Wildlife of Arlington: a Natural Resource Heritage Technical Report

Home , Anacostia (moth), Anisota, Apantesis, Arlington Park, Basiaeschna, Brachymesia

July 2011

1 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Board Chairman Christopher Zimmerman, Vice Chairman Mary Hughes Hynes and members Barbara A. Favola, Jay Fisette, and J. Walter Tejada.

County Manager Barbara Donnellan

Director, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Dinesh Tiwari

Division Chief, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Divi- sion, Caroline Temmermand

Principle Researcher, Author and Editor: Greg Zell, ([email protected]), Natural Resource Specialist, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cul- tural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpretation Section.

Contributing Researchers: Part III – Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata): Andy Rabin ([email protected]) and Kevin Munroe, ([email protected]) Contract Specialists. Part IV – Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera): Alonso Abugattas, ([email protected]), Park Na- turalist, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpretation Section. Part V – Birds (Avifauna): David Farner, ([email protected]), Park Manager, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpreta- tion Section.

Cover Photo Credits: John White – red fox, green frog, cardinal, red-spotted purple. Greg Zell – beaver lodge, northern dusky salamander, and hickory horned devil.

2 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Part I. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Purpose ...... 5 Report Format ...... 5 Arlington’s Natural Past ...... 6 Early Human History ...... 6 Impact of Urbanization ...... 8 Study Area: Current Profile ...... 9 Project Methodology ...... 10 Historical Records ...... 12 Part II. MAMMALS, REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS ...... 14 Introduction ...... 14 Species Accounts ...... 15 Mammals (Class Mammalia) ...... 15 Reptiles (Class Reptilia) ...... 33 Amphibians (Class Amphibia) ...... 44 Summary of Survey Results ...... 52 Part III. DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta) ...... 54 ntroduction ...... 54 Odonate Survey Overview ...... 55 Methodology ...... 55 Field Collections and Observational Records, April 29 – October 8, 2007 Field Season ...... 56 Damselflies (Sub-order Zygoptera) ...... 56 Dragonflies (Sub-Order Anisoptera) ...... 57 Survey Results ...... 60 Species of Note ...... 61 Arlington’s Best Observation Sites ...... 61 Part IV. BUTTERFLIES (Class Insecta) ...... 63 Introduction ...... 63 Lepidoptera Survey Overview ...... 64 Methodology ...... 65 Survey Results and Species of Note ...... 68 Part V. BIRDS OF ARLINGTON (Class Aves) ...... 70

3 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Introduction ...... 70 Habitats ...... 71 Historical Changes in Species and Frequency ...... 71 Backyard Habitats ...... 72 Birdwatching in Arlington County ...... 73 Arlington County Bird Checklist ...... 74 Part VI: THE FUTURE OF WILDLIFE IN ARLINGTON ...... 85 Habitat Fragmentation ...... 86 Loss of Habitat Diversity ...... 86 Loss of Wetlands ...... 86 Invasive Plants ...... 87 Part VII. A STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE ...... 87 Management Limitations ...... 87 Management Opportunities ...... 88 Appendix I – Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians Species Occurrence and Frequency ...... 94 Appendix II – 2007 Odonate Survey Site Locations and Habitat Descriptions ...... 99 Appendix III – Odonate Species Recorded in Fairfax County (Not Observed in Arlington County in 2007) ...... 100 Appendix IV –Observations of Moth Species in Arlington, Virginia 2005-2010 ...... 103 Appendix V – References and Citations ...... 106 Appendix VI – Acknowledgments ...... 110

4 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Part I. INTRODUCTION

Purpose n 2008, county staff completed a three- year comprehensive Natural Heritage IResource Inventory (NHRI) of Arling- ton County, Virginia. The inventory project was initiated in response to recommendations made within the Public Spaces Master Plan (2005), which called attention to Ar- lington County’s lack of contemporary knowledge or data regarding extant natural resources, and hence, its lack of the ability to effectively manage those resources. As part of the overall NHRI project, the occurrence of wildlife in Arlington was investigated. Most field studies were conducted primarily from 2007-2008. The establishment of a baseline wildlife database is considered a Red fox kits Photo by John White first step. Current wildlife records, when analyzed with other data sets collected as of local wildlife species and populations as a part of the NHRI, such as plant communi- component of the natural environment in ties, wetlands, vegetation resources, forest Arlington County; and (4) to educate both types, invasive plants, stream quality and county staff and the general public about the historical records, has formed the basis of urban wildlife resources within the local discussions regarding habitat improvement community. and species restoration opportunities. The primary objectives of this report are four Report Format fold: (1) establish a contemporary post- This report is the result of a collective effort urbanization scientific record of local wild- by county staff, contract specialists, organi- life occurrence and distribution; (2) docu- zational partners and volunteers. Multiple ment the historical changes to Arlington’s researchers, identified on the inside cover, wildlife relative to the impact of develop- have contributed to the development of the ment; (3) address some of the issues relating report. Original contributor submissions to management, preservation and protection (reports) have been edited by the principle

5 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report author in order to best organize content and length of Four Mile Run and other larger provide consistency throughout the report. streams were most likely flooded by seasonal beaver ponds and lined by depression Arlington’s Natural Past swamps. Many dozens of freshwater springs, Arlington County’s geographic position seeps and wooded wetlands provided refuge within both the mid-Atlantic region and and habitat for a large number of water de- within the Old Dominion itself point to an pendent plants and wildlife species. incredibly rich and diverse historical natural past. Northern Virginia is an area of over- Early Human History lapping ranges of the distributional limits of The earliest records that describe the land both northern and southern species of flora now called Arlington were written by ex- and fauna within the eastern United States. plorers of the new world, including Captain In addition, Arlington lies on the fall-line or John Smith (1608), Samuel Argoll (1612), fall zone, the meandering geological boun- trader Henry Fleet (1632) and others. The dary between the Piedmont and Coastal various accounts of exploration identified Plain formations. As a result, the County such local landmarks as Little Falls, Anacos- historically supports species native to the tia River and Analostin Island (Roosevelt rolling hill topography of the Piedmont in Island). These early explorers and traders the northern and western parts of the Coun- were not scientists, but did provide a general ty and supports species native to the bot- view of a bountiful wilderness untouched by tomlands and sandy terraces of the Coastal European hands and inhabited by “indians”. Plain in the extreme southern section of the It is assumed that the indigenous Native County. Americans had a minimal impact on local natural resources. By all historical accounts, Prior to European colonization, observers wildlife was extremely abundant at the time would have seen a land little disturbed by of first contact and the lifestyle practiced by the resident Algonquian-speaking people the relatively small native population sup- with the exception of scattered villages ported the seasonal harvest of renewable along both sides of the Potomac River and plant and animal resources. Hunting with limited subsistence farming in the rich soils primitive weapons and the harvest and dry- of the wide river floodplain. Rich bottom- ing of anadromous fish from the Potomac land hardwood forest and tidal marsh lined River provided necessary protein. Nut and the banks of the river in South Arlington, fruit-bearing woody plants furnished con- while the rocky cliffs of the Potomac bluffs sumable mast, and vegetable needs were met to the north rose unblemished several hun- through the harvest of small-cultivated gar- dred feet above the water below. Inland from dens. Tobacco was raised for ceremonial the river, virgin forests of oak, American purposes and herbs collected for medicinal chestnut and hickory were complimented by and cooking needs. Permanent villages, lo- many miles of fresh cold-water streams. The cated near waterways, were convenient for

6 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

fishing and cultivation. Vast tracts of virgin south and attacks from belligerent tribes to forest and high quality hunting grounds lay the north, convinced the native people to inland from the waterways. Local natural simply move on to more hospitable lands. resources remained abundant until Euro- peans arrived in large numbers to settle the The 18th century brought increased numbers land. A number of historians argue that at of settlers to the Washington area. The first the time of European settlement, local tribes signs of environmental degradation would living along the Potomac near Washington have included the cutting of virgin timber were at the periphery of influence by the for wood products, heating and cooking, larger Powhatan Indian Confederacy and and planting fields for cash crops (tobacco). were located at the boundary of the known Locally, the over-harvest of fish, game, and wilderness at the time. With a degree of in- fur-bearing mammals for consumption, the dependence, local tribes appeared to largely fur trade and market was probably evident escape European notice and avoided the by the early 1700s. W. L. McAtee, in prepa- years of warfare and turmoil that defined the ration for publishing his A Sketch of the relationship between the colonists and the Natural History of the District of Columbia unified tribes to the south of Arlington for in 1918, conducted considerable research most of the 17th century. For a number of about earlier historical accounts of natural decades after 1608, an active trading rela- history. In describing mammals, he states, tionship most likely existed between local “Among those which inhabited the vicinity tribes and Europeans employed by the Vir- of the District of Columbia within historic ginia [Trading] Company. Beaver pelts and times, but which are now locally extirpated, other animal skins would have been eagerly are buffalo, elk, white-tailed deer, wild-cat, traded for desirable goods such as English puma, gray wolf, black bear, pine martin, iron tools, blades and cooking pots. By the beaver and black rat” (McAtee, 1918. p. 52). middle of the century (1648), local tribes It is apparent that not long after active Eu- began to feel the pressure of increased co- ropean settlement, some native wildlife be- lonial expansion and land re-appropriation. gan to disappear as a result of market trap- There are no written accounts to indicate ping, over-hunting and habitat loss. Prior to exactly when or why the resident Native the 20th century, major impacts on the local Americans disappeared from Arlington, but environment included railroad construction most authorities agree that by 1675 they in the mid 1800s, a lengthy period of quarry- were gone. Most likely, a combination of ing stone along the Potomac Gorge, early stressors – European expansion from the and continuous development along the Po-

7 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report tomac River in South Arlington, and the Navy Annex (1944) and the resulting construction of defensive forts and some housing boom during the period. large-scale forest removal during the Civil Construction of the George Washington War. In spite of earlier land changes, the Memorial Parkway from 1932-1960. community of Arlington / Alexandria Coun- Construction of Shirley Highway ty in 1900 was still considered a rural com- (opened in 1949) and I-66 from the late- munity with only 6,430 residents, 379 small 1960s through the early 1980s. farms, several villages and few improved roads.

Impact of Urbanization The twentieth century ushered in great change, and the period from the 1920s through the 1980s can be fairly described as an age of growth, development and environmental impact. The singular events and activities that most shaped the transition from a resource-rich rural community to an environmentally-impaired urban center can be directly tied to the periodic expansion of the federal government in nearby Washing- ton, D.C.

Arlington County – a study site of 26 square miles Some of the notable impacts on the environment within that period were: Introduction of the electric trolley and expansion of local rail lines early in the century ushered in the age of commut- ing. Development associated with increased jobs and housing needs during WWI and the New Deal. Periodic growth of Arlington National Cemetery and Fort Myer Military Reser- vation. Construction of National Airport (1941) Rapid local expansion during WWII concurrent with the construction of the Approximately 700 acres remain as natural lands in Pentagon (36,000 employees) and the Arlington County

8 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

The accumulated effects of 20th century de- ginia Regional Park Authority. Extant natu- velopment forever changed Arlington from ral lands occur as several dozen isolated and a rural to a suburban to an urban communi- fragmented parcels. The most ecologically ty within a span of 60 years. Farmland, forest significant parcels occur in stream valleys and field rapidly transformed into residen- and portions where development would tial neighborhoods with all attendant infra- have been difficult or too costly, and were structure required, including roads, above later protected as parkland. The most eco- and below ground utilities, schools and ser- logically significant parcels remaining in Ar- vice industries (gas stations, office space, lington are found in Barcroft Park, Glencar- and shopping). lyn Park, the northern section of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and Roach- Study Area: Current Profile es Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. Arlington is a highly urbanized community. At just under 26 square miles in size, with a Water Resources: Over half of Arlington’s 2008 resident population of 206,800, Arling- original surface streams have disappeared ton County has one of the highest popula- over the past 75 years. Those that remain are tion densities among counties nationwide. heavily impaired both physically and from a In addition to a large volume of residential water quality standpoint. The water quality housing units, there are more than 43 mil- is such that only the most tolerant benthic lion square feet of office space either built or species persist. Three-hundred-sixty miles of under construction. Two major interstate underground sewer pipes carry storm water highways and a modern subway system pass to the remaining 30 miles of stream. A small through the County. The highest density of number of natural springs and remnant wet- commercial growth has been in the sou- lands can be found within the remaining theastern quadrant of the County in a spider natural lands. Three wetland communities, web fashion along major highways and the while small in size, have been classified as metro railway system. North and west Ar- state and/or globally-rare plant communities lington largely remain residential communi- and are considered to be historically and ties with scattered commercial zones for ecologically significant. shopping. With an estimated 40% of the County covered in impervious surface, Ar- Forest Resources / Plant Communities: A ma- lington is considered “built out.” jority of the extant natural lands in Arling- Natural Lands: While 18% of the County ton occur as mature hardwood forest, with (2,940 acres) is classified as Open Space, on- virtually no early successional stages of ly 4.4% (738 acres) is recognized as “histori- growth or natural meadows and low quality cal natural lands.” A majority of the remain- edge. Forest communities range in age from ing natural lands are found within public 85 to 230 years, with most dating to aban- parklands owned by Arlington County, the donment of land cleared during the Civil National Park Service and the Northern Vir- War or as farmland abandoned from the late

9 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

1800s through the early 1900s. Over the past health (water quality and native flora). 30 years, as the County continued to develop, the forest canopy (overstory) decreased The documentation and field study of wild- by over 40%. Most of the decrease in canopy life populations in a highly developed urban trees occurred on private property. As part community such as Arlington presented a of the larger Natural Resource Inventory number of unique challenges, including size Project, existing plant communities have of study area (26 sq. miles), limited staff re- been identified and mapped within most of sources, simultaneous inventory of multiple the natural lands. A large percentage of the animal groups, severe fragmentation and natural forest communities have been typed isolation of remaining natural lands, com- as a variant of oak-hickory forest, with some plex mix of land ownership (private, federal, remnant bottomland communities present. state, regional, and County), inaccessibility Unique communities include several to some study areas, varying quantity and wooded grass glades, upland seeps and quality of habitat, and persistent ambient swamps, terrace gravel bogs, and a small noise (airplanes and vehicles) and artificial complex of historical tidal marsh. light. Inventory areas were pre-selected by GIS review of remaining natural lands, plant Project Methodology communities, forest types and occurrence of Based on limited funding, available staff re- streams or wetlands. Both public and private sources and the time constraints, the wildlife properties (with owner permission) were inventory was limited to targeted faunal inventoried. To facilitate the collection of groups. The selected groups included birds, data through trapping and capture/release mammals, amphibians, reptiles and two cat- methods, research permits were obtained egories of insects - dragonflies/damselflies from both the National Park Service and the (Odonata) and butterflies/moths (Lepidop- Virginia Department of Game and Inland tera). These particular insect groups were Fisheries. selected based on renewed public interest in these species and the fact that both may in- In order to maximize available resources directly serve as indicators of environmental within a unique study environment, a number of approaches to data collection were applied. Elements used included time constrained surveys (observation), capture and release, live trapping, remote-sensing (cameras), audible surveys, a review of both contemporary and historical records, and available road-kill data. Field studies were seasonally scheduled to best match the active periods of species inventoried and resources available. Inventory activities were con-

Staff collecting salamander eggs Photo by Greg Zell

10 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report ducted by utilizing a combination of Arling- biking, walking dogs, bird watching, etc. Re- ton County staff naturalists, contracted spe- quirements to join the program included cialists, and the carefully managed use of attendance at a mandatory training session, trained volunteers. Unfortunately, due to the willingness to participate for a 12-month relatively small size of parcels inventoried, period, and regular access to the internet. location within a highly urbanized commu- Two training sessions were offered and de- nity, and ease of access by the public, pit-fall signed to provide volunteers the ability to traps could not be used and live-trapping identify by sight approximately twenty-five (Sherman traps) was limited to a few iso- species of local common mammals, reptiles lated areas of Arlington where the risk of and amphibians that could be easily identi- human interference with trap-lines was con- fied by the trained layperson. Examples of sidered to be acceptable. Areas surveyed in- species selected included rabbits, raccoons, cluded parkland with natural areas and gen- opossums, chipmunks, box turtles, snapping eral open space (mature canopy with turf- turtles and Rough Green Snakes. Volunteer grass, mowed areas, streams, hiker/biker observations were emailed directly to the trails, etc.), old rail lines, residential neigh- Natural Resource Specialist who entered all borhoods and urban backyards. observations (species, date and location) in- to a master data list. In total, over 350 wild- The use of volunteers was an important ele- life observations (records) were provided by ment that helped to generate support for the Project Wildlife Watch volunteers. project, and deserves discussion within the report. A cadre of adult volunteers were so- Salamander Search Team: Prior to the start licited and trained by staff to assist in tar- of field surveys, staff identified approximate- geted inventory activities and data collec- ly 500 acres of potential salamander habitat. tion. The volunteer program allowed for Based on the estimated number of hours re- public participation in an important project, quired to carefully survey these wooded leveraged limited staff resources and was tracts, it was determined that the use of carefully designed to insure accuracy and trained volunteers would give staff the abili- data integrity. Three volunteer programs ty to inventory a greater acreage of parkland. were developed and managed by the project . Most parks were inventoried multiple times coordinator – Project Wildlife Watch, Sala- during three seasons. One dozen adult vo- mander Search Team, and Citizen Sentinels. lunteers were solicited to participate through A description of each follows: networking and internet advertisement in cooperation with the Arlington County Vo- Project Wildlife Watch: This program in- lunteer Office. Requirements included the volved the participation of several dozen ability to walk in steep terrain, turn logs and adult residents who routinely spent at least carry field equipment, and have access to several hours each week in a local park per- both the internet and a close-focus digital forming passive activities such as walking, camera. Volunteers were encouraged to

11 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

work in teams of two. A training session was parkland and were considered close enough planned and conducted that included an to hear any nearby anuran activity. Letters overview of amphibian life history, field were then sent to multiple addresses with an identification of possible local species, col- invitation to participate in the program. lecting and handling techniques, safety con- Homeowners who expressed interest in par- cerns (venomous snakes and yellow-jackets), ticipating agreed to stand in their back yards and use of equipment. Each participant was for 10-15 minutes several times a week at issued an aquatic collecting net, plastic col- night to listen for “noises” or sounds that lection jar and a complete set of salamander could be frogs or toads. The period of partic- photo flashcards laminated for field use. By ipation ran from early March through mid- established protocol, each volunteer would May of a single breeding season. A web-link both email a completed data collection sheet to the Virginia Herpetological Society home for each field session and digital photos of page, which provides audio calls of each na- collected specimens placed in the provided tive frog and toad, was emailed to each par- clear collection jar. The inclusion of digital ticipant. Each participating homeowner photos allowed the project manager to verify agreed to immediately email the project each collection made. After being photo- manager with an alert if any “unusual” graphed, each specimen was released at the sounds or calls were heard. Project staff point of collection. would then respond to the alert and survey the site at night within 24 hours to verify or Citizen Sentinel Program: Listening surveys discount the presence of targeted species. conducted at night during the breeding sea- This program was successful in allowing a son are a preferred survey method for frogs single member of the inventory staff to con- and toads. Identification of species by sound centrate efforts in areas of the County more or breeding call can be easily made by distant from residential communities and to trained field staff, but the process is labor still be able to react to alerts from citizens. intensive with no assurance of activity on any given night. In order to maximize the Historical Records efforts of a single staff member available to In 1816, David Baillie Warden published conduct surveys, the Citizen Sentinel Volun- what is considered to be the first scientific teer Program was implemented. The initial treatment of the natural history of the step was to identify possible remaining Washington D.C. area. His “Chorographical breeding habitat within Arlington County and Statistical Description of the District of parks. A review of historical collection Columbia” included both a formal list of flo- records and recent Geographic Information ra and observational accounts of wildlife System (GIS) mapping of extant wetlands species present at the time. Prior to the were used to delineate survey areas of inter- 1850s, few professional scientists were en- est. GIS was then utilized to identify and se- gaged in natural field studies in or around lect address points that abutted selected the Washington area. However, due to tre-

12 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report mendous growth of the federal bureaucracy the time. Periods of high activity included during and after the Civil War, the employ- the 1880s thru 1890s and just prior to the ment opportunities for botanists, entomolo- WWI, with renewed activity in the 1950s. gists and naturalists greatly increased. A Collection activities diminished during both number of scientific societies, such as the World Wars. Potomac-Side Naturalists Club (founded 1858) and the Biological Society of Wash- At times, the accurate review of historical ington (founded 1880), provided an oppor- accounts and records presented a challenge tunity for intellectual camaraderie, socializa- because modern Arlington County (1920) tion and study. Members routinely planned was formerly a part of Alexandria County and participated in group nature outings and prior to that, was included in the origi- around the local Washington area. As a re- nal District of Columbia. Specific location sult, a large number of historical accounts in names and descriptions of historical collec- the form of journal contributions, mono- tions were critical in order to place a par- graphs or articles provide both a floral and ticular record in Arlington County. Histori- faunal record of the past 150 years. Many of cal collection records of mammals, reptiles these early scientists were either employed and amphibians generally cover the period by or affiliated with the Smithsonian Institu- from the 1870s to the 1950s and were ob- tion (founded 1846). According to Phillip J. tained from the Smithsonian Institution, the Pauly, in Biologists and the Promise of Amer- Virginia Department of Game and Inland ican Life: “By the early 1880s more natural- Fisheries, and select references or written ists were working in and from Washington accounts. When compared to contemporary than any other place in the country” (Pauly, data, historical records help to provide a pic- 2002). Active collecting and study activities ture of a more natural past and serve to illu- appeared to ebb and flow. This was most strate the impact of urban development in likely related to the number of scientists sta- terms of habitat change and species loss. tioned or residing in the Washington area at

13 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Part II. MAMMALS, REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

White-footed Deer Mouse (P. leucopus)

Photo by John White

Introduction nitially, a target list of species was de- the historic range of the animal. As a final veloped through the review of a series of note, even if the presence of a particular spe- Ipublished range maps from multiple cies was considered likely based on known sources. Not all range maps were in precise past distribution, required or suitable habitat agreement in regards to distribution of Vir- must be available to them. A number of spe- ginia species. This was most likely because cies are suspected of disappearing in urban Arlington County occurs on the extreme areas statewide due to the loss of or changes edge of north-south and east-west distribu- in habitat. Hopefully, the following species tion of a number of native mammals, rep- accounts will serve to update the occurrence tiles and amphibians. For example, some and distribution of native mammals, reptiles species may theoretically range into the and amphibians in Arlington, and highlight Piedmont of North Arlington, but not be those faunal species or groups that may re- found in the coastal plain to the south and quire additional future study or immediate vice-versa. Additional elements to consider protection. Unless otherwise noted, the rela- in regard to range maps are that they are of- tive abundance (rare to abundant) shown ten based on a combination of documented under the Current Status for each species historical occurrences, contemporary indicates frequency within remaining natu- records, and probability of occurrence based ral habitats, not necessarily within the whole on surrounding distribution. As a result, County. A status of “unknown” indicates some species included in the target list based that no contemporary records were found on range maps were determined to either be nor current collections/observations were no longer present (extirpated) or not within made.

14 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Species Accounts ognized as the most effective method for collecting insectivores in conjunction with Mammals (Class Mammalia) long-term studies. The only insectivore attracted to small mammal live traps (Sher- Opossum (Order Marsupialia) man) used in this project was Kirtland’s Short-tailed Shrew. Additionally, the field Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana vir- identification between similar species can be giniana. The common opossum was va- very difficult without an examination of riously described by early explorers, but skull and dental features. Skull features can- most often as a cat-sized animal with a rat’s not be adequately examined in live speci- tail. It was common then and remains so. mens. Local occurrence of insectivores is The opossum is the only native representa- clearly an area for future specialized studies. tive of the Marsupialia (pouched animals) in North America and one of the species that Ashen Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus cine- has embraced urban life and thrived. Histor- reus. Mostly found in western and northern ical collections are sparse, most likely be- Counties in Virginia, often at higher eleva- cause it was so commonplace. However, be- tions. No historic or current records for this tween the years 2005 -2007, local animal species in Arlington. Occurrence would be control officers collected 363 specimens restricted to deep stream valleys in North from yards, businesses and streets (AAWL Arlington based on published habitat crite- 2005-2007). Current Status: Abundant ria. Current Status: Unknown. Most likely throughout the County in all habitats. not present.

