserve additional open space is complex and rooted in the through conservation easements, Current Issues, Management and development patterns that have voluntary dedications, partner- Responsibilities caused almost 40% of the County’s Natural Resources Management Plan 14 *It is Arlington County government’s intent that preservation of these and other properties with significant natural resources, if placed under voluntary conservation easements by their owners, would be pursuant to a clearly delineated local governmental conservation policy yielding a significant public benefit for the purpose of 26 U.S.C. § 170(h)(4) and related regulations. Arlington County government does not and can not give legal advice, nor should this footnote be considered legal advice or a legal opinion. Landowners are urged to consult their own attorneys before placing their lands under conservation easement. area to be covered by impervious Plan from a contracted stream inven- surfaces. A summary of general • Clean Water Act tory conducted in 1999 show the stream-related environmental • Storm Water Detention Ordi- vast majority of streams in Arling- issues that have been identified to nance and Master Plan ton to be in poor or fair condi- date include: loss of groundwater; • Erosion and Sediment Control tion with only pollution-tolerant low normal base flow; frequency Ordinance aquatic species present. Given the of high storm flow velocity and • Four Mile Run Flood Control complexity and magnitude of is- volume; flooding; active down- Program sues that exist, DES, often in part- cutting; stream-bank erosion; • Municipal Separate Storm nership with PRCR, has done an sedimentation; non-point source Sewer System Permit excellent job of documenting and pollution; periodic high levels of • Water Quality Standards and attempting to address the myriad fecal coliform; elevated water tem- Total Maximum Daily Load problems in spite of funding and peratures; nutrient enrichment; Program staff resource limitations. water-borne litter; and continu- • Watershed Management Plan ing illicit, illegal or accidental • Four Mile Run Restoration The future development of a spill incidents. Collectively, these Master Plan Comprehensive Stormwater Mas- problems are being addressed, ter Plan by DES, representing an with varying degrees of success, Achieving compliance with all updated compilation of both the by Arlington County government regulations is a serious challenge, 1996 Stormwater Master Plan and through the implementation of made more difficult by the fact the 2001 Watershed Management the ordinances, permits, programs and plans listed below. Small wetland features, while often overlooked from a resource management perspective, are valuable ecological features that The Department of Environmen- tal Services (DES) has primary not only provide a local source of clean water, but also often responsibility for water quality serve as the only remaining sanctuary for rare native wetland improvement and the protection, plants and wildlife. management and restoration of streams, wetlands and other water that a majority of the clean water Plan, will address the continuum resources located in the County. and stormwater standards were of water-related issues that face As a result of legal requirements imposed on Arlington after full the Arlington community. It is mandated by the Environmental development had already oc- suggested that a new plan con- Protection Agency under the Clean curred. The physical restoration sider and discuss the alternatives Water Act, the Virginia Depart- of local streams to an original or options available to minimize ment of Environmental Quality, natural state is not a realistic goal future increases in impervious the Virginia Department of Con- under present environmental con- surface within the County, and the servation and Recreation, the U.S. ditions (high levels of impervious- efficacy and opportunity for the Army Corps of Engineers and ness), but with continuing efforts, “daylighting” of previously buried the Northern Virginia Regional streams can be made more stable streams. Commission, water resources and and attractive to carry cleaner related issues have been exten- water and to serve as higher value Discussion and sively documented and studied recreational amenities. Recommendations by DES since the 1990s. Examples of compliance-related legislation, A long-term goal for measuring As a result of the voluminous existing programs and plans that success would be to increase the data collected and made available drive water-related work by DES diversity of aquatic life presently by DES and other agencies, only include: found in local streams. Results narrowly targeted fieldwork was • Chesapeake Bay Preservation from the Volunteer Stream Moni- conducted as part of the recent Ordinance and Preservation toring Program (2001-2008) and Natural Heritage Resource Invento- 15 Natural Resources Management Plan Ballston Beaver Pond -- one of Arlington’s artificial wetlands. ry. Recommendations stem from tion pertaining to these water reation and community planning the findings of that inventory and resources has been provided to goals, a long-term strategy should a review of the documents listed DES staff to consider for inclusion also include active management in Appendix 2. The listed recom- in the next Map revision. of smaller headwater streams mendations are considered “en- that feed from springs and other hancements” to current watershed Recommendation 8: Develop a underground water sources. These management efforts or recognize strategy for the protection and streams most likely represent the gaps in service and challenges to preservation of seeps, springs cleanest remaining surface water current service provisions. and first-order streams found on in the County. They display lower Arlington County-owned park- degrees of impact from stormwa- Recommendation 7: Update and land or open space. ter runoff, protect diminishing submit to the County Board for water-dependent fauna and would approval a revised edition of the In addition to streams and wet- receive the greatest benefit from Resource Protection Area (RPA) lands, a number of freshwater protective strategies. Map and GIS Layer. springs and seeps were documented and mapped by GIS. These Natural Heritage Resource Inven- The Resource Protection Area small wetland features, while often tory wildlife surveys have shown (RPA) Map officially delineates the overlooked from a resource man- that the upper reaches of small protected space adjacent to exist- agement perspective, are valuable streams contain higher popula- ing streams and known wetlands ecological features that not only tions of terrestrial and aquatic am- within Arlington’s borders. It is a provide a local source of clean phibians compared to areas down- tool used frequently by both pri- water, but also often serve as the stream. A number of these small vate developers and County plan- only remaining sanctuary for rare streams have an active natural ners to ensure compliance with native wetland plants and wildlife. flow but are also used to convey the Chesapeake Bay Preservation storm “overflow” from residential Ordinance. The Natural Heritage In Arlington, a majority of past neighborhoods during rain events. Resource Inventory has identified studies and restoration work have If possible, these streams should and documented a number of been related to Four Mile Run and be cut off from the stormwater streams and stream segments that major tributaries. While there is system. This action would help to do not appear on the current ver- no argument that these water bod- retain the water quality, wildlife sion of the RPA Map. In addition, ies are impaired and in need of re- value and aesthetic view of these seven previously undocumented storative work to meet mandatory less-impacted water bodies within wetlands have been classified, water quality standards and over- our parks. delineated and mapped. Informa- all watershed management, rec- Natural Resources Management Plan 16 It is also of interest to note that water. A management strategy for a majority of the County’s poison sumac (Toxicodendron artificial wetlands should include stream valley parks and will vernix) is listed as noxious vegeta- the elements of water quality, need to be replaced eventually. tion within the current version of stormwater management, wildlife • Deteriorating low-water, con- the Chesapeake Bay Preservation habitat and invasive plant man- crete bridge crossings along Ordinance. Upon the next revi- agement. In some cases, there the length of Four Mile Run sion of the Ordinance, this native is confusion as to which agency that need replacement. species should be removed from is responsible for maintenance, • The continuing loss of local the list to reflect its true ecological management, restoration or groundwater due to increases status. In Arlington, poison sumac new construction of water im- in impervious cover and is a locally rare plant limited to poundments and stream restora- stormwater runoff through four small sites and is an indicator tion work. A set of agreements, redevelopment. of the presence of both state and guidelines or workflow processes globally rare wetlands. should be established to delineate Arlington’s sanitary system was geographic and programmatic constructed at a time when stream Recommendation 9: Develop a responsibilities between various valleys were undervalued as natu- clear objective-based methodol- County departments in relation ral resources. The land was seen ogy and process for the man- to water resources. Support roles, as expendable since it could not agement of streams, artificial areas for cooperation and team easily be developed. A number of wetlands and ponds located on objectives should be identified. low water bridges fording Four Arlington County-owned open Mile Run and other major streams space. Future Water Resource were similarly constructed with Challenges old technology to facilitate vehicle In addition to the 28.5 miles of maintenance and transportation surface streams, a number of There are significant challenges routes for park visitors. Deteriora- artificial wetlands and ponds are to managing Arlington’s water tion of these structures is evident located on County-managed open resources in the future. While and maintenance costs, in terms of space. Fabricated water impound- there are no immediate or simple material and labor, have increased. ments typically require frequent solutions, it is important to note Unfortunately, both forms of in- maintenance and generally are these challenges: frastructure lie within the path of in greater need of active man- • Aging sanitary sewer lines that or adjacent to some of the highest agement than natural bodies of weave underground through value natural resources remaining in the County. Sanitary upgrades should be accomplished whenever possible “in situ” with new technology already tested in Arling- ton. In all cases of infrastructure repair or replacement, current best management practices should be employed to ensure the small- est construction footprint.

