Biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed: Important Resources and Conservation Recommendations

19 June 2008 DRAFT

Photos by L. Heady Laura Heady, NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program in partnership with Cornell University Department of Natural Resources

Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Acknowledgements Special thanks to Tom Lake, Chris Bowser, and Leah Abuza of the NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program for sharing their observations of the Moodna mouth system and providing valuable natural history information. Leslie Zucker, also from the Hudson River Estuary Program, contributed the “Streams and Riparian Corridors” section and Trout Brook analysis. Kelly Dobbins of Orange County Planning provided GIS data layers, and Gretchen Stevens and Bob Schmidt of Hudsonia offered assistance with identifying past studies of Moodna biodiversity. Jamie Deppen of Hudsonia helped with checking breeding bird data for the watershed.

Prepared by:

Laura Heady Biodiversity Outreach Coordinator NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program in partnership with Cornell University Department of Natural Resources 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561

Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Significance of Biodiversity to Watershed Planning 1 Threats to Biodiversity and Associated Impacts to Watershed Health 1 Biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed 2

Priority Habitats of the Watershed 3 How to Use This Information 3 Hudson River Shoreline: The Moodna Mouth 4 Lower Reach of Moodna Creek 4 Confluence 4 Marsh and Mudflats 4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 7 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 7 Streams and Riparian Corridors 8 Birds 8 Bats 9 Amphibians and Reptiles 9 Fish 9 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 10 Forests 13 Globally Important Forests 13 Regionally Important Forests 14 Locally Important Forests 14 Stepping Stone Forests 14 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 14 Wetlands 15 Rare Wetland Wildlife 15 Wetland Habitat Types 16 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 17

Grasslands, Shrublands, and Farmland 18 Grasslands 18 Shrubland and Early Successional Forest 19 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 19 Cliffs and Caves 20 Habitats and Wildlife of Cliffs and Caves 20 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 20

Cores, Connections, and Landscape Perspective 21 Cores 21 Connections 23 Threats and Conservation Opportunities 25

Conclusions 27

Literature Cited 28

Additional Publications on Biodiversity in the Moodna Creek Watershed 32

Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Figures

Figure 1: Ecological Communities of the Moodna Creek Mouth 5

Figure 2: Ecological Communities of the Moodna Creek Mouth and Lower Reach to Firthcliffe Dam 6

Figure 3: Analysis of Riparian Buffers Along Trout Brook 11

Figure 4: Documented Biodiversity Resources of Importance in the Moodna Creek Watershed 22

Figure 5: Conservation Network of Biodiversity Cores and Connections in the Moodna Creek Watershed 23

Tables

Table 1. Recommendations for minimum widths and connectivity of natural cover within the stream corridor to conserve biodiversity . 12

Appendices

Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed

Appendix B. Birds of Conservation Concern in Moodna Creek Watershed

Appendix C. Reptiles and Amphibians of Conservation Concern in Moodna Creek Watershed

Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Introduction

Significance of Biodiversity to Watershed Planning

The Moodna Creek watershed plan provides an ideal opportunity to consider conservation of biological resources. The plants, animals, and habitats—or biodiversity—of the Moodna watershed are a significant part of the region’s character and natural infrastructure, and contribute directly to the quality and quantity of drinking water available to residents living in the region.

The term “biodiversity” is used to describe all the components of nature that are needed to sustain life. While people often associate the term biodiversity with threatened and endangered species, it actually encompasses much more. Biodiversity refers to all living things, both rare and common, the complex relationships between them, as well as their relationship to the environment. Biodiversity includes genetic variety, species diversity, and variability in natural communities, ecosystems, and landscapes. All of these parts and processes comprise the web of life that contributes to healthy ecosystems.

Why is biodiversity important to the people living in the Moodna Creek watershed? For starters, the watershed has a diverse and rich natural heritage, with species and ecological communities of regional, statewide, and global significance. These natural systems are the scenery and living fabric that provides the Moodna Creek watershed with a regional identity, and creates a sense of place for its residents. And healthy, natural systems are in essence a “green infrastructure,” supplying services that support life as we know it, through purification of drinking water, control of floodwaters, replenishment of aquifers, pollination of crops, creation of fertile soil, control of insect pests, and adaptation to a changing climate. They also provide opportunities for hunting and fishing, outdoor recreation, and environmental education and research. All of these services and benefits to the community cost less than the artificial or built alternatives, and are widely recognized as important assets by a variety of stakeholders.

Threats to Biodiversity and Associated Impacts to Watershed Health

Two of the greatest threats to biodiversity are habitat loss and invasive species. In particular, land use changes that degrade and destroy natural habitats pose the most significant threats to native biodiversity. Suburban sprawl, for instance, fragments the landscape into smaller and smaller pieces of habitat, and surrounds these fragments with development, often having lethal effects on wildlife species that require large, connected natural areas. Furthermore, the resulting patchwork of land uses creates ideal conditions for invasive species to take hold.

Land-use decisions made at the municipal and regional level will have lasting impacts on the function of natural systems in the Moodna Creek watershed, and their ability to support its human communities. For example, loss of habitat can lead to a corresponding loss in basic watershed functions, such as water infiltration and purification by forests and grasslands, erosion control along stream banks, and flood attenuation in wetlands. Habitat loss and fragmentation also creates unsuitable conditions for many native plants and animals, and leads to increased populations of more common, nuisance species such as white-tailed deer, Canada geese, mosquitoes, and black-legged tick, which carries Lyme disease.

1 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Additional threats to biodiversity include impacts associated with human development, many of which can be reduced or prevented altogether, such as light pollution, failing septic systems, and household pets; and pollution of natural areas from contaminants such as road salt, pesticides, fertilizers, and household chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Increasingly, global climate change presents a new array of conservation challenges and variables, such as shifts in habitat availability and timing of natural events.

Biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed

The rich biodiversity of the Moodna Creek watershed is a result of the variable landscape included within its boundaries. To the east and southeast, the watershed includes part of the Hudson Highlands, where it has its highest point on the steep ridges above 1500 ft (500m) in elevation. This area also contains portions of the very large forest that continues beyond the watershed boundary south to Harriman and Bear Mountain State Parks. The foothills of the Highlands are scattered throughout the southern portions of the watershed, creating steep slopes and hills interspersed with creeks and wetlands. The Moodna/Otterkill corridor runs generally west-to-east, starting in the rich farmland to the west, and traversing a fairly broad, forested floodplain. This corridor forms somewhat of a demarcation between the more diverse, forested terrain of the southern half of the watershed and the more rolling topography and farmland to the north, which is rich with numerous wetlands. Where the Moodna finally meets the Hudson River, the watershed reaches its lowest elevation at sea level, with the tidal influence of the river felt in its lower mile.

The biological resources of the Moodna Creek watershed have been recognized on many levels as having high conservation value:

Moodna Creek, together with its tributary the Otterkill Creek, is identified in the Orange County Open Space Plan as a Priority Aquatic System (June 2004). The Open Space Plan also identifies several areas within the Moodna watershed as Biological Diversity Hotspots, including Goose Pond and Schunemunk mountains and Purgatory Swamp. In addition, it identifies the Moodna/Otterkill corridor as a Potential Wildlife Corridor.

In the Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan (Miller et al. 2005), the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance (MCA) studied biodiversity in Chester, Goshen, and Warwick. Areas delineated as important for conservation in the Moodna watershed included Goose Pond, Bellvale, Snake, Brimstone, and Sugar Loaf mountains; and the Otter Kill, Seely Brook, and Black Meadow Creek corridors. Associated floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, and important core and connecting habitats were included in the areas mapped as important for biodiversity.

The Nature Conservancy’s report, Identifying Conservation Priorities in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed, identifies a short list of ecoregional aquatic conservation targets (priority watersheds) within the Hudson River Estuary watershed, and the Moodna Creek Watershed is listed as one of these priorities (Shirer and Tear 2005).

The Highlands Coalition has designated the Schunnemunk Mountain/Moodna Creek/Woodcock Mountain area as one of its Critical Treasure Areas in the New York Highlands, in part due to its biodiversity values (Highlands Coalition 2005).

2 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

A southern portion of the Moodna watershed is included in the “Highlands” Significant Biodiversity Area (SBA) in the NYS DEC’s Hudson River Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Framework (Penhollow et al. 2006). This SBA recognizes the Hudson Highlands region as important for biodiversity; some features of the Moodna watershed that are included are Schunnemunk Mountain, Woodcock Hill, Goose Pond Mountain, Sugarloaf Mountain, Black Rock Forest, Woodbury Creek, Satterly Creek, Seely Brook, and Trout Brook.

The Moodna Creek mouth and tidal wetlands were also included in the Framework as part of the Hudson River Estuary and Tidal Wetlands SBA. This part of the watershed, spanning the creek from Orrs Mills to its confluence with the Hudson, was designated as “irreplaceable” Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the NYS Coastal Zone Management Program, and highlighted as one of four Selected Priority Watersheds by the Orange County Open Space Plan (June 2004).

Priority Habitats of the Watershed

The underlying geology, soils, topography, surface and groundwater, and land use history of the Moodna Creek watershed all weave together to shape a diversity of habitats that support an equally diverse array of plant and animal communities. The priority habitats of the watershed include Hudson River shoreline; streams and riparian corridors; forests; a variety of wetlands; grasslands, shrublands, and farms; and cliffs and caves. Appendix A contains a list of 17 animals of conservation concern, selected as “flagship species” of the Moodna watershed habitats they use, along with associated planning recommendations, seasonal considerations, and other natural history. In many cases, conserving enough habitat to support healthy populations of these flagship species will protect other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Appendix B includes a list of birds of conservation concern in the watershed, and Appendix C lists amphibians and reptiles of conservation concern; both include general habitat information as well.

How to Use This Information

The following discussion of these priority habitats, along with the aforementioned appendices, can be useful not only for watershed planning, but for taking conservation action at the municipal level, as well. While the entire watershed has not been studied to locate and map all biological resources, there is some knowledge of where important habitats are, and what plants and animals they support. It is likely many of these same habitats occur elsewhere in the watershed, where underlying conditions are similar. Future assessments can take into consideration what is known about important habitat occurrences in the watershed, to predict and assess their distribution in other unstudied areas, and to proactively plan for the associated rare species. Such information can provide a baseline for habitat maps, natural resource inventories, open space plans, and other conservation and smart growth plans. This approach will also contribute to keeping common species in the watershed common, and maintaining overall ecosystem function. Finally, many of the planning and conservation recommendations discussed below for the watershed also apply to land-use decision making at the local level.

3 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Hudson River Shoreline: The Moodna Mouth

The confluence of the Moodna Creek and Hudson River is especially rich in biodiversity, and marks the average northern extent of the salt front in the estuary (although the front moves farther upstream under low flow conditions). The input of nutrients from the Moodna watershed; the mixing of the Moodna’s fresh water with brackish water from the Hudson; and the tidal influence of the estuary together create conditions and habitats that are uncommon in New York. Habitats of the Moodna mouth system include 3.5 miles of freshwater tributary, with the lower mile in tidal range of the Hudson River. Where it reaches the river, the creek flows into an approximately 75 acre (30 ha) embayment, with extensive emergent marsh, swamp, mudflats, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and wooded islands. (See Figure 1.) East of the railroad trestle, there are additional mudflats and a large area of SAV that continues northward along the shoreline. The various habitats and wildlife assembled at the Moodna mouth offer excellent opportunities for recreational fishing, birdwatching, paddling, environmental education, and overall outdoor enjoyment.

Lower Reach of Moodna Creek. Fish habitat in the lower portion of Moodna Creek extends from the mouth and upstream for 3.5 miles to the dam located just upstream of the Orrs Mill bridge on NYS Route 32. (See Figure 2.) Anadromous fish, including alewife and blueback herring, enter the creek in the spring for spawning, and the resulting larval fish develop in the flats at the creek mouth. The lower portion of the Moodna also supports a warmwater fish community throughout the year; resident species include American eel, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, pumpkinseed, white perch, yellow perch, white catfish, and brown bullhead. As the salt front moves up the Hudson, bluefish, bay anchovy, weakfish, Atlantic silversides, hogchoker, and blue crab may enter the tributary to feed.