Shrews and Moles (Order Insectivora) Southeastern Shrew Sorex longirostris longirostris. Handley (Smithsonian Institution), Moles and shrews are small mammals that indicated in 1982 that S. longisrostris was feed primarily on insects, arthropods and “common and widespread” in Northern worms. They are largely fossorial, living be- Virginia (Linzey, 1998). Only a single histor- neath the leaf litter and tunneling in soft ical record was found from a specimen col- soils. As a result, they are difficult to observe lected in 1938 in Little Pimmit Run. Howev- and cannot be identified from a distance. er, current records do exist from Great Falls Historical records and range maps indicate Park in Fairfax County (Steury, email com- that up to seven (7) species may be present munication). If still present, it would most in Arlington. Of those, only two species, likely be found at lower elevations in dis- Kirtland’s Short-tailed Shrew and the East- turbed areas with dense vegetation. Current ern Mole are documented as currently Status: Unknown, may be present. present. Unfortunately, the scope of the sur- Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi winnemana. Range vey conducted did not allow for the use of maps indicate statewide distribution for the pit-fall traps in local parks. Pit-falls are rec- pygmy shrew, the smallest mammal in

15 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

North America. S. hoyi is considered to be Arlington. Historical records include a 1925 rare in Virginia. Historical records of this account where a nest of 25 least shrews were species include collections from southern found in Virginia near Washington (Paradi- Fairfax County, and a single collection from so, 1996) and one verified record from Fair- Prince Georges County in Maryland prior to fax County. When Arlington County was 1969 (date unknown). Current Status: Un- primarily agricultural, it is likely that this known, but not likely based on rarity and species was present in some numbers. For degree of local disturbance. example, an examination of barn owl pellets collected at the Smithsonian tower in 1890 Kirtland’s Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevi- recorded the presence of 21 Least Shrew cauda kirtlandi. One of the most abundant skulls (Bailey, 1896). Some of these prey small mammals in Arlington, it is still fre- items may have been hunted in Arlington, quently found in field, forest, and urban only a short flying distance away. Current back yard. Most often observed after heavy Status: Unknown, but not likely. rains force them to the surface or delivered home by domestic cats. B. brevicauda has Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus aquaticus. the distinction of being one of only three This rather large insectivore is well known to mammals in the world to produce poison – Arlingtonians, but not often observed on the delivered to prey through saliva as a method surface. Most evident are the raised tunnels of preserving and storing food for later con- and molehills left behind in urban yards by sumption. The risk to humans is negligible. underground activity. Multiple habitats are A large number of historical collections were used, but soft soil (moist sand or loam) is made between1890 -1977. Current Status: preferred for ease of tunneling. Multiple his- Abundant across the County. [Note – Three torical records were found between the years specimens of Blarina brevicauda churchi re- 1894-1943. Bailey indicated that this species ported to be collected in Arlington in 2002 was common in the Washington area in (BOVA Booklet) are most likely based on 1896 (Bailey, 1896). Current Status: Com- incorrect identification. According to most mon throughout the County in woodlands, sources, this sub-species is only known from parks and urban yards. a single site at higher elevations in western Virginia.] Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata cristata. A rare Virginia species found in wetlands Least Shrew Cryptotis parva parva. Little is with soft marshy ground and swamps. This known about the life and distribution of this semi-aquatic species readily takes to water small, secretive shrew. The lack of historical and swims easily. No historical Arlington records indicates that this species may be records found nor collections made. Bailey difficult to trap. Habitat preferences are dry, describes a single collection on the Maryland open grassy fields, unlike most other shrews. side of the Potomac River, one mile north of Little of this habitat type remains today in Georgetown (Bailey, 1896) and at least ten

16 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report historical collections were made in the Dis- would require pre-immunization (rabies trict of Colombia (Paradiso, 1996). Arling- vaccine) for any contractor, staff or volun- ton County has little to no remaining habitat teer participant who may have direct contact suitable for this species. Current Status: with specimens. New technology is available, Unknown, but not likely. in the way of electronic field equipment, which when used in conjunction with a lap- Bats (Order Chiroptera) top computer, can identify bats in flight by their acoustic signature. This type of equip- Bats represent a group of mammals that are ment would allow staff or trained volunteers often misunderstood by the public and un- to remotely identify and document species derstudied by the scientific community. Bats occurrence in future inventory work. The are unique in several respects – they are the current inventory of Chiroptera in Arlington only mammal that is capable of true flight, County was restricted to the research of lite- that possesses the complex ability to echolo- rature, reliable reports of recent bat occur- cate and that can live a long life of up to 30 rence, and documented historical and con- years. Much is unknown about bats, particu- temporary field collections. Of seven species larly in regards to distribution, migration on the target list, only three were deter- and hibernation at a local or regional level. mined to have a local occurrence of com- Some of Virginia’s bats are known to hiber- mon to abundant – big brown bat, eastern nate in the state while others are only ob- red bat, and the eastern pipistrelle. served during the migration seasons of spring and fall. A few species may do both – Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus lucifugus. a portion of the population may hibernate Affectionately called “Lucy” by biologists, locally and others will migrate a short dis- this small bat appears to occupy a more con- tance prior to hibernation. As insectivores, stant range to the west of Arlington. Howev- bats are a welcome addition to urban fauna er, the little brown bat is considered to be and are capable of feeding on large numbers one of the “building bats,” known to occupy of insect pest species, including mosquitoes. human dwellings and structures. In 1896, Fifteen species of bats are considered native Bailey reported that large numbers of this to Virginia. Seven species were investigated bat were captured roosting between the for past or current local presence. timbers of the Long Bridge (Bailey, 1896). One additional historical record from Four Without specialized staff, equipment and Mile Run in 1896 exists. No other historical generous time, bats are a difficult mammal or contemporary records for Arlington were group to inventory. A traditional inventory found. However, not far from the Arlington method includes the physical capture of spe- boundary in McLean, a documented breed- cimens by mist netting. This process is time ing colony of M. lucifugus persists at the consuming. It requires a specialist who can Linway Terrace Park (Sturges, personal rapidly identify bats “in the hand,” and communication). Great Falls Park has also

17 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report recorded breeding colonies (Steury, email Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus sub- communication). While not currently do- flavus. The smallest bats in the eastern Unit- cumented, little brown bats are judged to be ed States, P. subflavus normally hibernate in rare – uncommon locally. Current Status: caves or rock crevices. While no historical or Unknown, most likely present in small contemporary records were located, mul- numbers. tiple sources indicate that the Eastern Pipi- strelle should be common in Arlington. This Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis sep- species is known to occur in Fairfax County tentrionalis. M. septentrionalis can be found from the Pohick Bay area. Current Status: roosting singly or in small groups under the Unknown, but most likely seasonally un- loose bark of trees or behind house shutters. common - common. No historical or contemporary records were found for Arlington County. Around a half- Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus fuscus. His- dozen collections have been reported from torical records indicate that E. fuscus was nearby Fairfax Station, where several speci- common in the late 19th century. Contempo- mens were found roosting beneath a porch rary records show the Big Brown Bat is still umbrella (Sturges, personal communica- commonly found in Arlington. Between the tion). Current Status: Unknown, rare if years 2005-2007, 80 individual bats were col- present. lected by animal control officers with identification verified by the Virginia Department Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans. of Health (AAWL 2005-2007). The large col- Lasionycteris is considered an uncommon lections are best explained by the Big migrant in the spring and fall. They prefer to Brown’s propensity to roost in buildings and roost in hollow trees, beneath tree bark or in hibernate locally. Current Status: Common buildings as individuals or in small groups. in urban structures. Like most other species, feeding occurs along streams, rivers and ponds. Several Evening Bat Nycticenius humeralis humera- contemporary records were found for Ar- lis. No historical or contemporary records lington County. Two specimens collected by were found for N. humeralis. The evening animal control officers in 2006-2007 bat is primarily a southern species that may (AAWL 2005-2007) and sent to Richmond wander north into the Virginia and Mary- for rabies testing were confirmed to be L. land region. A lack of knowledge exists in noctivagans, and Bat World Nova received a regard to their movements and migration single specimen from Arlington for rehabili- patterns. While this species is known to es- tation and release (Sturges, personal com- tablish maternal colonies in buildings, there munication). Current Status: Present, but are no collection records by the local animal uncommon during migration seasons. control agency. Current Status: Unknown, rare if present.

18 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis borealis. rabbit populations are expected to move in Multiple historical records exist between the cycles. In Arlington, S. floridanus prefers to years 1897-1991, and two confirmed occupy residential backyards, dense thickets, collections were made in 2008 by animal forest edges and meadows where available. control officers. This species is known to Current Status: Uncommon - common roost in the open foliage of trees and at least within variable population cycles. a portion of the population hibernates in hollow trees during the winter. This species Rodents (Order Rodentia) is probably under-reported locally. Current Status: Assumed to be common throughout Rodents represent the largest and most di- the County. verse group of mammals in Arlington. Of twenty species sought, only twelve were do- Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus cinereus. The cumented as still present today. The inven- largest local bat, L. cinereus is a migrant in tory of small mammals presented a particu- Virginia and prefers to roost singly in con- lar challenge with three limiting conditions, ifers. The only historical record from Arling- including: (1) the decision to use only live ton was from Ballston in 1917. Bailey re- traps (Sherman) as opposed to kill traps ported a single record from Maryland in (museum specials) meant less traps used per 1892 (Bailey, 1896). Current Status: Un- trapping night and less potential captures; known, rare if still present. (2) difficulty of live field identification between similar species ; and (3) the place- Rabbits (Order Lagomorpha) ment of trap lines on public properties was restricted by high risk of disturbance or loss Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus mal- of equipment in a highly populated urban lurus. The eastern cottontail is the only sub- environment. Loss of habitat, in the form of species of rabbit that naturally occurs in Ar- natural meadows, early successional forests lington. Multiple historical records date and wetlands, undoubtedly contributed to from 1890-1971. Cottontails were described the inventory results. as common in “brushy areas” in the late 1800s (Bailey, 1896). Local populations ap- Fisher’s Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus pear to have been relatively stable (common) fisheri. Chipmunks were described by early from 2005-2006 with over 84 direct observa- explorers and many were collected in Ar- tions and 45 responses from animal control lington by scientists from 1937- 1977. In the to road kills, injuries or reported abandon- recent wildlife survey, chipmunks were ment. In 2007, both observations and res- found to occupy a number of habitats in- ponses dropped dramatically. This was most cluding residential backyards. It is interest- likely in response to the growing number of ing to note that in the 1880s, Bailey dered foxes observed over the same period of scribed chipmunks as scarce “probably ow- time. As primary predator and prey, fox and ing to the cats, dogs and boys” (Bailey,

19 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

1896). As agricultural fields and meadows rarely seen (Bailey, 1896). Gray squirrels slowly transformed into mature mast- have thrived as a result of local urbanization; bearing forests, the population of T. striatus the remaining extant forest tracts (parkland) most likely increased in population. Today, and many residential backyards are rich in chipmunks are commonplace and well mature, mast-producing oaks and hickories; known to most residents with properties most primary predators have disappeared; bordering on parkland. Current Status: Lo- and supplemental food is generously pro- cally common within preferable habitat. vided at bird feeders across the County. No population studies were attempted. Howev- Woodchuck Marmata monax monax. The er, even with approximately 300 road kills woodchuck or groundhog is presently un- reported each year and a large number of common in Arlington. In the late 1800s they squirrel nuisance calls received by nature were often observed near Chain Bridge and centers and the Animal Welfare League of along the Virginia side of the Potomac Riv- Arlington, it is fair to say that local popula- er. This species was most likely abundant tions are artificially high and likely to re- throughout the early 20th century, when Ar- main so short of epidemic disease or dra- lington farmland would have provided the matic mast-failure. open grass and edge habitat that woodchucks prefer. Modern development and The high proportion of black (melanistic) loss of habitat has drastically reduced their squirrels within the local population is nota- former numbers. Road kill data from 2005- ble and the subject of some controversy. 2007 show only 10 woodchucks killed on Some believe that since melanism is a rela- local roadways in a three-year period. Re- tively high natural occurrence within a large cent observations were made in Tuckahoe population, increased survival and reduced Park, Washington Golf and County Club, predation allow melanistic squirrels to breed Army-Navy Country Club, and along the and produce more offspring. Others trace edge of the George Washington Memorial the origin of local black squirrels to the re- Parkway in North Arlington. Current Sta- lease and subsequent escape of 18 melanistic tus: Uncommon, restricted to high quality squirrels imported by the National Zoo in edge communities. 1902 and 1906 (Linzey, 1998. Fahrenthold, 2005). Of note, in 2004, two gray squirrels Northern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis with a color combination of red, black and pennsylanicus. This species, described in white were observed and photographed in most early historic accounts, was probably South Arlington (Zell, personal observa- subject to over-harvesting by hunting during tion). Current Status: Over-abundant the early period of active colonization. By throughout the County. the late 1800s, Bailey described that gray squirrels occurred in native forest on the Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger vulpinus. Virginia side of the river, but were shy and Fox squirrels can be distinguished from the

20 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report abundant Gray Squirrel by its much larger tation over the past four months. Fairfax size, generally brown coloration and habit of County Park Authority staff is unsure occupying more open woodlands. They were whether the sightings are a result of unau- most likely abundant in colonial times but thorized releases or increased activity within would have suffered from over-harvesting at a formerly unknown relict population (Bul- an early date. By the late 19th century, Bailey mer, personal communication). Current reported Fox Squirrels to be uncommon in Status: Extirpated. the vicinity of Washington, and relayed that numbers were being shipped to local mar- Talkative Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudso- kets from 30-40 miles distant (Bailey, 1896). nicus loquax. Red Squirrels or Chickarees In 1952, Mansueti described remaining are smaller than the gray squirrel and exhibit nearby Maryland populations to be strictly a strong preference for coniferous forests. A local and relict colonies (Paradiso, 1969). number of records exist for collections made The most interesting historical account from in the late 1800s at Ballston, Ft. Myer, and Arlington County reports that in 1933, a along Four Mile Run (unspecified). They large resident migration of fox squirrels left were also reported to be common in the the grounds of the Arlington National Cem- wooded bluffs along the Virginia shore of etery in frenzy, some plunging into the Po- the Potomac River (Bailey, 1896). As the tomac River and swimming to Analostan natural forests of Arlington transformed (Roosevelt) Island. Despite this mass exodus, from mixed oak-pine into mature hard- the report states that some S. niger remained woods in the 20th century and development in 1953 (Linzey, 1998). Apart from this one increased, natural habitat for the red squirrel historical account, no other local docu- declined and finally disappeared. Current mented records were found. Upon inquiry, Status: Extirpated. current National Park Service staff had no knowledge of the past event or whether the Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans population at that time was a result of im- volans. Flying Squirrels were unfamiliar to portation/release or a natural relict popula- early explorers, so were often described in tion. The existing environment of mowed historical accounts. Strictly nocturnal and grass and open woodlots at the cemetery too small for market, these tiny squirrels would certainly have provided optimum ha- were still common at the end of the 19th cen- bitat. tury (Bailey, 1896). Multiple collection records were found for the period of 1897- Interestingly, after many years of being con- 1940. Flying squirrels remain common in sidered extirpated, fox squirrels have recent- Arlington today within areas of suitable ha- ly been sighted at several locations in Fairfax bitat--mature, mixed-age hardwood forest County. Ernst last reported a single observa- near water,—but are rarely observed. Speci- tion in 1973. Current records include both mens have been reported and collected from direct observations and road kill documen- a number of residential neighborhoods in

21 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report the past several years. Current Status: Lo- three-year period of 2005-2007. Bank dens cally common – abundant within high quali- are more common than lodges in Arlington, ty forest habitat. and reproduction has been noted in two colonies over the past several years. Loss of pelt American Beaver Castor canadensis. Beavers value and resulting decrease in legal trap- would have been abundant along the length ping has contributed to an increased beaver of Four Mile Run, other larger streams and population across the state. In highly urba- in tidal marsh communities lining the Po- nized communities, beavers can become a tomac River prior to the contact period. nuisance species, threatening human infra- However, highly valued as trade items from structure with dams and damaging or killing the earliest days of European exploration, valuable trees. The relocation of live-trapped the local beaver population probably disap- beaver is illegal in Virginia. During the pe- peared prior to or just after colonial settle- riod of 2006-2008, the presence of beavers ment of the area. Over-harvesting continued was confirmed from the following locations throughout the state into the late 19th cen- – Glen Carlyn Park, Ballston Beaver Pond, tury. A single collection was made in Four Roaches Run, Pimmit Run and the G. W. Mile Run in 1894. Between that year and Parkway. Current Status: Uncommon and 1911, beavers were considered to be extir- transient. pated from Virginia. A statewide program of reintroduction from imported stock took Marsh Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris palustris. place from 1932 -1938 (Linzey, 1998). Suc- Arlington County lies on the extreme edge cessful reintroduction, coupled with careful of the northern-most range of this wild na- management by the Virginia Commission of tive rat. Although no historical records of Game and Inland Fisheries allowed the pop- local occurrence were found, the extensive ulation to increase rapidly and expand tidal marshes that once lined the Potomac across the state. Within Arlington today, River prior to colonization may have sup- beavers are uncommon but persistent resi- ported a population in South Arlington at dents. Historical loss of wetlands and exten- one time. The presence of O. palustris was sive urban development has eliminated all recently reported from southern Fairfax high value habitats within the County. Re- County near the Occoquan River (Smith, maining habitat is rated as marginal and ap- 2010). A small section of tidal marsh com- pears to support the short-term needs of munity within the Roaches Run Waterfowl transient beavers (two-year old beavers Sanctuary provides the only remaining habi- searching for new territory). Beavers most tat for this species. However, considering the often enter Arlington from the Potomac reduced size of available habitat and the ex- River into Four Mile Run and other tributa- tensive historical development around the ries. Most transients stay for a short period site, presence is extremely unlikely. Current of time and move on. A total of seven beav- Status: Unknown, but most likely extir- ers were documented in road kill data in the pated.

22 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Eastern Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys Prairie Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus humulis virginianus. Optimal habitat for R. bairdii. Similar to the woodland deer mouse, humulis includes old field stage meadow and the prairie deer mouse has not been record- tall grasslands – habitats that are rare in Ar- ed locally but may be in the near future. This lington today. In the past, harvest mice may sub-species is native to the mid-west, but have been common to abundant within fa- migrated eastward as the great expanse of vorable habitats, such as agricultural lands, forest was cleared in the eastern United abandoned farms, and the old Experimental States. P. m. bairdii is similar in appearance Farm (Dept. of Agriculture) near Arlington to P. m. maniculatus, but prefers to inhabit National Cemetery. Few historical records grasslands and meadows. P. m. bairdii was were found for regional collections. A single first recorded from Northern Virginia in trapping record for Arlington was from a 1962, when it was found in Chantilly near specimen collected by Palmer at Ft. Myer in Dulles Airport (Linzey, 1998). Current Sta- 1896. Only a few historical records were lo- tus: Watch List. cated from nearby Takoma Park, Maryland (1934-1940). In the District of Columbia, in Northern White-footed Mouse Peromyscus the early 1900s, a number of harvest mice leucopus noveboracensis. The white-footed skulls were found in Barn Owl pellets, but mouse can easily be confused with the deer the exact location of the “meals” is not mouse, with subtle differences in coloration, known (Paradiso, 1969). Current Status: length of tail and skull characteristics. The Unknown, may be present in small num- white-footed is more common in Arlington bers. than the former and occupies a greater variety of habitats including woodlands, forest Woodland Deer Mouse Peromyscus manicu- edges and meadows. This species may fre- latus maniculatus. This medium-sized native quently inhabit residential back yards and mouse has large eyes, long whiskers and ex- sometimes enters homes or buildings. P. leu- hibits a keen sense of touch, smell and hear- copus is more apt to nest on or under the ing. They can be found in a variety of habi- ground, while P. m. maniculatus is more ar- tats, but prefer mature woodlands (Linzey, boreal and prefers to nest in trees (Linzey, 1998). On occasion, these nocturnal mice 1998). A number of specimens were live- will enter homes or outbuildings. P. manicu- trapped as part of the inventory in grassy latus maniculatus was easily live-trapped meadow-like areas adjacent to mature forest. from two forested sites in 2007 and 2008, Historical collections are recorded from and is probably common throughout Ar- 1895 - 2003. Both the white-footed and deer lington within appropriate habitat. Current mouse were more abundant prior to major Status: locally common within suitable habi- development in the 20th century, but are still tat. common within remaining habitat. Current Status: Common - abundant throughout forested parks and neighborhoods.

23 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Pungo White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leu- omomys in Arlington, there is no data to es- copus eastii. A single record from the Vir- tablish the current or past presence. Arling- ginia Department of Game and Inland Fi- ton stands on the eastern edge of this species sheries in 2002 records the presence of P. l. range in Virginia. In the Old Dominion, the eastii. Since this sub-species has only been red-backed vole primarily inhabits cool and recorded from the extreme southeast of Vir- moist forests at higher elevations in the ginia, this record is highly questionable and western portion of the state (Linzey, 1998). most likely based on an erroneous identifi- In nearby Maryland, these voles were found cation. Current Status: Not present. to be restricted to the mountainous regions, well to the north of Arlington (Paradiso, Allegheny Wood Rat Neotoma magister. Al- 1969). The only local habitat (marginal) so known as a pack rat, this native species available in the past would have included the appears similar to a giant deer mouse, with lower portions of several northern stream long whiskers, large eyes, and white throat, valleys, such as Pimmit Run, Gulf Branch, belly and feet. Preferred habitats are rocky Donaldson Run and Windy Run. Plant sur- outcrops, cliffs and river bluffs. Arlington veys within these four valleys indicate that in County is shown on most range maps as the the past, species such as Eastern Hemlock eastern-most point of distribution in Virgin- and Sugar Maple may have been more do- ia. There are no current or definitive histori- minant – indicative of a cool, moist plant cal records for the occurrence within Arling- community prior to settlement and subse- ton County. However, it is possible that quent logging. Current Status: Unknown, wood rats did range into Arlington prior to presence is unlikely. colonization. Bailey reported that wood rats were still common among the rocks on the Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus west side of the Potomac River about a mile pennsylvanicus. Meadow voles, also called above Chain Bridge (Fairfax County) in field mice, are stocky with short tails, small 1896 (Bailey, 1896). By that time in history, ears and a flattened face. M. pennsylvanicus the rocky bluffs south of Chain Bridge is a creature of grassy meadows, old-field known as the Palisades, had been conti- successional stages and marsh edges. During nuously quarried for over 100 years. It is Arlington’s heyday as an agricultural and reasonable to assume that prior to human farming community, this species would have disturbance of the Palisades, wood rats may been numerous, and remains Virginia’s well have occupied the rocky cliffs as far most abundant mammal. Within optimal south as Spout Run. Current Status: Extir- habitat, populations can be as high as 80 per pated. acre. They serve as a staple food item for many predators and birds of prey. Multiple Common Gapper’s Red-backed Vole Cleth- collection records exist for the period from rionomys gapperi gapperi. While range maps 1889 to 1994, and recent live trapping has indicate the possible presence of Clethri- documented continued presence. While not

24 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report as abundant as in the past, meadow voles are Hill (near the Arlington boundary) and considered common within available re- found three skulls of Snaptomys (Bailey, maining habitat, including local community 1896). Current Status: Unknown, presence garden plots. Current Status: Locally com- unlikely. mon within high value habitat. Large-toothed Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Pine Vole Microtus pinetorum scalopsoides. macrodon. The common muskrat requires Similar in appearance to the meadow vole, high value wetland habitats such as ponds, M. pinetorum is generally less abundant and streams or marshes. Insufficient habitat re- more confined to uplands and forests. It is mains in Arlington to sustain a stable popu- fossorial, spending much of its time beneath lation. Like the beaver, local muskrat popu- the leaf litter or loose soil. Multiple historical lations are transient and move in and out of collections were made of this species be- the County, and appear to be less numerous tween the years 1896 - 1977 from Ft. Myer, than the larger beaver. Only one historical the Experimental Farm and Rosslyn. A sin- record was found from 1899 from a speci- gle dead specimen was collected in the late men collected near the current Roosevelt 1980s in North Arlington (Zell, personal re- Island (Washington, D.C.). From 2005 - collection). No examples were captured as 2007, only three road kill muskrat were do- part of the recent field survey, but additional cumented locally. In the period from 1999 - trapping in heavily forested sections of park- 2003, muskrats were observed in Sparrow land with streams might be productive. Con- Pond (Glencarlyn Park) and Ballston Beaver temporary records do exist for nearby Tur- Pond (Zell, personal recollection). In 2007, a key Run Park in Fairfax County (Steury, muskrat lodge and droppings were observed Email Communication). Current Status: in Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. They Unknown, but most likely present. are probably more common along the Po- tomac River to the south of Arlington. Cur- Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi. rent Status: Rare, limited to reduced availa- Little is known of this small mammal in the ble habitat. Northern Virginia region. In Virginia, it is mostly found to the west of the Blue Ridge Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus norvegicus Mountains (Linzey, 1998).In nearby Mary- (non-native/naturalized). In spite of the land, historical collections were largely common name, the Norway rat is originally found within localized sphagnum bogs (Lin- native to Asia, having arrived in Europe dur- zey, 1998 Paradiso, 1969). No historical ing the Middle Ages. Transported to Ameri- records were found for Arlington County ca as stowaways aboard ships prior to the nor were any specimens captured within the 1770s, escapees quickly became established study. However, an historical account from in the new colonies, including Virginia. The 1888 states that a Dr. Fisher examined long- Norway rat has an extremely high reproduc- eared owl pellets collected from Munson tive potential, is highly adaptive and has

25 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report thrived in urban communities across the rary visitor to urban areas such as Arlington. United States. In Arlington, R. norvegicus Current Status: Unknown, but most likely primarily occur in commercial and residen- present in small numbers in some years. tial areas, but have also been found in woodlands. This species inhabits storm drains and House Mouse Mus musculus musculus (non- freely moves through parkland along con- native/naturalized). The common house necting streams. The Norway rat is consi- mouse is unfortunately well known to most dered a vector for contagious human diseas- urban dwellers. Native to Eurasia, they were es and all local governmental agencies have accidentally introduced to America by ship- developed abatement programs in order to ping sometime from 1770 - 1780 and are control populations. Current Status: Abun- now found across Virginia and the United dant throughout the County. States (Linzey, 1998). A number of historical records report the presence of house mice Black Rat Rattus rattus rattus (non-native). from 1843 - 1895. Even more adaptable than The black or roof rat is also of Asian origin, the Norway rat, house mice will occupy but actually arrived earlier with European dwellings, fields and forests. As a result, the explorers in the late 1500s (Linzey, 1998). house mouse is the most abundant mammal The black rat is smaller, less aggressive and in Arlington. While their wild brethren are less abundant than its larger relative. Ac- known for potential disease transmission, cording to various literature, in areas where the white strain or laboratory mouse (and populations overlap, the more aggressive R. rat) is widely used for medical research re- norvegicus forces R. rattus to occupy the up- lated to the cure of human diseases. Current per levels of buildings, reducing their oppor- Status: Abundant throughout the County. tunity to find food successfully. The overall status of the black rat in the eastern United Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius States is tenuous, with most known popula- americanus. The Meadow Jumping Mouse is tions restricted to port cities where periodic medium-sized, with a long tail and extra replacement of migrants continue to occur long rear legs. They are often solitary, not as from shipping. There are some historical abundant as other small mammals, and one accounts of black rats from Norfolk, Balti- of only two Virginia mammals that truly hi- more and from the D. C. waterfront (wharf). bernate. Little is known about the historical The single confirmed report from Arlington presence of the jumping mouse in Arling- is from 2002, where Arlington County staff ton. The species ranges statewide, but is from the Public Health Division responded found in scattered local populations within to a residential complaint and discovered a desirable habitat. Known habitats include black rat building a nest in a tree on the grassy fields, moist meadows, wet thickets homeowner’s property (Colon 2009). Una- and streamside woodlands. Two historical ble to compete with the Norway rat, the records from Arlington document their black rat will remain a scattered and tempo- present in 1882 (no location) and 1896 when

26 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

several were removed from a nest between rabbits, squirrels and small mammals, but the west end of Long Bridge and the Aque- will also feed on kitchen scraps placed in duct Bridge in habitat described as brush trashcans or bags. Red foxes can be active heaps and weed beds (Bailey, 1896). Nearby both day and night and are often reported to historical records from Fairfax County, establish dens in close proximity to human Maryland (Prince Georges and Montgomery residences – under decks or backyard sheds. Counties) and Washington D. C. have been The red fox found commonly in Northern documented. In 1890, six Zapus skulls were Virginia has an interesting history and may reportedly identified from barn owl pellets or may not be truly native. There is universal collected at the Smithsonian tower (Forbes, agreement that prior to the arrival of Euro- 1913). Since Arlington is located only a short pean explorers, the smaller gray fox was the flying distance away, it is possible that those only species present in Virginia and Mary- “collections” may have originated from land. The native North American red fox at fields on the west side of the Potomac River. that time was restricted to well north of the Nearby contemporary records include sev- Mason Dixon Line. During the period of eral specimens collected from Cub Run 1650-1802, European red foxes were im- Stream Valley Park in Centerville in 2006 ported and released into southern Maryland (Smith, personal communication). Current for the sport of foxhunting. By the year 1816, Status: Unknown, relict population may the red fox had spread to the Washington remain present. area and were reported as part of the local fauna (Bailey, 1896. Paradiso, 1969). Is the Carnivores (Order Carnivora) red fox in Arlington today the historical offspring from the released European race, The carnivores represent a diverse group of the progeny of the native North American local mammals that includes the native dogs, race that moved south as land was cleared, cats, bears, weasels and raccoon. While the or a genetic mix of the two? No clear answer name carnivore implies a strict meat-eating to the question has been provided. Current diet, some species will consume seasonal Status: Over-abundant throughout the plant foods, such as mast and fruits. County.