Continued increases in impervious cover and stormwater runoff coupled with the general loss of groundwater represent a more challenging long-term problem. Currently, under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, Frequent flooding of Four Mile Run Stream. 17 Natural Resources Management Plan developers or redevelopers are culmination of all other terrestrial ation and the National Vegeta- required to either treat water natural resources. The underlying tion Classification System. In on-site or pay into the County’s geology (parent rock) determines addition to natural forested Watershed Management Fund. soil type, topography and expres- communities, a number of non- Even when the developer opts for sion of water in streams, springs forested communities (wetlands on-site treatment of stormwater, and the surface ground water. In and grass glades) were docu- it does not necessarily equate to response to these variable condi- mented and mapped. In total, an infiltration of water back into the tions, predictable and identifiable estimated 248 acres of “natural soil. The treatment may only hold native plant communities and lands,” including several globally stormwater for a time before re- forest types emerge to provide and state-rare natural commu- leasing it into the existing storm- habitat. A goal of the Natural nities, have been documented, water drainage system. Heritage Resource Inventory was classified by community type to survey Arlington’s open space and delineated on County- On-site recharge of water (infiltra- and document remaining natural owned and County-managed tion) requires sufficient space and lands. Naturally-occurring ma- open space. Measures to protect our remaining natural lands The quality of each natural land tract or parcel varies, but many as functioning ecosystems and strategies to protect the isolated are considered to be restorable, and several tracts are considered individual high-value resources to be in pristine condition. that lie outside of natural lands will help ensure that they re- suitable soil conditions and must ture vegetation was an important main for future generations to meet certain standards. Since this criterion in determining natural enjoy. may not be achievable on small land status. One of the greater residential or commercial lots, the challenges of conducting the Urban Forest Management departments of the County should recent flora surveys was to make A majority of the documented look for future opportunities a distinction between naturally- natural lands in Arlington occur where natural recharge of rain- occurring plant communities and as mature hardwood forest, with water can occur without undue vegetation growing as part of the virtually no early successional burden. Arlington Public School modified urban landscape. stages of growth or natural sites, public open space properties meadows. Inventoried forest and larger commercial develop- In order to qualify as a naturally- tracts were found dating from ments should all be considered. occurring forest community, a an estimated 85 to 230 years, Ultimately, a large majority of parcel was required to display all with most dating to the aban- the stream-related problems in of the relevant structural compo- donment of land cleared dur- Arlington can be directly linked nents – canopy, sub-canopy, shrub ing the Civil War and farmland to the high volume of stormwater layer and herb layer, with canopy abandoned in the late 1800s entering local streams, high levels and sub-canopy trees represented through the early 1900s. A large of impervious cover in the County by native species. Evidence of past number of individual old-age and the inability to successfully soil disturbance was also taken into tree specimens predate the Civil capture and re-filter rain back into consideration. Canopy dominance War, and more than 30 have natural groundwater reservoirs. and the presence of indicator or been recognized as current signature plant species within the State Champions. As a result of Vegetation and Natural shrub and herb layer were used the historical pattern of local Lands Management to classify or type each qualifying development, forests are largely parcel. Community classification found within stream-valley Natural Lands followed methodology used by parks surrounded by residential From an ecological standpoint, NatureServe, the Virginia Depart- backyards or along the Poto- vegetation represents the visual ment of Conservation and Recre- mac River. The quality of tracts

