Ovis canadensis sierrae

Grinnell, 1912

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep

T2T2 (G4T2) Found in 23 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
T2T2Global Rank
HighThreat Impact
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102472
Element CodeAMALE04015
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSubspecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderArtiodactyla
FamilyBovidae
GenusOvis
Synonyms
Ovis canadensis californianaDouglas, 1829Ovis canadensis pop. 3
Other Common Names
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (EN)
Concept Reference
Wehausen, J. D., V. C. Bleich, and R. R. Ramey, II. 2005. Correct nomenclature for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. California Fish and Game 91(3):216-218.
Taxonomic Comments
This population formerly was included in Ovis canadensis californiana, but Wehausen and Ramey (2000) transferred the population at the type locality of californiana (Yakima Co., Washington) to O. c. canadensis, and transferred more southern populations to O. c. nelsoni. The Sierra Nevada bighorn population, however, appears to be a lineage distinct from O. c. nelsoni (Ramey 1995, Wehausen and Ramey 2000). Wehausen et al. (2005) reviewed the taxonomy of bighorn sheep in the Pacific states and determined that correct name for the Sierra Nevada population is Ovis canadensis sierrae Grinnell, 1912. USFWS (2008) also reviewed available taxonomic information and agreed that the Sierra Nevada population should be recognized as a distinct subspecies (Ovis canadensis sierrae).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2013-09-04
Change Date2013-09-04
Edition Date2013-09-04
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G.
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
Small range in the Sierra Nevada, California; five disjunct populations totaling a few hundred individuals; imminently threatened by mountain lion predation and disease.
Range Extent Comments
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep inhabit portions of the southern Sierra Nevada along the eastern boundary of California in Tuolumne, Mono, Fresno, Inyo, and Tulare counties. Habitat occurs from the eastern base of the range at elevations as low as 4,790 feet (1,460 meters) and extends to above 14,100 feet (4,300 meters) in some areas(Wehausen 1980:3, 82, cited by USFWS 2008). Habitat is patchy, so the distribution is naturally fragmented (see USFWS 2008).

Historical range: eastern slope of the southern Sierra Nevada, and, for at least one subpopulation, a portion of the western slope, from Sonora Pass in Mono County south to Walker Pass in Kern County, a total distance of about 346 km (USFWS 1999). The extant range begins in the Lee Vining area in Mono County and extends south to the Mount Langley area in Inyo County, a linear distance of approximately 110 miles (177 kilometers) (USFWS 2008).
Occurrences Comments
Of the 12 units encompassed by the critical habitat designation, 7 are currently occupied (USFWS 2008); these can be regarded as distinct occurrences or subpopulations.
Threat Impact Comments
"Factors limiting Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep recovery include disease, predation, low population numbers and limited distribution, availability of open habitat, and potential further loss of genetic diversity due to small population sizes and inadequate migration between them. Since the vast majority of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat is publicly-owned land, loss of habitat has not been a limiting factor. However, management of bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., fire suppression) can result in habitat alterations and loss of key dispersal corridors connecting herds, which could be limiting factors." [Source: USFWS 2007]

Existing subpopulations are very small and are imminently threatened by mountain lion predation (USFWS 1999, 2000), which may need to be managed in some areas. As the numbers of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep increase with recovery, the need for mountain lion control specifically for the benefit of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep should be reduced and eventually eliminated (USFWS 2008). Continued suppression of fires in Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep range is a threat as habitat succession alters the abundance of suitable bighorn sheep habitat and increases bighorn sheep vulnerability to mountain lion predation (see USFWS 2008).

Although die-offs of bighorn sheep due to disease have occurred unrelated to domestic sheep (Miller et al. 1991: 534-540, cited by USFWS 2008)), a major contributing factor responsible for the decline of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep populations over the years is thought to be the introduction of diseases by domestic livestock. Clifford et al. (2007:18, cited by USFWS 2008) indicated concern regarding the probability of a respiratory disease case occurring from disease transmission between domestic sheep and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, especially in the northern part of bighorn sheep range. Domestic grazing allotments within the vicinity of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat should be reviewed and activities should be modified as necessary to prevent competition and contact between the domestic livestock (sheep and goats) and bighorn sheep.

Domestic livestock (sheep, goats, cattle) grazing practices that result in overgrazing or allow for contact between domestic sheep, domestic goats, and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is a threat. Domestic livestock could compete with Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep for forage at some level in designated critical habitat units (USFWS 2008).

Some population units require special management considerations or protection to address impacts from development activities, including road construction and maintenance within Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat (USFWS 2008).

Patented mining claims occur within habitat used by the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, but the area of the claims is small. Mining activities and associated facilities threaten bighorn sheep by causing the loss of vegetation structure required for foraging activities; the destruction of habitats used for escape, bedding, lambing, or connectivity between ranges; and the disturbance due to ongoing mining activities. Disturbance could modify bighorn sheep behavior or cause them to flee an area (USFWS 2008).

It remains unclear how significantly Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep may be affected by human disturbance. Increases in human uses of bighorn sheep habitat, including recreational activities such as rock and ice climbing, mountaineering, ski touring, hiking, camping, pack station establishment, snowmobiling, and off-road vehicle use may cause detrimental disturbance to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in some areas (USFWS 2008). Impacts to the habitat could occur through trampling and reduced vegetation structure due to grazing by pack animals (USFWS 2008).