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes fulva. Red foxes are Common Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargen- abundant in Arlington and were observed in teus cinereoargenteus. The gray fox was the virtually every wooded park inventoried. only native fox present in Arlington prior to Red Fox can be most easily identified by the the mid-1600s. It differs in appearance and white tip on the end of the tail and black be- habit from the more abundant red fox. The hind the ears and legs. Between the years smaller gray fox prefers wetland habitat, is 2005 - 2007, an estimated 75 road kills were capable of climbing low trees and can be dis- reported. As a highly adapted urban preda- tinguished from the red fox by the black tip tor, foxes not only capture and feed upon on the end of the tail. While most early ex-

27 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report plorers described the native species, verified Arlington has not been officially verified to collection records are scarce. Even in the late date. However, as part of the wildlife inven- 1800s, it was described as uncommon in the tory, several dozen reported observations area (Bailey, 1896). Based on contemporary from residents were investigated from 2006 - records and observations made during the 2007. After reviewing provided digital pho- recent wildlife survey, the gray fox is consi- tos or debriefing the observer, over half of dered to be locally rare. One record exists for the sightings were identified to instead be a collection in 1976 near Arlington National red foxes. Of the remaining reports, approx- Cemetery and two reliable reports cite ob- imately one dozen appeared to be accurate servations made in 1982 near Key Bridge descriptions of a coyote. Some sightings and in 1992 in Zachary Taylor Park (Smith, were from multiple observers at slightly dif- personal communication). The most recent ferent locations and times. In several cases, voucher was established in 2008. The small game cameras were placed where observa- resident population is most likely the result tions occurred, but proved unsuccessful. It is of a combination of unsuccessful competi- considered likely that coyotes have found tion with the over-abundant and larger red their way into Arlington, but they are ex- fox and loss of historic wetlands. Current tremely cautious, range very widely and Status: Rare in wetland habitats. move primarily at night. It is expected that documentation in the form of photographic Coyote Canis latrans. The coyote is not part evidence or road kill will be forthcoming in of the historical native fauna of Virginia. A the next few years. western species, the coyote has steadily expanded its range for many decades, moving Coyotes are considerably larger than foxes east and north (Paradiso, 1969). As a master and more resemble dogs. A grayish coat is of adaptability, coyotes have moved into ur- most common, but in Virginia approximate- ban communities in recent years and have ly 25% of specimens are mostly black (Lin- easily been trapped in the city limits of Chi- zey, 1998). A white throat is often visible. cago. The earliest documented reports of Coyotes have not yet presented a danger to coyotes in Virginia were in the early 1950s, residents of the community, but attacks but may have originated from released spe- upon people and pets have been reported in cimens. Prior to 1983, a total of eight coyotes other states. Adult coyotes are capable of had been killed and identified in five coun- easily jumping over a standard 48” fence and ties of Virginia. Between the years 1983 - have been known to kill and eat domestic 1987, 53 coyotes were shot and the range cats and small dogs. Current Status: Undo- had expanded to 10 counties (Linzey, 1998). cumented, but may be present in small The first coyotes positively identified within numbers. the immediate Northern Virginia area were from Dulles Airport (Hodnett, personal Gray Wolf Canis lupus. The gray wolf is offi- communication). The presence of coyotes in cially listed as extirpated in Virginia and is

28 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report included for informational purposes. Wolves two reliable bear sightings in nearby Fairfax formerly ranged across the state and were County each year (Hodnett, personal com- most likely abundant at the time of first con- munication). Between approximately 1977 tact based on descriptions of deer herd sizes and 1985, two separate sightings of bears at the time. This species began to disappear were reported in Arlington County. Both during early colonial times, with Virginia events caused some excitement among local first enacting a bounty on wolves in 1632. police who were unsure how to handle the McAttee states that wolves were still present situation. In both cases, the bears quickly in the vicinity of the District of Columbia as disappeared and were never seen again. The late as 1728. (McAtee, 1918). The last rec- Arlington bears were probably recently in- orded wolves in Virginia were reportedly dependent yearlings with little experience killed in Tazewell County in the winter of and poor sense of direction. While not con- 1909-1910 (Linzey, 1998). Current Status: sidered to be part of extant local fauna, it Extirpated. should be recognized that a wandering bear could at any time migrate down the Poto- Black Bear Ursus americanus americanus. mac River to make news in Arlington. Cur- The black bear, most at home in heavy forest rent Status: Rare transient in North Arling- and swamp, was formerly distributed across ton in some years. the state, but probably disappeared from the region not long after European settlement. Raccoon Procyon lotor lotor. Early explorers An easy target for European guns, they were found the raccoon interesting based on vari- hunted for meat, fur and out of fear. Al- ous descriptions of the animal. In 1612, one though native black bears were never totally explorer named William Strachey wrote – eliminated, the population in Maryland “The Rackoone I take to be a species of came close to extirpation. An estimate from Monkey” (Linzey, 1998). This description the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1956 was undoubtedly given after observing the had placed the number of bears remaining raccoon’s ability to climb trees. The raccoon in Maryland at only 12 individuals. (Paradi- is a common to locally abundant animal in so, 1969). Wild bears in Virginia fared better most parts of the state. Like a handful of during that time period with an estimated other species, P. lotor has adapted well to an 650-750 animals finding refuge in the west- urban existence and has thrived. If the mean ern mountains or within the Dismal Swamp population density of raccoons state-wide is (Linzey, 1998). In 2003, the Center for Ursid estimated to be 1 per 14.5 acres (Linzey, Research at Virginia Tech estimated the cur- 1998), then Arlington’s local population rent population of 3,500-4,000 black bears as must exceed the state average many times stable or increasing (Trent, 2003). In recent over. Between the years 2005 - 2007, approx- years, the Virginia bear population appears imately 600 raccoons were reported killed to be spreading eastward. Over the past four on local roads. Local overpopulation has also to five years, there has been an average of led to an increase in human-wildlife conflict.

29 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Competition for a reduced number of high- rent Status: Unknown, may persist in small value natural den sites (hollow trees) has re- numbers along the Potomac River. sulted in an increased number of complaints about raccoons nesting in chimneys, attics, Common Mink Mustela vison mink. The and other residential structures. This highly mink has not adapted well to changes in the intelligent and social species can easily be- local urban environment. A wetland species, come a nuisance if fed, and as a rabies vector the mink’s preferred habitat includes stream species, all contact with human pets should banks, river edges, lakes and marshes. Con- be avoided. Current Status: Over-abundant sidered an opportunistic predator, this me- throughout the County. dium-sized weasel feeds on any small mammal, reptile, amphibian or bird within Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata novebo- its territory. Historical records include col- racensis. The long-tailed weasel is distri- lections made in 1892 (no location) and buted widely across both Virginia and North 1889 (Ballston). Bailey described the mink as America. M. frenata is known as an aggres- still common in the Washington area along sive predator with well-developed senses of stream valleys in the 1920s (Paradiso, 1969). smell, sight and hearing. They feed primarily No contemporary records for Arlington ex- on mice, rats, shrews and moles. While run- ist. However, areas of Fairfax and Prince ning, its body appears to undulate, with its William Counties, such as Riverbend Park back held in an arching position. Historical and Mason Neck appear to retain small records for weasels are scarce. Three Arling- populations. Most likely a combination of ton collections were found for 1890 (Balls- over-trapping, wetland loss and water quali- ton), 1892 (no location), and 1941 (no loca- ty degradation within Arlington County tion). A number of historical records were streams over the past 80 years has forced this noted from nearby Maryland and the Dis- water dependent species to seek higher qual- trict. A single contemporary observation was ity habitat away from the city. A few tran- made at Potomac Overlook Park in 1977, sient minks may travel along the west bank when the resident park manager witnessed a of the Potomac River in Arlington from time female with three young crossing the en- to time, but most likely continue traveling trance road to the park (Hodnett, 2009. per- north or south where more suitable habitat sonal communication). With a habitat prefe- is available. Current Status: Unknown, oc- rence of grassy meadows, thick brush, old casional transients possible. field meadow, and cultivated fields, this species was undoubtedly more abundant in the Northern River Otter Lontra canadensis la- 19th and early 20th centuries prior to the eli- taxina. River otters are the largest of the na- mination of agriculture in Arlington. If still tive Virginia weasels and are never found far present in Arlington, it would most likely from water. They are well adapted to an aq- occur in small numbers in North Arlington uatic existence, with a sleek body, webbed along the G. W. Memorial Parkway. Cur- feet and an oily coat of insulating fur. Diet is

30 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report composed largely of fish, aquatic amphi- (Four Mile Run) and a later record in 1946 bians, crustaceans, bivalves and insects. Oc- from N. Nelson St. The absence of skunks casionally, mammals or birds are taken. No from the local environment is not unex- local historic records for this species in Ar- pected. Based on dietary need, skunks pri- lington were found, but a general account by marily inhabit open fields, old field mea- Bailey in 1896, classifies Lontra within the dows, thick brush land, pastures and farm- Washington area as scarce (Bailey, 1896). By land. Past environmental changes in Arling- 1978, the future of the river otter population ton have eliminated natural meadows and in Virginia seemed bleak and was tempora- farmland and replaced them largely with an rily classified as a state endangered species. urban landscape or mature forest. Over the In response, the Virginia Game Commission course of the wildlife inventory, a number of closed all legal trapping west of the Blue citizen reports were received claiming to Ridge Mountains and released 18 otters im- have smelled an odor of skunk. A number of ported from Louisiana into Bath County these reports were later dismissed as unveri- (Linzey, 1998). While the statewide popula- fiable or mistaken as male red fox scent. tion has stabilized from its low point in the However, two reported observations within 1970s, the species remains uncommon - rare the period of 2003-2006 were followed up by in Northern Virginia. There has been some interviews. In both cases, the reports were recent evidence of river otter returning to deemed credible. No contemporary docu- nearby areas such as Mason Neck (Prince mentation exists in the form of photos, William Co.) and Huntley Meadows (Fairfax bones, fur or scat. In addition, no road kills Co.) in recent years, and transients may oc- have been reported within the last ten years casionally inhabit Dyke Marsh in Alexandria by two different reporting agencies. Arling- or travel up and down the Potomac River ton National Cemetery may provide the best along the Arlington boundary. While the remaining habitat for skunks in Arlington. regional population may be increasing, Ar- Striped skunks remain more common in the lington’s streams and remaining wetlands less developed portions of Fairfax and Prince are judged insufficient to supply and sustain William Counties (Smith, personal commu- the dietary needs of a family of otters. A sin- nication). Current Status: Rare, does not gle contemporary observation records the occur every year. presence of river otter in Arlington—an adult otter was killed on Rt. 66 near the East Bobcat Lynx rufus rufus. Often called “wild- Falls Church Metro Station in 2006. Current cat” by early explorers, the bobcat was prob- Status: Rare, occasional transients possible. ably extirpated from Arlington at an early date as a result of over-hunting. As forests Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis nigra. The were cleared and deer populations fell, bob- striped skunk is well known, but rarely en- cat populations declined throughout the ear- countered in Arlington. Historical records ly 20th century. The bobcat was not listed as include a single early record from 1878 part of the local fauna by Bailey (1896).

31 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

However, in the 1930s, as farmland was eventually restored the population. In recent abandoned and replaced with successional years, with the loss of natural predators and forest, bobcat numbers began to stabilize in decreased hunting near urban centers, the the state. Since the 1980s, the bobcat popula- number of deer in most counties of Virginia tion has increased and expanded its range has greatly increased. In the absence of effec- eastward (Linzey 1998). Between the years tive population controls, the white-tailed 1996 - 2006, several reliable reports of sight- deer has the potential to cause increased ings or sign have been reported in Fairfax human injuries (car accidents), health con- (Smith, personal communication). Despite cerns (Lyme disease) and substantial damage the fact that Lynx rufus generally avoids to natural forests and plant communities. In heavily developed urban environments, a some forested parks of Fairfax County, deer bobcat was hit and killed by a vehicle on have completely consumed the forest under Chain Bridge Road in McLean in December story and are impacting natural forest suc- 2007 (Activity Report, 2007). The unusual cession. In Arlington County, the impact of arrival of a bobcat within one mile of Arling- deer browsing on vegetation is apparent. If ton’s northern border is not likely to be re- local deer populations continue to increase, peated anytime soon, but it is possible. Cur- the impact upon limited natural resources rent Status: Extirpated. will equally increase. From 2005 - 2007, deer were observed to inhabit almost every fo- Deer (Order Artiodactyla) rested park in Arlington. Population studies were not included within the wildlife inven- White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus. tory; however, a number of people have re- Early explorers found an abundant deer ported observing herds of up to a dozen deer population, often forming herds of many in North Arlington. A review of aerial pho- dozens. Relentlessly hunted by early settlers, tos shows the most likely immigration route deer were reported by Warden to be absent into Arlington from Fairfax to be the Pim- from the Washington area in 1816. As set- mit Run watershed, including Chain Bridge tlement continued to the west and land was and the G. W. Memorial Parkway. Deer cleared for farming, the white-tailed deer killed on roadways in Arlington rose from was hunted virtually to extinction through- 11 in 2005 to 39 in 2007. The increase of out Virginia by 1925. From 1930 - 1950, deer killed on the G. W. Parkway alone was deer were imported from North Carolina, four-fold within a three-year period. Cur- Pennsylvania, Florida and parts of the mid- rent Status: Common in North Arlington – west (Linzey, 1998). The release of these deer uncommon in South Arlington with popula- in conjunction with careful management tion increases expected.

32 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Reptiles (Class Reptilia) can be found in any local deep water environment regardless of quality. As a top predator within their habitat, they have no enemies except man. Historical records for the snapping turtle include collections from Ft. Myer in 1895 and near National Airport in 1954. The presence of Chelydra in County parks is reported several times annually to the Animal Welfare League of Arlington as well as local nature centers. Citizen observations are most often reported in late spring and represent large females searching for nest sites. Although snapping turtles spend a majority of the time submerged in water, a number of specimens were observed or captured in areas of appropriate habitat within the wildlife inventory. Current records include observations in Glencarlyn Park, Blu- emont Park, Ballston Beaver Pond and Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. Current Northern Copperhead (A. contortrix) is Arlington’s only Status: Common in remaining deep water venomous reptile (see pages 43, 53 for more info). Photo by Greg Zell wetlands.

Turtles (Order Testudines) Eastern Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta picta. As a small basking turtle, this species na- A dozen species were placed on the invento- turally occupies wet ditches, slow moving ry search list for Arlington based on pub- streams and ponds. C. picta has adapted well lished range maps and historic records, in- to an urban existence and can be observed cluding nine aquatic, two semi-aquatic and on sunny days lying on top of submerged one terrestrial species. Three species are logs or sticks at the water surface within considered non-native and potentially inva- man-made storm water management ponds. sive and one is listed as threatened in Vir- The speed of flowing water and lack of aqua- ginia. tic plants within Arlington’s modern streams rate these waterways as unsuitable Eastern Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina habitat. A number of historical records in- serpentine. The record size snapping turtle in clude collections made in 1877 (no location), Virginia weighed 74 lbs. (Mitchell, 1994). 1901 (Custis Springs at Arlington National Adults routinely reach a weight of 25-35 lbs. Cemetery), and 1921 (Experimental Farm). This large wetland species is ubiquitous, and Known as the “skilpot” in earlier years

33 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

(Dunn, 1918), contemporary observations Arlington County was severely impaired were routinely made at Roaches Run Water- physically, chemically and biologically and fowl Sanctuary and most constructed wet- would not have provided even marginal ha- lands (ponds) in the County. Current Sta- bitat for this species. It is more likely that a tus: Common in remaining deep water wet- specimen had been unknowingly released at lands. the site and subsequently captured. While relict populations exist in several Fairfax Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata. Clemmys County sites, no suitable habitat remains in guttata is a declining species in Virginia as a Arlington to support a native population of result of habitat loss and fragmentation. The G. insculpta. Current Status: Extirpated, no spotted turtle is considered a semi-aquatic remaining habitat. species with specialized habitat requirements. Historical habitat preferences in- Eastern River Cooter Pseudemys concinna cluded bottomland forests with vernal pools, concinna. Some distributional range maps open wet ditches, flooded fields and shallow indicate the likely presence of P. concinna in wet marshes. No historical collections for Arlington (BOVA, 2009). However, no di- Arlington were found even though Dunn rect historical or contemporary data pro- placed the species on a local checklist early vides confirmation of local presence. As an in the 20th century (Dunn, 1918). On the ba- occupant of large, slow moving streams and sis of recent wetland and plant community rivers with abundant aquatic plants, the sin- inventories within the County, it has been gle habitat within the County would be the determined that all historic habitats for this west bank of the Potomac River. If present species have been lost and no populations in the general area, this species would be exist. No observations were made at any more likely to occur to the south of Arling- wetlands recently surveyed. Current Status: ton, where the presence of aquatic plants Extirpated, no remaining habitat. along the river is more pronounced. Cur- rent Status: Unknown, no records to date, Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta. The wood limited habitat available locally. turtle is listed as a threatened species in Vir- ginia. This large, seasonally-aquatic terre- Florida Cooter Pseudemys floridana florida- strial turtle requires specific habitat needs na (non-native). P. floridana has been in- and responds poorly to water quality degra- cluded in the accounts as a species to “keep dation, loss of wetlands, fragmentation of on the radar.” While normal distribution in habitats and urbanization (BOVA, 2009). A Virginia is limited to the southeastern cor- single historical collection was reported ner of the state, it is possible that specimens from Four Mile Run at US Rt.1 in 1953. are being released in Northern Virginia as a While the collection itself is not questioned, result of the pet trade and subsequent releas- the nativity of the specimen is suspect. In the es. The Florida cooter shares similar habits 1950s, the lower section of Four Mile Run in and habitat preferences with a close relative,

34 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report the eastern river cooter. Current Status: the yellow-bellied slider, is easily recognized Watch List. by the red stripe behind each eye. This introduced species is native to the Mississippi Northern Red-bellied Cooter Pseudemys ru- valley (Ernst, 1989) and has greatly ex- briventris. P. rebriventris is the only large panded its natural range through pet sales native basking turtle that was once abundant and subsequent release. Unfortunately, the in the Potomac River and adjacent tidal red-eared slider will occupy the same habi- marshes along Arlington County. This turtle tats as the native Northern red-bellied cooter was collected heavily in the 1800s and sold at and has the potential to out-compete the na- market in Washington, D.C. as food (Mit- tive turtle. Local observations have been chell, 1994). Like other Pseudemys, this local confirmed from Roaches Run, the Potomac species requires both deep water and the River, Sparrow Pond, Donaldson Run and presence of aquatic vegetation for food. Lo- Four Mile Run. Current Status: Locally cal observations have been verified at common in ponds, population increasing. Roaches Run and Sparrow Pond in Glencar- lyn Park. Current Status: Locally uncom- Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum mon within preferred habitats. subrubrum. Spending long periods of time submerged in water, this small wetland tur- Yellow-bellied Slider Trachemys scripta tle is difficult to inventory through observa- scripta (non-native). The natural range of T. tion. A number of historical records indicate scripta is confined to the coastal plain in the presence of Kinosternon over the years. southeast Virginia (BOVA, 2009). Localized Records of collections were found for 1877 populations presently found in Arlington (no location), 1892 (the end of Long Bridge) (Zell, personal observation) and Fairfax and 1896 (Potomac River marsh). Dunn in- Counties (Mitchell, 1994) are the result of dicated the species as still present in 1918 formerly released specimens. The locally in- (Dunn, 1918). A resident of ponds, wet troduced species appears to survive in ponds ditches, marshes and slow-moving streams, with deep water and sufficient aquatic vege- the local population has undoubtedly suf- tation to support dietary needs. Sparrow fered with the loss of local wetlands, but Pond is the only known location at present. most likely persists within the tidal marshes Over the past decade, several specimens of Roaches Run and near the mouth Four which may have been T. scripta were col- Mile Run. No observations were made for lected from the Potomac River and brought the years 2005-2007. Current Status: Un- to local nature centers for identification, but known, most likely persist in small numbers. these were never verified. Current Status: Rare, present in a single location. Stinkpot (Common Musk Turtle) Sternothe- rus odoratus. Known as “stinking Jim” by Red-eared Slider Trachemys scripta elegans early settlers, this small aquatic turtle was (non-native). T. s. elegans, a close relative of common up to the late 19th century (Dunn,

35 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

1918). Even more reclusive than its close rel- Lizards (Order Squamata / suborder Lacer- ative, the mud turtle, a number of both his- tilia) torical and contemporary records confirm the continued presence of Sternotherus in As a group, lizards generally retain a south- Arlington. Early collections include those ern affinity. The southern and western por- made at the Custis Springs (Arlington Na- tions of the U. S. contain a greater diversity tional Cemetery) in 1901 and at the mouth and number of species. A total of five species of Four Mile Run in 1935. Recent collections are considered native to the Northern Vir- include those made at Sparrow Pond in ginia region. Occupying woodlands and Glencarlyn Park and Poplar Pond in Long wood edges, these small native lizards often Branch Park. Musk turtles most likely con- go unnoticed by the public. The historical tinue to inhabit Roaches Run and the mouth loss of railroad lines in the County has un- of Four Mile Run as well. Habits and habitat doubtedly eliminated a primary ecotone ha- preferences are similar to those of Kinoster- bitat for these species. non. Current Status: Locally uncommon in suitable habitat. Eastern Fence Lizard Sceloporus undulates. A number of historical collections of S. un- Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina caro- dulates between the years 1889 - 1917 came lina. Perhaps the best-known turtle species from Ft. Myer, Ballston and Minor Hill in Arlington, the box turtle appears to pers- (near Arlington). In Virginia, eastern fence ist in spite of the stresses associated with loss lizards inhabit variable environments, but of habitat, fragmentation and suspected high seem to prefer xeric or dry locations. Rock predation from red fox and raccoon. Histor- piles with crevices, dry woods with stumps, ical accounts and collection records abound and even urban backyards may hold popula- for this popular land turtle. Sometimes tions. These small lizards feed on insects and called the “dry-land terrapin” (Dunn, 1918), other invertebrates. Like other native lizards, this turtle was used both for food and for the they are difficult to observe unless moving fabrication of rattles by indigenous Native or sunning in open areas. No current obser- Americans in earlier centuries (Rountree, vations were made from 2006 - 2007 in Ar- 1990). A number of individuals, struck by lington, and no records exist for this species cars in the fall and spring are brought to the at Great Falls or Turkey Run Park in Fairfax Long Branch Nature Center for rehabilita- County (Steury, email communication). tion. Specimens were routinely observed in Remnant populations, if present, would be Arlington’s wooded parks from 2005 - 2007 rare in North Arlington. Current Status: and were often reported to be present in ur- Unknown. Most likely extirpated or ex- ban backyards. Current Status: Remains tremely rare if present. common in woodland parks and residential backyards adjacent to parkland. Common Five-lined Skink Plestiodon fasciatus. While no historical records were located

36 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

for occurrence in Arlington, a number of from other Arlington skinks by its much past collections were found for nearby Fair- larger size and “chunky” stature. P. laticeps fax County and continue to remain common is found in semi-open xeric woodlands. An outside of heavily urbanized sections (Smith, abundance of decaying logs and stumps en- personal communication). Contemporary hances the habitat quality for this arboreal observations and collections from Arlington lizard. No official collection records were came from the northern portion of the found for Arlington, but one observation County, within the Piedmont section. The was made in the 1970s at Gulf Branch Park ideal habitat for P. fasciatus is riparian zones (Zell – personal observation). There are a within hardwood forests. The presence of number of historical records from Fairfax dead trees and decaying logs increases habi- County (Mitchell, 1994). The single con- tat value. Observations made over the past temporary record (observation report) is two years came from the G. W. Parkway, from Potomac Overlook Park in 2006. Diffi- Donaldson Run Park, Potomac Overlook cult for the casual observer to notice, this Park, Zachary Taylor Park and Gulf Branch native lizard is most likely under-reported in Park. Current Status: Uncommon within the County. Current Status: uncommon in high quality habitat. woodlands of North Arlington.

Southeastern Five-lined Skink Plestiodon Little Brown Skink Scincella lateralis. The inexpectatus. The southeastern five-line little brown skink is aptly named with a skink can be difficult to distinguish from the maximum length in Virginia of less than two common five-lined skink unless “in the inches from snout to vent, and about four hand.” Statewide distribution of P. inexpec- inches overall including the tail. Terrestrial tatus is considered to be widespread, but in nature, this small lizard inhabits the leaf patchy. Arlington County lies at the north- and duff layer of the forest floor. Camouf- ern edge of its range in the eastern U.S., oc- laged with a tan to golden brown back- cupies a more xeric habitat than P. fasciatus, ground, S. lateralis is difficult to see and cap- and exhibits higher populations in southeas- ture. One historical record was found for tern mixed pine forests. As of 1994, there Powhatan Springs, with a collection made in were no local records from Arlington Coun- 1955. No contemporary records or recent ty and only a single record from Fairfax observations in Arlington were made. How- County (Mitchell, 1994). This species is ei- ever, within recent years specimens have ther not present locally, or may be under- been collected at multiple Fairfax County reported due to similarity in appearance. sites (Smith, personal communication). Current Status: Unknown, no credible do- Current Status: Unknown. cumentation to date.