Natural Resources Management Plan 18 programs that been mapped on the County’s GIS invite public system for monitoring and mainte- participa- nance. tion include Recommendation 10: Amend the Notable Chapter VI of the Urban For- Tree, Com- est Master Plan to reflect policy memorative changes in forest management Tree, Cham- practices for natural lands. pion Tree and Specimen Tree The Urban Forest Master Plan programs. (2004) was completed prior to All currently the start of the Natural Heritage designated Resource Inventory. The current Champion, Urban Forest Master Plan primar- Specimen and ily addresses policies and manage- Significant ment practices relating to the more Trees will be traditional forms of urban forest included on management performed within a GIS map of plant communities at Barcroft Park. Developed open space the Environ- developed environment, including shown in yellow. mental Review roadways, streetscapes, commercial GIS layer, pro- and residential development, neigh- and parcels varies, but many are viding limited protection to those borhood parks and general open considered to be restorable, and specimens. space. The majority of the recently several tracts are considered to be classified natural lands (248 acres) in pristine condition. The primary Primary responsibility for urban found on County-owned property threats to these natural forests are forestry issues and tree-related occur as mature forest communities a result of the surrounding urban work on County-owned open space and will require different manage- environment – invasive plants, lies with the Landscape and Forest- ment strategies and techniques. increased susceptibility to wind ry Section of the PRCR’s Parks and Important elements to consider in damage and decreased resistance Natural Resources Division. Three new policies relating to natural land to drought. primary documents guide their management would include the work: the Chesapeake Bay Preser- following: Trees and woodlands represent vation Ordinance, the Tree Preser- • Development of management the most observable form of local vation Ordinance and the Urban objectives and priorities natural resources. Citizens have Forest Master Plan. A central objec- • Selection and source of plant proven to be well-educated in the tive of the urban forestry program materials for re-vegetation environmental benefits associated and a stated goal of the Arlington • Collective management of all with trees and are supportive of County Board is to improve Arling- plants within natural commu- Arlington’s award-winning urban ton’s urban forest canopy coverage. nities (trees, shrubs, grasses, forestry program and designation Over the past 30 years, heavy tree etc.) as a “Tree City USA.” The County’s canopy coverage across the County • Use of equipment in sensitive urban forestry staff, working in has decreased by more than 40%, natural communities close concert with the Urban though since 1997 it has stabilized. • Special management tech- Forestry Commission, has imple- This stabilization is due to several niques such as “day-lighting” mented a number of innovative factors, including planting more and selective thinning tree programs and assisted in the trees, improved urban forest man- • Management of pandemic development of recent tree-related agement practices and a decrease in plant diseases or harmful legislation aimed at protecting construction activities. In addition, insect pathogens that threaten Arlington’s urban forest. Tree more than 18,000 street trees have native forest communities 19 Natural Resources Management Plan (such as Gypsy Moth, Emerald obtain local ecotypes, the follow- serve the same level of protection Ash Borer, Dutch Elm Dis- ing recommendations are made: afforded to trees and forests. ease, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, • Pro-actively seek commercial Dogwood Anthracnose) vendors willing to provide More than 600 extant native plant • Routine monitoring of forest pure native species species were documented as part systems’ health as a means of measuring long-term local ef- Only species known to currently grow at the site or known to have fects of climate change on species survival and dominance grown there historically should be considered for restoration. • Search for opportunities to reestablish natural plant com- • Periodically review County- of the Natural Heritage Resource munities in multi-use and sanctioned planting lists, Inventory. An estimated 200 extir- neighborhood parks guides and contracts to ensure pated native species are no longer that native plant promotion present. Loss of wetlands and nat- Recommendation 11: Promote goals are being met ural meadows and the elimination the use of native plant species in • Research the availability of of forb-lined railroads account for County-sponsored plantings and local ecotype plant stock for many historically missing plants. enhance the ability to procure lo- purchase and use As a testimony to the historical cal ecotype plant stock. • Consider the development of richness and diversity of native a native plant micro-nursery local flora, approximately 28% of The use of native plants for res- on County-managed property the known, naturally occurring toration and recovery of natural in order to propagate desired species in Virginia (40,767 square lands should be established as a species not obtainable from miles) were once found within the general practice. In many situa- other sources boundaries of Arlington County tions, particularly within a park or (26 square miles). No endangered trailside environment, the choice Native Wildflowers, Ferns, plant species listed on The Federal of native species is a desirable Grasses and Sedges Register were found, but 14 state- alternative to cultivars, hybrids or listed rare species were document- non-native species. Unfortunately, Known collectively as herbs and ed and mapped. over the past several decades, the forbs, these “lesser” plants are commercial availability of geneti- nevertheless an important com- As a result of habitat fragmenta- cally pure species has declined. ponent of each plant community. tion, isolation of colonies, loss of The nursery industry is largely Wildflowers, designed to support the needs as members of of private contractors, landscape this non-woody companies and private homeown- plant group, ers. As a result of marketing strat- are perhaps the egies, demand, new technologies most visible and and the continual development of claim the stron- cultivars, genetically pure native gest connection species are becoming increasingly to the public. difficult to obtain commercially. However, all Local ecotype native species, of these plants propagated from locally collected play an impor- seed, represent the “gold standard” tant role in the of native plants, but have very ecological bal- limited availability. In order to ance of a healthy, promote the internal use of native natural environ- plants and enhance opportunities ment and de- Fan-tailed Clubmoss, a single colony remains in Arlington.

Natural Resources Management Plan 20 wetlands and urban development, plants or hand-distribution of the County’s Urban Forest Master it is expected that more than 30% seed. County departments should Plan, Watershed Management Plan of all native species currently resist the desire to quickly restore and Chesapeake Bay Preservation found in Arlington will be listed as natural areas after the removal Ordinance. In 2009, the Virginia locally rare (A1/A2) upon pub- of invasive plants. In the absence General Assembly passed legisla- lication of the Vascular Flora of of soil disturbance, the historical tion requiring that a statewide Arlington County, Virginia. A and natural seed bank within the invasive species management plan number of these plants are restrict- soil should generally be allowed be developed (Code of Va. §2.2- ed to a single location or a small number of remaining colonies. The Invasive plant species represent the greatest and most immediate known locations on both public and private properties have been threat to the continued survival of Arlington’s natural lands and documented, mapped and placed native plant communities. on a GIS layer. Rare plant resources growing within defined Natural to regenerate native plants. In 220.2). While most non-native Resource Conservation Areas some cases, this process may take (alien) plants are considered would receive a degree of protec- a number of years. As a case in benign, those classified as inva- tion under Recommendation #2. point, two years after the success- sive are destructive to the natural All mapped rare plants, including ful removal of ground-covering environment. Invasive plants are those growing outside of natural invasive plants from a spring area generally aggressive; they com- areas within highly active, multi- at Long Branch Nature Center, pete with native species for space, use parks would be at reduced risk Dwarf Ginseng (locally rare) reap- nutrients and water, are resistant under Recommendation #3. peared naturally. to natural controls (disease and herbivores) and exhibit high re- Recommendation 12: Within Invasive Plant Species productive rates. In areas of high Natural Resource Conservation Management invasiveness, native wildflowers, Areas restrict, to the maximum grasses and ferns are supplanted extent practicable, all vegetation Invasive plant species represent and disappear. A number of inva- plantings to those included in the greatest and most immediate sive species that grow in the form objective-based restoration plans threat to the continued survival of vines can blanket large areas of reviewed or developed by the of Arlington’s natural lands and forest and are even capable of kill- Natural Resources Management native plant communities. If left ing mature native trees through Unit. unmonitored, the spread and sunlight starvation. dominance of invasive plants will Planting within the most sensitive likely alter the structure and suc- As part of the Natural Heritage natural areas should be a care- cession of natural forests located Resource Inventory, the volume fully planned process. Only native, in the County. The threat has and distribution of invasive plants local-ecotype specimens should been well-documented within the were mapped in 19 parks, includ- be used. They should be care- general science community, with ing one regional park, which cover fully matched to the appropriate warnings issued by virtually every 557 total acres. Areas of moderate location based on species, aspect, state agency responsible for man- to high coverage of invasiveness moisture regime, sunlight require- agement of natural resources. Fu- were documented by species pres- ments and soil type. Only species ture changes in the environment ent and mapped. A separate Inva- known to currently grow at the brought about by continued global sive Plant Distribution GIS layer site or known to have grown there warming could create even more was produced. In addition, a list of historically should be considered ideal conditions for the establish- invasive plants documented in all for restoration. In some cases, ment of new invasive species. parks surveyed was compiled with restorations may be accomplished The importance of invasive plant species ranked by threat level: low, by careful movement of existing removal has been emphasized in medium and high. Survey results