Confluence. The confluence of the Moodna and Hudson provides important habitat for bald eagle (NYS Threatened) and osprey (NYS Special Concern). Both feed on spawning fish and waterfowl, and use the tall trees along the shoreline and on wooded islands for perching and roosting. The Moodna mouth is one of the few areas in the Hudson where eagles are consistently observed in the summer, and the area is considered important breeding habitat for bald eagle by the NY Natural Heritage Program. In addition, it supports a wintering population of bald eagles from December through March. (See Appendix A for conservation recommendations for bald eagle.)

Marsh and Mudflats. The tidal freshwater marsh at the mouth of the Moodna is the largest in Orange County. This 59 acre (24 ha), Class 1 NYS Regulatory Freshwater wetland includes areas of brackish tidal marsh and brackish intertidal mudflats. Statewide, there are few occurrences of these rare ecological communities, which host suites of species especially adapted to the changing conditions caused by tides. Due to their changing salinity values, brackish tidal marshes provide habitat for a combination of species that are characteristic of both salt and freshwater tidal marshes. Brackish intertidal mudflats support populations of mobile invertebrates like clams, snails, worms, and crustaceans that are adapted to the unstable surface of the mudflat. During high tide, these invertebrates are fed upon by shad, bass, and other fish; low tide brings foraging opportunities for shore birds. Rare plants associated with mudflats at the Moodna mouth include spongy arrowhead, and historical records of estuary beggarticks.

4 Figure 1. Ecological Communities of the Moodna Creek Mouth Orange County, NY Legend NHPCommunities_in_Moodna Brackish Intertidal Mudflats ¯ Brackish Tidal Marsh Water Celery SAV Bed NYS Freshwater Wetland NWI Palustrine Wetland NWI Riverine Wetland NHP Important Habitat Area

Moodna Watershed Boundary Hudson River Kowawese Unique Area Railroad

NEW WINDSOR

W eek 9 Cr S na U d o o M

CORNWALL

00.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Miles

Map created 14 June 2008 by: Data Sources: Laura Heady, Hudson River Estuary Program, NY Natural Heritage Program NYS Department of Environmental Conservation NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in partnership with Cornell University National Wetland Inventory Figure 2. Ecological Communities of the Moodna Creek Mouth and Lower Reach to Firthcliffe Dam Orange County, NY Legend NHPCommunities_in_Moodna Brackish Intertidal Mudflats ¯ Brackish Tidal Marsh

Water Celery SAV Bed W 9

S NYS Freshwater Wetland U NWI Palustrine Wetland NWI Riverine Wetland NHP Important Habitat Area Moodna Watershed Boundary NEW WINDSOR Kowawese Unique Area Railroads Hudson River

eek Cr na d o o M

CORNWALL

Firthcliffe Dam

Storm King

00.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles

Map created 14 June 2008 by: Data Sources: Laura Heady, Hudson River Estuary Program, NY Natural Heritage Program NYS Department of Environmental Conservation NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in partnership with Cornell University National Wetland Inventory Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

The wetland complex at the Moodna mouth provides breeding habitat for a number of birds, including green-backed heron, black duck, wood duck, Virginia rail, spotted sandpiper, fish crow, and marsh wren, and has been identified as important habitat area for least bittern (NYS Threatened). (See Appendix A for conservation recommendations for least bittern.) Herons, waterfowl, and shorebirds concentrate in the area during spring and fall migrations, and the creek is thought to be a major crossing point for raptors migrating along the northern slope of the Hudson Highlands. In addition, the NY Natural Heritage Program considers the Moodna mouth an important “Waterfowl Winter Concentration Area.”

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. The submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds also contribute to the overall habitat value of the Moodna mouth system. They occur in the lower reach of the creek, in the embayment, and east of the train trestle along the Hudson shoreline. (See Figure 2.) Unlike other tidal coves and bays in the Hudson where the invasive water chestnut often dominates and poses management challenges, the SAV beds at the Moodna mouth are comprised of water celery, a native plant. SAV beds trap fine sediment and organic matter, maintain dissolved oxygen levels, and provide habitat for a rich diversity of fish and invertebrates (Findlay et al. 2006).

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Water quality. Habitat value for fish and wildlife in the lower reach of the creek, and associated recreation opportunities, is dependent on good water quality. Herring may already be an indicator of declining conditions in the Moodna. In 1996, Hudsonia reported a moderately large herring run on the Moodna (Schmidt and Cooper 1996). Local fishermen have observed declines in this run in the last six years, and speculate that this decrease coincides with sewage problems in the Moodna (L. Abuza, pers. comm.). The NYS DEC Hudson River Fisheries Unit selected the Moodna for the 2008 Volunteer River Herring Monitoring Survey due to its historically large herring run. Over 35 monitoring sessions in April and May found no evidence of river herring in the Moodna, while the same protocols were used successfully to document herring in other monitored streams in the estuary watershed. To address water quality concerns, the two sewage treatment plants in the vicinity of the Moodna mouth should be assessed to understand and avoid impacts to the rich biodiversity of the area. Riparian buffers should be maintained and restored as necessary, and pollution from stormwater runoff should be prevented. • Marsh and mudflats. The large marsh and mudflat habitat complex may also be vulnerable to pollution from the nearby sewage treatment plants, and to dumping, channeling, and disturbing remaining upland buffers. An additional threat is invasion of exotic species such as purple loosestrife and water chestnut. Recreational boat traffic that scrapes mudflats at high tides degrades their important habitat value and should be prevented. Hardened shorelines should be minimized or avoided and instead, low-sloped shorelines should be maintained within the tidal zone. This will be especially important as climate change causes sea level rise, and tidal habitats need to migrate inland. • SAV beds. SAV beds are especially vulnerable to motorized boating activity and shoreline access; recreational activity should be limited in areas of SAV. Maintaining natural shorelines is strongly encouraged. • Breeding marsh birds. Disturbance of breeding birds can result in failed nesting efforts or abandonment of nests completely. Marsh bird communities have shown significant

7 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

decline when urban/suburban development within 1600 ft (500 m) and 3200 ft (1000 m) of the marsh exceeds 14% and 25%, respectively (DeLuca et al., as cited in McElfish et al. 2008). Such impacts can be reduced by maintaining and restoring effective buffers, and by educating visitors and landowners about marsh bird ecology. (See Appendix A.) • Citizen science. Pursuit of opportunities to engage local residents in citizen science and conservation of the Moodna mouth system is encouraged. Partnerships with the Hudson River Estuary Program can be formed to engage high school students in eel monitoring, provide continuing volunteer opportunities for herring monitoring in the tidal creek, and plan riparian buffer restoration through Trees for Tribs. • Public outreach. Exploration of the Hudson shoreline and tidal creek through public canoe and kayak programs is recommended to help connect watershed residents to their rich local resources.

Streams and Riparian Corridors Written by Leslie Zucker, NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell University

Streams and the vegetated corridors around them (called “riparian areas”) make a critical contribution to the health and overall biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed. Plants and animals create the environmental conditions necessary for many of the water quality and hydrologic functions of streams. Plants allow groundwater to infiltrate the soil and recharge aquifers, streams, and reservoirs. Plants hold soils in place and contribute to processes that filter contaminants and excess nutrients from runoff. Vegetated, low-lying areas near streams absorb storm waters and lessen flooding and erosion downstream. Ultimately, these benefits save local governments money and protect private property.

Riparian areas are also unique habitats that support a high abundance and diversity of plants and animals. Because they are transition zones between the wet, aquatic environment of the stream channel, and the drier and higher terrestrial uplands, they are highly biodiverse. Some aquatic and semi-aquatic animals that must be near water, are found only in riparian corridors, while other wildlife are found in greater abundance in riparian corridors. Stream corridors contain other unique habitat features. When flooded during high flows, riparian corridors become stream channel habitat and are used as refuges for larval fish. Riparian areas often contain wetlands that provide habitat for the Hudson Valley’s globally important amphibian and reptile diversity. And, streams corridors are used by wildlife as transportation routes if suitable habitats remain connected across the landscape.

Some of the unique fish and wildlife of the Moodna Creek and its tributaries are described below.

Birds A variety of songbirds can be found nesting and rearing their young in wide, forested bottomlands of the Moodna Creek, including a few that prefer to nest near streams such as the yellow-throated vireo, warbling vireo, and Louisiana waterthrush. The cerulean warbler and least flycatcher are likely stream corridor birds that have declined throughout their ranges in recent decades, but are still found in the Moodna Creek Watershed. Other birds that might be seen in stream corridors of the watershed include the wood duck, great blue heron, green heron, belted kingfisher, and in the deeper forests, the red-shouldered hawk. Birds are found more abundantly

8 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT in stream corridors than in other portions of the landscape and bird diversity increases as the width of stream corridors increase.

Bats An abundance of insects and forest openings make stream corridors prime foraging habitat for bats. Large trees with peeling bark, such as shagbark hickories and dead standing snags are used as maternity colonies or summer roosting sites for bats. In addition to foraging and roosting, bats use stream corridors as travel routes. Bats that might be seen in stream corridors of the Moodna Creek and tributaries include the big brown bat, little brown bat, and the rare Eastern small- footed bat (NYS Special Concern). The Eastern small-footed bat has been observed in the Mineral Spring Brook and Trout Brook stream corridors. The watershed and its stream corridors are also home to the federally endangered Indiana bat (NYS Endangered).

Amphibians and Reptiles Several turtle, frog, and salamander species rely heavily on stream corridor habitats. The wood turtle is particularly interesting, not just because its angular shell looks like a wood carving, but also because the wood turtle spends its entire life in stream corridors. Wood turtle populations are found in stream corridors of the Otter Kill, Seely Brook and Woodbury Creek.

Stream salamanders are lungless and must obtain oxygen through their skin. As a result, they can be found in the moist areas of streambanks, seepages, and both intermittent and perennial streams. The most abundant headwater stream salamander in the Hudson Valley region is the northern two-lined salamander followed by the northern dusky salamander. The longtail salamander is rare in Orange County and declining within New York State.

Fish Fish communities of the Moodna Creek range from anadramous fishes that use the tidal creek and mouth for spawning, to inland warmwater and coldwater fish communities. Little comprehensive monitoring of the Moodna Creek fish community has been conducted. The historical warmwater fish community includes the following species: white sucker, creek chubsucker, rock bass, redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, black crappie, blueback shad, American shad, cutlips minnow, Eastern silvery minnow, golden shiner, bridle shiner, common shiner, spotfin shiner, spottail shiner, fallfish, longnose dace, blacknose dace, creek chub, redfin pickerel, chain pickerel, brown bullhead, fourspine stickleback, and tessellated darter (NYS Museum 1936). Of these, the creek chubsucker, Eastern silvery minnow, bridle shiner, spottail shiner, spotfin shiner, fallfish, and fourspine stickleback have not been observed in recent times (NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries 2007). However, additional surveys would be needed to confirm the presence or absence of these species.

Coldwater fishes of the Moodna Creek Watershed include the native brook trout, and the stocked rainbow trout and brown trout. Stream reaches supporting coldwater fishes, invertebrates, and salamanders are usually fed by cold-cool groundwater. Brook trout and slimy sculpin are the dominate fish of small coldwater streams of high quality. These streams have shallow margins, woody debris, canopy shading, and boulders. Blacknose dace, creek chub, and white sucker might also occur at coldwater sites. Both brook and brown trout are found in the Trout Brook and Woodbury Creek tributaries. The DEC annually stocks the Moodna Creek mainstem with brown and rainbow trout and the Woodbury Creek with brown trout.

9 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Little is known about changes in the abundance of fish within the watershed. Parts of the watershed could still retain near historical levels of fish diversity, if not abundance. However, other major tributaries of the Hudson River have experienced declines in fish diversity and shifts in abundance between the 1930s and the 1990s related to changing land uses and pollution, and it’s likely parts of the Moodna Creek system have as well (Stainbrook et al. 2006, Daniels 1999).

