West Mojave Plan FEIR/S - Desert Managers Group

vegetation map 29 within the range, one finds that MGS occurrences are directly proportional to theprevalence of plant communities. Table 3-34 compares the occurrence of MGS sightings to theprevalence of each plant community within the range.Table 3-34Occurrence Of 252 Mgs Records With 16 Plant CommunitiesPLANT COMMUNITY NO. AND PERCENTOCCURRENCE OFMGSPERCENT OCCURRENCE OFCOMMUNITY WITHIN MGSRANGEMojave Creosote Bush Scrub 136 (53.96%) 53.97%Desert Saltbush Scrub 50 (19.84%) 19.84%Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub 22 (8.73%) 8.73%Urban 15 (5.95%) 5.95%Agriculture 9 (3.57%) 3.57%Blackbush Scrub 4 (1.58%) 1.59%Mojave Desert Wash Scrub 4 (1.58%) 1.59%Hopsage Scrub 3 (1.19%) 1.19%Shadscale Scrub 2 (0.79%) 0.79%Alkali Seep 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Desert Sink Scrub 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Greasewood Scrub 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Mojave Wash Scrub 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Mojavean Juniper Woodland 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Playa 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Ruderal 1 (0.39%) 0.40%Total 100% 100%These data show remarkable similarities between MGS occurrence (locations collected since1886) and the prevalence of plant communities (determined in 1996) within the range. In fact, thepercent occurrence of MGS and plant communities is exactly the same (two points right of thedecimal point), even though these are independent data sets! These comparisons clearly indicate thatthe MGS is a generalist in terms of plant community preference; it is neither restricted to norconcentrated within any of the 16 plant communities where it has been reported; its occurrence isdirectly proportional to the occurrence of plant communities.These are very important findings with regards to MGS conservation. Historically, the MGSwas equally likely to occur in the 12 native plant communities (i.e., excluding Agriculture, Ruderal,and Urban communities, which are of recent origin, and Playa, which is likely an artifact of theanalysis, or the animal may have been dispersing). Although true that one cannot differentiatebetween resident and dispersing MGS, these observations suggest that the 12 native habitats withinthe range are equally important to support both resident adult animals and dispersing juveniles.29 The vegetation map used throughout Chapters 3 and 4 of this document was developed in 1996 by Tom and DebiClark. U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2000 describes the fieldwork and methods used to develop this map.Although it likely has some inaccuracies, and lacks the resolution of other recent vegetation community mappingprojects (e.g., at 29 Palms Marine Corps Base, Fort Irwin, and Edwards AFB), it represents the best scientificinformation available for the planning area.Chapter 3 3-156