21 Natural Resources Management Plan Photo by Gary Fleming, DCR found that me- through a contract with Virginia dium to high levels Cooperative Extension in 2002. of invasive plants This responsibility has now been were found in every transferred to PRCR. Program park inventoried. elements include site assessment, Distribution and plant removal activities, public density varies greatly education and volunteer recruit- between parks and ment and training. Volunteer re- within each park. moval efforts are primarily accomplished through groups such as The presence of the Remove Invasive Plants (RiP) invasive plants Volunteer Program, Tree Stew- within local parks ards, Arlington Regional Master in Arlington is not Naturalists (ARMN) and others. a recent phenom- While volunteers are restricted to enon. Current high hand or mechanical plant removal distribution levels with hand tools, the Invasive are the result of alien Plant Field Technician is able to plant establishment, provide both independent and growth and move- supportive chemical treatments. ment over the past Volunteers currently work at 35 40 to 50 years. The neighborhood or park sites, and most common form log approximately 2,000 volunteer of migration into hours of fieldwork and 200 hours parks is directly from of office assistance each year. private properties From a public relations, volunteer (backyards) that abut recruitment and environmental parkland. Distribu- education standpoint, the Inva- tion of seed and fruit sive Plant Control Program has is primarily by birds been very successful. However, and mammals, but in without additional resources and some cases, invasive the development of new strate- plant seeds have gies, it will be difficult to achieve been introduced or measurable environmental benefit spread by the use to Arlington’s at-risk forests and of construction and natural lands. maintenance equipment (bush hogs), Recommendation 13: Develop a vehicle tires or shoes new long-term, objective-based of hikers. invasive plant removal strategy combining volunteers, County Recognizing the seri- staff and contractual services in ousness of the threat order to maximize efforts and from invasive plants, environmental benefits to Ar- Arlington County lington’s natural resources. Seek funded the creation Capital Improvement Project of an Invasive Spe- (CIP) funding to support large- English Ivy threatening natural lands cies Program Coor- scale invasive plant removal and dinator natural land restoration and

Natural Resources Management Plan 22 preservation efforts. large spaces require a combina- are ecologically significant and It is unrealistic to expect the re- tion of hand-tool and chemical have not yet been impacted by moval of all invasive plants from treatments over several years invasive plants. Several for- Arlington County, just as it is and are best provided by a spe- ested parcels in this category unrealistic to believe desired envi- cialized contractor. The Lubber have been identified in Arling- ronmental goals can be achieved Run Invasive Plant Management ton and would rank high as a relying solely on a volunteer work- Program, utilizing a combination priority in site selection. force. However, a carefully man- of neighborhood volunteers and a • Monitor pre-selected target aged combination of volunteers multi-year private vendor con- areas and serve as a quick re- and contract services could pre- tract, is a model that has proven action force to eliminate newly serve Arlington’s most threatened to be successful in removing an established plants before they high-value natural lands. Elements estimated 99% of existing inva- spread. of a new strategy should include a sive plants from a highly infested measured balance between aggres- 25-acre urban park. This was the Recommendation 14: Clarify sive treatment, maintenance and first large-scale effort attempted the roles and responsibilities of prevention. in Arlington and could become County departments in relation a best practice methodology for to invasive plant control efforts Work Site Selection other jurisdictions. to identify leadership and foster Staff should establish a new set cooperation. of criteria for the selection and That said, volunteer efforts should prioritization of work sites on continue because they are impor- Invasive plant control is a critical County-owned parkland through tant in a number of ways. Volun- component of a broad natural re- the review of newly completed teers can: source management strategy and GIS natural resource inventory • Slow the spread of invasive an invaluable tool for the preser- layers. Highest on the priority plants in target areas by cut- vation of both natural lands and list should be high-value parks or ting vines back from trees and general open space. A number of parcels identified as the most eco- removing seed and fruit from County departments and divisions logically important, sensitive or select species in late summer are simultaneously involved in various tasks related to in- The Lubber Run Invasive Plant Management Program, utilizing a vasive plant control (plan combination of neighborhood volunteers and a multi-year private vendor development and review, contract, is a model that has proven to be successful in removing an project initiation and management, contract estimated 90% (to date) of existing invasive plants from a highly infested management, etc.) To be 25-acre urban park. successful, all activities relating to invasive plant at-risk from invasive plant infesta- and fall. control should be filtered through tion. Staff should set realistic goals • Continue to work in small a single point of contact for ap- regarding acreage to be cleared neighborhood sites where 90% proval and coordination, and a each year; it is better to clear 18 to 100% removal of all invasive mini-summit of potential partners acres at 100% clearance than 36 plants is an achievable goal, should be convened to develop a acres at 50%. and help educate neighbors work-flow structure that provides about invasive plants. consistent and effective communi- Selection of Work Force • Provide maintenance-level cation, supports the overall goals Where heavy infestations occur plant removal after vendors or of the program, allows partners to with multiple species present, County staff have completed fully participate and allows for the multi-year contracts with special- their work. documentation and measurement ized vendors are recommended. • Provide preventive monitoring of program success. Severe infestations covering and spot removal in sites that 23 Natural Resources Management Plan Recommendation 15: Include of establishing native vegetation the ancient hard bedrock of the an invasive plant monitoring buffers to protect Arlington’s sur- Piedmont Plateau and the softer, and maintenance component in face streams. The environmental more recent sediments of the the design of all future stream benefits derived from high-quality Coastal Plain, occupies a large restoration projects (DES), new stream buffers are reflected in portion of central Arlington. trailside “no-mow and grow” cleaner water, decreased runoff Often typified by cascades and zones (PRCR) and riparian buf- and erosion, and wildlife habi- waterfalls, the Fall Zone also indi- fer restoration and plantings tat improvement. The inventory cates the upper limit of navigable (DES/PRCR). and assessment should provide, waters of the Potomac River and in measurable terms, the feasi- the approximate boundary of the The stream restoration projects bility of restoring natural buffer ancient Atlantic Ocean. The abil- mentioned earlier are designed to strips in areas that are currently ity of sea-going sailing vessels to provide environmental benefits by degraded by invasive plants or reach the nearby ports of George- helping to control runoff, improve exist as a mowed lawn feature into town and Alexandria was instru- water quality and restore natural natural meadows or early succes- mental in the decision to build the vegetation. However, these types sional forest. The completed study federal city at its current location. of projects also have the potential should be provided to the Parks to create an ideal seedbed for the and Natural Resources Division Interpretation of local geology in rapid establishment of invasive Chief for review, consideration terms of timelines and origins is species. Sunny, open areas with and possible action. both controversial and complex. recently disturbed soils serve as a Due to land changes from urban magnet for a number of aggres- Geological Resources development, a majority of the sur- sive invasive species. Unless this face geology of Arlington has been component is considered during Geology has had a profound effect altered or paved. To the layperson, project planning, levels of inva- on both the physical and cultural the most observable surface fea- siveness within project areas may history of Arlington County. The tures include waterfalls, cliffs, rock actually increase and threaten or Fall Zone, representing a general outcrops, boulders and soil. Less negate the benefits of native plant- boundary or transition between prominent features include rock ings. For all other projects involving land disturbance on County-owned parkland, the need for invasive plant management should be considered by project managers.