Broad-headed Skink Plestiodon laticeps. The broad-headed skink is easily distinguished

37 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Snakes (Order Squamata / suborder Ser- the local fauna. Current Status: Assumed pentes) not present based on range and state distribution. Of all groups of reptiles, snakes surely pro- voke the most fear and interest among the Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor general public. While various range maps constrictor. Historical records indicate past and publications list 17-18 native extant spe- collections (1897-1955) from Powhatan cies for Arlington County, the impact of Springs, Bluemont Junction, Ballston, Ft. long-term urban development has greatly Myer and along the W&OD railroad. The reduced that number. Only four species are most recent contemporary record was from still considered to be commonplace. All oth- 2004, where a specimen was captured and ers have experienced population declines, released at Long Branch Nature Center (Zell, are ranked as locally rare, or are no longer personal recollection). No observations or present (extirpated). The only venomous collections have been made since that date. snake in Arlington is the Northern copper- The black racer, a medium-sized constrictor head, with a reduced but stable population. is most abundant in agricultural areas of meadow with brush edge and oak-pine suc- Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus amoenus. cessional forest. Unfortunately, the maturing A number of historical records were located of Arlington’s forest (elimination of Virginia for worm snakes in Arlington from 1885 - Pine) and elimination of active rail road 1989. Due to its fossorial habits, this small, lines have decreased habitat for this species secretive snake requires soft soil for burrow- in Arlington. Current Status: Rare, relict ing, so it may be more abundant than recog- population may persist along edges of nized. With that said, it should also be noted W&OD railroad trail. that approximately 50% of the historical habitat in Arlington has been eliminated Northern Ring-neck Snake Diadophis punc- through urban development. The most re- tatus edwardsii. This small, secretive snake cent collection was made in 2007 in Pimmit occupies the upper soil horizon and leaf lit- Run Park. Current Status: Uncommon ter of the forest and can be found inside rot- within forested habitat. ting logs. It is most often observed on the surface after heavy rains. D. punctatus has a Northern Scarletsnake Cemophora coccinea state-wide distribution and may remain copei. There are no historical or contempo- common in some urban communities. The rary records of C. coccinea from Arlington, northern subspecies found locally, can easily and only a single collection from southern be identified by the presence of a single Fairfax County (Mitchell, 1994). Collection crème or yellow ring or band around the records from Virginia are clustered heavily neck. No historical collections for Arlington in the southeastern portion of the state. This were noted, but several contemporary col- colorful snake does not appear to be part of lections and observations were made within

38 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report several Arlington parks over the past three heavily commercial zones are avoided. The years. Current Status: Uncommon within species is terrestrial and arboreal – some- high quality habitat. times feeding on nesting birds or bird eggs. Each year a number of residents report live Red Cornsnake Pantherophis guttatus. The ratsnakes or shed skins inside homes, garag- red cornsnake presents a problem from a es and outdoor structures. Current Status: distributional analysis standpoint. Arlington Common in forest and residential neighbor- County lies near the northern extent of nat- hoods. ural range for this species. Therefore the red cornsnake may or may not have been Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon platir- present historically. Dunn does not include hinos. The hog-nosed snake is unique in sev- the red cornsnake on his list of native snakes eral respects. It is known for its propensity for either Alexandria County or Fairfax to hiss loudly, inflate its head with air and County in 1918 (Dunn, 1918). The single ultimately play dead if bluffing does not de- historical record for Arlington County, re- ter a predator or human intruder. It is easily ported to the VDGIF by Deibler from Gulf identified by the presence of an upturned Branch in 1994, was most likely based on the snout. H. platirhinos is distributed across the collection of a released captive-born speci- state, but has specific habitat requirements men. In the mid-1980s, a clutch of captive including sandy soils, nearby woodlands and bred juveniles were released by the nature a reliable food supply. With a specialized center staff in the Gulf Branch Park (Zell, diet, hog-nosed snakes feed almost exclu- personal recollection). With the exception of sively on American toads. Historical records that single record, no earlier or later obser- are scant and occur in the mid-late 1800s. vations or collections have been recorded. No contemporary records or observations The nearest record from Mitchell is from the reveal its presence today. With the disap- western border of Fairfax County (Mitchell, pearance in South Arlington of natural 1994). Current Status: Not present, histori- coastal plain wetlands, bottomland forests cal range undetermined. and American toads, no suitable habitat remains for the hog-nosed snake. Current Eastern Ratsnake Pantherophis alleghanien- Status: Extirpated, loss of habitat. sis (formerly Elaphe obsolete). Better known locally as the common blacksnake, P. alleg- Mole Kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster haniensis is the largest snake native to Ar- rhombomaculata. Collections of the mole lington. A number of historical and contem- kingsnake are well documented in historical porary records document the continued and records between the years 1888 - 1954 with- common presence of this urbanized snake. in all sections of the County. Unfortunately, This species is ubiquitous, occupying not no evidence of collections or observations only forested parkland, but also open recrea- made after the 1950s was found. As a fos- tional spaces and urban backyards. Only sorial and largely nocturnal species, L. calli-

39 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

gaster is difficult to inventory through rou- cimen indicated L. getula getula, but it re- tine observational techniques. This species is mains speculation whether the collection most often found on the surface at night, represented a remnant natural population or often after heavy rains or in freshly plowed a pet store release. The collection is suspect fields or turned soil. Occasionally they can as the eastern kingsnake remains a popular be found basking on warm pavement after species within the pet trade. Current Status: dark. With a preferred habitat of agricultural Unknown, rare if remnant natural popula- lands, cultivated fields, pastures, old field tion persists. meadows or successional oak-pine forests, the absence of modern data is not surpris- Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum ing. Starting from the late 1930s, Arlington triangulum. The eastern milksnake may oc- began to rapidly transform from an agricul- cupy a variety of habitats including deci- tural village to an urban community. Over duous forest, mixed oak-pine woods, agri- the past 60 years, all former agricultural cultural lands and meadows. They are terre- lands have disappeared, natural meadows strial and most active at dusk, but may be are no longer present, and remaining succes- found during the day under logs, boards, or sional forests have transformed into mature slabs of stone (Mitchell, 1994). Three histor- hardwood communities. In 2009, little to no ical records from Arlington include collec- preferential habitat remains. Current Sta- tions made from Rosslyn (no date), North tus: Unknown, most likely extirpated. Arlington (1912) and Cherrydale (1928). All collections are from the largely agricultural Eastern Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula getu- period of Arlington. Dunn included the la. The eastern kingsnake is primarily distri- milksnake on his checklist of reptiles for buted in the Piedmont and coastal plain sec- Alexandria County in 1918 (Dunn, 1918). tions of Virginia. This medium to large- No contemporary records, collections or ob- sized constrictor differs from L. calligaster in servations have been located. Current Sta- several respects. The eastern kingsnake is tus: Extirpated. terrestrial and diurnal in habit, most often found beneath logs, boards or around aban- Northern Watersnake Nerodia sipedon sipe- doned buildings. Known habitats include don. In Arlington County, the northern wa- not only agricultural lands and successional tersnake is often misidentified as the ve- growth, but also hardwood forests, wetlands, nomous cottonmouth by park users and res- and stream edges (Mitchell, 1994). Scattered idents. Often uniformly dark as adults, they historical collections are recorded from 1918 can grow to large sizes (girth) and demon- to 1953. The single contemporary record for strate aggressive defensive behaviors when this species occurred in 2007, when a speci- attacked or harassed. Aggressive behavior, men had become trapped in a subterranean an affinity for water and the habit of display- water meter box in North Arlington and was ing an open mouth when confronted all subsequently rescued. Coloration of the spe- serve to reinforce the erroneous identifica-

40 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report tion. Multiple collection records for this spe- colored stripes, feeds almost exclusively on cies range from 1878 - 1955 in all parts of molting (soft shelled) crayfish. The existence the County. While abundance has most like- of woodland, rock-filled streams with a ly decreased historically, N. sipedon remains healthy population of crayfish is a limiting one of the most common snakes that occupy factor for abundance and distribution of this the urban community. Feeding on small fish species. Historical records were noted from and amphibians, they can be found along 1879 - 1954 from the following locations: Ft. most of Arlington’s streams and ponds from Myer, Bluemont Junction, Williamsburg Jr. spring through fall. Current Status: locally High School (vicinity), and Chain Bridge. common along waterways and in con- With a deterioration of water quality, degra- structed wetlands. dation of streams, and loss of high value crayfish habitat across the County, the na- Northern Rough Greensnake Opheodrys aes- tive queen snake population has undoubted- tivus aestivus. This small docile snake can be ly suffered. The only contemporary records easily recognized by its bright green colora- are from 2008, which include a capture from tion. This species holds the unique distinc- Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary and an tion of turning blue upon death. High value observation from the foot bridge that crosses habitat includes ecotones (edge), shrub from Arlington to Roosevelt Island (D.C.). thickets, hedgerows and wetlands sur- The most promising remaining habitat (un- rounded by shrub vegetation. Unfortunately, surveyed) in the County would be found in this insect-eating snake may be susceptible lower Pimmit Run and on National Park to the affects of herbicide and pesticide ap- Service property along the Potomac River plication within occupied habitats (Mitchell, shoreline in North Arlington. Current Sta- 1994). O. aestivus is primarily an arboreal tus: Rare – uncommon along wooded species, feeding and resting in the protection streams and remaining tidal marsh. of low shrubs. Historical records for local occurrence date from 1876 - 1998. Contem- Northern Brownsnake Storeria dekayi de- porary records include two observations or kayi. The diminutive northern brownsnake collections from Barcroft Park and the G. W. often prefers disturbed soils and is the most Memorial Parkway at the mouth of Gulf frequently reported snake by homeowners in Branch between 2006 and 2007. Based on Arlington. They are often found in residen- vegetative analysis, the highest value habitat tial backyards under such items as flag- remaining in Arlington for this species is the stones, flat rocks, bags of mulch or while long, narrow ecotone adjacent to the raking leaves. In woodlands, they favor W&OD Trail. Current Status: Uncommon moist leaf litter or decaying logs. S. dekayi is within remaining high value habitat. harmless and feeds on worms, insects and other small arthropods. A number of histor- Queen Snake Regina septemvittata. R. sep- ical records document the local presence temvittata, a small watersnake with crème- (1897-2005). A number of contemporary

41 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report records for this snake were documented in tion (capture and release) was made while the period of 2005-2007. Current Status: performing plant studies along the edge of Common outside of commercially devel- Gulf Branch stream in 2006 (Zell, personal oped areas. observation). Based on a general absence of contemporary observations coupled with the Northern Red-bellied Snake Storeria occip- historical loss of local wetlands, it appears tomaculata occiptomaculata. Distribution of that T. sauritus has not adapted well to ur- the northern red-bellied snake appears to be banization. Current Status: Locally rare. statewide, but regional records are lacking with substantial gaps between known obser- Eastern Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis sir- vations. Mitchell appears to have an histori- talis. The nickname “garden snake” is a ref- cal record for Alexandria (Mitchell, 1994), erence to the cosmopolitan nature of T. sir- but it could not be verified. The red-bellied talis. Highly adaptable, the eastern garters- snake was listed as occurring in Alexandria nake can be found in habitats ranging from County by Dunn in 1918. While no specific wetlands to grass meadows and mixed oak- historical or contemporary records were pine forest (Mitchell, 1994). In Arlington, found for Arlington County, this species most observations have been within 100 me- may be generally under-reported in the ters of a water source (stream or pond). Northern Virginia area. This could be a re- During the period of 2005-2008, the eastern sult of the similarity in appearance with the gartersnake was the most commonly ob- locally common northern brown snake served local snake. Current Status: Locally (Storeria dekayi). While both species may common in or near wetland habitats. occupy the same habitat type, S. occiptoma- cualata can easily be differentiated by the Eastern Smooth Earth Snake Virginia vale- bright red belly or underside. Current Sta- riae valeriae. Distributional range maps dis- tus: Unknown, no records from Arlington. agree on the historical presence of V. vale- May or may not be present. riae in Arlington. While Dunn listed the smooth earth snake as present in Alexandria Common Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus County (1918), no confirming local records sauritus. This thin medium-sized snake were found. However, within the past dec- most resembles the eastern gartersnake in ade, several specimens of V. valeriae were coloration and pattern. Distribution is state- brought to the Long Branch Nature Center wide with a semi-aquatic habitat preference by local residents for identification. Unfor- for wet meadows, wet ditches and freshwater tunately, the collection dates and locations marsh edges. Historical records from Ar- were never recorded. These specimens may lington include collections from Jackson have been collected from adjacent counties City (1893), Ft. Myer (1895-6), 1901 (no lo- or even brought home from family vacations cation), and Four Mile Run at Westover (Zell, personal recollection). Consequently, (1952-4). A single contemporary observa- there are no contemporary records for this

42 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report species, although under-reporting is possible the following county parks – Gulf Branch due to the secretive nature and fossorial ha- (east of Military Road), Donaldson Run, bits of the worm snake. When present, they Windy Run and Fort C. F. Smith Historic are most often found beneath loose forest Site. Potomac Overlook Park (NVRPA) ap- soils or inside moist rotting logs or stumps. pears to support the most concentrated Two live captures were documented by population locally. Current Status: Un- Bulmer and Smith between 2000 and 2004 at common within locally defined range. E. C. Lawrence Park in Centerville. Current Status: Unknown, most likely present in Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus. Also small numbers. called the “water moccasin,” this venomous water snake does not naturally occur in Ar- Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contor- lington. With a southern affinity, the north- trix mokasen. The northern copperhead is ern-most range of this species in Virginia the only venomous snake species currently occurs near the City of Hopewell, to the found in Arlington County. Historical ac- south of Richmond. A single written account counts and local historical collections (1920- from the Smithsonian Institution, recording 1942) indicate that the copperhead was once the collection of a cottonmouth in Arlington widespread across Northern Virginia, in- in 1879 is clearly erroneous, with the nearest cluding what is now Arlington. However, known population found 100 miles to the urban development over the past 70 years south (Linzey, 1981). Each year, a number of has reduced the range of A. contortrix to a residents and park patrons report cotton- single isolated population in North Arling- mouths when observing the common north- ton. All known local records over the past 20 ern watersnake along streams and in ponds. years have occurred within a defined area Current Status: Not present, north of natu- bounded by Chain Bridge to the north, Mili- ral range in Virginia. tary Road to the west, the Potomac River on the east, and by the Spout Run Parkway on Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus. The the south. The existing habitat is fragmented timber rattlesnake was frequently mentioned by a combination of forested parkland, resi- in the historical accounts of travelers to the dential neighborhoods and roadways. As a upper Potomac region and appears to have result of seasonal movements and reduced been widespread locally in the early colonial space, copperheads are occasionally reported period. Habitat loss through land clearing by homeowners to be on private property. and outright killing by farmers and lan- While rare, venomous snake bites to both downers by the end of the 17th century had humans and pets have been reported in the reduced the native population to a small past. Although venomous, copperheads re- number, with the last remnants probably siding on county parkland are a protected confined to the rocky cliffs of the palisades species. Natural populations can be found in North Arlington. Rattlesnakes were last along the G. W. Memorial Parkway, and in recorded along the banks of Great Falls in

43 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

1816 by Warden (McAtee, 1918). Today, ty has been cited as the eastern-most popula- most populations occur well to the west of tion, but is in serious decline (Smith, per- Arlington within the upper Piedmont and sonal communication).Current Status: Ex- mountains of western Virginia. Bull Run tirpated. Mountain, in western Prince William Coun-

Amphibians (Class Amphibia) on the inventory search list for Arlington. The eastern red- backed salamander, a terrestrial species, was determined to be the only remaining common salamander. All water-dependent species, through loss of wetlands and water quality degradation, have experienced population declines or are no longer present (extirpated). Importantly, the success or failure of local salamander populations may serve as an environmental health indicator for local forests and waterways. With Spotted Salamander (A. maculatum) Photo by Greg Zell smooth porous skin, salamanders are susceptible to the affects of herbicides, Salamanders (Order Caudata) pesticides and water pollutants, and with high moisture requirements, are more at risk In Arlington, salamanders inhabit wood- from long-term droughts and general loss of lands, streams and wetlands. Almost all local groundwater. species are dependent upon water for reproduction. As a group they are secretive, gen- Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jefferso- erally fossorial, and some are more active at nianum. While not expected to be found in night. They feed on small insects, crusta- Arlington, this large mole salamander was ceans and other arthropods. Salamanders added to the target list of species based on can be distinguished from lizards by their state rarity and informal / unverified reports smooth skin, slow movement, and the ab- in the past. Virginia represents the southern sence of toenails or eyelids. A total of eleven limit for this northern ranging salamander. species were placed The closest confirmed collection for A. jef- fersonianum in the region is well to the

44 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report north of Arlington in Loudoun County. All Marbled salamanders may have occurred other reports and collections are from west- within the County prior to urban develop- ern Virginia at higher elevations (Mitchell, ment; however, the species was not included 1999). Possible habitats within North Ar- on Dunn’s list of local amphibians in 1918 lington stream valleys were searched with (Dunn, 1918). Current Status: Extirpated. negative results. Based on the search results, it is concluded Arlington lies too far south Northern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus from the historic and current range of the fuscus. The northern dusky salamander in- species. Current Status: Not present based habits woodland springs, streams and fo- on historical range of species. rested seeps. A number of historical records and collections were made of this species Spotted Salamander Ambystoma macula- between the years 1895 - 1954. Notable past tum. Also a member of the mole salamander collection sites included Ft. Myer, Ballston, group, A. maculatum lives a secretive life, former wetlands near Washington-Lee High buried beneath moist soils or under logs School, Bluemont Junction and Powhatan near water. For successful breeding, the Springs. While most of the original collect- spotted salamander requires at least semi- ing sites no longer sustain viable wetlands, permanent pools (vernal pools) or spring- recent field surveys have found D. fuscus to flooded wetlands with no fish present. Loss be present at a number of locations in mod- of local wetlands has greatly reduced the est numbers. Existing populations were number of natural breeding sites within the found near the headwaters of first order County. Published range maps for Virginia streams and woodland spring faces where do not currently show local records for Ar- the impact from storm water is minimal and lington. However, two remaining colonies water quality the highest. Current Status: for this species have been documented in Locally common in higher quality headwa- Arlington and are restricted to a single ters and seeps. breeding pond each within the Gulf Branch and Long Branch Nature Areas. Current Northern Two-lined Salamander Eurycea Status: Rare, two small breeding populations bislineata. According to historical records, remain. this highly aquatic salamander was widely collected throughout Arlington until the ear- Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum. ly 1950s. Once commonly found within the As a fall breeding species, the presence of main channel of Four Mile Run and other vernal pools or swamp depressions are re- larger streams, water quality degradation has quired to be present through the cool sea- reduced this formerly abundant species. In son. While a number of records exist for 2010, several larvae were found dead in Four nearby Fairfax County, no contemporary Mile Run (Madison Manor Park) as the re- records or inventory results could confirm sult of a chemical fish-kill event. However, the presence of A. opacum in Arlington. current inventory data suggests that E. bisli-

45 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report neata is primarily restricted to no more than Red-spotted Newt Notophthalmus virides- a half-dozen first order streams and wood- cens viridescens. Red-spotted newts are wide- land seeps within county parks and national ly distributed across Virginia and have been park service properties. Current Status: reported from most counties. One historical Rare. Restricted to remaining high value aq- record (no date or location) for Arlington uatic habitat. was provided by Mitchell (1999), and this species was most likely commonplace when Three-lined Salamander Eurycea guttolinea- the County was heavily forested prior to the ta. The Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Civil War. In the late 1970s, several individ- Virginia indicates a number of historical uals were released into a pond at the Gulf records for this species in Arlington, but Branch Nature Area, but apparently did not does not list dates or collection locations survive (Zell, personal recollection). N. viri- (Mitchell, 1999). Historical records most descens has not been collected or reported likely date to the pre-1950s. Small creeks in within Arlington since that time. This spe- bottomland hardwood forest provide opti- cies exhibits a unique life-cycle among sala- mum habitat (BOVA, 2009), but unfortu- manders, with adults found in fish-free nately only disturbed remnants of that forest permanent ponds, while the juvenile stage association type remain in the County. Only (red eft) is terrestrial and inhabits the sur- a single contemporary collection for E. gut- rounding woodlands. Current Status: Extir- tolineata was recorded in 2008. The speci- pated. men was found in Salamander Creek within the Long Branch Nature Area. Current Sta- Eastern Red-backed Salamander Plethodon tus: Rare. Documented from a single stream cinereus. This small terrestrial salamander is in South Arlington. well distributed across the state and is probably the most commonly found species in Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scu- Virginia. Historical collections of P. cinereus tatum. No historic or contemporary records in Arlington are numerous between the were found for this secretive salamander. years 1895 - 2003. Normally found hiding However, a number of records exist in near- beneath logs or other surface debris in fo- by Fairfax County (Mitchell, 1999). This rested parkland or heavily treed urban back- semi-aquatic species inhabits forested areas yards, the red-backed salamander occurs in surrounding swamps, bogs and vernal pools. two distinct color morphs – with a reddish Fish must be absent from any water utilized stripe along the top of the back or uniformly for breeding (BOVA, 2009). Field searches dark (lacking the stripe). Often, both color within remaining marginal habitat yielded forms are found together under one log. no results. Current Status: Unknown, most This species is not water dependent and may likely extirpated. occur some distance from streams. While found throughout forested parkland in Ar- lington, Lacy Woods Park appears to have

46 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

the highest population density of any areas treme northern extent of the range in Vir- surveyed. Current Status: Locally common ginia for this coastal plain species. No histor- – abundant in forested parks and back yards. ical records for collections in Arlington were found, but several past collections (unknown White-spotted Slimy Salamander Plethodon dates) appear to have been made in south cylindraceus. The white-spotted slimy sala- Alexandria and in the Fort Belvoir – Mason mander is appropriately named for the Neck section of Fairfax County (Mitchell, sticky slime exuded by skin glands when 1999). Dunn (1918) did not list the species handled (Martof, 1980). A medium to large- on his checklist for Alexandria County. Un- sized terrestrial species, P. cylindraceus in- fortunately, the section of Arlington County habits forested uplands, but is generally ab- that would have historically provided the sent from bottomlands subject to periodic preferred habitat of muddy seeps and flooding (Mitchel, 1999). Historical records swampland has largely disappeared due to for Arlington from 1910 - 1953 are spotty, urban development. If historically present, with past collections verified from hillsides P. montanus would have inhabited the bot- near Chain Bridge, the mouth of Spout Run, tomlands and swamps formerly occurring in Arlington Forest, Dominion Hills and Madi- areas now occupied by the Pentagon and son Manor. The most recent records date Crystal City. Current Status: Extirpated. from the 1970s and are few in number. John White collected a single specimen in Madi- Northern Red Salamander Pseudotriton ru- son Manor Park, near Brandymore Castle in ber rubber. P. ruber is a large colorful sala- 1978 or 1979 (John White, 2009, personal mander with an orange body, black spots communication). Greg Zell collected a single and yellow eyes. Habitat includes cold specimen each from Zachary Taylor Park woodland springs, and small clear brooks or and Donaldson Run Park around 1977 (Zell, creeks. A number of historic records track personal recollection). No collections were collections made in Arlington from 1921 - made nor were observations verified during 1956. Many of the locations identified as the survey period of 2006-2007. While clear- former collection sites have either under- ly diminished in numbers County-wide, it is gone development, experienced a loss of likely that a small remnant population may wetlands, or were displaced by the construc- still reside on the steep slopes above the Po- tion of Rt. 66. An extensive field search of tomac River from Chain Bridge to Spout remaining natural springs, seeps and small Run on National Park Service properties. headwater streams in the County found only Current Status: Unknown, most likely a single remaining remnant population. This present in small numbers in the Northeast small colony is restricted to the immediate Arlington. vicinity of an historic spring on private property. Current Status: Rare, a single Eastern Mud Salamander Pseudotriton mon- small documented population. tanus montanus. Arlington lies at the ex-

47 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Frogs and Toads (Order Anura) miliar American toad, known for its loud trilling call in early spring, is widely distri- Thirteen species of native frogs and toads buted across the state. Anaxyrus requires were included in the inventory search list only a temporary shallow pool of water for based on historical collections, data and breeding. The tadpoles develop quickly to published range maps. While all local native complete metamorphosis before the pools frogs and toads are dependent upon water dry. Historic records for Arlington County for reproduction, some remain highly aqua- between the years of 1916 - 1953 include col- tic throughout their life cycle and others lections made in Clarendon, Vinson Station, take on a terrestrial existence, returning to Westover and Madison Manor. Unfortu- water briefly each year to breed. There is nately, due to the loss of depressional wet- great diversity among species in respect to lands and disappearance of vernal pools habitat preferences, breeding seasons and within the County, current records for a calls. Quantity and quality of wetlands and once common species are scant. During the other water resources have heavily impacted period of 2005-2008, a single natural breed- the ability of anurans to survive within the ing colony of A. americanus was found with- urban environment. in the floodplain of Pimmit Run on the Ar- lington border with Fairfax County. In addi- Eastern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans crepi- tion to the Pimmit Run population, the in- tans. Named for its insect-like breeding call, troduction of American toads into three this small frog inhabits grassy pond edges, small artificial or decorative ponds was do- open wooded wetlands, wet ditches, swamps cumented with unknown success or poten- and freshwater marshes. In suburban areas, tial for expansion. Introduced locations in- populations are sometimes found in wet de- clude Gulf Branch Park, Potomac Overlook pressions along power lines. With the excep- Park and Barrett School. An unknown num- tion of Dunn’s inclusion of A. crepitans in ber of backyard “fish ponds” may support an his 1918 checklist for Alexandria County, no additional small population of formerly re- specific historic records were found for Ar- leased larvae or eggs. Current Status: Rare. lington. A number of collections have been A single natural population documented cited for Fairfax County (Mitchell, 1999). with scattered releases County-wide. Distribution maps covering the Northern Virginia area strongly suggest an historic Fowler’s Toad Anaxyrus fowleri (formerly presence of this species. Recent observation- Bufo). A single historical record was from a al and audible surveys failed to document collection by Mearns at Ft. Myer in 1895. any extant populations. Current Status: Ex- Apparently still present in the early 1900s, tirpated. Dunn included the Fowler’s toad on a local checklist in 1918. Closely associated with Eastern American Toad Anaxyrus ameri- sandy soils and shallow pools for breeding, canus americanus (formerly Bufo). The fa- this species would have historically been re-

