DOCSLIB.ORG

Bald and Golden Eagles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bald and Golden Eagles U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bald and Golden Eagles – 2016 Status Report Eagles Golden and Bald Bald and Golden Eagles Population Demographics and Estimation of Sustainable Take in the United States, 2016 update ii Bald and Golden Eagles Population demographics and estimation of sustainable take in the United States, 2016 update April 26, 2016 Authors Brian A. Millsap, Emily R. Bjerre, Mark C. Otto, Guthrie S. Zimmerman, and Nathan L. Zimpfer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management Disclaimer: The information in this report is intended to aid in the development of regulations and inform eagle management decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The recommendations and findings in the report do not constitute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, but they will be considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it sets eagle management policies. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Bald and Golden Eagles: Population demographics and estimation of sustainable take in the United States, 2016 update. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington D.C., USA. iii Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge contributions of data from tagged golden eagles by Bryan Bedrosian, Pete Bloom, James Cain, Ross Crandall, Robert Domenech, Daniel Driscoll, Jamey Driscoll, Mark Fuller, Rick Gerhardt, Al Harmata, Todd Katzner, Robert Knight, Craig Koppie, Brian Latta, Mike Lockhart, Mark Martell, Carol McIntyre, Libby Mojica, Robert Murphy, Gary Roemer, Steve Slater, Jeff Smith, Dale Stahlecker, Brian Washburn, and Jim Watson. Andrew Dennhardt provided additional information on eastern U.S. golden eagle population estimates. Bruce Peterjohn and Danny Bystrak with the U.S. Geologic al Survey Bird Banding Lab helpfully provided banding data. The analyses and report greatly benefited from reviews and assistance provided by members of the Service’s Eagle Technical Assessment Team, and we are especially grateful for a thorough review by Todd Katzner. Analyses of the bald eagle post-delisting survey data were improved by input from John Sauer and William Link, and population models and harvest analyses were improved by suggestions and input from Michael Runge, John Sauer, and Leslie New. Gabriela Chavarria (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Science Applications) was instrumental in funding a significant portion of the on-going PTT-tagging study for golden eagles. We appreciated comments on an earlier draft by Leon Kolankiewicz, and Eliza Savage. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the senior author. iv Executive Summary In June 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announced its intent to consider several revisions to regulations at 50 CFR, part 22 that pertain to permits to take bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden (Aquila chrysaetos) eagles. The Service is preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the potential effects of the revised regulations on eagle population status. The PEIS will analyze alternatives that include both conservative and liberal take rates for both species, consistent with the overall management objective of maintaining stable or increasing populations relative to estimated population levels in 2009. The liberal alternatives will use take rates estimated from the median values for relevant parameters (e.g., population size, growth rates), and the conservative alternatives will use the 20th quantile values of parameter estimates. The alternatives will also consider different configurations of eagle management units (EMUs): (1) the current EMUs, which are Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) for golden eagles, and approximately Service regional boundaries for bald eagles based on nest densities; and (2) the four administrative migratory bird flyways (i.e., Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific). To inform the evaluation of the PEIS alternatives, a subgroup of the Service’s Eagle Technical Assessment Team compiled recent information on population size and trend of both species of eagle, generated estimates of recent survival and fecundity rates, and used these data in models to predict future population trends and the ability of each species to withstand additional mortality in the form of permitted take. This document summarizes the findings from those analyses. The team (hereafter we) estimated population size for the bald eagle in the coterminous United States (U.S.) using a population model in conjunction with estimates of the number of occupied nesting territories (representing the number of breeding pairs) in 2009 from a comprehensive dual-frame aerial survey. That population size estimate combined with a previous estimate of population size for Alaska was 143,000 (20th quantile = 126,000) bald eagles for the entire U.S. in 2009. This