Recommendation 16: Inven- tory and prepare an analysis of existing riparian zones on County-managed open space in order to assess the feasibility of reestablishing natural vegetation along stream corridors in the future.

The Chesapeake Bay Preser- vation Ordinance, the Water- shed Management Plan and the Urban Forest Master Plan each highlight the importance Quartz outcrop at C. F. Smith Park is identified as a significant geological feature. Natural Resources Management Plan 24 Photo by Alan Schreck exposures or sandbars along streambeds or scattered cobbles lying on the surface of a steeply sloped mature forest. Topography, soil composition, forest type, drainage patterns and, in some cases, the presence of wildlife species can all be directly related to the underlying geology. Geology is also crucially important to Bald Eagles once again nest in Arlington. engineers. Rock, soils and land- Arlington. The most recent his- geological features. Twenty-three forms determine what can be built torical deposits are found along selected sites were inventoried, in- and where. the Potomac River in response cluding two National Park Service to rises in sea level during the properties, one Commonwealth of The Piedmont Plateau, most most recent Ice Age. The various Virginia property and one Region- easily observed to the north and Coastal Plain deposits occur as a al Park. As a result of the survey, west of Interstate 66, is formed series of terraces and are largely a number of significant geologi- from the oldest local bedrock, composed of some combination of cal features were documented on with rolling hill topography and silt, clay, sand and gravel. Topog- public-owned property and placed deeply-cut stream valleys draining raphy in the Coastal Plain section on a GIS layer. In addition, his- to the Potomac River. A number transitions, north to south, from torical disturbances to soil were mapped to assist The best tool available to Arlington County Government to protect native wildlife in the classification of natural populations is to protect existing habitat within natural lands and along stream corridors. plant communities. Identified of scenic waterfalls are revealed rolling hills to terraces and flats. significant features included rock at the mouths of Gulf Branch, Terraces are commonly separated outcrops, historic quarries, scenic Donaldson Run and Windy Run. by steep hillsides underlain by waterfalls and outstanding exam- Riverside cliffs along the Potomac highly erodible soils. A majority of ples of native bedrock exposures. Gorge, known as the Palisades, the historic wetlands in Arlington Three of the documented rock are a prominent “hard rock” were located in the Coastal Plain exposures are of scientific value feature. Common rocks of the along the valley of Four Mile Run, as “type locations.” Recommenda- Piedmont include granite, schist, along the Potomac River or along tion #3 of this Plan provides these metagabbro and metagraywacke. the toe slopes of terraces. Most extremely limited significant re- The Coastal Plain, clearly visible of those wetlands are gone, and sources with a level of protection. to the south of Interstate 395, is very little of the original exposed characterized by a series of suc- bedrock that lined Four Mile Run Wildlife Resources cessive water-borne deposits at the remains. surface. The oldest are estuarine Native wildlife is recognized as an deposits from the ancient Atlantic As part of the Natural Heritage important local natural resource Ocean and fluvial sand and gravel Resource Inventory, a contract and has an interdependent rela- from the ancestral Potomac River geologist was hired to perform an tionship with the other resources that once flowed across South inventory of remaining significant that combine to form habitat. In

25 Natural Resources Management Plan order to establish a baseline of bio- or reintroduction of species would County’s GIS system as a new logical data relating to local wildlife best be addressed at the local park management data set. populations, a series of inventories level through the development of • With very few exceptions, and historical data research was park-specific natural resources there are no brochures or park conducted primarily in 2007 and management plans (see Recom- maps available to the public. 2008. Wildlife surveys were con- mendation #5). The best tool To save printing costs, digital ducted throughout the County on currently available to Arlington brochures/maps could be de- both public and private land. To ac- County government for the protec- veloped for web/digital access. complish this task, wildlife collection of native wildlife populations Current online maps only show tion and research permits were ob- is to protect existing habitat within location with no features such tained from both the National Park natural lands (Recommendation as trails, restrooms, activities, Service and the Virginia Depart- #2) and along stream corridors. etc. ment of Game and Inland Fisher- • Encroachments and illicit ies. Initial target faunal groups sur- Resource-Related Park dumping were observed in vir- veyed included: mammals, birds, Management Issues tually every forested park in the reptiles, amphibians, butterflies/ County. It has become com- moths and dragonflies/damsel- During the course of performing monplace for homeowners of flies. Several thousand individual the Natural Heritage Resource In- properties that abut parkland records were established through ventory, a number of opportunities to dump yard waste and leaves direct observation, field collection, for improvement were noted and into the adjacent parkland trapping, remote sensing and other are listed here for methods. With the exception of the future consider- Bald Eagle, no federally- or state- ation by relevant listed endangered or threatened County depart- species were documented as part of ments. the inventory. A cursory analysis of • Virtually all collected data indicates that more woodland than 50% of historically document- (unpaved) ed mammals, reptiles and amphib- trails in Ar- ians are expected to be listed as lington parks extirpated or undocumented from are in various Arlington. Upon full analysis of states of dete- collected information, data will be rioration and compared to historical records and in some cases a special report, titled Wildlife of contribut- Arlington will be issued. The report ing to active will document the current status of erosion. They wildlife species in Arlington, iden- should be tify gaps in data, make recommen- inspected dations for continued studies and and reme- monitoring, discuss issues relating dial action to invasive and nuisance wildlife should be and address population recovery considered. opportunities. Due to distribution- All trails al inconsistencies related to habitat should also fragmentation and isolation, spe- be accurately cific recommendations relating to marked by habitat enhancement, protection of GPS and County Champion Swamp White Oak growing in multi-use park locally rare species and restoration added to the would be protected by Recommendation #3.