48 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

stricted to the coastal plain in South Arling- photographed another single specimen near ton – most likely in the current vicinity of a small pond in May 2009. In 2010, an addi- Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon, tional collection was made from a residential Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary and the swimming pool in North Arlington. With so mouth of Four Mile Run. A review of aerial few verified reports scattered over a broad photos and ground searches failed to pro- area of the County, it is debatable whether duce any promising habitat within this high- these collections and observations indicate a ly urbanized portion of the County. Current small remnant natural population that has Status: Extirpated. managed to survive by breeding in residential backyard ponds and pools or reflect pe- Cope’s Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. H. riodic releases by the public. Current Status: chrysoscelis is indistinguishable from H. ver- Rare, currently documented from four loca- sicolor by sight (Mitchell, 1999), but it can be tions. distinguished by its breeding call. While both may occupy the same range, they do Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea. The green not interbreed (Martof, 1980). Audible night treefrog is confined to the coastal plain in surveys have confirmed only the presence of Virginia (Martof, 1980) and prefers habitats chrysoscelis in Arlington. The Cope’s gray with sandy soils and an open wetland cano- treefrog is generally common within the py (BOVA, 2009). McAtee (1918) described coastal plain section of Virginia, but no his- the “cowbell frog or tink-tonk” as present in torical accounts or past collection records the tidal marshes near the mouth of Four were found for Arlington or Alexandria. Mile Run. A single collection record was This small summer-calling treefrog is found found for 1912 (no location). All other in forests near streams, rivers and temporary Northern Virginia records (Fairfax/Prince pools. Probably more common in the past, William Counties) are clustered along the H. chrysoscelis was documented from only Potomac River (Mitchell, 1999). The tidal three locations in the County in between the marshes within the Roaches Run Waterfowl years 2004 - 2009. In 2008, the call of a single Sanctuary are the only possibility for re- specimen was taped in Bluemont Park, near maining habitat in Arlington. However, at- a degraded remnant of bottomland hard- tempts to conduct evening audible surveys wood forest, and several individuals were at the site were unsuccessful due to persis- found breeding in a private backyard on tent ambient noises from the G. W. Parkway North Kensington Street. The Kensington and Reagan National Airport. Current Sta- Street population was found to be breeding tus: Unknown, most likely extirpated. in an unused above-ground swimming pool, at least several hundred yards from the near- Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer est stream. At Gulf Branch Nature Center, crucifer. The northern spring peeper was staff reported observing a single specimen in once common in Arlington, with historical woodlands near a small stream in 2004 and records from 1895 - 1953. The small treefrog

49 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report with a loud voice remains commonplace in produced no results. Current Status: Extir- many parts of Fairfax County. Shallow pated. ponds, depression swamps or vernal pools are required for successful breeding. A gen- American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus eral loss of wetlands has reduced the occur- (formerly Rana). L. catesbeianus is the larg- rence of P. crucifer within Arlington to four est native frog in North America. As a late known wetland sites. Three of the four sites spring or early summer breeder, this species host previously introduced populations to normally inhabits lakes, ponds and larger artificial ponds/wetlands (Gulf Branch, Long streams (Martof, 1980). Highly aquatic, the Branch, and Glencarlyn Parks). Barcroft bullfrog never strays far from water. In Park contains what is considered to be the Northern Virginia, bullfrog tadpoles require only natural remnant population found to two years to metamorphose into adult frogs. date and is much reduced in size. Natural Historical records from Arlington show col- populations adjacent to Four Mile Run at lections made between the years 1876 - 1910, Madison Manor and Westover were elimi- while more contemporary records document nated with the construction of Rt. 66 in the a single collection in 2002. Current survey 1970s, and a small population in East Falls records have documented local presence at Church Park was destroyed in the early the following pond locations—Ballston 1990s by development. Several calling indi- Beaver Pond, I-66 ponds (Cherry Valley viduals were discovered in 2009 in a residen- Park), Sparrow Pond (Glencarlyn Park), tial backyard—most likely the result of a re- Poplar Pond (Long Branch Nature Area) lease. Current Status: Locally uncommon, and Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. Col- restricted to a small number of breeding lections have also been verified from streams ponds. in Zachary Taylor Park and Bluemont Park. Current Status: Locally common in artificial Upland Chorus Frog Pseudacris feriarum ponds, storm water facilities, and remaining feriarum (formerly triseriata). The chorus tidal marshes. frog is widely distributed throughout the state, but is concentrated in the coastal plain. Northern Green Frog Lithobates clamitans Historical records from Arlington span the melanota. L. clamitans is widely distributed years 1895-1918. The only documented loca- across Virginia and is found in close association for historical collections is from Ft. tion locally with its larger cousin, the bull Myer. Preferred habitat includes grassy frog. Also highly aquatic, L. clamitans can be swales, moist wetlands, swamps, and marsh differentiated from L. catesbeianus by a edges. Shallow ponds or standing water in prominent dorsolateral fold on its back. His- early spring are required for breeding. No torical collections are recorded from 1875 - contemporary or recent records for Arling- 1953. Green frogs presently occur at mul- ton were found, and recent wildlife surveys tiple locations within the County, including both ponds and streams. Current Status:

50 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Common in local ponds and larger streams The only known local population occurs in across the County. Huntley Meadows Park within Fairfax County (Smith, personal communication). Pickerel Frog Lithobates palustris (formerly As an aquatic species, they are often found Rana). There are no historical records show- in ponds, wet ditches, swamps and marshes, ing collections of this species in Arlington but may forage into surrounding dry areas (Mitchell, 1999). However, since Dunn in- for food. Shallow permanent or semi- cluded pickerel frogs on his local amphibian permanent pools are necessary for breeding. checklist for Alexandria County in 1918, Current Status: Extirpated. pickerel frogs may have been present early in the 20th century. Pickerel frogs are semi- Wood Frog Lithobates sylvaticus. In Virgin- aquatic, preferring riparian habitats such as ia, L. sylvaticus is largely restricted to the open-canopied meadow streams, bogs and Piedmont and mountain provinces. Histori- wooded streams. The only contemporary cal collections were documented from 1899 - record for L. palustris is a report in 2008 1953. The later collections were made from from staff of the Potomac Overlook Region- wetlands adjacent to Four Mile Run, deal Park of a single specimen inhabiting a stroyed by the construction of Rt. 66 in the small plastic-lined artificial pool at the site 1970s (Westover and Madison Manor). Cur- (Rich Bailey, personal communication). This rently, two small extant populations were record undoubtedly represents a pet store found to remain in the County within artifi- release or relocation from outside Arlington. cial ponds at Long Branch and Gulf Branch A number of parks within Fairfax County Nature Centers. Largely terrestrial, these appear to maintain native populations, in- early spring breeders require vernal pools, cluding Bull Run Regional Park. Current wet ditches or shallow ponds. Current Sta- Status: Natural population extirpated. tus: Rare, restricted to two documented breeding ponds. Southern Leopard Frog Lithobates sphenoce- phalus utricularius (formerly Rana). The Eastern Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus holbroo- southern leopard frog is confined mostly to kii. This unusual toad is armed with a special the coastal plain, and Arlington represents horny projection on each rear foot which the northern-most extent of the range of this enables it to dig into soft dirt or sand and species in Virginia. Mitchell (1999) does not disappear (Martof, 1980). In Virginia, S. hol- provide any past records for L. sphenocepha- brookii is mostly confined to areas of sandy lus, but data from the Smithsonian Institu- soils in the coastal plain. Range maps disag- tion record two historical collections. Game ree on whether this species was ever present Commission data shows their presence to be in Arlington. Toby (1985) considered the likely, but undocumented (BOVA, 2009). eastern spadefoot to be local, while Martof No contemporary or current observations of (1980) does not. The Virginia Game Com- this species were made from 2005 - 2008. mission (BOVA, 2009) indicates presence as

51 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report likely, but not documented. No historical or within the County. Twenty-seven (27) spe- contemporary records were found of this cies were determined to be common – ab- species, and none were recorded in the re- undant, with three of those categorized as cent wildlife survey of Arlington. Mitchell over-abundant (gray squirrels, raccoons and (1999) reports the historical collection of S. red foxes). Thirty-two (32) species were clas- holbrookii from the extreme southeast cor- sified as rare – uncommon, while eighteen ner of Fairfax County. A contemporary col- (18) were determined to be extirpated (no lection of this species was made in Great longer present). The largest categorical Falls Park along an old canal (Steury, email group, with thirty-two (32) species, was clas- communication). Current Status: Extir- sified as “unknown.” Unknown species are pated. wildlife that have a recorded historical presence or likelihood, but that were not found Summary of Survey Results as part of the recent wildlife survey, nor do- The wildlife survey of local mammals, rep- cumented in contemporary records. Those tiles and amphibians included an initial tar- identified as unknown may remain in small get list of 114 expected or possible species. numbers within defined habitats, but will Each listed species has been described indi- require additional specialized surveys to vidually within the Species Accounts section make a final determination as to their pres- of this report. The two largest search groups ence. It is estimated that at least 10 of the were mammals (51 species) and snakes (21 currently undocumented species listed as species). Of the 114 targeted species, five (5) unknown are most likely extirpated, and were judged not to be present in Arlington most of the remainder would be considered based on analysis of range maps, historical rare if present. In that case, the percentage of data and published habitat requirements. extirpated species would increase from 16% The remaining species were categorized by to 24% or higher. Examples of species not current status or presence/non-presence currently documented, but likely to be present include a number of bats and Local Species Occurrence: Mammals, Reptiles shrews. A more complete survey of both and Amphibians groups will be required to determine their

30 final status. Specific recommendations for 25 further studies and wildlife management is- 20 sues are discussed in the final section of the 15 report. 10 %species of 5 Analysis of the survey data provides some 0 interesting information in regards to the Common- Uncommon- Extirpated Unknown Not Present Abundant Rare By Range current status (presence) and distribution Frequency of Occurrence (relative abundance) of Arlington’s wildlife in the post-urbanization period. A quick ref-

52 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report erence chart of mammal, reptile and amphi- documented species. bian presence in Arlington County is shown in Appendix I. Snakes: One of the largest groups of wildlife Mammals: While 33% of all native and natu- included in the survey, snakes appear to ralized mammals documented in Arlington have been heavily impacted by the effects of are considered to be common – abundant, development and urbanization. Only four an alarming 49% are classified as extirpated (4) species are currently considered to be or unknown (undocumented). The decline common in Arlington, as 47% of all local of wildlife diversity in Arlington County can native snake species have been judged to be most likely be attributed to losses in habitat extirpated, rare or unknown. Habitat loss, quality, habitat fragmentation, water quality fragmentation, isolation and wetland degra- degradation, and the inability of some spe- dation have all contributed to the large de- cies to exist in an urban environment. crease in diversity. For example, the queen snake (rare – uncommon), an aquatic spe- Turtles Only 33% (including one non-native cies, is highly dependent upon an abundance species) of chelonian species were found to of crayfish for food. The decrease in crayfish be common, with 50% determined to be ex- populations within local streams has [most tirpated or remain unknown. Surprisingly, likely] resulted in a corresponding decrease the hardy Eastern box turtle was found to in the population of queen snakes. remain common and was observed in almost every large forested county park. The distri- Salamanders: As a group, salamanders often bution and status of turtle species in Arling- serve as a bell-weather for overall environ- ton is directly attributable to changes in wet- mental conditions. With porous skin, sala- land and aquatic habitats because most spe- manders are generally more sensitive to en- cies are closely tied to aquatic environments. vironmental conditions such as water quality, pesticide and herbicide use, acid rain, and Lizards: With only five native species on the drought. They are also less mobile than target list, two were found to be uncommon, some other wildlife groups (mammals and and the remaining three species unknown or birds) and may be at increased risk of popu- undocumented. Additional specialized sur- lation declines through isolation or local en- veys may resolve the status of currently un- vironmental impact. Of the 12 species placed on the target search list, only two species, the Distribution of Northern eastern red-backed salamander and the Copperhead n Arlington northern dusky salamander were found to County 1985-2010 be common - abundant in Arlington today. Seventy-five percent of all salamander species were determined to be rare, extirpated or unknown. One locally rare species, the northern red salamander, was found to exist

53 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

at a single remaining site within the small greatly impacted by urbanization. Historic confines of an historic spring on private loss of wetlands, elimination of vernal pools, property. Additional field studies within the and heavy development within the coastal more isolated sections of the George Wash- plain in South Arlington have collectively ington Memorial Parkway in North Arling- affected the status of this group of wildlife. ton may provide documentation on the two Two species (15%) are considered common, currently undocumented species. four species (31%) rare to uncommon, and Frogs and Toads: Closely tied to the aquatic six species (46%) are judged to be extirpated environment, frogs and toads have been or unknown.

Part III. DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta)

field guides now available for both the professional and amateur naturalist. The study of odonate populations may also provide a tool for ecologists to track qualitative changes in the local environment. According to Corbet, “…sensitivity to structural habitat quality (e.g. forest cover, water limpidity) and amphibious habits make Odonata well suited for evaluating environmental change in the long term and in the short term, both above and below the water surface (Corbet, 1999).” Odonate larvae or nymphs are strictly aquatic Cyrano Darner (Nasiaeschna pentacantha) at Cherry Valley Park and represent an important component Photo by Kevin Munroe of the macro-invertebrate population of a healthy stream, pond or river (Natural Introduction Heritage Resources Fact Sheet). Dragonflies and Damselflies, collectively known as odonates, represent two closely All odonates share a number of characteris- related insect groups that have received in- tics. They have strong jaws, are strong flyers, creased public and scientific interest in re- possess long narrow abdomens, two pairs of cent years. Affectionately known as “odes” veined wings, display large compound eyes to enthusiasts, dragonfly- and damselfly- and come in many different colors. Dragon- watching is on the rise with a number of flies are generally the larger of the two

54 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report groups and hold their wings open when the two adjacent counties, but it most likely perching, while damselflies are more petite reflects the larger size and wider variety of and in most cases rest with their wings held habitats found in Fairfax County, and higher upright and touching. As terrestrial and aq- levels of field studies. A further data search uatic predators, Odonates provide an envi- of the online version of Dragonflies and ronmental benefit by feeding voraciously on Damselflies of the United States, provided by mosquitoes and other small insect pests. Al- the USGS, showed no Virginia collection though they require an aquatic environment records for Arlington County (Kondratieff for successful reproduction, dragonflies and 2000). In addition, a small collection of pre- damselflies can often be found some dis- served odonate specimens, collected in Ar- tance from water hunting on the wing. lington by Scott Deibler between 1993 and Males of some species display territorial be- 1994 and housed at the Gulf Branch Nature havior and will patrol a given space to drive Center, contained eight specimens away interlopers. Local Virginia species representing four separate species. None (adults) can generally be observed in Arling- were found to be new to the County. A final ton from April through November. report, titled 2007 Survey of Dragonflies and Damselflies in Arlington County, Va. (cited Odonate Survey Overview in Appendix V. as Munroe, Rabin 2007) In 2007, two biological specialists, Kevin provides the basis for the following informa- Munroe and Andy Rabin were hired under a tion, data and results. Special Services Contract to perform a field survey of odonates in Arlington County for Methodology the purpose of establishing a contemporary Surveyors Munroe and Rabin spent a total of database of extant species. An historical 100 person hours conducting time- records search by both the Project Coordi- constrained surveys. The 2007 survey season nator and contractors produced sparse data, was conducted between April 29 and Octo- implying that little survey work had been ber 8. Survey dates and times of day were completed in the past. Odonate records selected to optimize the opportunity to ob- found in the database at the OdonataCentral serve the greatest number of species (diversi- website (http://www.odonatacentral.org) ty) and to accommodate the particular ha- indicate that up to the time of the start of bits of various target species. For example, this survey, a total of 18 species (13 dragon- some species are known to be more active flies and five damselflies) had been recorded during certain seasons or times of day. in the County (collectors unknown). The same database lists Fairfax County, which Individual species were identified by direct surrounds Arlington County on three sides, observation (sight) and by collection (net- as having 83 species of odonates (Munroe, ting). Photos were taken of some specimens Rabin 2007). It is unclear why such a dis- “in hand” or perching, and were included as crepancy in historical data exists between a deliverable in the final report. To facilitate

55 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

the collection of samples, both contractors were given the latitude to expand the num- were listed on the Research Collection Per- ber of survey sites if the pre-selected plots mit obtained from the Virginia Department proved unproductive. As the project pro- of Game and Inland Fisheries. gressed, the number of survey sites expanded to sixteen (16), including two sites At the beginning of the project, six survey on the Arlington County and District of Co- sites or large plots were initially selected by lumbia border. Survey site locations with the project coordinator based on a review of habitat descriptions are shown in Appendix ortho-photos and GIS data showing the lo- II. cations of surface streams and delineated wetlands. All plots were located on parkland and other public properties. Researchers

Field Collections and Observational Records, April 29 – October 8, 2007 Field Season

* Data Note: Early – Late dates indicate the American Rubyspot Hetaerina americana. earliest and latest seasonal observation of Early – Late: July 8 each species during the 2007 survey period. Locations: Pimmit Run A single date listed indicates only one obser- Observational Notes: A single sighting along vation was made. the Potomac River.

Dragonflies and Damselflies (Order Great Spreadwing Archilestes grandis. Odonata) Early – Late: August 26 – October 8 Locations: Fort C. F. Smith Park, Long Damselflies (Sub-order Zygoptera) Branch Park, Cherry Valley Park, Sparrow Pond Broad-winged Damsels (Family Calopterygi- Observational Notes: Several sightings (both dae). males and females) in pond-side vegetation and in managed meadow. Ebony Jewelwing Calopteryx maculata. Early – Late: June 2 – August 26 Pond Damsels (Family Coenagrionidae) Locations: Pimmit Run, Barcroft Park, Blue-fronted Dancer Argia apicalis. Chain Bridge Observational Notes: Perched Early – Late: June 2 – August 12 in foliage in shaded areas along sides of Locations: Pimmit Run, Four Mile Run, stream, usually in small numbers. Chain Bridge

56 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta) Inventory

Observational Notes: Fairly common along Locations: Four Mile Run, Roaches Run, the Potomac River, perching on rocks in wa- Pimmit Run, Gravelly Point ter. Observational Notes: Common near Poto- mac River edge next to Reagan National Variable Dancer Argia fumipennis. Airport. Early – Late: June 2 – September 16 Locations: Sparrow Pond, Pimmit Run, Bar- Stream Bluet Enallagma exsulans. croft Park, Cherry Valley Park Early – Late: June 2 – August 12 Observational Notes: Fairly widespread Locations: Four Mile Run, Chain Bridge, throughout the County. Barcroft Park, Sparrow Pond Observational Notes: Observed flying over Powdered Dancer Argia moesta. streams and the Potomac River, often in Early – Late: June 2 – July 8 tandem. Locations: Pimmit Run Observational Notes: Near the Potomac Riv- Orange Bluet Enallagma signatum. er on rocks in water – three sightings. Early – Late: June 2 – August 26 Locations: Four Mile Run, Chain Bridge, Blue-tipped Dancer Argia tibialis. Roaches Run, Sparrow Pond Early – Late: June 2 – July 22 Observational Notes: Observed most often Locations: Pimmit Run over still or slow-moving water, common at Observational Notes: On rocks in water – Roaches Run. several sightings. Fragile Forktail Ischnura posita. Dusky Dancer Argia translate. Early – Late: April 29 – September 16 Early – Late: June 17 – October 7 Locations: Sparrow Pond, Cherry Valley Locations: Barcroft Park, Pimmit Run, Spar- Park, Pimmit Run, Barcroft Park row Pond, Chain Bridge Observational Notes: Common around Observational Notes: On rocks or vegetation ponds. in or near water – several sightings. Eastern Forktail Ischnura verticalis. Familiar Bluet Enallagma civile. Early – Late: May 26 – July 15 Early – Late: June 2 – September 16 Locations: Cherry Valley Park, Sparrow Locations: Four Mile Run, Roaches Run, Pond Fort C. F. Smith Park, Sparrow Pond Observational Notes: Common around Observational Notes: In or near water and ponds. around meadows. Dragonflies (Sub-Order Anisoptera) Big Bluet Enallagma durum.

Early – Late: June 2 – August 12 Darners (Family Aeshnidae)

57 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta) Inventory

Shadow Darner Aeshna umbrosa. Early – Late: June 17 – June 30 Early – Late: August 26 – October 8 Locations: Chain Bridge, Pimmit Run Locations: Sparrow Pond, Long Branch Na- Observational Notes: Several sightings ture Center perched on rocks along the river shore and Observational Notes: Patrolling small pond patrolling above streams. and flying low over wood-edge and foot Lancet Clubtail Gomphus exilis. path. Early – Late: May 19 – May 26 Common Green Darner Anax junius. Locations: Pimmit Run Early – Late: April 29 – September 16 Observational Notes: Two sightings in a wet Locations: Barcroft Park, Sparrow Pond, meadow along Pimmit Run stream Four Mile Run, Cherry Valley Park, Fort C. Dragonhunter Hagenius brevistylus. F. Smith Park Observational Notes: Observed both sexes Early – Late: July 8 over land and water. Locations: Pimmit Run Observational Notes: Observed patrolling Swamp Darner Epiaeschna heros. Pimmit Run stream. Early – Late: May 26 – June 17 Russet-tipped Clubtail Stylurus plagiatus. Locations: Gulf Branch Nature Center, Pimmit Run, Barcroft Park, Cherry Valley Early – Late: July 8 – August 26 Park Locations: Chain Bridge, Roosevelt Island Observational Notes: Sighted hunting over Observational Notes: Three sightings patrol- open areas – parking lots and meadows. ling the Potomac River and perched in river- edge trees. Cyrano Darner Nasiaeschna pentacantha. Early – Late: May 26 Cruisers (Family Macromiidae) Locations: Cherry Valley Park Observational Notes: Observed patrolling Swift River Cruiser Macromia illinoiensis. woodlands around pond – a single sighting. Early – Late: June 17 – July 22 Clubtails (Family Gomphidae) Locations: Pimmit Run, Barcroft Park, Long Branch Nature Center, Fort C. F. Smith Park Unicorn Clubtail Arigomphus villosipes. Observational Notes: Sightings made along Early – Late: May 26 Four Mile Run, hunting over meadows and Locations: Cherry Valley Park perched in tree-tops. Observational Notes: Single sighting around shallow pond. Emeralds (Family Corduliidae)

Black-shouldered Spinyleg Dromogomphus Common Baskettail Tetragoneuria cynosure. spinosus. Early – Late: May 19 – June 17

58 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta) Inventory

Locations: Pimmit Run, Sparrow Pond, Locations: Sparrow Pond, Pimmit Run, Long Branch Nature Center, Barcroft Park Cherry Valley Park, Chain Bridge, Barcroft Observational Notes: Sighted both high and Park low, patrolling over water and in streamside Observational Notes: Sighted patrolling over openings. water and perched in nearby vegetation.

Prince Baskettail Epitheca princes. Spangled Skimmer Libellula cyanea. Early – Late: June 17 – August 26 Early – Late: June 2 Locations: Roosevelt Island, Pimmit Run, Locations: Sparrow Pond Chain Bridge, Barcroft Park, Roaches Run Observational Notes: Sighted flying over Observational Notes: Observed patrolling ponds. along the Potomac River, over ponds and hunting over meadows. Slaty Skimmer Libellula incesta. Early – Late: June 2 – July 22 Striped Emerald Somatochlora sp. Locations: Sparrow Pond, Cherry Valley Early – Late: June 17 – August 26 Park Locations: Barcroft Park Observational Notes: Perched in vegetation Observational Notes: Unable to identify and patrolling over water. without specimens in hand, but were most likely Clamp-tipped Emeralds (S. tenebrosa) Widow Skimmer Libellula luctuosa. based on observable physical characteristics Early – Late: June 17 and flying behaviors. Observed patrolling Locations: Pimmit Run, Chain Bridge high over meadow and athletic fields adja- Observational Notes: Seen flying over water cent to Four Mile Run. and woodland clearings.

Skimmers (Family Libellulidae) Common Whitetail Plathemis Lydia. Early – Late: April 29 – October 8 Halloween Pennant Celithemis eponina. Locations: Barcroft Park, Pimmit Run, Early – Late: July 22 – August 12 Cherry Valley Park, Long Branch Nature Locations: Fort C. F. Smith Park, Gravelly Center, Sparrow Pond, Chain Bridge, Fort Point C. F. Smith Park Observational Notes: Two sightings – seen Observational Notes: Sighted perching on flying and perched in meadow and over the ground and flying over water. Potomac River. Needham’s Skimmer Libellula needhami. Common Pondhawk Erythemis simplicicol- Early – Late: June 17 lis. Locations: Barcroft Park Early – Late: June 2 – August 26 Observational Notes: Observed in vicinity of Barcroft Bog wetlands.

59 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta) Inventory

Twelve-spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella. Locations: Four Mile Run, Cherry Valley Early – Late: June 2 – August 12 Park, Fort C. F. Smith Park, Roaches Run Locations: Sparrow Pond, Barcroft Park Observational Notes: Observed flying low Observational Notes: Perched in vegetation over meadows, fields and parking lots near and patrolling over water and meadows. water.