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Stream fragmentation. One of greatest threats to stream corridor biodiversity is the modification and fragmentation of stream corridors. Fragmentation occurs through direct modification of the stream channel and clearing for incompatible land uses within the stream corridor. A first step to the conservation of existing riparian corridors is to map riparian cover from the edge of the bankfull channel, to as far inland as natural vegetation extends. These areas can then be reviewed for their biological significance and level of connectivity, given the surrounding land uses. (See Figure 3 for an example of how buffer width analysis can be used to identify conservation and restoration opportunities.) Approaches that have been used to protect existing buffers include: fee simple acquisition, conservation easements, municipal planning tools, riparian buffer ordinances, and development tools (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 2004). • Riparian buffers. Riparian buffer plantings are recommended for stream reaches with breaks in continuous natural cover. To enhance connectivity, stream corridor conservation programs should seek to maintain existing natural cover along both banks of the stream and extending as far into adjacent areas as needed to maintain stream integrity (see Table 1 for width recommendations). It is important to protect riparian areas along both stream banks for both habitat and channel stability. Most streams in settled areas have variable-width buffers that can accommodate both land uses and conservation goals. Generally, headwater streams (first to third order) require smaller buffer widths to maintain stream integrity, while mid-order reaches require the widest buffers. Mid- reaches are usually highest in biological diversity (although headwater streams are key to overall stream health) and most prone to channel erosion. • Comprehensive conservation and management. It is possible, and recommended to combine conservation of stream corridor habitats with other stream management priorities. For example, the mapped 500-year floodplain viewed along with mapped stream corridor habitats could be used to identify conservation zones that meet both habitat and floodplain management objectives. • Climate change adaptation. As precipitation patterns change due to global climate change, more high flow events are likely to occur, putting infrastructure near streams at risk (NECIA 2006). Shifts in streamflow have the ability to create new patterns of erosion and deposition in channels (see Rosgen 1994). Conserving wide, connected stream corridors is an important climate change adaptation strategy that will help to maintain biodiversity and protect vulnerable infrastructure, water supplies and water quality. • Stream microhabitats. High quality in-stream habitat usually requires a patchwork of riffles and pools, and the input of woody debris to maximize habitat structure and create sufficient oxygen levels for aquatic life. Where possible, woody vegetation (shrubland and forests) should be allowed to mature, or restored through forest buffer plantings.

10 Figure 3. Analysis of Riparian Buffers Along Trout Brook

Trout Brook flows nearly 6 miles from its headwaters in the Towns of Warwick and Monroe through the Town of Chester where it merges with Seely Brook. The Trout Brook watershed forms a corridor between the Sterling Forest State Park in the far southern portion of the watershed and Goose Pond State Park to the north. Most of Trout Brook is a coldwater stream classified as trout waters by the NYSDEC and is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation. Fish surveys conducted by DEC near Lakes Road in 2000 found blacknose dace, brook trout, brown trout, pumpkinseed, and white sucker. The Trout Brook watershed is heavily forested and primarily developed for residential land use near the stream. The uplands are a complex of large Appalachian oak-hickory and Chestnut oak forests and wetlands.

An analysis of buffer widths along Trout Brook reveals opportunities for conservation of existing wide forest buffers that connect the stream with forested uplands. Stream reaches shown in bright green in the illustration at left have forest buffers over 500’ in width. These reaches are likely to have high biological diversity. Sections shown in darker green are bordered by forests of at least 300’ in width on one or both sides of the stream. Buffers of this width support stream integrity and provide habitat for breeding birds, wood turtles, and stream salamander populations. Opportunities for rehabilitation in these reaches should be further investigated. Sections shown in bright pink have buffers of 100’ or less on one or both sides of the stream. Along these reaches, there are opportunities for landowners to engage in riparian buffer plantings and other management improvements. A nearly continuous forest buffer of 35’-100’ in width is necessary to provide shading and protect coldwater habitat for trout.

Analysis by Leslie Zucker, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in partnership with Cornell University. Map created May 23, 2008. Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

• Watershed land use. Another significant threat to stream integrity is watershed land use that alters the flow patterns of water. A number of studies have observed a “threshold effect” where urban land cover over 10% of the watershed area coincides with degradation in stream fish and macroinvertebrate communities (Schuler 1994. This threshold has been observed in the Moodna Creek for both anadromous and resident fishes (Limburg and Schmidt 2001). The impacts of urbanization can be reduced by limiting sprawl, implementing stormwater control practices, and situating development outside of stream corridors. Urban development and land modification within the stream corridor is particularly harmful. These actions create local stress for a system that may already be impaired by overall watershed development. The alternative is for landowners and municipalities to engage in programs that protect or restore natural conditions near the stream. • Further study. Little is known about the status of fish and other aquatic communities in the Moodna Creek and its tributaries. Partnerships to complete biological surveys and develop monitoring protocols should be explored with a range of actors such as the NYSDEC, county and local agencies, and area research and conservation organizations. At the same time, an assessment of stream habitat and physical condition should be conducted to determine if habitat alteration is a significant threat to stream integrity in the Moodna watershed.

Table 1. Recommendations for minimum widths and connectivity of natural cover within the stream corridor to conserve biodiversity. Table created by L. Zucker.

Wildlife Species Minimum Minimum Sources or Group Buffer Width Stream Length NYSDEC Endangered Species Wood Turtle 300-1,000’ 1 mile Program; NY Natural Heritage Program; Compton et al. 2002 Stream 150’ Continuous Simlitsch and Bodie 2003 Salamanders NY Natural Heritage Program; Bats 300’-500’ Continuous Menzel et al. 2005 Minimum 100’ for edge and resident birds Spackman and Hughes 1995; Birds Continuous Stauffer and Best 1980 Minimum 300-500’ for migratory and forest interior birds Limit breaks in cover and reduce the direct hydraulic Warmwater 150’ connection of Wang et al. 2001 fishes surface water and storm sewers to the stream 80% of banks with Coldwater fishes 35’-100’ at least 35’ forest Wenger et al. 1999 cover

12 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Forests

While much of the forested land in the Moodna Creek watershed is fragmented, there remain significant forest resources, ranging from large, matrix forests of global importance to smaller, stepping stone forests which provide important links to core habitat areas. These forest ecosystems, located primarily in the eastern and southern portions of the watershed, are extremely important to biodiversity, but also offer essential services to the human community. Forests, particularly large stands, contribute to water quality and quantity, mitigate effects of climate change, produce timber, and provide recreational opportunities such as hiking, hunting, and birdwatching.

The Orange County Open Space Plan (2004) provides a good overview of forest resources for the entire county; the following discussion of the Moodna watershed reflects the size classes described in the Open Space Plan.

Globally Important Forests (greater than 15,000 acres). The Nature Conservancy’s “ecoregional planning” efforts identified “matrix” community types that extend over very large areas of 1,000 to many millions of acres, often covering 80% or more of the undeveloped landscape. The size and natural condition of the identified “matrix forests” allow for the maintenance of dynamic ecological processes and meet the breeding requirements of species associated with forest interior conditions. The Moodna watershed contains two such globally- important, matrix forests. The east side of the watershed contains a large portion of the West Point/Black Rock matrix forest, which in total includes over 20,000 acres (8,100 ha) of core habitat, and connects southward to the even larger Harriman matrix forest. Protected lands in this forest include Storm King State Park, Black Rock Forest, and West Point Military Academy (although the latter is not permanently protected). The watershed’s southern tip in Monroe enters the Ringwood matrix forest, which in total includes an expanse of over 50,000 core acres (20,000 ha) and includes protected lands in Sterling State Forest. Forests of this size are large enough so over time they will express a range of forest successional stages including areas that have been subjected to recent large-scale disturbance such as blowdowns and fire, areas under recovery, and mature areas. These forests also provide sufficient area to support enough individuals of most species to maintain genetic diversity over several generations. (Orange County Open Space Plan 2004)

The large forests of the Hudson Highlands are primarily Appalachian oak-hickory forest, chestnut oak forest, and oak-tulip forest, and are interspersed with smaller but ecologically significant patch communities, such as pitch pine-oak-heath rocky summit, rocky summit grassland, and woodland pools. These large, relatively undeveloped blocks of forests, wetlands, grasslands, and ridges are noteworthy for the links they provide between the mid-Atlantic states and New England, and for the wildlife species they support, which are wide-ranging and area- sensitive, and thrive in large, unfragmented landscapes. Examples of wildlife using large forest habitat in the Moodna watershed include black bear and bobcat; Indiana bat; timber rattlesnake and wood turtle; and many birds, including warblers and thrushes.

Regionally Important Forests (14,999 down to 6, 000 acres). The Orange County Open Space Plan highlights forest patches greater than 6,000 acres (2,400 ha) as important for habitat to more area-sensitive species, and because they can accommodate the large-scale disturbances that maintain forest health over time. The plan identifies a regionally important forest on and around

13 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Schunnemunk Mountain. This forest is primarily chestnut oak forest, but at higher elevations, includes one of the best statewide examples of pitch pine-oak-heath rocky summit community. In the stream drainages, the chestnut oak forest is replaced by hemlock-northern hardwood forest, most of which has been killed off by wooly adelgid.

Locally Important Forests (5,999 down to 2,000 acres). These small but locally important forests often represent the lower limit of intact, viable forest size for forest-dependent birds, which often require 2,500 to 7,500 acres (1,000 to 3,000 ha) of intact interior habitat. These forests, like the larger regionally important forests, also provide important corridors and connectivity among forest ecosystems within Orange County. The Open Space Plan indicates that in the Moodna watershed, there are a only a few locally important forests remaining. These are found in Goose Pond Mountain State Park in Chester, near the headwaters of Trout Brook, and straddling the borders of Hamptonburgh and Goshen along the Otter Kill.

Stepping Stone Forests (1,999 down to 200 acres). These smaller forests provide valuable, relatively broad corridors and links to larger patches of habitat such as the local, regional, and global forests found in the watershed. Such broad connections are more effective than narrow, linear corridors, and enable species to move from one habitat to another across an otherwise hostile and fragmented landscape. There are a number of stepping stone forests in the Moodna watershed, including patches to the west of Schunnemunk; to the west and south of Goose Pond; and to the south of Stewart State Forest.

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Setting priorities for forest conservation. Smaller blocks of forests are less likely to support the rich diversity of species of the Moodna Creek watershed. The Orange County Open Space Plan suggests that priorities for protection therefore should range from high to low as forest blocks range from globally important (high priority) to stepping stone (lowest priority). • Protection of large forests. Globally-important forests are increasingly rare in the Hudson Valley, where development patterns have fragmented most forested lands into smaller and smaller patches. Communities in the Moodna watershed have an important stewardship role to play in the conservation of large, contiguous forests, and where possible, expanding on them by protecting adjacent forested lands through acquisition, conservation easement, sustainable forestry agreements, and effective conservation subdivision design. The forest blocks identified in the Orange County Open Space Plan should serve as a framework for establishing priorities and opportunities to maintain habitat connectivity between large core areas such as Schunnemunk Mountain and Storm King, or Goose Pond and Sterling Forest. (See “Cores, Connections, and Landscape Perspective” section.) • Forest fragmentation. Further fragmentation of forest patches should be prevented. Placement of future roads, driveways, utility lines, and other fragmenting features should be designed to avoid intact, contiguous forested areas. Such fragmentation leads to decreased habitat availability, introduction of invasive species like Japanese barberry, increased songbird nest predation and parasitism, and increased mortality of wildlife attempting to cross roads and developed areas. There are human health implications as well. Research conducted in Dutchess County suggested a link between increased risk of Lyme disease and reduced forest size, due to an associated reduction in small mammal

14 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

diversity. The prevalence of white-footed mice in small, isolated forest patches led to higher incidence of Lyme, since this mouse is the most effective carrier of the bacterium that causes the disease. The risk of Lyme disease is much lower in intact forest ecosystems where the infection rate is diluted by a diverse small mammal fauna (Allan et al. 2003). • Forest habitat for pool-breeding amphibians. Planning for future development and timber harvesting should include practices to conserve adequate forested habitat around woodland pools to support forest amphibians (see “Wetlands” section). Pool-breeding species such as marbled salamander, Jefferson salamander, and wood frog require substantial forested areas for all non-breeding parts of their life cycle. Recommendations in Calhoun and Klemens (2002) and Calhoun and deMaynadier (2004) should be followed. • Natural disturbance. Forest systems benefit from cycles of natural disturbance. A history of fire suppression in the larger forests of the watershed has contributed to changes in forest community structure, and build-up of fuel material. The expansive wildfire at Minnewaska State Park Preserve in Ulster County in spring 2008 illustrates how fire suppression can ultimately lead to more intense and difficult to manage wildfires. Prescribed burning may provide a favorable alternative for the large forests in the Moodna watershed, and warrants investigation.