Natural Resources Management Plan 26 Photo by Gary Fleming, DCR Partners in A number of beneficial working Cooperative relationships were developed dur- Local Resource ing the course of performing the Management Natural Heritage Resource Inven- tory. Various working partners Parks, natural included staff from the National lands and indi- Park Service, Northern Virginia vidual resource Regional Park Authority, De- features are dis- partment of Defense, Virginia tributed through- Department of Game and Inland out Arlington Fisheries, Virginia Department County without of Conservation and Recreation, regard to politi- Smithsonian Institution, City of cal boundaries or Alexandria, Fairfax County Park property own- Authority and several non-profit ership. Habitat conservation groups. A Natural fragmentation Resources Working Group could from develop- focus efforts on natural resource ment and the issues affecting Arlington County, resulting isola- its neighbors and regional part- tion of less mo- ners. Quarterly meetings would bile populations include guest speakers, informa- Scenic waterfall at Gulf Branch is considered a significant natural of both plants tion sharing and review of new resource. and wildlife have research or best management rather than move the debris placed a number of practices within the natural lands to the street for pickup. This these resources at risk. In a num- management field. Regular contact practice is environmentally ber of locations across the County, and cooperation between member harmful. Invasive plants may plant communities, wetlands, jurisdictions would increase the be introduced into parkland, fragile watersheds or wildlife pop- opportunities to develop shared and the resulting thick layer of ulations occupy natural landforms management goals, share natural leaves is unable to decompose that spill over jurisdictional lines resource data and fund joint proj- naturally and creates a “dead- on the map. The ability to man- ects and research. zone” where plants cannot age natural resources by ecologi- grow. These leaf dumps are cal unit becomes a more difficult Recommendation 18: Establish also harmful to trees. In some challenge without shared manage- a Natural Resources Advisory cases, homeowners on proper- ment goals and objectives between Group to enable Board-appoint- ties adjacent to public property various owners. This is particu- ed advisory commissions to ad- have made improvements that larly true with regard to watershed vise more effectively with natural encroach into parkland. The management and invasive plant resource issues. combination of an aggressive control. education campaign (County Arlington County’s Environment web site, publications and Recommendation 17: Initiate and Energy Conservation Com- direct mailings) coupled with the formation of a local inter- mission, Park and Recreation inspections and enforcement is jurisdictional Natural Resources Commission, and Urban Forestry recommended to change hom- Working Group for the purpose Commission have shared inter- eowner behavior and recover of strengthening existing part- ests in natural resources issues. A public parkland. nerships and developing new co- joint working group of the three operative working relationships. commissions, with representation from each, would help to keep

27 Natural Resources Management Plan Commissions’ members informed cate residents and landowners of iors or actions. Volunteer groups, concerning natural resource issues the importance of environmental such as Arlingtonians for a Clean and enable the Commissions to sustainability, natural resource Environment (ACE), Tree Stew- deal more effectively with those protection and habitat enhance- ards, Arlington Regional Master issues. The working group chair ment on private properties. Naturalists (ARMN), Master Gar- would call meetings based on deners, Northern Virgina Conser- consultations with the natural Staff at Arlington’s Nature Centers, vation Trust (NVCT) and others resource management staff, other trained and skilled in the design should be solicited for both sup- program managers and the three and presentation of interpre- port of public educational efforts Commissions’ Chairs. tive programs, will be a valuable and recruitment for volunteer asset in providing both natural projects. Continued cooperation Public Education and Outreach resource information and offering with state agencies, including the conservation-related programs for local office of Virginia Coopera- The development of a public policy residents of all ages. The County’s tive Extension, will allow citizens and management strategy begins the web site offers a number of oppor- to take advantage of natural re- process that will lead to local natural tunities for engagement, includ- source training opportunities and resource conservation and pres- ing a page devoted to Arlington’s leverage the County’s ability to ervation. From the beginning and natural resources. Natural history generate and utilize a strong vol- throughout the process, it will be im- information, collected through the unteer force. Arlington residents portant to inform, educate, persuade Natural Heritage Resource Inven- are highly educated, well informed and engage the public in meaningful tory, such as the Flora of Arling- and have strongly supported en- ways. The many assets of the County ton County and the Wildlife of vironmental initiatives in the past government and community should Arlington, should be placed on the when provided the opportunity to be explored as avenues for this con- Arlington County web site when participate. A strong partnership tinuing education. completed. Both the web site and between residents, volunteers, The Citizen newsletter should be non-profits, County government Recommendation 19: Arlington utilized to promote wise land use and neighboring jurisdictions will County staff should seek and practices on private property and help to ensure community suc- embrace opportunities to edu- to discourage damaging behav- cess in the area of environmental stewardship.

Botanical field team in swamp at Pimmit Run Natural Resources Management Plan 28 Appe n d i x 1

Na t u r a l Res o u r c e Co n se r v a t i o n A r e a s he following parks and delineated areas with- lands remaining on County property. Each park or in existing County-owned parks are recom- section of park is shown below by map, with sig- mended by staff for inclusion as designated nificant natural features listed. Preservation of these TNatural Resource Conservation Areas (NRCAs). natural sites through conservation management is Criteria for inclusion included an analysis of intact, considered a critical element of this Natural Resourc- significant natural resource features or attributes es Management Plan. that represent the most ecologically sensitive natural

Recommended Natural Resource Conservation Areas

126 Total Acres of recommended NRCA’s

Park Locations • Gulf Branch • Donaldson Run • Windy Run • C.F. Smith • Long Branch/Glencarlyn • Arlington Forest • Barcroft

Did you know? Only 4.4% of Arlington’s total land area remains “natural land.” The map on the left highlights remaining “natural land” in Arlington; Arlington County owns the “natural land” colored in green.

29 Natural Resources Management Plan Gulf Branch Park (lower)

5.4 acres

• High Quality Oak Heath and Mesic-mixed Hardwood Forest • Locally-rare plants • Significant wildflower viewing areas • County Champion trees present • Serves as buffer to nearby state-rare plants on G.W. Memorial Parkway property

Natural Resources Management Plan 30 Donaldson Run Park

30.22 acres

• Significant woodlands including Mesic-mixed Hardwood Forest, Oak-Heath Forest, Acidic Oak Hickory Forest, and locally-rare Basic Mesic Forest • Locally-rare native plants • Woodland seeps • Significant geological features: Exposures and waterfalls • Significant trees present • Serves as buffer to nearby state-rare plants on G.W. Memorial Parkway property

31 Natural Resources Management Plan Windy Run Park (lower)

7.5 acres

• Significant woodlands present – Oak-Heath Forest and Mesic-mixed Hardwood Forest • Locally-rare native plants • Springs and woodland seeps • State Champion, County Champion and Significant Trees present • Serves as buffer to nearby state-rare plants on G.W. Memorial Parkway property

Natural Resources Management Plan 32 Fort C.F. Smith Park

4.4 acres

• Significant woodlands, including – Mesic-mixed Hardwood Forest, Oak-Heath Forest, and Acidic Oak Hickory Forest • Locally-rare native plants • Historic spring and woodland seep • Significant geological feature – large granite outcrop • Large cluster of State Champion, County Champion and Significant Trees present

33 Natural Resources Management Plan Glencarlyn Park (U.S. Route 50)

2.6 acres

• Outstanding example of undisturbed Acidic Oak Hickory Forest • Little to no impact from invasive plant species • County Champion and Significant Trees present

Natural Resources Management Plan 34 Long Branch / Glencarlyn Park

Three sections total 49.67 acres

• Significant collection of natural woodlands, including Oak-Heath Forest, Acidic Oak Hickory Forest, Mesic- mixed Hardwood Forest, and a remnant section of locally-rare Basic Mesic Forest • Large collection of locally-rare native plants • A number of County Champion and Significant Trees present • Historic springs and woodland seeps • Significant geological features – stream exposures of scientific importance