Painted Skimmer Libellula semifasciata. Eastern Amberwing Perithemis tenera. Early – Late: June 17 Early – Late: June 2 – August 26 Locations: Barcroft Park Locations: Four Mile Run, Roaches Run, Observational Notes: Perched in vegetation Cherry Valley Park, Roosevelt Island, Spar- in meadow adjacent to wetlands. row Pond, Ballston Beaver Pond Observational Notes: Common sightings at Great Blue Skimmer Libellula vibrans. many locations. Early – Late: June 2 – June 17 Black Saddlebags Tramea lacerate. Locations: Long Branch Nature Center, Bar- croft Park, Cherry Valley Park Early – Late: June 2 – September 16 Observational Notes: Observed patrolling Locations: Four Mile Run, Roaches Run, small ponds, wet ditches and puddles. Long Branch Nature Center, Barcroft Park, Roosevelt Island Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis. Observational Notes: Well distributed, ob- Early – Late: May 19 – October 8 served flying high over water, meadows and Locations: Barcroft Park, Sparrow Pond, athletic fields. Cherry Valley Park, Potomac Overlook, Long Branch Nature Center, Ballston Beaver Survey Results Pond, Chain Bridge It is estimated that approximately 200 spe- Observational Notes: Found patrolling over cies of odonates can be found in Virginia, ponds streams, and the Potomac River. but that nearly a third of the state’s dragonflies and damselflies are considered to be Wandering Glider Pantala flavenscens. rare (LandscapeAmerica). Early – Late: July 22 – September 16 Locations: Barcroft Park, Fort C. F. Smith During the 2007 Survey of Dragonflies and Park Damselflies, researchers Munroe and Rabin Observational Notes: Seen flying at various were able to document and establish a con- heights over meadows and athletic fields ad- temporary database of 42 species (28 species jacent to wetlands. of Dragonfly and 14 species of Damselflies). Of that total, 32 species were previously un- Spot-winged Glider Pantala hymenaea. documented for Arlington County. The ini- Early – Late: June 2 – September 16 tial 2007 field survey should be considered a starting point for the future development of

60 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

a full database of odonate presence in Ar- expected. A single observation was made lington. Unfortunately, periods of cool and near a pond in Cherry Valley Park. windy weather in the spring and dry periods during the summer of 2007 did not provide Lancet Clubtail (Gomphus exilis) and Dra- optimum conditions for field survey work. gonhunter (Hagenius brevistylus). Both re- Researchers agreed that additional surveys, quire relatively clean water for successful particularly focused on spring and fall field- larval development. The presence of these work would generate the documentation of two stream species along Pimmit Run may additional species. However, it is unlikely signal a higher than average local water that Arlington would ever match the 83+ quality within that water body. species currently recorded from Fairfax County. The full list of species recorded Needham’s Skimmer (Libellula needhami). from Fairfax County that remain undocu- This freshwater marsh species was not ex- mented in Arlington are listed in Appendix pected to be observed in Arlington due to III. This data could serve as a future target heavy urbanization and historic loss of wet- search list for continuing field studies in Ar- lands. A single sighting was made near Bar- lington. croft Bog, in the adjacent successional meadow buffer, and may represent a remnant Species of Note extant population. According to researchers Munroe and Ra- bin, six of the forty-two recently docu- Arlington’s Best Observation Sites mented Odonata records represent species Based on survey results, four general areas of note within the Anisoptera (Dragonflies) within Arlington were identified as “diversi- and are described below. ty hotspots” by Munroe and Rabin and this knowledge should be taken into considera- Russet-tipped Clubtail (Stylurus plagiatus). tion in regards to conservation planning and Three observations of this state-rare (S3) management of parkland. dragonfly were made along the shores of the Long Branch Nature Center – W&OD Potomac River. Trail – Sparrow Pond: For survey pur- Cyrano Darner (Nasiaeschna pentacantha). poses, all three of these sites are included A single observation of this species came as one continuous study area paralleling from a pond in Cherry Valley Park. Listed as Long Branch stream and Four Mile Run a state-rare species in both Maryland and into central Glencarlyn Park. Two sur- Delaware, the current status in Virginia is face streams, three fabricated wetlands, “undetermined.” and a combination of mature riparian forest, mixed-age vegetation and sun-lit Unicorn Clubtail (Arigomphus villosipes). ecotones provide generous habitat for A sighting of this odonate within a highly hunting, breeding and shelter. A higher urbanized community was unusual and not number of species were documented

61 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

from this study area by surveyors than ber of seep-dependent odonates were any other location in the County. sought, but not observed. Weather dur- Pimmit Run Stream – G. W. Parkway – ing the 2007 survey season (cool spring, Chain Bridge: The study area begins at dry summer) was not considered opti- the valley head in Pimmit Run Nature mum for an odonate census. One species Area and follows the course of Pimmet of note, the Needham’s Skimmer (Libel- Run stream through mature woodlands lula needhami) was found only in Bar- to its confluence with the Potomac River croft Park. at Chain Bridge. The course of the Cherry Valley Park: Adjacent to Inter- stream briefly meanders into Fairfax state 66, this small park lies within a County prior to reentering Arlington. In highly urbanized section of Arlington. addition to stream-side riparian habitat Although lacking any high value natural and Potomac River shoreline, the Pim- lands or extant native plant communi- mit Run Nature Area contains a forested ties, two fabricated ponds at the site ap- wetland, a number of freshwater springs pear to provide the only quality water re- and a small sunny wet meadow. The source in the immediate area. While not Pimmit Run stream valley is considered high in odonate diversity overall, two an important reservoir for odonate habi- species of note were observed and col- tat in the County. lected in close proximity to the wetlands Barcroft Park: While less species were – the Cyrano Darner (Nasiaeschna pen- documented than anticipated, the site tacantha) and Unicorn Clubtail (Ari- nevertheless ranked as a high diversity gomphus villosipes). study area. Due to the presence of rare woodland seeps within the park, a num-

62 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Part IV. BUTTERFLIES (Class Insecta)

Red-banded Hairstreak (C. cecrops) on Goldenrod

Photo by Alonso Abugattas

Introduction Aside from their beauty, butterflies and utterflies and moths (Order Lepidop- moths play a vital role in the delicate and tera) have long held the interest of often stressed urban environment. Both Bthe scientific community and the groups act as a vital link in a long-developed personal collector. The heyday of lepidopte- ecological relationship between native flora ran study occurred during the Victorian Era and fauna. Native species serve as host plants for larval development and adult but- (1837-1901), when naturalists traveled the terflies and moths assist in the pollination of world in search of new specimens for their flowers while feeding on nectar. The larval collections. Many of these original collec- stage (caterpillar) of butterflies and moths tions are still on display or held in major provide one of the largest readily accessible natural history museums around the world sources of seasonal food for local wildlife. today. With the advent of the internet and Many species of birds are reliant on this ab- increased educational outreach, a wealth of undant food source to successfully raise information is now readily available to the broods of young, while bats are known to layperson interested in lepidopteran study. feed heavily on the night-flying adult moths.

63 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

The relative health and abundance of lepi- Lepidoptera Survey Overview dopteran species may also serve as a bell- A local survey of Lepidoptera was performed whether or early warning system for local in Arlington from September 2006 to Octo- environmental change. According to Tho- ber 2008 by Abugattas. This initial effort fo- mas Emmel, Director of the McGuire Center cused on establishing a contemporary data- for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity: “Like base of the diurnal Lepidoptera (butterflies). canaries warning miners of dangerous gases The daytime field surveys were conducted in coal mines, the Lepidoptera are during non-winter months over a two-year particularly sensitive to poisons in the period at established survey sites. Data con- environment, such as pesticides or heavy tained within a final report, titled Survey of metals. They are also good indicators of the Butterflies of Arlington County, Virginia impact of climate change and global (cited as Abugattas, 2008 in Appendix V.), warming on the survival and distribution of serves as the basis for the following sum- animals and plants" (Emmel, 2010). mary information. In his full technical re- The Lepidoptera are abundant and are the port, Abugattas also provides a wealth of in- second largest order within the Class Insec- formation on butterfly species and host ta. The actual number of species worldwide plant relationships. is unknown, but has been estimated to be around 165,000. Many species remain un- While moths were not specifically surveyed discovered or have been collected but await within the wildlife inventory, a number of classification. Moths are more abundant moth species observed in recent years at the than butterflies, accounting for about 85% of Long Branch Nature Center during evening the total. Estimates of Virginia’s lepidopte- interpretive programs by Abugattas are ran population vary by source and a full ac- shown in Appendix IV. Future study would counting is most likely not yet complete. surely provide a more complete inventory of County staff naturalist Alonso Abugattas moths, but will largely require that surveys cites the number of known butterfly species be conducted at night while utilizing differ- in Virginia at 168 (Abugattas 2008), and ent methodologies and special collecting Ludwig (DCR) estimates the number of equipment (bait stations, light traps, lures, known macro-moth species at approximate- etc.). Although the potential number of noc- ly 1,200 (Steury, et al. 2007). The Virginia turnal moth species is high, many are small- Department of Game and Inland Fisheries sized and difficult to identify. By way of ex- (VDGIF) provides a list of 439 recorded le- ample, in a recent multi-year study (1999- pidopteran species statewide on its list of 2007) completed within two National Park native and naturalized fauna (VDGIF July Service (NPS) properties in Fairfax County, 2007), and the Virginia Department of Con- a total of 480 different macro-moths (larger servation and Recreation (DCR) cites 34 species) were documented (Steury, et al. butterflies and 87 moths as state-rare species 2007). (Roble, 2010)

64 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Methodology identified in both adult (butterfly) and larval Prior to conducting the active survey, a tar- (caterpillar) form. The six survey sites re- get list of potential butterfly species was de- ceived repeated visits and were selected veloped. With local collection data largely based on the presence of diverse native flora unavailable, regional source material was and the presence of both host and nectar utilized to construct a reasonable search list. plants. Site selection criteria included di- The list of 87 expected and possible species verse vegetative characteristics, such as mea- was compiled from a review of past regional dow, native and non-native gardens, pond butterfly count records, records listed on the edges, forest edges and successional fields. Butterflies and Moths of North America Field survey sites were located at Long (BAMONA) website, and a review of Branch Nature Center, Gulf Branch Nature records contained on the Washington Area Center, Glencarlyn and Columbia Pike Li- Butterfly Club (WABC) website. Several braries, Potomac Overlook Park, Fort C. F. publications, including Butterflies Occurring Smith Historic Site, and a private garden lo- in the D.C. Area (Richard H. Smith) and In- cated on North Powhatan Street. ventory of the Butterflies of Plummers Island (Kimberly Vann) provided some documen- A majority of the specimens observed were tation of past records. A number of individ- identified by sight or captured by net, hand ual members of the Washington Area But- identified and released. Butterflies Through terfly Club reviewed and provided comment Binoculars in the Washington/Baltimore Re- on the master search list. Species considered gion (Jeffery Glassberg) was used as a prima- accidental or historically extirpated were not ry resource for identification. All voucher included. specimens collected as part of this project are housed at the Long Branch Nature Cen- Species occurrence was documented ter. In cases of questionable identification, through time-constrained surveys at pre- photo vouchers were taken for later confir- determined survey locations. Field surveys mation or larvae were collected and raised to were conducted during warm, sunny days to adulthood at the nature center. take advantage of optimum butterfly and caterpillar activity periods. Species were

Adapted from Survey of the Butterflies of Arlington County, Virginia (Abugattas, 2008) and listed in taxonomic order following Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA).

Family Hesperidia (Spread-wing Skippers) Horary Edge Achalarus lyciades X Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus P Wild Indigo Duskywing Erynnis baptisiae R Horace's Duskywing Erynnis horatius P

Occurrence Key: (P)resent – Observed during current survey; (R)ecent – Not observed during the current survey, but previously recorded 2001-2006; (X) – No contemporary observations or records

65 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Butterfly Search List and Occurrence Dreamy Duskywing Erynnis icelus X Juvenal's Duskywing Erynnis juvenalis P Zarucco Duskywing Erynnis zarucco X Common Sootywing Pholisora catullus P Common Checkered-Skipper Pyrgus communis P Hayhurst's Scallopwing Staphylus hayhurstii P Southern Cloudywing Thorybes bathyllus X Northern Cloudywing Thorybes pylades X Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus proteus R Family Hesperiidae (Grass Skippers) Pepper and Salt Skipper Amblyscirtes hegon X Common Roadside-Skipper Amblyscirtes vialis X Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor P Sachem Atalopedes campestris P Dusted Skipper Atrytonopsis hianna X Brazilian Skipper Calpodes ethlius X Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris P Leonard's Skipper Hesperia leonardus X Cobweb Skipper Hesperia metea X Indian Skipper Hesperia sassacus X Fiery Skipper Hylephila phyleus P Clouded Skipper Lerema accius P Swarthy Skipper Nastra lherminier X Ocola Skipper Panoquina ocola X Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok R Zabulon Skipper Poanes zabulon P Crossline Skipper Polites origenes X Peck's Skipper Polites peckius P Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles X Little Glassywing Pompeius verna P European Skipper Thymelicus phyleus X Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia egeremet X

Occurrence Key: (P)resent – Observed during current survey; (R)ecent – Not observed during the current survey, but previously recorded 2001-2006; (X) – No contemporary observations or records

66 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Butterfly Search List and Occurrence

Family Papilionidae (Swallowtails) Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor P Zebra Swallowtail Eurytides marcellus P Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes X Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus P Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes P Spicebush Swallowtail Papilio troilus P Family Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs) Falcate Orangetip Anthocaris midea X Orange (Alfalfa) Sulphur Colias eurytheme P Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice P Little Yellow Eurema lisa P Sleepy Orange Eurema nicippe R Cloudless Sulphur Phoebis sennae P Cabbage White Pieris rapae P Checkered White Pontia protodice X Family Lycaenidae (Gossamer-wings) Brown Elfin Callophrys augustinus X Juniper (Olive) Hairstreak Callophrys gryneus X Henry's Elfin Callophrys henrici X Eastern Pine Elfin Callophrys niphon X Red-banded Hairstreak Calycopis cecrops P Spring Azure Celastrina ladon R Summer Azure Celastrina neglecta P Eastern Tailed Blue Everes comyntas P Harvester Feniseca tarquinius R American Copper Lycaena phlaeas X White M Hairstreak Parrhasius m-album P Banded Hairstreak Satyrium calanus X Southern Hairstreak Satyrium favonius X Striped Hairstreak Satyrium liparops X Coral Hairstreak Satyrium titus X Gray Hairstreak Strymon melinus X Family Nymphalidae (Brushfoots) Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa celtis X Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton X Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona X Common Wood Nymph Cercyonis pegala X Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis X Monarch Danaus plexippus P Northern Pearly Eye Enodia anthedon X

Occurrence Key: (P)resent – Observed during current survey; (R)ecent – Not observed during the current survey, but previously recorded 2001-2006; (X) – No contemporary observations or records

67 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Butterfly Search List and Occurrence

Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia P Common Buckeye Junonia coenia P American Snout Libytheana carinenta P Viceroy Limenitis archippus R Red-spotted Purple Limenitis arthemis P Little Wood Satyr Megisto cymela X Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa P Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos P Eastern Comma Polygonia comma P Question Mark Polygonia interrogationis P Appalachian Brown Satyrodes appalachia X Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele R Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta P Painted Lady Vanessa cardui P American Lady Vanessa virginiensis R

Occurrence Key: (P)resent – Observed during current survey; (R)ecent – Not observed during the current survey, but previously recorded 2001-2006; (X) – No contemporary observations or records

Survey Results and Species of Note earlier studies is not surprising, considering Despite the documentation of 849 individual the largely undeveloped state and size of the records, only 39 of the 87 target species were study areas. Huntley Meadows Park (1,425 found to be present during the current field acres) is larger than all of Arlington’s park- survey period, with an additional nine spe- land combined, and the Patuxent Wildlife cies observed contemporarily between the Research Center (12,841 acres) approaches years 2001 - 2006. Together, slightly over the size of all of Arlington County. half (48) of the expected number of local butterfly species were documented. By way While Abugattas believes that the number of of comparison with other regional studies in unrecorded butterflies would increase with the past, Dr. Paul Opler documented 79 but- additional field studies, it is unlikely that all terfly species in a five-year (1982-1986) in- target species remain. Unfortunately, the ventory of the area including and surround- decline of butterfly populations regionally ing Huntley Meadows Park in Alexandria has been noted in other studies. “A survey (Abugattas, 2008). In 2001, Elwood Martin conducted by John Fales in Rock Creek completed and published a checklist of ex- Park, Washington, D.C. from 1977 to 1980 tant butterfly species of the Patuxent Wild- recorded 58 species. A similar survey in the life Research Center (USFWS) in Laurel, same park in 2003 recorded only 24 species. Maryland listing 77 documented species In 1923, Austin Clark recorded 93 butterfly (Martin, 2001). The comparatively large species in the D.C. area” (Abugattas, 2008). number of species documented from these To search for currently undocumented spe-

68 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

cies, Abugattas suggests utilizing flora data gone intense development and urbanization, recently collected through the Natural Her- reducing natural lands to fragmented, iso- itage Resource Inventory to develop future lated, small patches. The resulting loss of inventory sites based on specific habitat wetlands, natural meadows, lack of high types with the presence of preferential nectar quality ecotones or forest edge and replace- sources and host plants. ment of native grasses with non-native turf grasses has eliminated preferential and, in No listed endangered species were docu- some cases, required habitat for lepidopte- mented as part of this study, but several but- ran species. For example, one extirpated terfly species represent regionally rare or species, the Baltimore Checkerspot (Euphy- unusual observations. White M Hairstreak dryas phaeton), requires large colonies of (Parrhasius m-album) was not listed in the native White Turtlehead (Chelone glabra) as BOMONA checklist for Arlington County, a host plant. This marsh-loving native flower and Little Yellows (Eurema lisa) and Hay- can now only be found in six locations hurst’s Scallopwings (Staphylus hayhurstii) across the County in small patches. The neg- are considered uncommon to locally rare. ative impact of widespread non-native The earlier observation of a Harvester (Feni- plants throughout the urban environment seca tarquinius) was a County record and has undoubtedly diminished habitat and rare sighting locally. For unknown reasons, a species diversity of lepidopterans. While number of normally wide-ranging species or some lepidopteran species may be attracted those common to neighboring counties were to showy non-native plants as a food source not documented during the active survey (nectar), studies have shown that native period. Spring Azures (Celastrina ladon) plants support up to 35 times more insect were conspicuously absent and Appalachian diversity, including Lepidoptera, than non- Browns (Satyrodes Appalachia), Little Wood native exotics (Abugattas, 2008). Even with- Satyrs (Megisto cymela), and Common in remaining natural plant communities, Wood Nymphs (Cercyonis pagala) were ex- native plants are being threatened by com- pected, but not found. petition and replacement from non-native invasive species. For example, the most ab- With little local historical data available, the undant species documented in the survey loss of species diversity is anecdotal, but not was the Cabbage White (Pieres rapae) that unexpected. Similar or greater decreases in utilizes Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) as diversity were found among other native a host plant, and both are invasive species of wildlife groups surveyed as part of the Natu- European origin. ral Heritage Resource Inventory. Over the past 70 years, Arlington County has under-

69 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Part V. BIRDS OF ARLINGTON (Class Aves)

Northern Cardinal (Car- dinalis cardinalis)

Photo by John White

Editor Note: The following information has made to note whether or not these species been excerpted in its entirety from the re- nest within the County. However, since no port “Birdlife of Arlington,” submitted by breeding bird surveys of the County have David Farner, cited in Appendix V. as Farn- been completed since the late 1980s, the er, 2008. nesting status for many species is specula- tive. Introduction he following list of bird species This list was compiled through knowledge of found in Arlington represents a local bird species, discussions with Arling- Tcombination of year-round resident ton birders, a search of records of the Vir- birds, birds that migrate into Arlington for ginia Avian Records Committee and an on- nesting, birds that migrate into Arlington line search of the Virginia Statewide Birding for the winter and birds that migrate Listserve (Va-bird). Arlington does have a through Arlington during the spring and/or strong and active bird-watching community fall migration periods. The order of the list that records sightings at local parks and follows the American Ornithologists’ Un- neighborhoods. Contemporary records from ion’s “Official Check-list of North American Long Branch Nature Center, Glencarlyn Birds.” This list represents bird species Park and Fort C.F. Smith Park have been which have been found within the County particularly helpful in compiling this list. since 2002. An attempt has been made to The updated birdlist of Arlington could be note the frequency of occurrence within the used as a basis to develop a new local check- County. In addition, an attempt has been list for use by the birding community.

70 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Habitats Large Forested Tracts. Arlington’s remaining Arlington’s small size and suburban-urban forests suffer from severe fragmentation and nature limit the amount of quality space for isolation, limiting a basic need for a number birds within the County. The absence or li- of nesting and migrating species. Many neo- mitation of particular habitat types in the tropical migrants rely on large forested habi- County unfortunately decreases the diversity tats for successful breeding and feeding ac- and abundance of species that may have tivities. Since Arlington’s natural forests are once been present. For example: largely mature, the less-dense understory often does not provide substantial protec- Open Water Bodies. The Potomac River, the tion from mammal predation to ground nes- largest local water body, is not within Ar- ters such as thrushes and Ovenbirds. lington County boundaries. The only remaining mudflat habitat occurs at low tide Early to Mid-successional Stage Forest. Little within the tidal marshes of Roaches Run to no successional-stage forest growth re- Waterfowl Sanctuary. Arlington has no mains in Arlington. Documented natural lakes, large ponds or natural freshwater forests were determined to range in age from marshes. Most shorebird or wading species 85 to over 200 years. In nearby Fairfax in the County have been observed either in County, where the abandonment of farm- Roaches Run or as flyovers heading to or land and meadows occurred more recently, from the Potomac. larger expanses of mixed oak-pine forest still persist. Species requiring or preferring the Grasslands and Natural Meadows. The his- denser understory and difference in food torical patterns of development across Ar- and physical structure provided by an oak- lington have left the County with no remain- pine forest are less abundant in Arlington. ing natural grasslands or old field meadow habitat. Small parcels of artificial grassland Historical Changes in Species and have been planted and maintained at both Frequency Potomac Overlook Park and C. F. Smith Since the 1940s the status of many bird spe- Park, providing a structural facsimile of nat- cies within Arlington and indeed in the mid- ural meadows in order to attract species with Atlantic has changed. Some species such as these specific habitat needs. Most meadow American Robin, Fish Crow, and Black Vul- species have been documented from Poto- ture have experienced increased populations mac Overlook, Fort C. F. Smith, and Gravel- due to their ability to coexist with humans. ly Point. It is possible that some species not In 2008 a pair of Bald Eagles nested in Ar- included on the Arlington Bird List could be lington along the George Washington Me- found at Reagan National Airport, if more morial Parkway. The number of Bald Eagles access to the grounds were possible. has rebounded remarkably throughout the United States and Canada following the banning of DDT. This pair of eagles

71 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

represents a much broader success relating Birdfeeders provide an easy way to draw a to environmental quality improvements. variety of species close enough for easy observation, study and personal enjoyment. However, most species of birds, particularly Bird feeding, especially in winter and early those that migrate to the tropics for the win- spring, can provide supplemental food to ter, have experienced declines in population. birds at a time when insects and other food Although the decline in quality and quantity are not present or are scarce. Bird feeding of Arlington’s natural areas has resulted in stations should be kept clean and bird food decreased space for many species, the de- replaced frequently to prevent seed from cline in frequency of many is affected pri- rotting. Frequent clean up of the ground be- marily by environmental conditions on neath feeders will discourage the attraction breeding grounds in North America and of rats and unwanted wildlife. Stations wintering ground in Central and South should also be sited so that predation from America. Many bird species which previous- domestic house cats and hawks is mini- ly could be found with relative ease in Ar- mized. Water provided through artificial lington during migration now rarely appear. streams or bird baths can be beneficial to According to the American Bird Conservan- birds in mid-winter and summer. However cy: “More than one third of the 650 species the water in bird baths should be emptied at that breed in the United States are in long- least twice per week to keep it clean and pre- term decline. At least 29 species of migratory vent its use by mosquitoes. While the provi- birds have experienced population declines sion of birdfeeding stations will not neces- of 45% or greater since the 1960s. Some spe- sarily increase the number of native birds cies, such as the Cerulean Warbler and within any given neighborhood, it will serve Olive-sided Flycatcher, have declined more to make those present more observable at a than 70%” (Farner, 2008). single location and increase the survivability of those individuals during the winter-early Backyard Habitats spring seasons. Many households in Arlington attempt to attract birds to their yards by providing Using native plants in landscaping can pro- food, water, habitat and shelter. Among the vide much needed food and cover to birds in most common and easily attracted bird spe- the County. As cited elsewhere in this re- cies are American Robin, American Gold- port, non-native invasive plants often out- finch, Northern Cardinal, Carolina Chick- compete and replace native plants that pro- adee, Tufted Titmouse, Carolina Wren, vide a natural food source for local birds. Downy Woodpecker and Red-bellied The removal of invasive plants from urban Woodpecker. Also attracted to back yard backyards would benefit a number of native habitats are several non-native invasive spe- wildlife species, including birds. cies such as the House Sparrow, European Starling and House Finch.

72 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Birdwatching in Arlington County designed for bird attraction. The prox- Despite its small size Arlington does have imity to the Potomac River also increases several highly productive locations for sea- the opportunity to view some unusual sonal bird watching. Five sites within the species on occasion. Species of note that County are listed on Virginia’s Birding and have been observed at this park include Wildlife Trail. They are: the Olive-sided Flycatcher, Sora, Golden Eagle and Rusty Blackbird. Long Branch Nature Center. Glencarlyn Park. Features include two small artifi- Potomac Overlook Regional Park. Fea- cial ponds, streams, high quality mature tures a number of varying habitats in- hardwood forest, and Sparrow Pond cluding mature woodlands, maintained wetland. Walking trails are provided grasslands, riparian forest and access to throughout the parks and the W&OD the Potomac River shoreline by hiking Regional Trail bisects the parkland. The trail. By virtue of size and geographic lo- stream valley at Long Branch serves as a cation, this park provides one of the best natural migration conduit during the nesting locations for birds in the County. spring and fall for migrating warblers. Woodpeckers, birds of prey, and spar- Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. Fea- rows are often observed. tures a 25 acre aquatic basin with tidal marsh, tidal swamp and remnant bot- Lubber Run Park. Features a forested tomland hardwood forest plant com- stream valley with riparian woodlands munities. A number of waterfowl, wad- and easy access for walking. The valley ing birds and shorebirds are attracted to provides excellent opportunities to ob- the exposed mud flats at low tide. The serve a number of songbirds during the Sanctuary is located off the George spring and fall migration period. Washington Memorial Parkway, adjacent to the Reagan National Airport. Fort C. F. Smith Historic Site and Park. Features several areas of maintained grasslands with an artificial bird stream

73 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Key Frequency Seasons Abundant = a species likely to be found in the proper Spring = March to May season and habitat Summer = June to August Common = a species that may be found most of the time Fall = September to November in the proper season and habitat Winter = December to Uncommon = present, but not certain to be seen February Occasional = seen only a few times during a season Rare = may be present, but not every year Common Scientific Name Notes Nesting? Name (Y/N) Snow Chen caerulescens Rare in migration N Goose Canada Branta canadensis Abundant year round Y Goose Tundra Cygnus columbianus Occasional flyover migrant N Swan Wood Aix sponsa Uncommon Y Duck American Anas americana Occasional late fall through N Wigeon early spring at Roaches Run American Anas rubripes Occasional late fall through N Black early spring at Roaches Run Duck Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Common Y Northern Anas acuta Occasional late fall through N Pintail early spring at Roaches Run Green- Anas crecca Occasional late fall through N winged early spring at Roaches Run Teal Redhead Aythya Americana Rare late fall through early N spring at Roaches Run Ring- Aythya collaris Uncommon late fall through N necked early spring at Roaches Run Duck

74 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Name Scientific Name Notes Nesting? (Y/N) Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Occasional late fall through early N spring at Roaches Run Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Uncommon late fall through early N spring at Roaches Run Common Bucephala clangula Occasional late fall through early N Goldeneye spring at Roaches Run Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus Uncommon late fall through early N Merganser spring at Roaches Run Common Mergus merganser Occasional late fall through early N Merganser spring at Roaches Run Red-breasted Mergus serrator Rare late fall through early spring at N Merganser Roaches Run Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Uncommon late fall through early N spring at Roaches Run Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Rare, two known sightings N? Common Loon Gavia immer Rare flyover in migration N Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Uncommon late fall through early N spring at Roaches Run Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Occasional late fall through early N spring at Roaches Run Red-necked Podiceps grisegena Rare late fall through early spring at N Grebe Roaches Run Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus Uncommon fall - spring at Roaches N Cormorant Run Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Rare - one known sighting at Roaches N Run Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Common along water edges and as N flyover Great Egret Ardea alba Rare at Roaches Run N Green Heron Butorides virescens Occasional spring - fall N Black-crowned Nycticorax nycticorax Occasional at Roaches Run and N Night Heron flyover along Potomac shore Black Vulture Coragyps atratus Common N? Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Common ??