Management actions to protect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat from catastrophic, naturally occurring events may be necessary. Events such as wildfires and avalanches could temporarily destroy large areas that provide summer or winter foraging habitat (USFWS 2008).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep inhabit open areas where the land is rocky, sparsely vegetated, and characterized by steep slopes and canyons.. Habitats range from alpine to Great Basin sagebrush scrub. They prefer open ground and areas with good access to steep, rocky terrain (escape habitat) and so generally avoid forests, thick brush, and large expanses lacking precipitous escape terrain. In summer, most live at higher elevations (10,000-14,000 feet; 3,050-4,270 meters) in subalpine and alpine areas. Females occur largely in alpine environments, whereas males often are at somewhat lower elevations in subalpine habitats. In winter, they occupy high-elevation, windswept ridges if forage is available and tend to inhabit south-facing slopes where snow melts more readily, or they migrate to lower elevations in sagebrush-steppe areas to avoid deep snow and to find forage. Low-elevation winter ranges provide an important source of high quality forage early in the growing season. Reproductive female select steep, rugged slopes and canyons for lambing. Sources: McCullough and Schneegas (1966), Wehausen (1980), USFWS (2007, 2008).

USFWS (2008) determined that primary constituent elements (habitat features) for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep include: (1) Non-forested habitats or forest openings within the Sierra Nevada from 4,000 feet (1,219 meters) to 14,500 feet (4,420 meters) in elevation with steep (greater than or equal to 60 percent slope), rocky slopes that provide for foraging, mating, lambing, predator avoidance, and bedding and that allow for seasonal elevational movements between these areas. (2) Presence of a variety of forage plants as indicated by the presence of grasses (e.g., Achnanthera spp.; Elymus spp.) and browse (e.g., Ribes spp.; Artemisia spp., Purshia spp.) in winter, and grasses, browse, sedges (e.g., Carex spp.) and forbs (e.g., Eriogonum spp.) in summer. (3) Presence of granite outcroppings containing minerals such as sodium, calcium, iron, and phosphorus that could be used as mineral licks in order to meet nutritional needs.

Johnson et al. (2007) used resource selection probability functions to identify important winter and summer habitat characteristics, and to generate predictive models of habitat use in unoccupied ranges. "Characteristics of topography and vegetation were significant in describing bighorn sheep winter habitat use, and only topographic characteristics were significant in describing summer habitat use. Habitat models were used to determine the amount of winter and summer range within each herd unit, the connectivity of seasonal ranges, areas at risk of contact with domestic sheep, and to simulate the effects of prescribed fire on bighorn sheep habitat."
Terrestrial Habitats
Shrubland/chaparralGrassland/herbaceousAlpineBare rock/talus/screeCliff
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
UtahSNANo
CaliforniaS2Yes
IdahoS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureRestricted (11-30%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranching
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceRestricted - smallSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6.1 - Recreational activities
6.3 - Work & other activities
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive - largeSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseases

Roadless Areas (23)
California (23)
AreaForestAcres
Buckeye RidgeHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest2,241
Coyote NorthInyo National Forest11,932
Coyote SoutheastInyo National Forest53,159
Hall Natural AreaInyo National Forest5,236
Hoover - EastHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest91
Hoover - Green Ck NoHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest7,155
Hoover - Mt.olsenHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest624
Hoover - Twin LakesHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest102
Hoover - Virginia LksHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest5,050
Horse Mdw.Inyo National Forest5,687
HortonInyo National Forest5,717
Log Cabin SaddlebagInyo National Forest15,165
Mt. OlsenInyo National Forest2,161
NessieInyo National Forest830
Nevahbe RidgeInyo National Forest302
North LakeInyo National Forest2,406
Robinson PeakHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest5,835
SherwinInyo National Forest3,140
South SierraInyo National Forest41,853
TinemahaInyo National Forest27,060
Tioga LakeInyo National Forest829
Wheeler RidgeInyo National Forest15,744
Wonoga Pk.Inyo National Forest11,272
References (12)
  1. Johnson, H., V. C. Bleich, and T. R. Stephenson. 2007. Habitat selection by mountain sheep and mule deer: a step toward understanding ecosystem health from the desert to the alpine. UC Davis Wildlife Helath Center, Department of Fish and Game Resource Assessment Program. Final report.
  2. McCullough, D. R., and E. R. Schneegas. 1966. Winter observations on the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. California Fish and Game 52:68-84.
  3. Ramey, R. R., II. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA variation, population structure, and evolution of mountain sheep in the south-western United States and Mexico. Molecular Ecology 4:429-439.
  4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Emergency rule to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of California bighorn sheep as endangered. Federal Register 64(75):19300-19309.
  5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Final rule to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the California bighorn sheep as endangered. Federal Register 65(1):20-30.
  6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Final rule to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the California Bighorn Sheep as Endangered. Federal Register 65:20-30.
  7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Recovery plan for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. USFWS, Sacramento, CA. xiv + 199 pp.
  8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) and taxonomic revision. Federal Register 73(151):45534-45604.
  9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep <i>Ovis canadensis californiana</i> (= <i>Ovis canadensis sierrae</i>) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. USFWS, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, CA.
  10. Wehausen, J. D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. Ph.D. disseration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 240 pp.
  11. Wehausen, J. D., and R. R. Ramey, II. 2000. Cranial morphometric and evolutionary relationships in the northern range of <i>Ovis canadensis</i>. Journal of Mammalogy 81:145-161.
  12. Wehausen, J. D., V. C. Bleich, and R. R. Ramey, II. 2005. Correct nomenclature for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. California Fish and Game 91(3):216-218.