35 Natural Resources Management Plan Arlington Forest Park

1.0 acre

• Rare Plant Community classified as a Dry Gravel Cap Poverty Oat Grass Glade (Oak-Heath Forest remnant) • Significant Trees present • Restorable natural site with few invasive plants present • This is the only significant natural site that is accessible to those with disabilities

Natural Resources Management Plan 36 Barcroft Park (southwest portion)

24.0 acres

• Most ecologically significant natural site owned by County • Globally-rare and State-rare wetlands present • Significant cluster of locally-rare native plants • Twenty-three springs • A number of State Champion, County Champion and Signifi- cant Trees present • Unique wildlife habitat present

37 Natural Resources Management Plan Appe n d i x 2

Li s t o f So u r c es Re v i e w e d f o r t h e Na t u r a l Res o u r c e Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n

A Century of Change in the Flora and Vegetation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance (Section 61). an Urban Area – Arlington County, Virginia. 1998. February 8, 2003. Arlington County, Virginia. Allison N. Wack. Smithsonian Institution Research Training Program. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Plan. Department of Environmental Services. Environmental Planning A Sketch of the Natural History of the District of Office. April 21, 2001. Arlington County, Virginia. Columbia. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington No. 1. May, 1918. W. L. McAtee. Draft Final Report: A Natural Resource Inventory of Washington, D. C. the G. W. Parkway, Roaches Run and Arlington Woods (unpublished). August 25, 2008. Greg Zell. Arlington Arlington County Chesapeake Bay Preservation County, Virginia. Ordinance Interim Guidance Manual – Version 2.0. Department of Environmental Services / Department Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report, VPDES Permit No. of Public Works. August 2003. Arlington County, VA0088579. September 30, 2006. Arlington County, Virginia. Virginia. Arlington County in Virginia: A Pictorial History. Four Mile Run Restoration Master Plan. Northern 1987. Nan and Ross Netherton. The Donning Virginia Regional Commission. March 2006. Company / Publishers. Prepared for Arlington County and City of Alexandria, Virginia. Arlington County Riverfront Inventory and Analysis. July 1993. Department of Parks, Recreation Geological Features Inventory of Arlington County and Community Resources and Department of – Project Summary. Tony Fleming. December 30, Community Planning, Housing and Development. 2006. NHRI Project (unpublished report). Arlington Arlington County, Virginia. County, Virginia. Arlington County Tree and Shrub Ordinance (Chapter Histories of Arlington Neighborhoods and Civic 67). Arlington County, Virginia. www.arlingtonva. Organizations. Arlington County Civic Federation. us/departments/ParksRecreation/scripts/parks/ http://civfed.org/historys.htm ParksRecreationScriptsParksTreesOrdinance.aspx Images of Arlington. 2000. Arlington Historical Arlington Heritage – Vignettes of a Virginia County. Society. 1959. Eleanor Lee Templeman. Avenel Books. New Invasive Alien Plant Species of Virginia. Virginia York. Department of Conservation and Recreation and Arlington House – The Robert E. Lee Memorial / Virginia Native Plant Society. www.dcr.state.us/dnh/ Cultural Landscape Report / History / Volume 1. 2001. pdflist.htm USDI, NPS. Washington, D.C. Invasive Plant Program. Arlington County Arlington, Virginia Profile 2009. Department of Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Planning, Housing and Development. Cultural Resources. www.arlingtonva.us/ Arlington County, Virginia. Departments/ParksRecreation/scripts/parks/ ParksRecreationScriptsParksInvasive.aspx Atlas of the Virginia Flora III. Harvill, et al. 1992. Virginia Botanical Associates. Rt. 1, Box 63. Invasive Species Program – Draft Report. Jan Ferrigan. Burkeville, Virginia 23922. August 2002. Virginia Cooperative Extension and Arlington County Department of Parks, Recreation Barcroft Bog Management Plan (unpublished). Greg and Community Resources. Arlington County, Zell. June 11, 2004. Department of Parks, Recreation Virginia, and Community Resources. Arlington, Virginia. 38 Natural Resources Management Plan Lubber Run Park Invasive Plant Management Project. Simplified Geologic Map of Arlington County, Arlington County Department of Parks, Recreation Virginia and Vicinity. Department of Environmental and Cultural Resources. www.arlingtonva.us/ Services, Arlington County, Virginia. Compiled by department/ParksRecreation/scripts/planning/InDesign/ William Frost and Timothy Ernest. 1999. Updated by ParksRecreationScriptsPlanningInDesignLubberRunPla PlanningInDesignLubberRunPlant.aspx Nicholas Jackson, 2006. Arlington County, Virginia. The Natural Communities of Virginia, nd2 Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Project data, Approximation. Virginia Department of 2005-8, Greg Zell, et al., unpublished. Arlington Conservation and Recreation. www.dcr.virginia.gov/ County, Virginia. natural_heritage/nchome.shtml Permit Renewal Application, VPDES Permit No. Urban Forest Master Plan. 7/28/04. Department of VA0088579. 2007-2012 Permit Cycle. February 2007. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources. Arlington Arlington County, Virginia. County, Virginia. Potomac Palisades Task Force – Final Report. August, Volunteer Stream Monitoring Program Draft Reports 1990. Arlington County, Virginia. 2002-2005. Department of Environmental Services. PowerPoint Presentation: Vanishing Flora of Environmental Planning Office. Arlington County, Washington and Vicinity: Three Centuries of Botanical Virginia Exploration in Alexandria, Virginia. 888th Meeting Watershed Management Plan. Jason Papacosmo. of the Botanical Society of Washington – President’s Department of Environmental Services. Address. December 10, 2007. Rod Simmons. Environmental Planning Office. January 2001. Provision of a Stream Inventory, Report on Watershed Arlington County, Virginia. Restoration Opportunities, and Training Services for County Staff in Stream Survey Techniques. Environmental Systems Analysis, Inc. 1999. Annapolis, MD. Prepared for the Department of Environmental Services. Arlington County, Virginia. Regional BMPs in the Four Mile Run Watershed – A Feasibility Investigation. Don Waye. November 1, 1993. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. Annandale, Virginia. Report of the Task Force on The Physical Environment. November, 1986. Submitted to the Commission on Arlington’s Future. Arlington County, Virginia. County Champion Tulip Poplar