Wetlands

The Moodna Creek watershed contains a diversity of wetland habitats…from the freshwater tidal marsh at the creek mouth to the small woodland pools in Black Rock Forest, to the large hardwood swamps in the Otter Kill basins, and the fens and freshwater marshes in the Black Meadow Creek drainage. Each of these wetland types is shaped by different hydrology, chemistry, and position on the landscape; in turn, they support different species that are adapted to the particular conditions of the habitat. These wetland systems also provide a number of services to Moodna watershed residents, including floodwater retention, water purification, and in some cases, groundwater recharge.

Rare Wetland Wildlife. In addition to the countless common plants and animals supported by wetland communities in the Moodna watershed, there is an especially rich diversity of rare wildlife, including: • southern leopard frog (NYS Special Concern) in the Otter Kill and Seely Brook basins (primary habitat is wet meadow, also permanent and seasonal wetlands and some upland areas); • northern cricket frog (NYS Endangered) in the Black Meadow Creek basin (primary habitat complex includes permanent wetlands and upland forest); • marbled salamander (NYS Special Concern – Watch List) in Black Meadow Creek basin and other pool-breeding amphibians in Seely Brook and Otter Kill basins (breeding habitat is woodland pools and non-breeding habitat is upland forest); • bog turtle (NYS Endangered) in the Black Meadow Creek basin (primary habitats are fens and wet meadows);

15 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

• spotted turtle (NYS Special Concern – Watch List) in Black Meadow Creek, Seely Brook, and Otter Kill North basins (habitat complex includes woodland pools, upland forest, and wet meadows or swamps); • great blue heron rookeries in Purgatory Swamp in the Otter Kill South basin and Hamptonburgh Preserve in Otter Kill North; • nesting bald eagle (NYS Threatened) at Tomahawk Lake in Cromline Creek basin, and at the Moodna Creek mouth; • gray petaltail (NYS Special Concern) in the Highlands (habitat is seepage slopes), New England bluet in Black Rock Forest (habitat is ponds or lakes with boggy edges), and many more dragonflies and damselflies. Note that the above records are based on documented occurrences in the NY Natural Heritage Database; observations from the NYS Herpetological Atlas; and Orange County biodiversity data. There are likely occurrences of these and other species elsewhere in the watershed that are yet unrecorded. Refer to the appendices for additional information on wetland wildlife of conservation concern.

Wetland Habitat Types. A thorough survey of the different wetland types in the Moodna watershed has not been conducted, so available habitat information is limited to wetland classifications on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, or inferences from reported species presence. Wetland habitats that appear to occur in the watershed include lakes and ponds, hardwood swamps, floodplain forest, emergent marsh, wet meadows, fens, woodland pools, springs and seeps, beaver ponds, and possibly bog lakes and kettle pools. (Detailed profiles of different wetland habitats are included in Edinger et al. 2002 and Kiviat and Stevens 2001.)

Two small but important wetland habitats that are known to occur in the watershed are fens and woodland pools. Due to their small size, they are more frequently omitted from regulatory wetland maps than swamps, marshes, and other large wetlands. While these larger wetlands are no less important, fens and woodland pools are often missed completely during the land use and conservation planning process and therefore warrant special conservation consideration, as they support species that rarely occur in other habitat types.

Fens are shallow, open-canopy wetlands, fed by groundwater seepage and dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Fens are an uncommon type of wet meadow, and are often quite small. Their calcareous conditions result from underlying limestone or carbonate rock. Fens often support rare plants, as well as rare animals like bog turtle, spotted turtle, ribbon snake, and several butterflies like Dion skipper. Because the presence of fens is so strongly linked to the bedrock properties and groundwater of the area, they are particularly vulnerable to alterations in hydrology and chemistry. Fens in the Moodna Creek watershed are known to occur in the southwestern subbasins, including Black Meadow Creek basin, but their full distribution in the watershed is not known.

Woodland pools are small, isolated wetlands that typically dry out annually. This subset of “vernal” pools occurs in depressions in forested landscapes, and usually has no inlet or outlet, and therefore does not support a fish community. As a result, woodland pools are excellent “nurseries” for developing amphibian eggs and larvae. In the Hudson Valley, they provide important breeding habitat for marbled salamander, Jefferson salamander, blue-spotted salamander, spotted salamander, wood frog, and fairy shrimp, and also are

16 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

used as foraging habitat by turtles, snakes, frogs, wood ducks, bats, and other wildlife. Because of their small size and isolation, woodland pools lack Federal or State protection, and consequently are often overlooked, filled, or drained. In instances where pools receive local protection, the protected adjacent area or “buffer” is typically inadequate. In order to sustain populations of pool-breeding amphibians, substantial forested habitat in the surrounding area must be protected. Calhoun and Klemens (2002) recommend maintaining forested buffers of 750 feet around pools, with less than 25% development or disturbance in the forested zone. While Black Rock Forest is known to have many woodland pools, and pool locations were documented in MCA’s Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan (Miller et al. 2005), distribution of this habitat on private lands is relatively unknown or undocumented for the watershed and requires further study.

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Wetland habitat mapping. Watershed communities will be better equipped to make land-use decisions if higher-quality wetland maps are available. One method to obtain such information is to create town-scale wetland maps; although this process can be costly, volunteers can be engaged to assist with appropriate components (see below). These maps can be part of a comprehensive natural resource inventory (NRI), and can represent different wetland habitat types (e.g., hardwood swamp, emergent marsh, etc.); include wetlands of all sizes, with no minimum area; and designate zones with varying degrees of conservation need. In these zones, regulated buffer sizes could be adjusted to meet specific goals; for example, maintaining water quality in an urbanized area versus protecting important habitat for a rare species. In the absence of a town-scale map, at a minimum, NYS Freshwater Wetland (including 2008 amendments for Orange County), NWI, and hydric soil data can be compiled into a GIS project as a baseline that can eventually be enhanced by detailed remote sensing and field investigations. Wetland buffers of at least 150 ft (50 m) can be added as important adjacent area. When setting conservation priorities, special attention can be given to large wetland complexes, and clusters of small or medium size wetlands. Larger buffer sizes can be added if local conditions or conservation needs are known (e.g., forested buffers of 750 ft [250 m] are recommended for woodland pools.) • Citizen science. Citizen scientists and volunteers can be engaged in mapping of locally- important wetlands. For example, a partnership with the Hudson River Estuary Program can be pursued to develop a map of woodland pools in the watershed. In addition, biodiversity assessment training is available to municipalities from Hudsonia Ltd. on identification and mapping of ecologically-significant habitats; this habitat approach can be part of an NRI process. • Local ordinances. Municipalities can pursue creation of local wetland ordinances, to ensure that wetlands and buffer areas that are inadequately protected by existing state and federal regulations no longer fall through regulatory cracks. Such ordinances can ensure protection of important community resources, while assisting decision-making boards and landowners in identifying conservation priorities early in the planning process. • Amphibian and reptile habitat complexes. The Moodna watershed has an extremely rich diversity of amphibians and reptiles, many of which are increasingly rare. These species often require habitat complexes for survival, so maintaining landscape connectivity is extremely important. (Mitchell et al. 2006) For example, within New York, the imperiled northern cricket frog is known to migrate at least 750 ft (250 m) from

17 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

its summer wetland habitats. Similarly, spotted turtle needs to make overland movements to access different seasonal habitats. Local planning boards, decision makers, landowners, and conservation leaders should be educated on the habitat needs of these protected and declining species, to ensure their ability to persist in the watershed. • Dragonflies and damselflies. Orange County has the second highest number of dragonfly and damselfly species in the United States. In North America, about 15% of dragonfly species are at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. (Dunkle 2000) Aquatic dragonflies and damselflies use a variety of wetland habitats, and can be impacted by fish stocking, mosquito control, pesticides, hydrologic alteration, removal of aquatic vegetation, and other changes to habitat quality. Outreach and education to landowners and local leaders on conservation-oriented practices may help generate a sense of stewardship responsibility around this local natural legacy.

Grasslands, Shrublands, and Farmland

The history of agricultural practices in the watershed, along with current farming activity, has maintained important early-successional habitats like meadows and shrubby old fields. A number of wildlife species are dependent on these grassland habitats for breeding and foraging. In addition, agricultural lands can provide a ‘permeable’ landscape that is important for connecting core habitats across the landscape. While some farms and farming practices (e.g., large-scale industrial operations) cause damage to habitats and ecosystems, other farms (e.g., small-scale family farms) support species that are disappearing as rural countryside converts to suburban neighborhoods. (Miller et al. 2005) Finally, old and active farms create the pastoral landscape that adds to local scenery and a community’s “sense of place,” as well as sustain a region’s ability to provide locally-grown food and contribute to groundwater infiltration.

Grasslands. Grassland-breeding birds are especially dependent on open, grass-dominated fields for nesting. Studies have found that patches greater than 100 acres (40 ha) are necessary to support a diversity of breeding grassland birds; considerably larger patches, however, have greater potential for high species diversity and breeding success (Helzer and Jelinski 1999, Herkert 1991). Some of the smaller patches of grassland in the Moodna watershed are suitable for species that require less area for breeding, such as bobolink. (See Appendix A.) Grassland species that were reported as ‘confirmed breeders’ in the watershed during the 2000-2005 NYS Breeding Bird Atlas include bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and savannah sparrow; several additional grassland species were observed during the Atlas but breeding was not confirmed. (See Appendix B.)

The open, grassy areas at Stewart International Airport have historically supported grassland breeding birds, including upland sandpiper (NYS Threatened) in the 1980s. Given the recent expansion of the airport, it is uncertain whether grassland habitat remains available; however, small local airports and other facilities with large ‘lawns’ may provide suitable breeding or overwintering habitat if managed appropriately. Northern harrier (NYS Threatened) and short- eared owl (NYS Endangered) have been observed using grasslands near Purgatory Swamp as overwintering habitat.

For information on the values of wet meadow habitat, see the “Wetlands” section.

18 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Shrubland and Early Successional Forest. If not managed as grassland, inactive fields eventually evolve into shrubland and the early stages of young forest. Some grassland bird species prefer the structural difference provided by woody vegetation. Species documented as ‘confirmed breeders’ in the watershed during the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas include blue-winged warbler, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, field sparrow, indigo bunting, prairie warbler, and willow flycatcher. (See Appendix B.)

Old fields and shrublands are also valuable as part of the habitat complex of eastern box turtle (NYS Special Concern – Watch List), which was documented in nearly all subbasins in the southern half of the watershed during the NYS Herp Altas (Appendix C). While primarily a species of riparian corridors, wood turtle also uses field habitats, and other turtle species may seek nesting sites in open, exposed areas of meadows. Larger mammals, snakes, and raptors prey upon the mice, voles, and other small mammals living in old fields, and a number of rare butterflies and other invertebrates are also associated with early-successional habitat.