represents an increase in population size since 2007 in the coterminous U.S. (the year the final rule for delisting under the Endangered Species Act was published). We attribute the difference to improved survey and estimation efforts, as well as increases in bald eagle numbers. Consistent with the population model, independent Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indices indicated bald eagles are continuing to increase over much of the U.S. We used a potential biological removal model to estimate sustainable take rates and limits with the goal of maintaining at least the 2009 population level, and concluded that under the liberal alternative bald eagles over most of the country can support an annual take rate of 8% (20th quantile = 6% under the conservative alternative). The exceptions are the Southwestern U.S., where population growth potential is lower, and Alaska, where limited survey information led managers to select a lower management objective factor; there, the sustainable take rates are 4.5% (20th quantile = 3.8%) and less than 1%, respectively. Nationally, the annual bald eagle take limit with these rates would be approximately 6,300 eagles under the liberal alternative and 4,200 eagles under the conservative alternative. We estimated population size for the golden eagle by first estimating a population size for the western coterminous U.S. using a composite model that integrated multi-year information from a late summer aerial transect survey over the interior western U.S. with information from the BBS. Population size for Alaska could not be estimated directly. Instead, we used results from mid-winter aerial transect surveys in 2014 and 2015 over the same area as the interior western U.S. summer transect survey to estimate the increase in population size between late summer and winter. The increase was used as a coarse estimate of the size of the overwintering migrant population. We allocated 24% of the winter increase to Alaska as a conservative population estimate, assuming migrants originated proportionately across western Canada and v Alaska. A population size estimate for eastern North America was available from the literature. Combining the western coterminous U.S., Alaska, and eastern U.S. estimates, total population size for the golden eagle in the U.S. (including Alaska) was approximately 39,000 (20th quantile = 34,000) in 2009 and 40,000 (20th quantile = 34,000) in 2014. The population trend estimate from the composite model was stable, but an estimate from a population model similar to that used for the bald eagle suggested the population in the coterminous western U.S. might be declining towards a lower equilibrium size. Thus, taking into account the uncertainty, the available data for golden eagles are somewhat equivocal, with count data suggesting a stable population but with demographic data forecasting a slight decline. We used banding data obtained from the United States Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab from 1968–2014 to estimate contemporary age-specific survival rates. We also used a data set of unbiased cause-of­ mortality information for a sample of 386 satellite-tagged golden eagles from 1997–2013 to estimate the effect of current levels of anthropogenic mortality on those survival rates. Anthropogenic factors were responsible for about 56% of satellite-tagged golden eagle mortality, but rates of anthropogenic mortality varied among age-classes, ranging from 34% for first-year eagles to 63% for adults. We estimated the maximum rate of population growth for the golden eagle in the U.S. in the absence of existing anthropogenic mortality was 10.9% (20th quantile = 9.7%). Sustainable take under these conditions is close to 2,000 individuals (20th quantile = 1,600). However, available information suggests ongoing levels of human-caused mortality likely exceed this value, perhaps considerably. Thus, the data from satellite tags lends further support to the suggestion from the demographic models that current survival rates may be leading to a decline in population size. The Service also has a need to apply take values to nest disturbance and loss. We updated metrics for converting take via nest disturbance and nesting territory loss to debits from the EMU take limits for bald and golden eagles. The current policy is that for each instance of authorized take through disturbance in each year the nest is disturbed, the Service reduces EMU take limits by the median number of young that would have been expected to fledge from the disturbed territory. The updated median productivity values are 1.12 for the bald eagle (0.73 in the Southwest region only), and 0.54 for the golden eagle. By carrying forward the above debits from the EMU take limits for a period of years equal to the species or population-specific generation time (10 years for the bald eagle—12 years in the Southwest, and 11 years for the golden eagle), we also calculated a take value for nesting territory loss (i.e., the territory becomes permanently vacant). In addition to setting EMU take limits, the Service has established local-area population (LAP) thresholds for permitted take when authorized take in a local area might have long-term negative consequences at that scale.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative
    2021 GRANT SLATE Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative NFWF CONTACTS Bridget Collins Senior Manager, Private Lands and Bird Conservation, [email protected] 202-297-6759 Scott Hall Senior Scientist, Bird Conservation [email protected] 202-595-2422 PARTNERS Red knots ABOUT NFWF Chartered by Congress in 1984, OVERVIEW the National Fish and Wildlife The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Foundation (NFWF) protects and Southern Company announce a fourth year of funding for the Atlantic Flyway Shorebird restores the nation’s fish, wildlife, program. Six new or continuing shorebird conservation grants totaling nearly $625,000 plants and habitats. Working with were awarded. These six awards generated $656,665 in match from grantees, for a total federal, corporate and individual conservation impact of $1.28 million. Overall, this slate of projects will improve habitat partners, NFWF has funded more management on more than 50,000 acres, conduct outreach to more than 100,000 people, than 5,000 organizations and and will complete a groundbreaking, science-based toolkit to help managers successfully generated a total conservation reduce human disturbance of shorebirds year-round. impact of $6.1 billion. The Atlantic Flyway Shorebirds program aims to increase populations for three focal Learn more at www.nfwf.org species by improving habitat functionality and condition at critical sites, supporting the species’ full annual lifecycles. The Atlantic Flyway Shorebird business plan outlines NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS strategies to address key stressors for the American oystercatcher, red knot and whimbrel. 1133 15th Street, NW Suite 1000 approaches to address habitat loss, predation, and human disturbance.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of New England Forested Land Cover, Nutrient-Poor Frigid and Cryic Soils (Mostly Spodosols), and Numerous High-Gradient Streams and Glacial Lakes
    58. Northeastern Highlands The Northeastern Highlands ecoregion covers most of the northern and mountainous parts of New England as well as the Adirondacks in New York. It is a relatively sparsely populated region compared to adjacent regions, and is characterized by hills and mountains, a mostly Ecoregions of New England forested land cover, nutrient-poor frigid and cryic soils (mostly Spodosols), and numerous high-gradient streams and glacial lakes. Forest vegetation is somewhat transitional between the boreal regions to the north in Canada and the broadleaf deciduous forests to the south. Typical forest types include northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch), northern hardwoods/spruce, and northeastern spruce-fir forests. Recreation, tourism, and forestry are primary land uses. Farm-to-forest conversion began in the 19th century and continues today. In spite of this trend, Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and 5 level III ecoregions and 40 level IV ecoregions in the New England states and many Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America – toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. alluvial valleys, glacial lake basins, and areas of limestone-derived soils are still farmed for dairy products, forage crops, apples, and potatoes. In addition to the timber industry, recreational homes and associated lodging and services sustain the forested regions economically, but quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states or provinces. they also create development pressure that threatens to change the pastoral character of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
    92° 91° 90° 89° 88° Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cape Girardeau 73cc 72 io Ri Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts revisions and Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Oh ver environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map Barbara A. Kleiss (USACE, ERDC -Waterways Experiment Station), James M. ILLINOIS assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing 2003, Omernik, 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between USEPA Region Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, Omernik, (USEPA, retired), Thomas L. Foti (Arkansas Natural Heritage p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 71 the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the VII, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H., and Commission), and Elizabeth O. Murray (Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Planning Team). 37° environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila Heliaca) in the European Part of Turkey
    ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA Acta zool. bulg., Suppl. 3, 2011: 87-93 Status of the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) in the European part of Turkey Dimitar A. Demerdzhiev1, Stoycho A. Stoychev2, Nikolay G. Terziev2, and Ivaylo D. Angelov2 1 31 Bulgaria Blv�., 4230 Asenovgra�, Bulgaria; E�mails: �emer�jiev@yahoo.�om; �_�emer�[email protected]; w��.bspb.org 2 Haskovo 6300, P.O.Box 130, Bulgaria; E�mails: stoy�hev.s@gmail.�om; w��.bspb.org; [email protected]; ivailoange� [email protected]; w��.bspb.org Abstract: This arti�le presents the results of the �rst more �etaile� stu�ying on the �istribution an� numbers of the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Аquila heliaca SA V I G NY 1809) population in the European part of Turkey. T�enty territories o��upie� by Imperial Eagle pairs, �istribute� in three �ifferent regions �ere �is�overe� �uring the perio� 2008�2009. The bree�ing population was estimate� at 30�50 pairs. The stu�y i�enti�e� t�o main habitat types typi�al of the Imperial Eagles in European Turkey – open hilly areas an� lo� mountain areas (up to 450 m a.s.l.) an� lo� relief plain areas (50�150 m a.s.l.). Poplar trees (Populus sp. L) were i�enti�e� as the most preferre� nesting substratum (44%), follo�e� by Oaks (Quercus sp. L) (40%). Bree�ing �ensity �as 1 pair/100 km2 in both habitat types. The shortest �istan�e bet�een t�o bree�ing pairs �as 5.8 km re�or�e� in plain areas in the Thra�e region.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila Heliaca in Bulgaria Between
    Chancellor, R. D. & B.-U. Meyburg eds. 2004 Raptors Worldwide WWGBP/MME Status of the Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca in Bulgaria between 1994 and 2002 Stoycho Stoychev, Ivelin Ivanov, Tzeno Petrov, Simeon Marin5Dimitar Demerdzhiev, Gradimir Gradev and Dobromir Domuschiev ABSTRACT In Bulgaria between the years 1994 to 2002, research, monitoring and conservation activities on the Eastern Imperial Eagle significantly increased. The total Bulgarian population is estimated to be between 20 to 25 pairs. Fifteen nest sites were discovered. Most of the areas important for breeding are located along the border with Turkey in the Sakar Mountains (7 nests) and Strandja mountains -Dervent Heights (5 nests). The majority of the territories (86%) are located in areas of elevation between 150 and 400m. Seventy-six percent of the nests discovered were in poplar trees. During the nine years of study, almost 65% of the breeding attempts surveyed were successful. The mean breeding success was one young per occupied nest and 1.54 chicks per successful nest. However, during the years 1998-2000, which coincided with an increase in the number of monitored nests, the breeding success was between 0.83 and 0.91 fledglings per occupied nest. The adult birds were mainly sedentary, spending the winter in the breeding territories. Three wintering and temporary settlement areas important for immature birds were identified. The main threats to Imperial Eagles in Bulgaria are: disturbance, cutting of poplar trees and abandonment of pastures INTRODUCTION At the end of the 19th century, Imperial Eagles Aquila heliaca were widespread throughout Bulgaria. Leverkuhn (after Boev 1978) reported 1,824 nests.
    [Show full text]
  • Memo Provided By: Globaledge.Msu.Edu and EXPORT.GOV
    Cyprus Introduction Key Economic Facts Risk Assessment (Provided by Coface) Cyprus is an island country in the Middle East in the Eastern Income Level (by per capita High Income Country rating: A4 - A somewhat shaky political and Mediterranean Sea. Nearby countries include Turkey, Syria, GNI): economic outlook and a relatively volatile business and Lebanon. Geographically, Cyprus is a central plain with Level of Development: Developed environment can affect corporate payment behavior. mountains to the north and south. The GDP, PPP (current international $36.95 billion (2019) government system is a republic; the chief $): Corporate default probability is still acceptable on average. of state and head of government is the GDP growth (annual %): 3.08% (2019) Business Climate rating: A3 - The business environment president. Cyprus has a market economy GDP per capita, PPP (current $41,254.40 (2019) is relatively good. Although not always available, corporate system in which the prices of goods and international $): financial information is usually reliable. Debt collection and services are determined in a free price system. Cyprus is a Manufacturing, value added (% 5.38% (2019) the institutional framework may have some shortcomings. member of the European Union (EU). of GDP): Current account balance (BoP, -$1.65 billion (2019) Intercompany transactions may run into occasional current US$): difficulties in the otherwise secure environments rated A3. Inflation, consumer prices 0.25% (2019) Strengths (annual %): • Central geographical location
    [Show full text]
  • Harvest Distribution and Derivation of Atlantic Flyway Canada Geese