39 Natural Resources Management Plan Appe n d i x 3

Def i n i t i o n s

Champion Tree: Individual specimens of trees or used to define a local population within a limited shrubs that have been nominated and designated as geographical range, i.e. local. Also defined as a the largest of that species in Arlington County, and genetically distinct population of plants, of the same maintained on the most current list of Arlington species, adapted to specific localized conditions County Champion Trees and GIS layer. Two or (climate, soils, etc.). more specimens that score within 5 points of the largest will be listed as Co-Champions. Total score Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Also known (American Forest Association methodology) is as GIS, Geographic Information System refers the sole criteria for designation regardless of tree to a computer-based set of tools that captures, location on private or public property. Some County stores, analyzes and presents data in the form of Champion Trees have also qualified as either State overlays or data maps. In Arlington County, GIS is or National Champion specimens. This data set is routinely utilized by staff for land surveying, urban routinely updated and modified to reflect changes. planning, emergency services, and natural resource management. Conservation Easement: Conservation easements are a long-established land protection tool that Native Plant Communities: Natural lands are allows land to continue to be privately owned but composed of a mosaic of self-sustaining and restricted to serve and protect the land for the public definable ecological communities. A natural or good. A conservation easement is a legal document native plant community is “a vegetation classification voluntarily made between a landowner and a unit defined on the basis of a characteristic range of land trust. The easement limits present and future species composition, diagnostic species occurrence, property development rights, e.g. as a farm, forest, habitat conditions, and physiognomy.” The plant open space, and/or natural area, but protects it as community designation is synonymous with the well. The easement is legally recorded and bound to term “association or type” and represents the lowest the deed of the property permanently. In return for level of hierarchical classification for natural lands. granting a conservation easement, the landowner Extant plant communities in Arlington County may be entitled to significant federal, local and were defined in the field using criteria established state tax benefits. Land trusts hold easements in by the Virginia Department of Conservation and perpetuity that protect a wide variety of natural Recreation (DCR) and are displayed on the most and cultural resources, including watershed areas, current update to the Plant Community GIS Data the setting for historic homes, scenic views, lands Layer. The Virginia Natural Heritage Program adjacent to public parks and game preserves, (VNHP) currently lists over 120 natural plant community lands, and more. communities as occurring within Virginia.

Cultivar: Also known as a “cultivated variety”, the Native Plant Species: Defined as those plant species term cultivar refers to a variety of plants purposely (trees, shrubs, ferns, forbs, grasses and sedges) developed by horticulturists to favor selected traits documented to be growing naturally within the such as height, flower or leaf color, or resistance to boundaries of Arlington County, reasonably assumed disease. Cultivars are often certified by name, and to have had an historical presence since the mid- routinely propagated as clones through vegetative early 1800’s earlier, and lack a known history of means to maintain genetic consistency. introduction or escape from cultivation. The term “native species” is considered synonymous with Ecotype: A population of (plant) species that “local native species”. has adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions through natural selection. Generally

Natural Resources Management Plan 40 Natural Lands: Natural Lands are considered a subset shrubs growing on County property, determined to Photo by Jeff Kirwan VCE / VT of Open Space and refer to parcels of land “which be ecologically significant based on large size, old have experienced only minimal human alteration age, or local rarity by the Natural Resource Specialist or have recovered from anthropogenic disturbance (PRCR), and listed within the most current version under mostly natural regimes of species interaction of the Tree Report Package and GIS layer. This data and disturbance”. In Arlington County, documented set is routinely updated and modified to reflect natural lands occur primarily as variations of mid- changes. late successional hardwood forest aging from 85-200 years old, generally exhibit historically undisturbed soils and display a complete and diverse native vegetation structure (canopy, sub-canopy, shrub and herb layer). Few non-forested natural lands remain in Arlington, but would include several documented remnant woodland meadows (glens), bogs, seeps, and tidal marsh. The presence of invasive plant species (non-canopy) does not alone disqualify a parcel form qualification as natural lands. Natural lands can be differentiated from the more abundant Managed Landscape, which exhibits some combination of the following features: heavily disturbed soils, non-native plantings, altered topography, presence of mowed turf, and paved trails or service roadways. Managed Landscape areas are normally managed for active recreation and may contain improved facilities and parking lots. The primary source for verification will be the most recent version of the Plant Community GIS Data Layer.

Non-Native Invasive Plant Species: Defined as established and reproducing non-native plants, that through a combination of traits (aggressive growth, propensity to spread, immunity to native diseases, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS insects or herbivores), threaten the elimination of The following individuals and groups are recognized for their assistance with the Natural Heritage Resource desired native species through competition and Inventory replacement. Invasive and potentially-invasive Rod Simmons, Botanist Anthony Fleming, Geologist plants are monitored in Arlington through local John Parrish, Contract Botanist Anthony Bulmer, Naturalist – Small mammals field investigation and the review of a number of reference sources, including, but not limited to, Mark Strong, Botanist Smithsonian Institution, Andy Rabin and Kevin Munroe – Odonate surveys DCR’s published list of Invasive Alien Plant Species of Department of Botany Alonso Abugattas, PRCR – Lepidoptera surveys Virginia (most recent version). Christopher Frye, Maryland State Botanist MD. David Farner, PRCR – Avifauna research Department of Natural Resources Meghan Tice – Data Management Non-Native Plant Species: The opposite of locally Johnny Townsend, Botanist VA. DCR – native plant species. Native to a geographic location Natural Heritage Program John White – Herpetology and Photography other than Arlington County, and if present Gary Fleming, Vegetation Ecologist VA. DCR – Project Wildlife Watch Volunteers currently, is the result of intentional or accidental Natural Heritage Program Salamander Search Team Volunteers introduction or escape from cultivation, including Brent Steury, Natural Resource Manager G. W. Department of Environmental Services – GIS staff hybrids, plants that result from genetic engineering Memorial Parkway John Dodge, Botanist or horticultural cultivars. Stephen Van Hoven, Arborist DOD – Arlington National Cemetery Significant Trees: Individual specimens of trees or 41 Natural Resources Management Plan Natural Resources Management Plan 42 Photo by Jeff Kirwan VCE / VT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals and groups are recognized for their assistance with the Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Rod Simmons, Botanist Anthony Fleming, Geologist John Parrish, Contract Botanist Anthony Bulmer, Naturalist – Small mammals Mark Strong, Botanist Smithsonian Institution, Andy Rabin and Kevin Munroe – Odonate surveys Department of Botany Alonso Abugattas, PRCR – Lepidoptera surveys Christopher Frye, Maryland State Botanist MD. David Farner, PRCR – Avifauna research Department of Natural Resources Meghan Tice – Data Management Johnny Townsend, Botanist VA. DCR – Natural Heritage Program John White – Herpetology and Photography Gary Fleming, Vegetation Ecologist VA. DCR – Project Wildlife Watch Volunteers Natural Heritage Program Salamander Search Team Volunteers Brent Steury, Natural Resource Manager G. W. Department of Environmental Services – GIS staff Memorial Parkway John Dodge, Botanist Stephen Van Hoven, Arborist DOD – Arlington National Cemetery

Natural Resources Management Plan 42 Department of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 414 Arlington, Virginia 22201 TEL 703.228.PLAY FAX 703.228.3328 www.arlingtonva.us/prcr