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Grassland habitat mapping. Little is known about areas in the Moodna watershed that provide important habitat for grassland-dependent species. As part of their NRI or open space planning processes, communities in the watershed can map and evaluate grassland habitat to inform future planning and conservation decisions. Large grasslands (greater than 100 acres [40 ha]), or those known to support breeding birds of conservation concern, should be priorities for protection or management. Local naturalists and members of bird clubs may be interested in volunteering to assist with such a project, by identifying suitable habitat, breeding sites, and nesting success. • Grassland management and mowing. Grassland-breeding birds are ground-nesters, and therefore are especially vulnerable to mowing and other farming equipment. Mowing areas with ground-nesting birds should be avoided before August 1. While some young birds may be fledged by late June, species such as savannah sparrow and eastern meadowlark raise a second brood later in the season, and the young fledge in late July. If herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) are a conservation concern, then mowing should occur after the first frost (late November or early December.) (LaBruna and Klemens 2007, Mitchell et al. 2006) If mowing is essential prior to August 1 (such as in fields leased to farmers for hay), try to avoid areas where birds are frequently seen and/or leave small patches unmowed to provide cover and feeding areas for the remainder of the summer until birds depart on southward migrations. It is not necessary to mow every year for grassland birds. Mowing can be limited to every one to three years in fields not harvested for high-quality hay. If managing for a shrubby field habitat, then mowing can be even less frequent. • Public outreach. Educate the public on the values of grasslands, and provide appropriate opportunities for community members to visit grasslands and observe wildlife. Partner with local land trusts and conservation organizations to educate landowners on stewardship and management strategies for grassland conservation. This may be especially effective on properties with large “ornamental” meadows that are not hayed for income. Reach out to local farmers who may be interested in maintaining some wildlife habitat on their lands, and explore cost-share programs like the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.

19 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Cliffs and Caves

The ridges of the Moodna Creek watershed generally follow a northeast-southwest configuration, with the steep slopes of the Hudson Highlands and Schunnemunk Mountain most prominent in the southeast portion of the watershed. Also reaching higher elevations are the foothills of the Highlands, including Woodcock Hill, Goose Pond Mountain, and Sugarloaf Mountain. At its most southern point, the watershed captures the northern end of Bellvale Mountain. These rocky slopes are favorite destinations for hikers and birdwatchers, and while their summits offer incredible views of surrounding valleys, they themselves are important features of local scenery.

Habitats and Wildlife of Cliffs and Caves. These mountains and ridges create an array of habitats and natural communities that are not found in other parts of the watershed, including outcrops, ledges, acidic talus slopes, rocky summit grassland, and pitch pine-oak-heath rocky summit. The plants and animals that use these habitats are adapted to the thin soils, and somewhat exposed, harsh conditions. Rare plants such as green rock-cress (NYS Threatened) and violet wood-sorrel (NYS Threatened) have been documented in ridge habitats in the watershed, along with a number of rare dragonflies, butterflies, and moths like pine barrens underwing (NYS Special Concern). Worm-eating warbler is a documented breeder in the ridges of the watershed, where it likely favors the steep, forested slopes for nesting. Other species that may inhabit rocky ridges in the watershed include five-lined skink, slimy salamander, peregrine falcon, porcupine, and bobcat, and many songbirds and raptors use the ridges of the Highlands as migratory corridors.

Snakes are most often associated with rocky cliffs, and the ridges of the Moodna watershed indeed support populations of species like timber rattlesnake (NYS Threatened), northern copperhead, black rat snake, and eastern racer. While rocky habitats on south and southeast facing slopes provide den and basking sites, these species use forests and some wetland habitats for other life needs, and require connected landscapes in order to move from one habitat to the next. (See Appendix A.) Eastern racer and black rat snake may travel 600 ft (190 m) or more to forage, bask, breed, nest, and hibernate, and copperhead and timber rattlesnake have even larger home ranges, traveling distances of 3300-7900 ft (1000-2400 m) (Hartwig and Stevens 2007).

The Bull Mine in Satterly Creek basin supports a bat hibernacula, used by eastern small-footed myotis (NYS Special Concern) and Indiana bat (NYS Endangered). (See Appendix A.) Human disturbance while the bats are overwintering is a serious threat, particularly now after tens of thousands of hibernating bats died in the Northeast in winter 2007-08 for unknown reasons. Bats play a very important role in the ecosystem, with one individual bat consuming as many as 3,000 flying insects each night during the summer. This group of mammals deserves special conservation consideration.

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Rocky habitat “islands.” The Moodna watershed is fortunate that many of its major ridges are protected as parks or preserves. However, unless these areas can have landscape connections to other surrounding habitats, they will essentially become isolated “islands” that will lose function and resiliency as ecosystems. Such fragmentation cannot support wildlife species that require multiple habitats to survive, or that travel great

20 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

distances. Opportunities to identify and conserve natural areas between and/or around these rocky summits should be pursued, such as the biodiversity areas identified by MCA surrounding Goose Pond Mountain (Miller et al. 2005). • Recreation impacts. While the protected status of the prominent ridges reduces the threat of development, such as cell tower construction, there remains an element of disturbance from recreational activities like hiking and ATV use. Good trail systems, signage, and visitor education can help prevent trampling of fragile plant communities, disturbance of nesting birds, erosion of steep slopes, and overall habitat degradation. Trails should steer visitors away from the most ecologically-sensitive areas, while still providing positive experiences to enjoy nature and the scenic beauty of the watershed. New York/New Jersey Trail Conference is a likely partner for trail-related planning. • Snake conservation. In addition to habitat fragmentation (see above), the decline in snake populations in New York can be attributed to illegal collection for the pet trade. Specific den locations and other sensitive information should not be publicized unless essential for conservation of the population. • Bat conservation. Current use of Bull Mine for exploration and caving should be assessed to determine whether bat populations are being impacted. If so, visits to the Bull Mine should be discouraged, particularly in winter, to conserve bat overwintering habitat. If visitation or disturbance to the bat colony is considered a serious problem, then closures or restrictions may be advisable. Researchers are still uncertain what role white-nose syndrome has played in the recent deaths of bats in the Northeast, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service website has posted precautionary recommendations to avoid spreading the fungus.

Cores, Connections, and Landscape Perspective

Analysis of biodiversity resources at the watershed scale enables residents, planners, and conservation leaders to recognize patterns across the larger landscape, and to see the “big picture” that is often left out of the traditional site-plan review process. Whereas the latter is influenced by zoning districts, setback requirements, Department of Health approvals, location of infrastructure, and similar concerns, it often fails to consider how whole communities are developing, and where important biological resources are positioned on the landscape. Streams, ridges, wetlands, and other habitats, like the wildlife they support, are not influenced by political boundaries or municipal codes. However, they can suffer greatly from misguided or uninformed land-use planning. The Moodna Creek Watershed Plan offers an opportunity for municipalities to identify their individual and shared resources, set priorities, and create new approaches for planning with a more comprehensive perspective.

Cores

To plan for conservation and future development on the watershed scale, it’s useful to know where important biodiversity “cores” are, and what lands are suitable for providing “connections” between them. The map in Figure 4 includes data layers from various conservation organizations that have identified or documented important resources. Planning for biodiversity at the watershed level, and the local level for that matter, would be much simpler if exhaustive survey data and widespread habitat mapping were available throughout the region. Unfortunately, such comprehensive resource information is rarely available for large areas, so

21 Figure 4. Documented Biodiversity Resources of Importance in the Moodna Creek Watershed Orange County, NY This map includes known areas of importance for biodiversity, Legend including those identified by the NY Natural Heritage Program, Orange County Planning, and the Metropolitan Conservation Moodna Watershed Boundary Alliance. Also included are very large forest stands identified by The Nature Conservancy as "matrix forests," and Moodna water Major Road resources with conservation-oriented buffers of adjacent areas. Note that not all areas of the watershed have been studied, Orange County Rare Species and there are likely other significant biodiversity resources not MCA S. Wallkill Biodiversity Plan represented here. This map is intended for planning purposes only, and can be enhanced with further study on multiple scales. TNC Matrix Forest Blocks S WAPPINGER R17K

NHP Important Habitat Area W CRAWFORD 9 FISHKILL S U NEWBURGH MONTGOMERY I84 −

NEWBURGH BEACON H

1 u

S WALLKILL 1 d R1 SR2 s 7 o NEW WINDSOR n

MIDDLETOWN R i v

e

r MIDDLETOWN HAMPTONBURGH

PHILIPSTOWN

WAWAYANDA CORNWALL

7 I8 US6&SR17M BLOOMING GROVE

GOSHEN

HIGHLANDS

4 9 U SR S 6& S R CHESTER 17 WOODBURY US6 U CORTLANDT S6 US6 MONROE

Y

A W 7 7 1 K 1

R P SR . PEEKSKILL S I & S 4 WARWICK E W D STONY POINT R9 S9 A S U LIS CORTLANDT A TUXEDO024681 P Miles 94 SR HAVERSTRAW Data Sources: Map created 18 June 2008 by: NY Natural Heritage Program Laura Heady, Hudson River Estuary Program, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation NYS Department of Environmental Conservation National Wetland Inventory in partnership with Cornell University The Nature Conservancy Orange County Planning Department Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT the next step is to collect existing information, and recognize that gaps will need to be filled by further study.

Figure 4 includes recommended conservation areas from MCA’s Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan, which studied Chester, Warwick, and Goshen; Orange County data on rare species; Important Areas identified by the NY Natural Heritage Program; and matrix forests mapped by The Nature Conservancy. (The map also shows water resources in the watershed with buffers of 325 ft (100 m) on large streams; 215 ft (65 m) on wetlands and waterbodies; and 165 ft (50 m) on smaller tributaries.) These collective areas do not represent the only important biological resources in the watershed, as there is much yet to learn; they also aren’t “hands-off” areas where development or disturbance is prohibited. Rather, they provide a framework that can be used to think about the big picture, and employ different approaches to avoid the known threats to local biodiversity, and to pursue the various conservation opportunities at hand.

Another existing source of information on Moodna resources is the Orange County Open Space Plan (2004), which identified a number of resources as “Core Biological Diversity Areas” that are located in the Moodna watershed (Figure 5): • Hudson Highlands (including Sterling Forest, Storm King, and Black Rock Forest) • Schunnemunk Mountain • Goosepond Mountain (including Goosepond Mountain State Park) • Purgatory Swamp • Stewart State Forest.

These large areas, many of which are protected, are known biodiversity hotspots with primarily undeveloped lands. Studies at more local scales will help to determine what additional, smaller hotspots may be important components of this conservation network. For example, the Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan emphasized the biological importance of the Black Meadow Creek corridor and its relationship to Glenmere Lake, which is outside of the Moodna watershed but supports a northern cricket frog (NYS Endangered) population that crosses the boundary (Miller et al. 2005). Recent research suggests that habitat restoration efforts should focus on enlarging core areas, particularly by widening narrow sections of large fragments, to provide more interior habitat for core-dwelling species and to reduce invasive species, which flourish at the edge of habitat fragments (Ewers and Didham 2007).

Connections

Identifying and conserving links between biodiversity cores is necessary to allow wildlife to overcome fragmentation and still move between habitats. These wildlife ‘corridors’ are not the narrow, straight passageways we’re familiar with in our built environment; rather, they need to be broad, natural areas without roads, housing developments, and other fragmenting features. These connections enable wildlife to move safely between breeding and foraging habitats; to shift habitats when conditions become unsuitable; and to maintain genetic exchange between populations. Well-connected landscapes will also enable future migrations northward and to higher elevations, as species respond to increasing temperatures from climate change. This may be particularly important in Orange County where a number of species, like marbled salamander and box turtle, are already close to the northern limit of their range.

23 Figure 5. Conservation Network of Biodiversity Cores and Connections in the Moodna Creek Watershed Orange County, NY This map includes the biodiversity hotspots and wildlife corridors Legend identified in the Orange County Open Space Plan, overlaid onto the documented biodiversity resources shown in Figure 4. Also identified Moodna Watershed Boundary are riparian corridors not included in the county's 'Cores & Corridors' Major Road network, but which may serve as important landscape linkages. Further analysis is needed on a finer scale, to identify additional cores and Orange County Cores & Corridors connections, and appropriate land-use strategies that will conserve Orange County Rare Species important biodiversity areas, with generous buffers and connectivity to other hotspots. This map can be considered a "first step" toward MCA S. Wallkill Biodiversity Plan developing a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy for TNC Matrix Forest Blocks the watershed, and is intended for planning purposes only.