75 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Name Scientific Name Notes Nesting? (Y/N) Osprey Pandion haliaetus Common late-March - October near Y water Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Uncommon Y leucocephalus Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Rare at CF Smith, Gravelly Point and N Reagan National Airport Sharp-shinned Accipiter striatus Common fall through spring, N Hawk especially at bird feeders Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Common fall through spring, Y uncommon summer Red-shouldered Buteo lineatus Uncommon Y Hawk Broad-winged Buteo platypterus Occasional in spring and fall N Hawk migration Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Uncommon year round Y Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos One known sighting from CF Smith N American Kestrel Falco sparverius Occasional at CF Smith, Gravelly N Point, W&OD Trail and as flyover Merlin Falco columbarius Rare migrant N Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Occasional migrant, nests nearby on N Potomac and Anacostia bridges Sora Porzana carolina Rare, seen once at CF Smith N American Coot Fulica americana Occasional at Roaches Run N Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Occasional ? Spotted Sandpiper Actitus macularius Occasional in migration along water N edges Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Occasional in migration along water N edges Least Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Occasional on mudflats N American Scolopax minor Rare in meadows, CF Smith N Woodcock Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Rare at Roaches Run N Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Uncommon at Roaches Run and N along Potomac shore

76 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Name Scientific Name Notes Nesting? (Y/N) Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Common fall through spring, N parking lot gull Herring Gull Larus argentatus Uncommon along Potomac shore N Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Uncommon along Potomac shore N Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Occasional at Roaches Run or N flyover along Potomac shore Rock Pigeon Columba livia Abundant, introduced Y Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Abundant Y Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Uncommon, mainly migrates Y through County, with some nesting in County Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus Occasional migrant N erythropthalmus Eastern Screech-owl Megascops asio Uncommon, nests in County Y Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Uncommon, nests in County Y Barred Owl Strix varia Uncommon, nests in County Y Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Uncommon in migration, more N? likely in fall Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Common spring to fall, nests in Y? County Ruby-throated Archilochus colubris Uncommon except at hummingbird Y Hummingbird feeders, nests in County Rufous Hummingtbird Selasphorus rufus Rare, visited hummingbird feeder at N Potomac Overlook winter 2007-08 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Occasional, Potomac shore, Roaches ? Run Red-headed Melanerpes Rare, mainly at CF Smith, Potomac N Woodpecker erythrocephalus Overlook Park Red-bellied Melanerpes carolinas Abundant Y Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius Common fall through spring N Sapsucker

77 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Name Scientific Name Notes Nesting? (Y/N) Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Abundant Y Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Common Y Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Abundant Y Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Common Y Olive-sided Contopus cooperi Rare, CF Smith 2008 N Flycatcher Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens Abundant spring Y through fall Yellow-bellied Empidonax flaviventris Rare migrant N Flycatcher Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Common spring - fall Y Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Rare in migration, seen N at CF Smith Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Rare in migration, seen N at CF Smith Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Abundant March - Y October, rare in winter Great Creasted Myiarchus crinitus Common spring - fall Y Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Nests at Gravelly Point, Y occasional at CF Smith White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Uncommon Y Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons Occasional migrant N? Vireo Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Uncommon migrant N Warbling Vireo Vireo gilivus Occasional, nesting in Y Sycamores along GW Parkway Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Occasional migrant N Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Abundant spring Y through fall Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Abundant Y American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Abundant Y Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Abundant Y

78 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Name Scientific Name Notes Nesting? (Y/N) Common Raven Corvus corax One known sighting N from CF Smith Purple Martin Progne subis Uncommon migrant, N? has nested at CF Smith Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Uncommon spring - fall Y? Northern Rough- Stelgidopteryx serripennis Common along water Y winged Swallow edges and as flyover Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Occasional in migration N Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Uncommon, nests just ? outside County limits on bridges to TRI and Ladybird JG Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis Abundant Y Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Abundant Y Red-breasted Sitta canadensis Occasional migrant - not N Nuthatch found every year White-breasted Sitta carolinensis Abundant Y Nuthatch Brown Creeper Certhia americana Common October - N April Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Abundant Y House Wren Troglodytes aedon Abundant spring - fall Y Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Common in woods and N along stream valleys October - April Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa Common late September N Kinglet - April Ruby-crowned Regulus calendula Common in fall and N Kinglet spring migration, uncommon in winter Blue-gray Polioptila caerulea Common spring - fall Y Gnatcatcher

79 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Name Scientific Name Notes Nesting? (Y/N) Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Nest @Taylor Y Elementary in 2008, occasional elsewhere in County Veery Catharus fuscescens Declining nester in Y County due to lack of habitat Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minumus Uncommon, primarily N in fall migration Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Uncommon in spring N and fall migration Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Uncommon October- N April Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Declining nester in Y County due to lack of habitat American Robin Turdus migratorius Abundant Y Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Abundant April - Y October Northern Mimus polypglottos Abundant Y Mockingbird Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Uncommon April - Y October European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Abundant - introduced Y American Pipit Anthus rubescens Rare at Gravelly Point in N winter Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Common in winter, Y occasional nester in summer Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Occasional in migration N Golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera Rare in migration N Warbler Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Uncommon in N migration

80 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Scientific Name Notes Nesting? Name (Y/N) Orange- Vermivora celata Rare in fall migration N crowned Warbler Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla Uncommon in migration N Warbler Northern Parula americana Common spring - fall Y Parula Yellow Dendroica petechia Uncommon spring - fall Y Warbler Chestnut- Dendroica Uncommon in migration N sided pensylvanica Warbler Magnolia Dendroica magnolia Uncommon in migration N Warbler Cape May Dendroica tigrina Occasional in migration N Warbler Black- Dendroica Uncommon in migration N throated Blue caerulescens Warbler Yellow- Dendroica coronata Common late fall and early spring, N rumped uncommon in winter Warbler Black- Dendroica virens Uncommon in migration N throated Green Warbler Blackburnian Dendroica fusca Occasional in migration N Warbler Yellow- Dendroica dominica Occasional in spring migration, one known N throated winter record (LBNC) Warbler Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Occasional in migration N Prairie Dendroica discolor Uncommon in fall N Warbler

81 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Scientific Name Notes Nesting? Name (Y/N) Palm Dendroica palmarum Uncommon in migration N Warbler Bay-breasted Dendroica castanea Occasional in migration N Warbler Blackpoll Dendroica striata Uncommon in spring, rare in fall N Warbler Cerulean Dendroica cerulea Rare, all recent records from Potomac N Warbler Overlook Park Black-and- Mniotilta varia Common spring - fall Y? white Warbler American Setophaga ruticilla Common spring - fall Y? Redstart Prothonotary Protonotaria citrea Rare spring - fall N? Warbler Worm-eating Helmitheros Occasional in migration N? Warbler vermivorum Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Uncommon spring - fall, declining nester Y Northern Seiurus Occasional migrant early spring - late N Waterthrush noveboracensis summer Louisiana Seiurus motacilla Uncommon spring - fall, declining nester Y? Waterthrush (perhaps former) Kentucky Oporornis formosus Rare in migration N Warbler Connecticut Oporornis agilis Rare in migration N Warbler Mourning Oporornis Rare in migration N Warbler philadelphia Common Geothlypis trichas Common spring - fall Y Yellowthroat Hooded Wilsonia citrina Occasional in migration N Warbler Wilson's Wilsonia pusilla Occasional in migration N Warbler

82 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Scientific Name Notes Nesting? Name (Y/N) Canada Wilsonia canadensis Occasional in migration N Warbler Yellow- Icteria virens Rare in migration N breasted Chat Summer Piranga rubra Rare in migration N Tanager Scarlet Piranga olivacea Uncommon spring - fall Y Tanager Eastern Pipilo Common spring - fall Y Towhee erythrophthalmus American Spizella arborea Occasional in winter N Tree Sparrow Chipping Spizella passerina Common spring - fall Y Sparrow Field Spizella pusilla Uncommon due to lack of proper habitat Y? Sparrow Vesper Pooecetes gramineus Rare in winter N Sparrow Savannah Passerculus Occasional in fall - spring at CF Smith, N Sparrow sandwichensis Gravelly Point Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Occasional in winter N Song Melospiza melodia Abundant Y Sparrow Lincoln's Melospiza lincolnii Rare in migration N Sparrow Swamp Melospiza georgiana Uncommon in migration N? Sparrow White- Zonotrichia albicollis Abundant fall - spring N throated Sparrow White- Zonotrichia Occasional in winter N crowned leucophrys Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis Common fall - spring N Junco

83 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Arlington County Bird Checklist

Common Scientific Name Notes Nesting? Name (Y/N) Northern Cardinalis cardinalis Abundant Y Cardinal Rose- Pheucticus Occasional in migration N breasted ludovicianus Grosbeak Blue Passerina caerulea Rare spring - fall N Grosbeak Indigo Passerina cyanea Uncommon spring - fall Y? Bunting Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Occasional in migration at CF Smith, N Gravelly Point Red-winged Agelaius phoeniceus Abundant Y? Blackbird Eastern Sturnella magna Rare at Gravelly Point N Meadowlark Rusty Euphagus carolinus Occasional in migration, primarily wet N Blackbird woods Common Quiscalus quiscula Abundant Y Grackle Brown- Molothrus ater Abundant Y headed Cowbird Orchard Icterus spurius Uncommon spring - fall Y Oriole Baltimore Icterus galbula Uncommon spring - fall Y Oriole Purple Carpodacus purpurens Occasional in winter N Finch House Finch Carpodacus mexicans Abundant - introduced Y Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Occasional in winter N American Carduelis tristis Abundant Y Goldfinch House Passer domesticus Abundant - introduced Y Sparrow

84 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Part VI: THE FUTURE OF WILDLIFE IN ARLINGTON

A single colony of Red Salamander (P. ruber) remain

Photo by Greg Zell

iologists and wildlife managers have ing the extent and impact of urbanization recognized for some time that large- throughout the Old Dominion and help Ar- Bscale landscape alterations destroy lington County to better define opportuni- valuable habitat and have led directly to the ties for habitat improvements and targeted loss or reduction of some wildlife species wildlife restoration. and unwanted increases in others (Mitchell, 1994). Without question, the loss of habitat The development of a plan to protect, en- and related wildlife within the most highly hance or increase native wildlife in an urban urbanized corridors of the state has been environment is a significant challenge. A great and, to date, largely undocumented. number of existing urban stresses have and Analysis of the data collected through the will continue to impact the size and health of recent Natural Heritage Resource Inventory local wildlife populations. These stresses in- clearly shows that Arlington’s remaining clude habitat fragmentation, loss of habitat natural environment is under stress. It is not diversity, loss of wetlands, spread of invasive coincidental that 70% of all historically do- plants and, to a lesser degree, the unknown cumented mammals, reptiles and amphi- impacts of human activity and the affects of bians are locally absent (extirpated), undo- ambient light and noise present in the urban cumented or persisting in reduced numbers. environment. It is not by chance that select insect orders (Ondonata, Lepidoptera) were found to be much less diverse compared to populations in nearby Fairfax County. The authors hope that the information contained within this report will assist state agencies in quantify-

85 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Habitat Fragmentation can claim approximately 3,000 acres of open One of the most damaging impacts of urban space, less than 800 acres, divided into sev- development on wildlife has been the frag- eral dozen individual parcels, have been mentation of habitat and the resulting isola- classified as “natural lands” (Zell, March tion of populations. For less mobile species, 2009). Vegetative data collected as part of such as reptiles and amphibians, the habitat the Natural Heritage Resource Inventory islands created by urbanization often mimic shows that a large majority of the remaining the ecology of true oceanic islands (Mitchell, natural lands exist as mature mixed hard- 1994). Vulnerable wildlife populations iso- wood forest, with a number of different for- lated by human infrastructure are at in- est types present. However, a number of creased risk of eventual reproductive failure. plant community types that would have The concept of “minimum viable popula- been present historically have disappeared. tion” holds that a minimum number of indi- Most notably, high quality forest edge, suc- viduals within isolated populations must be cessional stage oak-pine forest, and old field present in order to survive, reproduce and meadow are no longer present. The loss of continue to succeed (Shaffer, 1981). When habitat diversity affects all wildlife groups, individual numbers fall below the minimum but particularly those species with specia- required, genetic viability is reduced, re- lized nesting and cover requirements. placement is insufficient for sustainability, and the entire population is at increased risk Loss of Wetlands of catastrophic failure (storm event, pesti- Arlington County was once historically rich cide spill, sustained drought, etc.). In the ab- in wetlands. Types of wetlands that have sence of catastrophe, these weakened popu- been lost or heavily impacted by develop- lations slowly die out and become lost fauna. Habitat fragmentation impacts all groups of wildlife, but particularly those with limited mobility such as amphibians and reptiles.

Loss of Habitat Diversity In addition to habitat fragmentation, many urban communities have experienced a large net loss of habitat in terms of both quantity and quality.

While Arlington County If well designed, constructed wetlands provide habitat. Photo by Greg Zell

86 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

ment include flood plains, back swamps, ty into parkland forests. All parks and par- woodland seeps, vernal pools, wet ditches, cels inventoried in the recent vegetative sur- freshwater marsh, and tidal marsh. Miles of vey were found to have sections of moderate surface streams have disappeared or suffer to high invasiveness. The adverse affects of from storm water flooding and degraded invasive plants to natural forest succession water quality. While all groups of wildlife and the resulting loss of native plants may have been impacted by the loss of wetlands, have a long-term impact on migrating birds the elimination of breeding habitat for am- through the elimination of native food phibians and a general loss of high quality sources and alteration of forest structure. habitat for the Odonata (dragonflies and The native Lepidoptera (butterflies and damselflies) have been most evident. moths) are also at increased risk through the loss of native host and food plants. Invasive Plants Over the past 50-70 years, non-native invasive plants have spread from private proper-

Part VII. A STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE tute, the Animal Welfare League of Arling- Management Limitations ton (AWLA) is granted broad authority to hile Arlington’s natural envi- control, regulate and license domestic ani- ronment can be described as mals and pets, but has limited authority in W ecologically imbalanced from an regards to wildlife. Although animal control historical perspective, the current status may officers will respond to reports of injured or simply indicate movement toward a new abandoned wildlife, there currently exists no “urbanized equilibrium.” In the post- agency, resources or funding for the direct urbanization period, it is not realistic to ex- management or control of general wildlife pect to be able to sustain all remaining spe- within the County. In most cases, a permit cies or to restore all that have disappeared. would be required to allow county staff to Any efforts to manage wildlife should be trap and remove, collect or reintroduce thoughtful, objective-based and within the wildlife into Arlington as part of any wildlife authority granted by state law. With few ex- management program. While the VDGIF ceptions, the Virginia Department of Game does provide consultation and technical as- and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), under the sistance in areas of wildlife control and authority of Commonwealth of Virginia, management, performance of those permit- provides oversight for the management of ted activities (staff and resources) would be wildlife within the Old Dominion. By sta- the responsibility of the County. Depending on the requested project or activity, there

87 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

may be data collection and reporting re- Habitat Restoration and Creation: The ve- quirements as part of the permit. getative and plant community surveys conducted as part of the Natural Heritage Re- A constraint or challenge for successful source Inventory identified a number of res- management of wildlife habitat will be the torable remnant plant communities, includ- ability to develop cooperative strategies and ing wetlands, which currently support or goals across jurisdictional lines. A number of could support documented at-risk water- Arlington County parks that contain natural dependent species (amphibians, odonates). lands and wildlife resources abut properties A priority list of recommended restoration owned by the National Park Service (G. W. opportunities on county-owned parkland Memorial Parkway) and the Northern Vir- should be developed by staff. Small scale ha- ginia Regional Park Authority (NVRPA). In bitat restoration opportunities exist in the a single case, the only colony of a locally-rare following parks – Barcroft, Bluemont, Ben- salamander occurs on private property. Co- jamin Banneker, Lucky Run, Fort C. F. operation with the owner and voluntary Smith and others. Habitat restoration within protection of the site has been sought. the identified parcels could be accomplished using a combination of in-house county re- Management Opportunities sources and volunteers. With high demand Considering the available resources and li- and competition for use of existing public mited independent legal authority of county open space within Arlington, the opportuni- staff, the following discussion highlights op- ties for new habitat creation are limited. The portunities that represent a reasonable ap- establishment of early-stage riparian forest proach to the management of urban wildlife along portions of Four Mile Run stream and as a component of Arlington’s natural re- the creation of scattered, small-scale native sources. meadows are options.

Protection of Existing Wildlife Habitat: The Continuation of Wildlife Studies and Data most effective tool available to indirectly Collection: This report is the first compre- manage local wildlife populations on a coun- hensive effort to catalog and document Ar- ty-wide basis is to ensure the protection of lington’s historic and extant wildlife. In or- existing natural lands and high value habitat der to protect or manage those species iden- on publicly-owned properties. While histor- tified as uncommon – rare, periodic moni- ically lost habitats cannot be replaced, nor toring of known populations should be con- additional natural lands easily created, it is ducted. In addition, a large percentage of important to prevent or limit the loss of ex- target species within the current study were tant natural lands. Preservation of existing listed as “unknown” or currently undocu- habitat and plant communities is the only mented. Additional inventories should be management option for many local wildlife conducted to verify the presence or non- species. presence of these species. Several families

88 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

within the Order Mammalia require further Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Opportuni- specialized studies, including the small ro- ties: A number of opportunities have been dents, insectivores and bats, in order to veri- identified where existing habitat or habitat fy or discount their presence. Volunteer pro- components could be improved for several fessional scientists or local universities groups of local wildlife. should be solicited to conduct these studies under the oversight and coordination of (1) Establish Dragonfly Sanctuary. Dragonf- county staff. The initial inventory of odo- ly survey data assumes a general decline nates (dragonflies/damselflies) and lepidop- of species in Arlington County com- terans (butterflies/moths) is incomplete and pared to nearby Fairfax County. Two should continue for a number of additional small County-owned ponds, located in seasons in order to establish a full record of Cherry Valley Park, were found to con- occurrence. A combination of county staff tain several rare or unusual dragonfly and trained volunteers could accomplish species. Both ponds could be managed this objective. Thereafter, as environmental expressly for odonate species and be “bell weather” species, the odonates and Le- dedicated as a Dragonfly Sanctuary. On- pidoptera should be re-inventoried every ly minor modifications or physical three to five years in order to monitor changes would be required, including change. the removal of all goldfish from the ponds. Education at the site could be Reintroduction of Wildlife: Analysis of plant provided through the placement of in- community and wildlife data collected in the terpretive signs or panels. natural resource inventory concludes that the reintroduction of several locally-rare (2) Enhance Butterfly Habitat. As a highly amphibian species may be successful. Sea- mobile group, butterflies do not neces- sonal breeding pools are a critical missing sarily need large spaces, but the presence element for a number of local species with of required host and food plants are crit- reduced or extirpated populations. The con- ical. Woodland species have probably struction of vernal pools within a number of been impacted locally to a larger degree county parks would provide breeding sites due to the affects of invasive plants re- for reintroduced populations of Cope’s gray placing natives and fragmented wood- treefrog, American toad, spring peeper and lands. The grass and forb meadows at C. spotted salamander. The construction of F. Smith Park were noted as being the vernal pools could easily be accomplished by most productive site for attracting but- volunteers with hand tools and labor under terflies in the County. There are two spe- the direction of county staff. Without addi- cific suggestions to enhance butterfly tional analysis, the reintroduction of non- habitat County-wide with little to no fis- amphibians is not currently suggested. cal impact.

89 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

• Create two model butterfly garden designs conservation of an at-risk wildlife spe- to fit in small spaces. One model would cies. The establishment of this joint pro- be for shade and the other for sunny lo- gram would not only allow the cost of cations. Local native plants would be plantings to be shared, but would pro- recommended to attract targeted butterf- vide both agencies with the opportunity ly species. The completed garden designs to demonstrate an active role in protect- would be made available to both the ing and preserving local native wildlife. general public and county staff. A reasonable future goal would be to con- (3) Create Nesting Habitat for Native Bees. struct up to 100 micro-habitat butterfly In light of the rapid decline of European gardens across the County on both pri- Honeybees (Apis mellifera) and native vate property and public parkland. In Bumble Bees (Bombus spp.) nationwide, addition to enhancing available habitat, the important role of native bees in the the new gardens could be used as survey pollination of native plants cannot be stations for the continuation of butterfly understated (Evans, et al.). This is par- surveys. Volunteer groups such as the ticularly true in urban areas where natu- Master Naturalists and Master Garden- ral nesting sites have disappeared or ers could assist in the installation of gar- when nests are destroyed out of un- dens on public property. Arlingtonians founded fear. A number of local species, for a Cleaner Environment (ACE) could known variously as sand bees and min- promote the establishment of butterfly ing bees (Family Andrenidae) or digger gardens as part of the Community Back- bees (Family Apidae), are solitary spe- yard Habitat Program that they manage. cies, non-aggressive and prolific early spring pollinators. Large numbers of in- • Manage the Four Mile Run stream valley dividuals nesting within a small area are as a migration route for Monarch Butter- known as “aggregations.” As ground flies. The Monarch Butterfly migrates nesters, they prefer sandy soil with annually through Arlington toward its sparse or no vegetation on the surface. In southern wintering grounds and is in de- Arlington County, they are often at- cline throughout the Eastern United tracted to recreational areas where sand States. The W&OD Trail and parallel has been placed for playgrounds or vol- Four Mile Run trail could be managed as leyball courts. The construction of nest- a dedicated migration route by planting ing habitat in multiple County parks, and maintaining native milkweed (As- away from recreational amenities, would clepias spp.) species along the length of be inexpensive and could be accom- the two trails. This would present a part- plished with hand tools by removing soil nership opportunity for the Northern from linear or rectangular pits to a depth Virginia Regional Park Authority of 2 feet and refilling them with a mix- (NVRPA) and Arlington County in the ture of sand and loam. Nesting pits

90 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

should be constructed in well-drained the placement of additional nesting struc- areas in both flat and sloped landscape tures in private backyards could provide ad- (Mader, et al. 2010). Post-construction ditional territorial space and serve to in- maintenance would be limited to the pe- crease the numbers of a limited number of riodic mowing or removal of accumu- species. Lastly, to reduce the predation of lated vegetation on the surface of the pit. local birds by house cats, a public education campaign could be directed to convince Wild Bird Management: With many species owners to keep pets inside and report stray of birds in decline due to a variety of factors cats to the Arlington Animal Welfare throughout North and South America, there League. is little that Arlington County can do inde- pendently to reverse larger global changes. Establish Wildlife Control Plan. One of the However, there are some positive steps that inevitable results of urbanization is the im- the County can undertake to minimize con- balance of wildlife populations. Some spe- tinued declines locally. The single largest cies, known as “generalists” are very adap- step that Arlington as a community can take tive and in the absence of sufficient natural to protect native bird populations is to en- predation may increase populations to pest sure that additional woodlands and natural level status. Local species within that catego- spaces are not lost. Even though much of the ry include gray squirrels, red foxes, rac- remaining natural forest County-wide is coons, and white-tailed deer. When popula- fragmented, these remnant woodlands and tions reach abnormally high levels, some stream valleys continue to provide migration species have the potential to threaten the corridors and nesting habitat for a number environment (white-tailed deer) or pose a of species. A continuation of the County’s human health risk from transmittable dis- efforts to increase forest canopy will provide ease (raccoon, red fox and white-tailed long-term benefit to birdlife. On a park-level deer). Three other species that are not cur- scale, a coordinated program of invasive rently problematic, but could potentially re- plant removal would help to restore de- quire control in the future are non- graded remnants into more natural envi- migratory geese, beavers and coyotes. In ronments, providing higher quality food and large numbers, geese can cause traffic prob- cover resources for birds. The restoration of lems, create unsanitary conditions (drop- suitable wetlands and the establishment of pings) in public spaces, and may exhibit ag- carefully designed and maintained grassland gression when nesting. Beavers can damage tracts would provide additional habitat that urban infrastructure through the construc- is greatly lacking within the County at the tion of dams and kill trees or shrubbery on present time. While the mature woodlands private property. To date, coyotes have re- of Arlington most likely provide sufficient mained largely secretive in Arlington, but nesting sites for tree-hollow nesters, such as increases in the local population could result woodpeckers, chickadees and nuthatches,

91 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

in predation on small pets (dogs and cats) liums (Trillium spp.) may completely disap- and aggression towards humans. pear.

Of particular local concern is the apparent In addition to monitoring the populations of increase in number of white-tailed deer. nuisance wildlife and performing a popula- This has been most noticeable in North Ar- tion survey or browse survey for deer, it lington within stream valley parks along the would be prudent for the County to develop Potomac River. Reports of individual deer a Wildlife Control Plan in the event that herds in excess of a dozen animals have been control or reduction of target species is re- reported with increased frequency, and signs quired in the future. Currently, the County of over browsing within some parks are ob- has no dedicated staff, resources, or contin- vious. The Virginia Department of Game gency plan to deal with this possibility. A and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) have found Wildlife Control Plan would include a writ- deer populations rising across the state and ten document outlining the steps that would account for an average of 3 deaths and 450 be taken, legal authorities cited, resources injuries per year from vehicle collisions. The needed and responsible County agencies highest population increases are reported identified. from Northern Virginia (Northern Virginia Deer Management Summit, September Artificial Pond Management. Within the ur- 2010). As selective feeders, each adult white- ban environment, artificial ponds can serve tail deer can consume up to three to five as a high value wildlife habitat for a number percent of its body weight in plant material of avian species and water-dependent am- each day. With only small patches of forest phibians, reptiles and mammals. A number remaining in Arlington, over browsing by of dry and wet ponds on public property are deer can rapidly reduce or eliminate native presently managed by Arlington County as flora, including rare plants, and can retard storm water BMP’s. The addition of a wild- the natural regeneration of forest trees. In life management component to current op- some sections of wooded parkland in nearby erational criteria could greatly benefit a Fairfax County, deer have completely elimi- number of native wildlife species. The devel- nated all ground cover within the forest. opment process for future BMP’s should While Arlington’s population of deer may consider wildlife habitat options as a design continue to rise exponentially before reach- element. ing the biological carrying capacity of available parkland, it has most likely already Local Animal Regulations and Public Educa- reached the ecological carrying capacity in tion. Both the general public and county some areas – the point at which damage to staff are aware of the environmental threats normally renewable native plant resources posed by non-native invasive plants. There is occurs and vulnerable species, such as Tril- less general awareness of the problems relating to the release of both native and non-

92 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

native (exotic) wildlife into public parkland cies and thrive. Non-native Red-eared Slid- in Arlington. It is not uncommon to discov- ers (aquatic turtle) and goldfish are two local er wildlife, collected by individuals while on examples of released animals that currently vacation in other states or other parts of threaten the health of native species. A re- Virginia, and subsequently released into Ar- view of current County Administrative Reg- lington. In other cases, non-native exotic ulations and animal ordinances is suggested wildlife purchased as pets have been found to determine if current rules sufficiently de- after being released into parks or neighbor- ter the unauthorized release of both domes- hoods. The potential impacts relating to the tic animals (pet species) and wildlife into unauthorized release of animals in the parkland and the residential community. community are several. In many cases, the The development of a cooperative outreach specimens are exotic tropical species unable program to better educate the public about to survive local winter temperatures and will the environmental impact and cruelty issues die as a result. In other cases, whether native attached to the unregulated release of wild- or non-native, released animals have the po- life and exotic animals could be undertaken tential to transmit diseases to similar local by Arlington County, the Animal Welfare populations of wildlife. In worst cases, re- League of Arlington and local environmen- leased animals may out-compete native spe- tal non-profit organizations.