    Articles Harvest Distribution and Derivation of Atlantic Flyway Canada Geese Jon D. Klimstra,* Paul I. Padding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, Maryland 20708 Abstract Harvest management of Canada geese Branta canadensis is complicated by the fact that temperate- and subarctic- breeding geese occur in many of the same areas during fall and winter hunting seasons. These populations cannot readily be distinguished, thereby complicating efforts to estimate population-specific harvest and evaluate harvest strategies. In the Atlantic Flyway, annual banding and population monitoring programs are in place for subarctic- breeding (North Atlantic Population, Southern James Bay Population, and Atlantic Population) and temperate- breeding (Atlantic Flyway Resident Population [AFRP]) Canada geese. We used a combination of direct band recoveries and estimated population sizes to determine the distribution and derivation of the harvest of those four populations during the 2004–2005 through 2008–2009 hunting seasons. Most AFRP geese were harvested during the special September season (42%) and regular season (54%) and were primarily taken in the state or province in which they were banded. Nearly all of the special season harvest was AFRP birds: 98% during September seasons and 89% during late seasons. The regular season harvest in Atlantic Flyway states was also primarily AFRP geese (62%), followed in importance by the Atlantic Population (33%). In contrast, harvest in eastern Canada consisted mainly of subarctic geese (42% Atlantic Population, 17% North Atlantic Population, and 6% Southern James Bay Population), with temperate- breeding geese making up the rest. Spring and summer harvest was difficult to characterize because band reporting rates for subsistence hunters are poorly understood; consequently, we were unable to determine the magnitude of subsistence harvest definitively.
    [Show full text]
  • Age Ratios and Their Possible Use in Determining Autumn Routes of Passerine Migrants
    Wilson Bull., 93(2), 1981, pp. 164-188 AGE RATIOS AND THEIR POSSIBLE USE IN DETERMINING AUTUMN ROUTES OF PASSERINE MIGRANTS C.JOHN RALPH A principal interest of early students of passerine migration was the determination of direction, location and width of migratory routes. In such studies, it was presumed that an area where the species was most abun- dant was the main migration route. However, during fall, passerine mi- grants tend to be silent and inconspicuous, rendering censusing subjective at best. Species also differ in preferred habitat, affecting the results of censuses and the number captured by mist netting. In this study, I used the abundance of migrants with another possible criterion, their age ratios, in order to hypothesize possible migratory routes. Based upon information about species abundance in different areas, a lively debate sprang up in the past between a school favoring narrow routes and one advocating broad front migration. The former suggested that birds followed topographical features (“leading lines”) such as river valleys, coast lines and mountain ranges (Baird 1866, Palmen 1876, Winkenwer- der 1902, Clark 1912, Schenk 1922). The latter group proposed that a species migrated over a broad geographical area regardless of topograph- ical features (Gatke 1895; Cooke 1904, 1905; Geyr von Schweppenburg 1917, 1924; Moreau 1927). Thompson (1926) and later Lincoln (1935), sug- gested that both schools were probably right, depending upon the species involved. Early ornithologists were possibly misled because of the differ- ences between easily observable (and often narrow front), diurnal migra- tion and less obvious, but probably more common, nocturnal movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Grasslands
    LONG ISLAND SOUND HABITAT RESTORATION INITIATIVE SECTION 4: COASTAL GRASSLANDS Technical Support for Coastal Habitat Restoration SECTION 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS COASTAL GRASSLANDS ..........................................................4-1 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 4-1 Maritime Grasses..............................................................................................4-1 Sand Plains ......................................................................................................4-1 Hempstead Plains ............................................................................................4-2 Old Field Grasslands ........................................................................................4-3 VALUES AND FUNCTIONS ........................................................................... 4-3 STATUS AND TRENDS ................................................................................. 4-4 DEGRADED GRASSLANDS AND RESTORATION METHODS.............................. 4-6 SPECIFIC RESTORATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 4-7 RESTORATION SUCCESS AND MONITORING................................................. 4-8 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 4-9 LIST OF FIGURES SECTION 4 FIGURE 4-1. Newly Seeded Little Bluestem .......................................................4-1 FIGURE 4-2. Farm Field with Common Reed, Shrubs, and Invasive