SR NHP17K Important Habitat Area

I84

W

S9

U − H

11 Stewart u 2 d

SR s S State Forest R1 o

n 7 ARIA P N Moodna R I C R i O Mouth v e

r R R

R I

P

ID A

7 R

O 8 I

I

OR R A Storm

ID N

C

R O Black King

R Purgatory R

OR I P R Rock Swamp C

US6&SR17M A

N I D Forest A R

I O

I A

R

R N

A

P C

I Schunnemunk

O

R

R R Mountain

I

P U R

S I

A 6 &S D

SR94 R1 R 7 O

R I

A Goose Pond

s

N d

C

O Mountain

n R R a IP US6 l US6

R A U h S6 g

I R i D I

A H O N n

R o

C s

d O u

A H

7 R 17

1 R

R S

I

&SR D

4

9 O

9W R S SR U

Sterling Forest 024681 94 Miles SR

Data Sources: Map created 18 June 2008 by: NY Natural Heritage Program Laura Heady, Hudson River Estuary Program, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation NYS Department of Environmental Conservation National Wetland Inventory in partnership with Cornell University The Nature Conservancy Orange County Planning Department Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

The following recommendations for landscape connections incorporate suggestions included in the Orange County Open Space Plan (Figure 5): • Goosepond Mountain to Sterling Forest • Goosepond Mountain to Schunnemunk Mountain • Schunnemunk Mountain to Stewart State Forest • Schunnemunk Mountain to Storm King • Black Meadow Reservoir to Purgatory Swamp • Otter Kill/Moodna Creek corridor (linear along river) • Stream corridors throughout the watershed.

Land cover and fragmenting features in these potential connections will need to be assessed to determine feasibility for establishing functional biodiversity corridors. In addition to maintaining existing connections, there may be opportunities to restore linkages severed by major roadways, dams, and other barriers. Academic institutions, graduate students, conservation organizations, and the Hudson River Estuary Program may serve as good partners for conducting such analyses. Subsequent steps may require intermunicipal partnerships, outreach to landowners, coordination with land trusts, and planning tools such as conservation overlay zones, critical environmental areas, and conservation subdivision guidelines. Establishment of a biodiversity network does not necessitate outright purchase and protection of all lands, but it does require careful planning and innovative designs to maintain a permeable landscape, where wildlife does not perish due to vehicular traffic, lawnmowers, stormdrain pitfalls, household pets, and impassable barriers.

While habitat connections at the regional scale are very important, finer-scale assessment of the watershed is needed to identify the importance of local-scale connections; e.g., forested connectivity between clusters of woodland pools, or connections between core wetlands and upland overwintering habitats used by northern cricket frog. Because they provide important landscape links, stream corridors should be analyzed to evaluate the condition of riparian buffers and identify opportunities for restoration or conservation. (See Figure 3.)

Threats and Conservation Opportunities

• Data gaps. More information is needed to build a strong smart growth plan for the watershed, which preserves cores and connections for biodiversity, while adequately addressing the needs for future growth of human communities. The Orange County Watershed Authority may want to convene an advisory committee to identify priority data gaps, pursue further studies, and refine recommendations to implement a plan for conserving Moodna’s conservation network. • Updates to County plans. Orange County’s “Priority Growth Areas,” which suggest future population growth centers, contradict the recommendations set forth in the Orange County Open Space Plan for biodiversity cores and connections. For example, a priority growth area is projected for the area between Goosepond and Schunnemunk Mountains, but this same area was identified as an important corridor in the open space plan. These discrepancies should be resolved or compatible priorities should be established to accommodate future development in appropriate areas. The upcoming update of the county comprehensive plan presents an excellent opportunity to reevaluate these recommendations.

25 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

• Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan. Recommendations in the Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan (Miller et al. 2005) should be reviewed and implemented by all appropriate stakeholders. The Hudson River Estuary Program can provide technical assistance to facilitate implementation. Similar studies in other portions of the watershed should be considered. • Land trust partners. The Orange County Land Trust is a likely partner to implement the Moodna Creek Watershed Plan recommendations to develop a strategy for establishing a biodiversity network. They can assist with determining key parcels, exploring landowner incentive programs, and considering voluntary protection measures to maintain important cores and connections. • Local and intermunicipal action. Local municipalities can incorporate biodiversity recommendations of the Moodna Creek Watershed Plan into their comprehensive plans, and explore intermunicipal agreements to promote a more landscape-level vision for the future of the watershed. • Planning board education. Due to intense development pressure and the sheer volume of applications before planning boards, the standard “planning” process at the municipal level focuses less on actual planning and more on decision-making. Planning boards in the watershed should be offered training to understand the recommendations of the watershed plan, how the plan fits into their role as land-use decisionmakers, and how they can be partners in plan implementation. In addition, planning board members should be offered training on local biodiversity resources, planning considerations, and how the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process can be used most effectively to support conservation-oriented planning. • Environmental commissions and NRIs. More local-scale information is needed to elucidate both the landscape and local core and connection priorities (see discussion above). Where they are not already engaged, watershed municipalities can empower environmental commissions to become effective partners in the planning process. Environmental commissions should be charged with developing municipal NRIs and/or open space plans, as set forth in the State of New York General Municipal Law, Article 12-F Section 239-x and 239-y, and should serve as important advisory bodies to town boards, planning boards, and zoning boards of appeals and contribute substantially to environmental reviews. They too should be offered training to facilitate their conservation work. • Habitat assessment guidelines. Considering biodiversity early in the planning process can be beneficial to all stakeholders. Municipalities can use “Habitat Assessment Guidelines” to supplement larger-scale maps and inventories with site-specific information. Habitat Assessment Guidelines are being used by several planning boards in Ulster and Dutchess County to identify important resources early in the planning process, and to have preliminary discussions on conservation priorities before serious site planning begins. This has been found to save time and resources for both the decision- making boards and the applicants, and often eliminates the need for a ‘positive declaration’ during the SEQR process. Moodna Creek watershed municipalities should explore similar guidelines.

26 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Conclusions

Whatever the scale, from making decisions at a site-plan review, to developing a town open space plan, or setting watershed protection goals, the key steps to conserving biodiversity resources are as follows:

1) identify resources 2) prioritize resources 3) plan, protect, and manage resources.

The Moodna Creek Watershed Plan is a tool that residents, municipalities, conservation groups, county agencies, and other stakeholders can use to learn about the rich diversity of plants and animals that live in the watershed, and set priorities so that implementation efforts are effective and efficient, and reflect community values. It also can be used to identify gaps in information and set goals for future study and research. Finally, it can provide a planning framework to protect the biodiversity of the Moodna watershed, so that future generations will be able to live in healthy, quality communities and enjoy their natural heritage for a long time to come.

Many of the recommendations outlined here reflect general conservation principles for protecting biodiversity. They include (adapted from Kiviat and Stevens 2001):

• Consider habitat and biodiversity concerns early in the planning process.

• Direct human uses toward the least sensitive areas, and minimize alteration of natural features, including vegetation, soils, bedrock, and waterways.

• Protect large, contiguous, and unaltered tracts of habitats wherever possible.

• Protect contiguous habitat areas in large, circular or broadly-shaped configurations within the larger landscape.

• Preserve links between habitats on adjacent properties via broad connections, not narrow corridors.

• Create, restore, and maintain broad buffer zones of natural vegetation along streams, along shores of other water bodies and wetlands, and at the perimeter of other sensitive habitats.

• Maintain buffer zones between development and land intended for habitat.

• Prioritize higher-quality habitats for protection, as degraded habitats decrease the biological value of the larger ecological landscape.

• Preserve natural processes such as forest fires, floodplain flooding, and beaver flooding to maintain the diversity of habitats and species dependent on such processes.

• Preserve farmland potential.

27 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

• Protect habitats associated with resources of special economic, public health, or aesthetic importance to the community. These include aquifers or other sources of drinking water, active farms, and scenic views.

• In general, encourage development of altered land instead of unaltered land.

• Concentrate development along existing roads; discourage construction of new roads in undeveloped areas.

• Promote clustered and pedestrian-centered development wherever possible, to maximize extent of unaltered land and minimize expanded vehicle use.

• Minimize extent of impervious surfaces (roofs, roads, parking lots, etc.), and maximize onsite groundwater infiltration. Minimize areas of disturbance.

Municipalities in the watershed might consider including similar principles in their comprehensive plans or in future intermuncipal agreements. If followed by communities in the Moodna watershed, these general guiding principles may contribute to the realization of the watershed plan’s goals for smart growth, water resource protection, and biodiversity conservation.

28 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Literature Cited

Allan, B.F., F. Keesing, and R.S. Ostfeld. 2003. Effect of forest fragmentation on Lyme disease risk. Conservation Biology 17:267-272.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 2004. Riparian Buffer Preservation. New Publications. Available at: http://www.alliancechesbay.org/pubs.cfm

Calhoun, A. J. K. and P. deMaynadier. 2004. Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife. MCA Technical Paper No. 6, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

Calhoun, A. J., K. and M. W. Klemens. 2002. Best Development Practices (BDPs): Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern United States. MCA Technical Paper No. 5. Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

Compton, B.W., J.M. Rhymer, and M. McCollough. 2002. Habitat selection by wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta): An application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83(3): 833-843.

Crawford, J.A. and R.D. Semlitsch. 2007. Estimation of core terrestrial habitat for stream- breeding salamanders and delineation of riparian buffers for protection of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 21(1):152-158.

Dunkle, S.W. 2000. Dragonfiles Through Binoculars: A Field Guide to Dragonflies of North America. Oxford University Press, New York.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Ewers, R. M. and R. K. Didham. 2007. The effect of fragment shape and species’ sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conservation Biology 21(4):926-936.

Daniels, R. A. 1999. Why Biological Inventories are Important. In, Biological Diversity: The Oldest Human Heritage, by E.O. Wilson, pg. 28-29. Educational Leaflet 34. The New York State Biodiversity Research Institute, New York State Museum. Available at: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/bri/publications/wilson.html.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG)(15 Federal agencies of the US gov't). GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/stream_restoration/.

29 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Findlay, S., D. Strayer, M. Bain, and W. C. Neider. 2006. Ecology of Hudson River Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Final Report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Kiviat, E. and G. Stevens. 2001. Biodiversity Assessment Manual for the Hudson River Estuary Corridor. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, New York.

Limburgh, K.E. and R.E. Schmidt. 1990. Patterns of Fish Spawning in Hudson River Tributaries: Response to an Urban Gradient? Ecology 71(4): 1238-1245.

Hartwig, T. and G. Stevens. 2007. Significan Habitats in Selected Areas in the Town of Marbletown, Ulster County, New York. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, New York.

Helzer, C.J. and D.E. Jelinski. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9:1448-1458.

Herkert, J. R. 1991. Prairie birds of Illinois: population response to two centuries of habitat change. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 34:393-399.

Highlands Coalition. 2005. The Highlands: Our Backyard Paradise – 2005 Update. The Highlands Coalition, Titusville, New York.

LaBruna, D. T. and M. W. Klemens. 2007. Northern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan: Balancing Development and Environmental Stewardship in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed. MCA Technical Paper No. 13, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

McElfish, J. M., R. L. Kihslinger, and S. S. Nichols. 2008. Planner’s Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

Miller, N. A., M. W. Klemens, and J. E. Schmitz. 2005. Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan: Balancing development and the environment in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed. MCA Technical Paper No. 8, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

Mitchell, J. C., A. R. Breisch, and K. A. Buhlmann. 2006. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Technical Publication HMG-3, Montgomery, Alabama.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Online Conservation Guide for Myotis sodalis. Available from: http://guides.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=7405. Accessed April 14th, 2008.

New York State Museum Fish Collection Database. Surveys conducted 1936, Orange County, New York State. Accessed on: May 19, 2007. Available at: http://collections.nysm.nysed.gov/fish/database.html.

Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: A Report of the Northeast Climate Impact Assessment. Union of Concerned Scientists, October, 2006. Available at: http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/.

30 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Raleigh, R. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. FWS/OBS-82/10.24. U. S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Rosgen, D. 1994. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Schuler, T. R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1: 100-111.

Schmidt, R. E. and S. Cooper. 1996. A catalog of barriers to upstream movement of migratory fishes in Hudson River tributaries. Report to the Hudson River Foundation. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, New York.