93 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Appendix I – Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians Species Occurrence and Frequency

Presence Documented Historical Species Current Status Likely 2004-2008 Records MAMMALS Opossum Abundant yes yes Ashen Masked Shrew Unknown no no no Southeastern Shrew Unknown most likely no yes Pygmy Shrew Unknown no no no Kirtland’s Short-tailed Abundant yes yes Shrew Least Shrew Unknown no no yes

Eastern Mole Common yes yes Star-nosed Mole Unknown no no no Little Brown Bat Unknown yes no yes Northern Myotis Unknown possible no no Silver-haired Bat Uncommon yes no Eastern Pipistrelle Unknown yes no no Big Brown Bat Common yes yes Evening Bat Unknown possible no no Eastern Red Bat Common yes yes Hoary Bat Unknown possible no yes Eastern Cottontail Uncommon - yes yes Common Fisher’s Eastern Chipmunk Common yes yes Woodchuck Uncommon yes yes Northern Gray Squirrel Abundant + yes yes Eastern Fox Squirrel Extirpated no yes Talkative Red Squirrel Extirpated no yes Southern Flying Squirrel Common - Abun- yes yes dant American Beaver Uncommon yes yes Marsh Rice Rat Unknown most likely no no extirpated Eastern Harvest Mouse Unknown possible no yes * non-native species ** non-native/naturalized species

94 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Presence Documented Historical Species Current Status Likely 2004-2008 Records Woodland Deer Mouse Common yes no Prairie Deer Mouse Unknown watch list no no Northern White-footed Common - Abun- yes yes Mouse dant Allegheny Wood Rat Extirpated no probable Common Gapper’s Red- Unknown no no no backed Vole Meadow Vole Common yes yes Pine Vole Unknown yes no yes Southern Bog Lemming Unknown no no no Large-toothed Muskrat Rare yes yes Norway Rat ** Abundant yes yes Black Rat ** Unknown some years no yes House Mouse ** Abundant yes yes Meadow Jumping Mouse Unknown possible no yes Red Fox Abundant + yes yes Common Gray Fox Rare yes yes Coyote Rare citizen ob- no servations Gray Wolf Extirpated no yes Black Bear Rare no yes Raccoon Abundant + yes yes Long-tailed Weasel Unknown may persist no yes in small numbers Common Mink Unknown transients no yes possible Northern River Otter Rare yes yes Striped Skunk Rare citizen ob- yes servations Bobcat Extirpated no yes White-tailed Deer Uncommon - yes yes Common * non-native species ** non-native/naturalized species

95 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Presence Documented Historical Species Current Status Likely 2004-2008 Records TURTLES Eastern Snapping Turtle Common yes yes Eastern Painted Turtle Common yes yes Spotted Turtle Extirpated no yes Wood Turtle Extirpated no yes Eastern River Cooter Unknown no no no Florida Cooter * Unknown watch list no no Northern Red-bellied Coo- Uncommon yes yes ter Yellow-bellied Slider * Rare yes no Red-eared Slider * Common yes no Eastern Mud Turtle Unknown yes no yes Stinkpot Uncommon yes yes Eastern Box Turtle Common yes yes LIZARDS Eastern Fence Lizard Unknown most likely no yes extirpated Common Five-lined Skink Uncommon yes no Southeastern Five-lined Unknown no no no Skink Broad-headed Skink Uncommon yes yes Little Brown Skink Unknown possible no yes SNAKES Worm Snake Uncommon yes yes Northern Scarletsnake Not present by no no no range Northern Black Racer Rare yes yes Northern Ring-neck Snake Uncommon yes no Red Cornsnake Not Present no no erroneous record Eastern Ratsnake Common yes no Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Extirpated no yes Mole Kingsnake Unknown most likely no yes extirpated * non-native species ** non-native/naturalized species

96 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Presence Documented Historical Species Current Status Likely 2004-2008 Records Eastern Kingsnake Unknown not likely questionable yes collection Eastern Milksnake Extirpated no yes Northern Watersnake Common yes yes Northern Rough Uncommon yes yes Greensnake Queen Snake Rare - Uncommon yes yes Northern Brownsnake Common yes yes Northern Red-bellied Snake Unknown possible no yes Common Ribbonsnake Rare yes yes Eastern Gartersnake Common yes yes Eastern Smooth Earth Unknown likely no yes Snake Northern Copperhead Uncommon yes yes Cottonmouth Not Present By no no erroneous Range record Timber Rattlesnake Extirpated no yes SALAMANDERS Jefferson Salamander Not Present By no no no Range Spotted Salamander Rare yes no Marbled Salamander Extirpated no yes Northern Dusky Common yes yes Salamander Northern Two-lined Rare yes yes Salamander Three-lined Salamander Rare yes yes Four-toed Salamander Unknown most likely no no extirpated Red-spotted Newt Extirpated no yes Eastern Red-backed Common - yes yes Salamander Abundant White-spotted Slimy Unknown yes no yes Salamander * non-native species ** non-native/naturalized species

97 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Presence Documented Historical Species Current Status Likely 2004-2008 Records Eastern Mud Salamander Extirpated no no Northern Red Salamander Rare yes yes FROGS AND TOADS Eastern Cricket Frog Extirpated no yes Eastern American Toad Rare yes yes Fowler’s Toad Extirpated no yes Cope’s Gray Treefrog Rare yes no Green Treefrog Unknown most likely no yes extirpated Northern Spring Peeper Uncommon yes yes Upland Chorus Frog Extirpated no yes American Bullfrog Common yes yes Northern Green Frog Common yes yes Pickerel Frog Extirpated released yes specimen Southern Leopard Frog Extirpated no yes Wood Frog Rare yes yes Eastern Spadefoot Toad Not Present extirpated no no or not in range * non-native species ** non-native/naturalized species

98 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Appendix II – 2007 Odonate Survey Site Locations and Habitat Descriptions

Barcroft Park: A series of forested wetlands, Gulf Branch Nature Center: Forested including a magnolia bog, seepage swamp stream edge adjacent to small spring-fed and woodland seeps; drainage swales, wet pond; woodland walking paths and parking ditch, and Four Mile Run stream; historic lot floodplain with forest edge and early stage Long Branch Nature Center: Two small ve- reforestation (meadow); picnic grounds and getated artificial ponds; perennial stream, athletic fields forest edge, trails and small managed herba- Benjamin Banneker Park: Upper reaches of ceous meadow Four Mile Run stream with remnant flood- Pimmit Run: Forested stream valley with plain forest and seepage swamp; forest edge perennial stream and woodland paths; wet with athletic fields meadow and road-edge Chain Bridge: Mouth of Pimmit Run stream Potomac Overlook Regional Park: Forested at the Potomac River; floodplain forest and perennial stream with woodland paths; gras- scoured river bank sy fields and small artificial pond Cherry Valley Park: floristically disturbed Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary: Tidal urban park adjacent to Rt. 66; sunny aspect water impoundment adjacent to Potomac with two small storm water management River; tidal freshwater marsh, tidal swamp ponds; paved bike trail and managed turf and pond edge; access limited without boat Ballston Beaver Pond: Highly vegetated Roosevelt Island: Potomac River edge; walk- storm water management facility between ing bridge, island pathways and parking lot Rt. 66 and Fairfax Drive; access difficult on boundary between Arlington County and without boat D.C. Fort C. F. Smith Park and Historic Site: Two Sparrow Pond: Small vegetated storm water large managed meadows dominated by management facility in Glencarlyn Park ad- herbs and shrubs adjacent to wood edge and jacent to Four Mile Run stream; stream-side managed turf grass bike paths with sunny edge, herbaceous Four Mile Run: Mouth of Four Mile Run meadow growth and playground with ma- from Eads Street to the Potomac River; naged turf grass stream and river edge Upton Hill Regional Park: Forested park Gravelly Point: National Park Service park- with remnant seepage swamp and springs land adjacent to Reagan National Airport (D.C.); Potomac River edge with sunny managed turf, trails and parking lot

99 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Appendix III – Odonate Species Recorded in Fairfax County (Not Observed in Arlington County in 2007)

% column = estimated likelihood of species being observed in Arlington County in future surveys (1 = likely; 2 = possible, but unlikely residents or visitors; 3 = very unlikely)

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Preference % Sparkling Jewelwing Calopteryx dimidiata streams, small rivers 3 Elegant Spreadwing Lestes inaequalis ponds 2 Slender Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis ponds 2 Eastern Red Damsel Amphiagrion saucium grassy seeps 3 Aurora Damsel Chromagrion conditum ponds, swamps, bogs 3 Blue-ringed Dancer Argia sedula rivers 1 Double-striped Bluet Enallagma basidens ponds, lakes 3 Turquoise Bluet Enallagma divagans streams 3 Skimming Bluet Enallagma geminatum ponds 1 Slender Bluet Enallagma traviatum ponds 2 Vesper Bluet Enallagma vesperum ponds 3 Furtive Forktail Ischnura prognata seepage swamps 3 Rambur's Forktail Ischnura ramburii still, brackish water 3 Sphagnum Sprite Nehalennia gracilis sphagnum bogs 3 Gray Petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi forest seeps 2 Comet Darner Anax longipes shallow ponds 1 Occelated Darner Boyeria grafiana rivers, streams 3 Fawn Darner Boyeria vinosa rivers, streams 1 Springtime Darner Basiaeschna janata streams 1 Harlequin Darner Gomphaeschna furcillata swamps, bogs 3 Taper-tailed Darner Gomphaeschna antilope bogs 3 Ashy Clubtail Gomphus lividus rivers, streams 2 Sable Clubtail Gomphus rogersi streams 2

100 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Preference % Skillet Clubtail Gomphus ventricosus rivers 3 Cobra Clubtail Gomphus vastus rivers 1 Midland Clubtail Gomphus fraternus rivers 2 Arrow Clubtail Stylurus spiniceps rivers 1 Laura's Clubtail Stylurus laurae rivers 3 Eastern Least Clubtail Stylogomphus albistylus streams, rivers 2 Common Sanddragon Progomphus obscurus rivers, streams 2 Eastern Ringtail Erpetogomphus designatus rivers 1 Tiger Spiketail Cordulegaster erronea small streams, seepages 2 Twin-spotted Spiketail Cordulegaster maculata small streams 3 Brown Spiketail Cordulegaster bilineata small streams, seepages 2 Arrowhead Spiketail Cordulegaster obliqua small streams, seepages 3 Stream Cruiser Didymops transversa streams, rivers 1 Royal River Cruiser Macromia taeniolata rivers, streams 1 Uhler's Sundragon Helocordulia uhleri streams 3 Slender Baskettail Tetragoneuria costalis ponds 2 Mocha Emerald Somatochlora linearis forested streams 1 Clamp-tipped Emerald Somatochlora tenebrosa streams 1 Umber Shadowdragon Neurocordulia obsoleta rivers 1 Stygian Shadowdragon Neurocordulia yamaskanensis rivers 2 Blue Corporal Ladona deplanata shallow ponds 2 Yellow-sided Skimmer Libellula flavida bogs, grassy seeps 3 Golden-winged Skimmer Libellula auripennis ponds 2 Bar-winged Skimmer Libellula axilena temporary pools, ponds 2 Little Blue Dragonlet Erythrodiplax miniscula ponds 2 Carolina Saddlebags Tramea carolina ponds 1 Striped Saddlebags Tramea calverti ponds 2

101 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Preference % Banded Pennant Celithemis fasciata marshes, shallow ponds 2 Calico Pennant Celithemis elisa marshes, shallow ponds 2 Martha's Pennant Celithemis martha marshes 3 Four-spotted Pennant Brachymesia gravida brackish waters, ditches, 2 ponds Blue-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum ambiguum temporary pools 3 Autumn Meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum shallow ponds, marshes 1 Band-winged Meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum marshes 3 Ruby Meadowhawk Sympetrum rubicundulum small pools, ponds 2 Cherry-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum internum small pools, ponds 3

*Chart excerpted from Munroe and Rabin. 2007 Survey of Dragonflies and Damselflies of Arlington County, Virginia

102 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Appendix IV –Observations of Moth Species in Arlington, Virginia 2005-2010

For reference purposes, the following list of macro-moth species are listed in alphabetical order by family and species from Opler, et al. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. 2010. Note – The placement of family groups within the Order Lepidoptera is under frequent revision.

Common Name Family / Species Month of Observation/ Collection Family Arctiidae Banded Tiger Moth Apantesis vittata September 2007 Yellow-Collared Scape Moth Cissips fulvicollis October 2008 Virginia Ctenucha Ctenucha virginica September 2010 Delicate Cycnia Moth Cycnia tenera July 2008 Milkweed Tussock Moth Euchaeles egle July 2010 Great Leopard Moth Hypercompe scribonia September 2007 Fall Webworm Hyphantria cunea September 2010 Isabella Tiger Moth Pyrrharctia isabella September 2005 Virginia Tiger Moth Spilosoma virginica September 2005 Family Crambidae Grape Leaffolder Moth Desmia funeralis July 2008 Orange Mint Moth Pyrausta orphisalis July 2010 Dogbane Saucrobotys Saucrobotys futilalis September 2010 Family Erebidae Sweetheart Underwing Catocala amatrix September 2005 Family Gelechiiae Goldenrod Gall Moth Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginia October 2005 Family Geometridae Maple Spanworm Moth Ennomos magnaria October 2006 Tulip-tree Beauty Epimecis hortaria September 2005 Lesser Grapevine Looper Eulithis diversilineata June 2007 Large Lace-border Moth Scopula limboundata June 2007 Family Gracillariidae Digitate Locust Miner Parectopa robiniella No Date Family Lasiocampidae Eastern Tent Caterpillar Malacosma americanum April 2006 Moth

103 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Common Name Family / Species Month of Observation/ Collection Forest Tent Caterpillar Moth Malacosma disstria May 2006 Family Limacodidae Saddleback Caterpillar Acharia stimulea Summer 2005 Family Lymantriidae Gypsy Moth Lymantria dispar June 2008 Definite Tussock Moth Orgyia definite July 2008 White-marked Tussock Orgyia leucostigma No Date Moth Family Noctudidea American Dagger Moth Acronicta americana No Date Funerary Dagger Moth Acronicta funeralis July 2006 Smeared Dagger Moth Aronicta oblinita September 2009 Iris Borer Moth Macronoctua onusta August 2005 Yellow-striped Armyworm Spodoptera ornithogalli August 2005 Family Notodontidae Black-spotted Prominent Dasylophia anguina July 2008 Family Pterophoridae Morning-glory Plume Moth Emmelina monodactyla August 2005 Family Pyralidae Clover Hayworm Hypsopygia costalis August 2005 Indian Meal Moth Plodia interpunctella No Date Meal Moth Pyralis farinalis July 2005 Family Saturniidae Luna Moth Actias luna No Date Orange-tipped Oakworm Anisota senatoria September 2009 Tulip Tree Silkmoth Callosamia angulifera June 2006 Promethea Silk Moth Callosamia promethean September 2007 Regal Moth Citheronia regalis August 2005 Cecropia Silkmoth Hyalophora cecropia No Date Family Sesiidae Eupatorium Borer Moth Carmenta bassiformis July 2010 Maple Callus Borer Moth Synanthedon acerni July 2007 Family Sphingidae Nessus Sphinx Moth Amphion floridensis June 2006

104 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Common Name Family / Species Month of Observation/ Collection Catalpa Sphinx Moth Ceratomia catalpae Summer 2005 Snowberry Clearwing Hemaris diffinis August 2010 White-lined Sphinx Hyles lineate September 2010 Family Yponomeutidae Ailanthus Webworm Atteve punctella September 2005 American Ermine Moth Yponometa multipunctella May 2006 Family Zygaenidae Grapeleaf Skeletonizer Harrisiia americana September 2007

Note: Chart adapted from data contained in Survey of Butterflies of Arlington County, Virginia (Abugattas 2008).

105 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Appendix V – References and Citations

1. AAWL Inventory Data (electronic version) 2005-2007. Provided by the Arlington Animal Welfare League. Arlington, Virginia. 2. Abugattas, Alonso and John White. 2009 (in progress). The Frogs, Toads and Salamanders of Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia and the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area (Draft). Long Branch Nature Center, Arlington, Virginia. 22204 3. Abugattas, Alonso. 2008. Survey of the Butterflies of Arlington County, Virginia (22 pages). Unpublished technical report. Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division. Arlington County, Virginia. 4. Activity Report. December 14, 2007. Public Information Office, Fairfax County Police De- partment. Fairfax County, Virginia. 5. Arlington, Virginia Profile 2008. Department of Community Planning, Housing and Devel- opment. Arlington County, Virginia. 6. Bailey, Rich. Potomac Overlook Park Naturalist. 2009. Email Communication. 7. Bailey, Vernon. May 28, 1896. List of Mammals of the District of Columbia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Vol. V., pp. 93-101. 8. Birds in Northern Virginia, Documenting the Nature of Change, The Northern Virginia Bird Survey. 2006. The Audubon Society of Northern Virginia, Inc. Annandale, VA 22132. 9. BOVA Booklet Data (web version). 2009. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service. Http://vafwis.org/fwis/ . 10. Bulmer, Anthony. April 14, 2009. Fairfax County Park Authority. Personal Communication 11. Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA). 2010. Smith, Richard H. (coordinator for records - MD, DE, DC). Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. General Coordinators Paul A. Opler, Kelly Lotts, and Thomas Naberhaus. Http:/www.butterfliesandmoths.org/. version 09/10/10. 12. Colon, Eli. April 9, 2009. Personal Communication. Arlington County Department of Public Health. Arlington County, Virginia. 13. Dunn, E. R. Jan. 25, 1918. A Preliminary List of the Reptiles and Amphibians of Virginia. In COPIA No. 53, pp. 9-27. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Northamp- ton, Mass. 14. Ernst, Carl H. 1989. Turtles of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. and London. 15. Evans, et al.(The Xerces Society). No date. Status Review of Three Formerly Common Species of Bumble Bee in the Subgenus Bombus. Http://www.xerces.org/bumblebees/. 16. Fahrenthold, David A. May 19, 2005. An Exotic Evolution: Black Squirrels Imported in Early 1900's Gain Foothold. Washington Post.

106 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

17. Farner, David. 2008. Birdlife of Arlington (Avifauna). Unpublished technical report. Depart- ment of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division. Ar- lington County, Virginia. 18. Forbush, Edward Howe. 1913. Useful Birds and Their Protection - Fourth Edition. The Massa- chusetts State Board of Agriculture. 19. Historical Collections 1875-1998 (electronic data version). Provided by the Division of Am- phibians and Reptiles, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Wash- ington, D. C. 20. Historical Collections 1882-1982 (electronic data version). Provided by the Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C. 21. Hodnett, Earl. April 10, 2009. Fairfax County Wildlife Biologist. Personal Communication. 22. Kelso, Donald P. 1975. The Fauna of the Bullneck Run, Scott's Run, Dead Run, Turkey Run and Pimmit Run Watersheds, Fairfax County, Virginia (unpublished). A Report submitted to Parsons, Brincherhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. 23. Kondratieff, Boris C. (Coordinator). 2000. Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) of the Unit- ed States. Jamestown, ND: Northern Praire Wildlife Research Center Online 24. LandScape America (Beta Version). Http://www.landscape.org/virginia/overview/. 25. Linzey, Donald W. 1981. Snakes of Virginia. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. 26. Linzey, Donald W. 1998 The Mammals of Virginia. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company. Blacksburg, Virginia. 27. Mader, et al. (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation). 2010. Alternative Pollina- tors: Native Bees. ATTRA Publication #IP126. http://attra.ncat.org/attra- pub/nativebee.html#artificial. 28. Martin, Elwood. 2001. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. US Fish and Wildlife Service. www.pwrc.usgs.gov/history/history/nathist/butterfly/butterfly_wmartin.pdf 29. Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, and Julian R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 30. McAtee, W. L. May 1918. A Sketch of the Natural History of the District of Columbia. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington No.1. Washington, D. C. 31. Mitchell, Joseph C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Game and In- land Fisheries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 32. Mitchell, Joseph C. and Karen K. Reay. 1999. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Virginia. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Richmond, Virginia. 33. Munroe, Kevin and Rabin, Andy. 2007 Survey of Dragonflies and Damselflies in Arlington County, Va.(19 pages) November 2007. Submitted to Arlington County under Personal Ser- vices Contract #07-329. Unpublished. 34. Natural Heritage Resources Fact Sheet. Rare Odonates Found in Virginia's Coastal Plain. www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/fsodonates.

107 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

35. Northern Virginia Deer Management Summit. September 14, 2010. Seminar sponsored by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Held at the Center for Innovative Technology, Herndon, Va. 36. Ondonata Central - online computerized records of collections in the U.S. www.odonatacentral.org/ 37. Paradiso, John L. 1969. Mammals of Maryland (North American Fauna, Number 66). Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, United States Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 38. Pauly, Phillip J. 2002. Biologists and the Promise of American Life: From Meriwether to Alfred Kinsey. Princeton University Press. 39. Pinder, M. J. and J. C. Mitchell. 2001. A Guide to the Snakes of Virginia. Wildlife Diversity Species Publication Number 2, Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. Richmond, VA. 32 pp. 40. Roadkill Data - G. W. Memorial Parkway Mar. 2005 - Aug. 2007 (electronic version). Pro- vided by Brent Steury, Natural Resources Program Manager. George Washington Memorial Parkway (NPS). Turkey Run Park, McLean, Virginia 22101. 41. Roble, Steven M. June 2010. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals. Natural Heritage Technical Report 10-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Richmond, Virginia 42. Rose, C. B. Jr. 1996. The Indians of Arlington. Arlington Historical Society. Arlington, Virgin- ia. 43. Rountree, Helen C. 1990. Pocahontas’s People - The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through Four Centuries. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman and London. 44. Seitz, Caroline V. 1992. Snakes Found in the City of Alexandria and Arlington & Fairfax Counties in Virginia. A Midden Log Publication. Arlington, VA. 45. Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation. BioScience 31: 131- 134. 46. Smith, Charles. August 2010. Naturalist III, Natural Resource Management and Protection, Fairfax County Park Authority. Email Communication. 47. Smith, Charles. May 28, 2009. Naturalist III, Natural Resource Management and Protection, Fairfax County Park Authority. Personal Communication. 48. Steury, Brent. Glaser, John. Hobson, Christopher. 2007. A Survey of Macroleopidopteran Moths of Turkey Run and Great Falls National Parks, Fairfax County, Virginia. In Banisteria, Number 29, pages 17-31. Virginia Natural History Society. 49. Steury, Brent. June 15, 2009. Supervisory Biologist / Natural Resources Program Manager. George Washington Memorial Parkway (NPS). Turkey Run Park. McLean, Virginia. Email Communication. 50. Sturges, Leslie. April 17, 2009. President, Bat World Nova. Personal Communication. 51. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Http://www.xerces.org/dragonflies-and- damselflies/

108 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

52. Tobey, Franklin J. 1985. Virginia's Amphibians and Reptiles: A Distributional Survey. The Virginia Herpetological Society. Mr. Print. 130 S. 20th Street, Purcellville, VA 22132. 53. Trent, Tiffany. February 2003. Mature Forest Key to Virginia Black Bear's Success. Appala- chian Voices. www.appvoices.org 54. VDGIF (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. July 2007. List of Native and Naturalized Fauna of Virginia. Richmond, Virginia. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/. 55. Virginia's Vernal Pools. Http://www.lynchburgbiz.com/virginiasvernalpools/index.html. Vernal Pool Society of Virginia. 56. Volunteer Stream Monitoring Program Draft Reports 2002-2005. Department of Environmen- tal Services, Environmental Planning Office. Arlington County, Virginia. 57. Wildlife Observations, Arlington, Virginia 1880's - 1994 (electronic version). Data provided by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fishers, Wildlife Division. Richmond, Virginia. 58. Zell, Greg. 2007. Annual Report - Wildlife Collection and Research Permit # 30854. Submitted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Wildlife Division. Richmond, Vir- ginia. 59. Zell, Greg. 2008. Annual Report - Wildlife Collection and Research Permit # 30854. Submitted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Wildlife Division. Richmond, Vir- ginia. 60. Zell, Greg. August 25, 2008. Draft Final Report: A Natural Resource Inventory of the G. W. Parkway, Roaches Run and Arlington Woods. Submitted to NPS (Ref. Study # GWMP- 00069). 61. Zell, Greg. Master Wildlife Observation and Collection Database (unpublished data files). 2005-2008. Natural Heritage Resource Inventory. Department of Parks, Recreation and Cul- tural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division. Arlington County, Virginia.

62. Zell, Greg. March 2010. Natural Resources Management Plan Department of Park, Recreation and Cultural Resources. Arlington County, Virginia.

109 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Appendix VI – Acknowledgments

The following individuals, groups and organizations have provided assistance in the preparation of this report and are recognized for their contributions:

Alan Schreck – wildlife photos.

Alonso Abugattas, Naturalist, Long Branch Nature Center, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Arlington County, Virginia – Lepidoptera research and report.

Andy Rabin, Odonata specialist – odonate research and report.

Ann Beam, Animal Welfare League of Arlington – wildlife data records.

Anthony Bulmer – small mammal survey.

Brent Steury, Natural Resources Program Manager, G. W. Memorial Parkway (NPS) – roadkill data and manuscript review (Part II).

Charles Smith, Senior Natural Resource Specialist, Fairfax County Park Authority – wildlife data and manuscript review (Part II).

Citizen Sentinel Volunteers

David Farner – Park Manager, Fort C. F. Smith Park, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Re- sources, Arlington County, Virginia – avifauna research and report.

John White – wildlife photos, herp identification and manuscript review (Part II).

Leslie Sturges, President of Bat World NOVA – wildlife records and manuscript review (bats).

Kevin Munroe, Odonata specialist – odonate research and report.

Project Wildlife Watch Volunteers

Salamander Search Team Volunteers

Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural History Department of Mammals – historical collections data. Department of Herpetology – historical collections data.

110 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report

Staff of Long Branch, Gulf Branch and Potomac Overlook Nature Centers – inventory assistance, wildlife data and reports.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries – historical collection data.

Walter Bulmer (Ret.) – Professor of Biology, Northern Virginia Community College – project advice.

111 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report