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Species Assessment (PDF)
    WATERFOWL ASSESSMENT January 19, 2005 FINAL Andrew Weik Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Wildlife Division Wildlife Resource Assessment Section 650 State Street Bangor, Maine 04401 WATERFOWL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 10 NATURAL HISTORY..................................................................................................... 12 Taxonomy........................................................................................................... 12 Life History.......................................................................................................... 12 Breeding Ecology ............................................................................................... 13 Wintering and Migration...................................................................................... 16 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 18 Regulatory Authority ........................................................................................... 18 Past Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 18 Past and Current Management........................................................................... 22 Harvest Management ......................................................................................... 25 • Unretrieved Kill or Crippling Loss............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Conservation Business Strategy a Call to Action Phase 1
    atlantic flyway shorebird conservation business strategy A Call To Action Phase 1 June 2013 table of contents summary Summary .......................................................................... 1 The Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Conservation Business Strategy is an What is a Business Strategy? ......................................... 2 unprecedented endeavor to implement conservation for shorebirds across an Conservation Need ......................................................... 4 enormous geographic scale that involves numerous federal, state, provincial, A Flyway Approach ......................................................... 5 and local governments, conservation groups, universities, and individuals. The Focal Species .................................................................... 6 business strategy approach emphasizes the involvement of scientists, advocates, Focal Geography ............................................................. 7 funders, and other practitioners all working together for prioritized on-the- Implementing Tactical Conservation ........................... 8 ground actions that move toward specific, measurable outcomes. In short, Key Strategies ................................................................ 10 this strategy presents the needs, actions, and individuals that will recover this remarkable suite of species. Hemispheric Engagement: A Phased Approach ...... 12 Threats ............................................................................ 13 The conservation needs of these species
    [Show full text]
  • The Physical Features of Europe 6Th Grade World Studies LABEL the FOLLOWING FEATURES on the MAP
    The Physical Features of Europe 6th Grade World Studies LABEL THE FOLLOWING FEATURES ON THE MAP: Danube River Rhine River English Channel Physical Mediterranean Sea Features European Plain Alps Pyrenees Ural Mountains Iberian Peninsula Scandinavian Peninsula Danube River . The Danube is Europe's second-longest river, after the Volga River. It is located in Central and Eastern Europe. Rhine River . Begins in the Swiss canton of Graubünden in the southeastern Swiss Alps then flows through the Rhineland and eventually empties into the North Sea in the Netherlands. English Channel . The English Channel, also called simply the Channel, is the body of water that separates southern England from northern France, and links the southern part of the North Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Mediterranean Sea . The Mediterranean Sea is a sea connected to the Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by the Mediterranean Basin and almost completely enclosed by land: on the north by Southern Europe and Anatolia, on the south by North Africa, and on the east by the Levant. European Plain . The European Plain or Great European Plain is a plain in Europe and is a major feature of one of four major topographical units of Europe - the Central and Interior Lowlands. Alps . The Alps are the highest and most extensive mountain range system that lies entirely in Europe Pyrenees . The Pyrenees mountain range separates the Iberian Peninsula from the rest of Europe. Ural Mountains . The Ural Mountains, or simply the Urals, are a mountain range that runs approximately from north to south through western Russia, from the coast of the Arctic Ocean to the Ural River and northwestern Kazakhstan.
    [Show full text]