Shirer, R. and T. Tear. 2005. Identifying Conservation Priorities in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed: Linking Perspectives Across Multiple Scales. Initial Draft for Review. The Nature Conservancy, Troy, New York.

Spackman, S.C. and J.W. Hughes. 1995. Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological conservation: Species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA. Biological Conservation 71: 325-332.

Stainbrook, K.M., K.E. Limburg, R.A. Daniels, and R.E. Schmidt. 2006. Long-term changes in ecosystem health of two Hudson Valley watersheds, New York, USA, 1936-2001. Hydrobiologia (2006) 571:313–327.

Stauffer, D.F. annd L.B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: Evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(1):1. Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman. 2001. Environmental Management 28(2): 255-266.

Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Revised Version. March 5, 1999.

31 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT

Additional Publications on Biodiversity in the Moodna Creek Watershed

Bridges, J. & E. Kiviat. 1988. Significant habitats of the Stewart International Airport Properties, Orange County, New York. Report to the Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition, 21 p. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY.

Kiviat, E. and R.E. Schmidt. 2001. Vegetation and fish sampling in six Hudson River tidal marshes, 1999. Report to Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve and NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation.

Kiviat, E. 1990. Stewart Airport Properties: Comments on biology, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Report to Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition, 18 p. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY.

Mitchell, R. 2002. Skirting Schunnemunk. New York Flora Association Newsletter. 13(4):1-3.

Samanns E and Zacharias S. 2004. Mitigating potential impacts of herpetile habitat loss and fragmentation from new roadway construction in Southern New York state. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 450-466.

Schmidt, R.E. and T.R. Lake. 2000. Alewives in Hudson River tributaries, two years of sampling. Report to Hudson River Foundation, NY. 37p.

Schmidt, R.E. and K.E. Limburg. 1989. Fishes spawning in non-tidal portions of Hudson River tributaries. Report to Hudson River Foundation, 74p.

Stevens, G., R.E. Schmidt, D.R. Roeder, J.S. Tashiro & E. Kiviat. 1994. Baseline assessment of tributaries to the Hudson (BATH): Water quality, fishes, macroinvertebrates, and diatoms in Fishkill Creek, Quassaic Creek, and Moodna Creek. Report to the Hudson River Improvement Fund, 2 vols. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY.

Wildlife Conservation Society, 2000. Biological Surveys of the Stewart State Forest: A Report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation by the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance. June. 14pp.

32 Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed The following wildlife species represent the diversity of habitats in the Moodna Creek watershed. In many cases, conservation of these species will contribute to conservation of other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Information on recommended habitat and buffer sizes, important temporal considerations, and additional conservation concerns are included. (Note that many of these species use a complex of different habitats, in addition to the priority habitat group listed here.) Priority Habitat Common Name Habitat Needs Conservation Considerations Group Loss of suitable habitat and invasive species (e.g., purple loosestrife) are major threats. Chemical contamination, Shallow or deep emergent marshes and siltation, eutrophication, and other forms of pollution degrade freshwater tidal marshes, with stands of marshes, and recreational boating may disturb nesting bitterns. cattails or bulrush with bur-reed, sedges, or Marsh habitats and associated wildlife benefit from substantial Least Bittern Hudson River common reed. Cattail stands are often buffers which can minimize impacts listed above, as well as Shoreline interspersed with pools of open water or slow- Botaurus lentiginosus allow for inland migration of marshes that will likely be moving channels and some woody vegetation. necessary due to climate change and rising water levels. When Large marshes (>12 ac or 5 ha) are important managing large wetland complexes for waterfowl, consider breeding areas for this species. retaining areas with cattails and bulrush. Nesting and fledgling activity occurs in May through September.

Habitat loss or alterations are probably the most significant threats. Areas with development or other human disturbances Undisturbed, wooded areas near large bodies are likely unsuitable for nesting and wintering bald eagles. It of water, such as bays, rivers, and lakes, with Bald eagle may be beneficial to post signs and restrict access to areas Hudson River healthy populations of fish and waterfowl, their Haliaeetus when breeding or wintering eagles are present. Nesting and Shoreline primary food source. Large deciduous or fledgling activity occurs in March through June. A minimum leucocephalus coniferous trees are used for nesting and 1600 ft (500 m) buffer around nest sites and minimum buffer of roosting. 800-975 ft (250-300 m) for perch and feeding sites is recommended.

There is much to learn about American eels, and studies are American eels are born in the Atlantic Ocean, ongoing in Hudson River tributaries to help understand why and after about a year, arrive to Hudson River there has been an overall decline throughout their range. While tributaries. Eels live throughout the Hudson eels are reknowned for their ability to move over land and American eel Hudson River watershed in brackish tidewater and in overcome barriers, their habitat, especially for juveniles, can be Shoreline freshwater ponds, lakes, and streams, but after Anguilla rostrata limited by dams, culverts, and other obstacles; "eel ladders" reaching sexual maturity, they leave the can help mitigate this problem and enable upstream migration. Hudson and return to the Sargasso Sea to Chemical contaminants and disease from polluted waters may spawn and die. also pose a threat. Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed The following wildlife species represent the diversity of habitats in the Moodna Creek watershed. In many cases, conservation of these species will contribute to conservation of other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Information on recommended habitat and buffer sizes, important temporal considerations, and additional conservation concerns are included. (Note that many of these species use a complex of different habitats, in addition to the priority habitat group listed here.) Priority Habitat Common Name Habitat Needs Conservation Considerations Group Because of their use of both aquatic and terrestrial habitat in Forests near low-gradient, sluggish sections of the stream corridor, riparian buffers are especially important to small streams, springs, and seeps with maintain water quality and provide adequate adjacent uplands. Northern red abundant decaying organic matter. Juveniles Streams and Buffers of at least 160 ft (50 m) on either side of the stream is salamander are aquatic for first 3.5 years. Adults spend Riparian Corridors recommended to conserve habitat for northern red and other summer and early fall beneath logs, stones, Pseudotriton ruber stream salamanders. (Crawford and Semlitsch 2007) Adults and leaf litter in forested habitat, and the rest of migrate from the stream to terrestrial habitats on warm rainy the year in the water. nights in early April.

Nesting season is May through early July, with hatching Wood turtles have large home ranges that occuring in September and October. Females travel up to 0.6 include river and streamside habitats bordered mi (1 km) to nest. Road mortality is a major threat during Wood turtle Streams and by forests or meadows. Stream microhabitats overland movements. Habitat loss in riparian zones and illegal Riparian Corridors include open pools, undercut banks, and logs. Clemmys insculpta collection are additional threats to this declining species. A Nesting occurs in sunny, well-drained areas minimum of 650 ft (200m) of buffer from the core stream that are not prone to flooding. habitat is recommended.

Nest placed in small hollow or cavity on stream bank, under fallen log, or within roots of an upturned tree. Nesting and This migratory warbler breeds along gravel- fledgling activity occurs in April through July. Louisiana Louisiana waterthrush Streams and bottomed, unpolluted streams flowing through waterthrush nests are frequently parasitized by brown-headed Riparian Corridors ravines or hilly, deciduous or mixed forests with Seiurus motacilla cowbird. Riparian buffers of at least 300 ft (90 m) are moderate to sparse undergrowth. recommended to ensure clean stream water, adequate upland habitat, and reduced nest predataion and parisitism.

Stocking has expanded the species' distribution to less optimal habitat, but in these cases brook trout are often outcompeted Cold, clear streams that are well-shaded, with by the nonnative brown trout (also stocked in NY), which may Brook trout Streams and good water quality and high dissolved oxygen, ultimately restrict viable populations to headwater streams. Salvelinus fontinalis Riparian Corridors overhead cover, and gravel substrates needed Barriers such as culverts, dams, and streams can be mitigated for reproduction. to reduce stream fragmentation and increase fish habitat. Riparian buffers of 100 ft (30m) with 80% well vegetated or stable rocky banks is recommended. (Raleigh 1982) Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed The following wildlife species represent the diversity of habitats in the Moodna Creek watershed. In many cases, conservation of these species will contribute to conservation of other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Information on recommended habitat and buffer sizes, important temporal considerations, and additional conservation concerns are included. (Note that many of these species use a complex of different habitats, in addition to the priority habitat group listed here.) Priority Habitat Common Name Habitat Needs Conservation Considerations Group Varies from bottomland hardwoods and May be especially sensitive to fragmentation of forested habitat. riparian areas to upland deciduous or mixed Disturbances from humans in the form of off-road vehicles, deciduous-conifer forest, and almost always hunters, and horseback riders may be restricting red- includes some form of water, such as a Red-shouldered hawk shouldered hawks to the deepest, wildest areas left. Red- Forests swamp, marsh, river, or pond. Breeds in shouldered hawk usually nests below the canopy in deciduous Buteo lineatus extensive forested habitat; a minimum of 620 or mixed forest, often near a pond, stream, or swamp. Nesting ac (250 ha) of floodplain forest may be and fledgling activity occurs in March through July. necessary for successful breeding. Habitat overlaps with barred owl's.

Extensive deciduous forests, composed of Forest fragmentation and habitat loss is major threat to structurally mature hardwoods near streams, cerulean warbler; conservation efforts should focus on wetlands, and the Hudson River. Specific protecting large, contiguous tracts of forest with substantial forest types vary throughout the species’ range interior habitat. Unfragmented forest patches of 100+ ac (40+ Cerulean warbler and include bottomland hardwood and riparian ha) are recommended to support breeding by some forest- Forests Dendroica cerulea forests (especially with tall sycamores or interior breeding birds in a 50-60% forested landscape. Nest cottonwoods), dry ridgetops with mature oaks parasitism by brown-headed cowbird may also be contributing and hickorys, mesic cove forests with tulip- to population declines. Cerulean warblers nest in a variety of poplar and other southern hardwoods, red- trees, most often oaks, elms, and American sycamore. Nesting maple swamps, and lake margins. and fledgling activity occurs from May to July.

Jefferson salamander, and other species in the group of "mole salamanders" (spotted, marbled, and blue-spotted) are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation that prevents movement from forest habitat to breeding pools. Because woodland pools are small, they are often overlooked and do not Lives in upland, deciduous and mixed forests receive adequate protection. Buffer zones of 525-820 ft (160- with abundant stumps, logs, and leaf litter on Jefferson salamander 250 m) should be preserved around pools to ensure adequate the forest floor. Small mammal burrows Ambystoma Forests terrestrial habitat and intact connectivity for breeding provide critical microhabitat. Breeds in migrations. The mole salamanders migrate to pools in early jeffersonianum intermittent woodland pools that are typically March through April on rainy nights, with Jefferson being the isolated, dry by summer, and fishless. earliest breeder, often when pools are still partially covered in ice; the one exception is marbled salamander, which breeds in the fall. Road mortality is a threat during spring migrations and may be minimized by posting signage or engaging volunteers to shepard salamanders across roads. Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed The following wildlife species represent the diversity of habitats in the Moodna Creek watershed. In many cases, conservation of these species will contribute to conservation of other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Information on recommended habitat and buffer sizes, important temporal considerations, and additional conservation concerns are included. (Note that many of these species use a complex of different habitats, in addition to the priority habitat group listed here.) Priority Habitat Common Name Habitat Needs Conservation Considerations Group Emerge from overwintering habitat in late March or early April, and return in October and November. Northern cricket frogs from several locations within New York are known to migrate at This tiny frog uses permanent, open water least 750 ft (230 m) from their summer wetland habitats. wetlands, typically with water lilies and floating Threats include inadequate habitat connectivity and buffers, Northern cricket frog vegetation mats. Sometimes found in slow- Wetlands pesticides and other chemical exposure, and possibly the moving streams and ponds, and upland areas Acris c. crepitans effects of beaver activity on water level. Buffering core surrounding its aquatic habitat. Overwintering wetlands with at least 300 ft (90 m) of natural vegetation will habitat includes terrestrial areas. help ensure populations will remain healthy. Because it's at the northern limit of its range, this frog may need to migrate northward as temperatures increase due to climate change.

Because fens are small, they are often overlooked and do not receive adequate regulatory protection. Bog turtle is seriously Fens and calcerous wet meadows, often within threatened by habitat loss and degradation from stormwater larger wetland complexes that include swamps pollutants, hydrologic alterations, and overgrowth of woody Bog turtle and other wetland habitats. Important features Wetlands vegetation and invasives. Management of invasives may be include calcareous groundwater seepage, soft Clemmys muhlenbergii necessary to maintain the open canopy favored by bog turtle. sediments, low vegetation (<3.3 ft or 1 m), and Native vegetative buffers between fens and adjacent uplands small areas of shallow standing water. can help minimize impacts of pollutants while providing cover for wetland animals. Illegal collection is also a major concern.

Pied-billed grebe and other marsh bird habitat is most Freshwater marshes; marshy shorelines of threatened by draining, dredging, filling, pollution, invasive ponds, shallow lakes, or bays; and slow species, and siltation from agricultural practices and roads. The moving streams with sedgy banks or adjacent conservation of relatively large, 12-185 ac (5-75 ha) wetlands is marshes. A roughly 50/50 interspersion of Pied-billed Grebe a priority for supporting marsh bird populations, along with Wetlands moderately shallow emergent vegetation and establishing adequate buffers to reduce impacts from Podilymbus podiceps open water seems preferred. Ideal water surrounding agriculture and development. Resident muskrats depths for nesting range from 10-20 in (25-50 can often maintain the desired 50/50 vegetation structure but cm) and nesting pairs appear to favor marshes some direct management may be necessary. Nesting and of 1.5-17 ac (0.6-7 ha) in size. fledgling activity occurs from April through September. Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed The following wildlife species represent the diversity of habitats in the Moodna Creek watershed. In many cases, conservation of these species will contribute to conservation of other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Information on recommended habitat and buffer sizes, important temporal considerations, and additional conservation concerns are included. (Note that many of these species use a complex of different habitats, in addition to the priority habitat group listed here.) Priority Habitat Common Name Habitat Needs Conservation Considerations Group

While woodcocks are considered a resident of Woodcock decline is attributed to loss of early-successional forests, where they forage for earthworms and habitat from changes in forest structure, fire suppression, and nest in young, early-successional woodlands, shifts in agricultural practices. Management may be necessary Grassland, American woodcock they also require open field habitats. Nighttime to maintain the habitat complex needed for woodcock: Shrubland, and roosting occurs in nearby old fields, at least 1 shrublands or young forests with moist productive soils, second Scolopax minor Farmland ac (0.4 ha) in size, and woodcocks engage in growth hardwoods for nesting, and openings or fields for courtship in shrublands and old fields in early singing grounds and night roosting. Nesting and fledgling spring. activity occurs from March through August.

Grassland birds, including the bobolink, are threatened by habitat loss due to development, changes in agricultural practices, and the return of grassland to forest. While bobolink Breeds in open grasslands and hay fields. has one of the smallest area requirements for successful Bobolink will breed in grasslands of 10-75 breeding, other grassland species need larger areas and have Grassland, Bobolink acres (4-30 ha), but larger areas are better and varying requirements for open patches, density of vegetation, Shrubland, and are more likely to support other specis of etc. Where possible, restoration or conservation of grasslands Dolichonyx oryzivorus Farmland grassland birds that have greater habitat of at least 100 acres (40 ha) is encouraged, with management requirements. appropriate to the breeding species present on the site. Grassland birds are ground-nesters; mowing activity should be restricted during the breeding season. Bobolink nesting and fledgling activity occurs from May through July.

Mountainous or hilly deciduous or mixed Timber rattlesnakes emerge from winter dens in April or early forests, often with rocky outcroppings, steep May, and return to den areas in mid-September, with most ledges, and rock slides. Dens, or hibernacula, snakes in the hibernacula by late October. During their active are often located on south-facing slopes, in months, rattlesnakes can travel great distances and use large talus or rock fractures that provide retreats for Timber rattlesnake areas of habitat, traveling 3300-7900 ft (1000-2400 m) to Cliffs and Caves overwintering. Rattlesnakes use open canopy, forage, bask, breed, nest, and hibernate. Illegal collection and Crotalus horridus rocky areas for basking, shedding, gestating, and unnecessary killing are serious threats to the species. and birthing. Foraging areas are generally Increasing habitat fragmentation from development is also a located within forested habitat surrounding the concern, and may increase the likelihood of human-snake den, but may also include old fields and interactions. wetlands. Appendix A. Flagship Species of the Moodna Creek Watershed The following wildlife species represent the diversity of habitats in the Moodna Creek watershed. In many cases, conservation of these species will contribute to conservation of other plants and animals with similar habitat needs. Information on recommended habitat and buffer sizes, important temporal considerations, and additional conservation concerns are included. (Note that many of these species use a complex of different habitats, in addition to the priority habitat group listed here.) Priority Habitat Common Name Habitat Needs Conservation Considerations Group The Indiana bat hibernates in mines and caves, but during the warmer months of the year roosts in crevices and under the bark of Human disturbance in caves and mines where Indiana bat and trees, particularly hardwoods greater than 5 in other species are overwintering is the most major threat, (12.5 cm) in diameter with loose, flaky bark particularly in light of recent, unexplained die-offs. Spelunkers (e.g., shagbark hickory). Female Indiana bats and other cave visitors can cause stress to hibernating bats, Indiana bat Cliffs and Caves form maternity colonies, giving birth and raising and possibly transmit disease. Restrictions or closures of Myotis sodalis their young in tree roosts. In New York, Indiana important hibernacula caves and mines may be warranted in bats were found to travel between 12 and 40 some areas. Hibernation can begin as early as September and miles from hibernacula to roost locations on extend nearly to June. Loss of roosting and foraging habitat, their foraging grounds. Bats forage primarily in and pesticide exposure are also concerns. riparian forests, and around water and wetlands.

Unless otherwise noted, the following sources were used for development of the table:

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2008. All About Birds. Available at: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/. Kiviat, E. and G. Stevens. 2001. Biodiversity Assessment Manual for the Hudson River Estuary Corridor. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY. Gibbs. J, A. Breisch, P. Ducey, G. Johnson, J. Behler, and R. Bothner. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press, NY. Hartwig, T. and G. Stevens. 2007. Significant Habitats in Selected Areas in the Town of Marbletown, Ulster County, New York. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY. Kennedy, C., J. Wilkinson, and J. Balch. 2003. Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D. C. Mitchell, J. C., A. R. Breisch, and K. A. Buhlmann. 2006. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Technical Publication HMG-3, Montgomery, Alabama. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Online Conservation Guides. Available at: http://guides.nynhp.org/. NYS Breeding Bird Atlas Handbook for Workers. 2004 update.

Table created by L. Heady, NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell University. Appendix B. Birds of Conservation Concern in the Moodna Creek Watershed The following species were observed during the 2000-05 NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, in Altas blocks that were at least 50% within the watershed boundary. Within this area, the Atlas documented 133 species, both rare and common; this list includes only those that are considered Audubon "Responsibility Species of the Hudson Valley." Sixty percent of species listed were "confirmed" breeders in at least one Atlas block. The list is sorted by general habitat grouping (last column). (Note: Bald eagle and least bittern were not documented in the Atlas area included in this analysis; however, they are species of conservation concern reported in the watershed and are discussed elsewhere in the plan.)

Common Name Scientific Name State Listing NYNHP Listing SGCN General Habitat Grouping Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Endangered Active Inventory x Cliff nesting birds Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Coniferous/deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Special Concern Watch List x Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla x Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Special Concern Watch List x Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea x Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina x Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus x Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Watch List Deciduous/mixed forest/riparian breeding birds Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Deciduous/mixed forest/riparian breeding birds Veery Catharus fuscescens Deciduous/mixed forest/riparian breeding birds American Woodcock Scolopax minor x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Early successional forest/shrubland birds Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Early successional forest/shrubland birds Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Special Concern Watch List x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Early successional forest/shrubland birds Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Special Concern Watch List x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii x Early successional forest/shrubland birds Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Forest breeding raptors Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Special Concern Watch List x Forest breeding raptors Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Special Concern Watch List x Forest breeding raptors Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Special Concern Watch List x Forest breeding raptors Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Special Concern Watch List x Forest breeding raptors Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus x Forest edge/grove/thicket breeding birds Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Forest edge/open woodland nesting birds Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Forest edge/orchards Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Forest edge/orchards Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Freshwater and brackish marsh nesting birds American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Special Concern Watch List x Freshwater marsh nesting birds Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Freshwater marsh nesting birds Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threatened Active Inventory x Freshwater marsh nesting birds Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Freshwater marsh nesting birds Appendix B. Birds of Conservation Concern in the Moodna Creek Watershed The following species were observed during the 2000-05 NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, in Altas blocks that were at least 50% within the watershed boundary. Within this area, the Atlas documented 133 species, both rare and common; this list includes only those that are considered Audubon "Responsibility Species of the Hudson Valley." Sixty percent of species listed were "confirmed" breeders in at least one Atlas block. The list is sorted by general habitat grouping (last column). (Note: Bald eagle and least bittern were not documented in the Atlas area included in this analysis; however, they are species of conservation concern reported in the watershed and are discussed elsewhere in the plan.)

Common Name Scientific Name State Listing NYNHP Listing SGCN General Habitat Grouping American Kestrel Falco sparverius Grassland birds Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus x Grassland birds Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna x Grassland birds Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Special Concern Watch List x Grassland birds Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened Active Inventory x Grassland birds Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Grassland birds Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Human-modified habitats Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Active Inventory Nests colonially in trees, often by water Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Nests near open water and streams with banks Osprey Pandion haliaetus Special Concern Watch List x Nests near open water American Black Duck Anas rubripes x Wetland breeding waterfowl Northern Parula Parula americana Watch List Wet woodland or swamp, river margins

NYNHP Active Inventory: Includes species currently tracked in NY Natural Heritage Program database; for the most part, these are the most rare or most imperiled species in NY. NYNHP Watch List: Includes species that could become imperiled enough in the future to warrant being actively inventoried, or for which there is insufficient data to determine whether they should be actively inventoried. SGCN are Species of Greatest Conservation Need, as designated in the NYS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Plan.

Table created by L. Heady, NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell University. Appendix C. Reptiles and Amphibians of Conservation Concern in the Moodna Creek Watershed The following species were observed during the 1990-1998 NYS Amphibian and Reptile ("Herp") Atlas Project within the watershed boundary. The Atlas documented 45 amphibian and reptile species in the watershed; only those that are a NYS Species of Greatest Conservation Need were included here. The list is sorted by general habitat grouping (last column).

Common Name Scientific Name State Listing NYNHP Listing General Habitat Grouping Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Endangered Active Inventory Fens/wet meadows Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus Ponds/marshes/swamps Northern red salamander Pseudotriton r. ruber Stream salamanders Wood turtle Clemmys insculpta Special Concern Watch List Streams/woodlands/grassland Northern cricket frog Acris c. crepitans Endangered Active Inventory Vegetated ponds Blue-spotted salamander Ambystoma laterale Vernal pool breeder Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum Special Concern Watch List Vernal pool breeder Jefferson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Vernal pool breeder Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata Special Concern Watch List Vernal pool/wetland/woodland Eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina Special Concern Watch List Woodland/grassland Black rat snake Elaphe o. obsoleta Woodland/rocky outcrop/grassland Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos Special Concern Watch List Woodland/grassland snakes Eastern racer Coluber constrictor Woodland/rocky outcrop/grassland Northern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen Watch List Woodland/rocky outcrop Smooth greensnake Liochlorophis vernalis Grassland Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Threatened Active Inventory Woodland/rocky outcrop Fowler’s toad Bufo fowleri Woodland/marshes Common five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus Watch List Woodland/talus slope

NYNHP Active Inventory: Includes species currently tracked in NY Natural Heritage Program database; for the most part, these are the most rare or most imperiled species in NY. NYNHP Watch List: Includes species that could become imperiled enough in the future to warrant being actively inventoried, or for which there is insufficient data to determine whether they should be actively inventoried. SGCN are Species of Greatest Conservation Need, as designated in the NYS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Plan.

Table created by L. Heady, NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell University.