DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 2 - Existing Resource Conditions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHAPTER 2 - Existing Resource Conditions DRAFT 10/22/2019 Land & Water Resource Management Plan Rock County Land Conservation Department October 2019 i DRAFT 10/22/2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The development of Rock County’s Land and Water Resource Management Plan, 2019 involved a diverse group of individuals with a wide range of expertise. Their input was critical for the plans development and will continue to be important for achieving the goals of this Plan. Rock County Land Conservation Committee Richard Bostwick, Chair Alan Sweeney, Vice Chair Stephanie Aegerter Wesley Davis Brenton Driscoll Robert Potter James Quade, USDA-FSA Rep. Jeremy Zajac Rock County Land Conservation Department Tom Sweeney, County Conservationist Norman Tadt, Senior Conservation Specialist Chris Murphy, Conservation Specialist III Anne Miller, Conservation Specialist II Duane Collins, Conservation Specialist Mary Kubiak, Clerk Typist III Advisory Work Group Richard Bostwick, Chair Alan Sweeney, Vice Chair Andrew Baker, Planning and Development Dave Rebout, Rebout Farms Bill Barlass, Barlass Jerseys Jane Metcalf, Dairy and Grain Farmer George Andrew, Andrews Maple Hill Farms Patrick Mullooly, Ag Business Representative and Grain Farmer Brian Buenzow, Pheasants Forever Dave Gundlach, NRCS Nick Baker, UWEX Tom Sweeney, LCD Anne Miller, LCD Chris Murphy, LCD Dale Gasser, DNR Lisa Trumble, DATCP Principle Contributors: Authors: Tom Sweeney, County Conservationist and Anne Miller, Conservation Specialist II i DRAFT 10/22/2019 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... i Contents ................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures, Maps, and tables .......................................................................... iii PLAN SUMMARY .................................................................................................. v CHAPTER 1 - Plan Development and Participation ........................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 - Existing Resource Conditions ....................................................... 5 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 5 Lower Rock River Basin - Surface water and groundwater ......................................................... 25 Rock River .................................................................................................................................... 26 Turtle Creek Watershed (HUC 10, 0709000214) ......................................................................... 27 Keith Creek (HUC 10, 0709000501) ............................................................................................ 31 City of Beloit – Lower Rock River (HUC 10, 0709000215) ........................................................ 33 Blackhawk Creek Watershed (HUC 10, 0709000211) ................................................................. 36 Bass Creek Watershed (HUC 10, 0709000212) ........................................................................... 39 Lake Koshkonong – Rock River (HUC 10, 0709000210) ............................................................ 42 Marsh Creek – Rock River (HUC 10, 0709000213) .................................................................... 46 Lake Kegonsa-Yahara River (HUC 10, 0709000209) .................................................................. 48 Badfish Creek (HUC 10, 0709000208) ........................................................................................ 51 Whitewater Creek (HUC 10, 0709000202) .................................................................................. 54 Sugar-Pecatonica Rivers Basin –Surface water and groundwater ................................................ 56 Sugar River ................................................................................................................................... 57 Raccoon Creek (HUC 10, 0709000315) ....................................................................................... 57 Taylor Creek – Sugar River (HUC 10, 0709000407) ................................................................... 60 Sylvester Creek – Sugar River (HUC 10, 0709000406) ............................................................... 63 Allen Creek Watershed (HUC 10, 0709000403) .......................................................................... 65 Other Natural Resources and Related Concerns ........................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 3 - Conservation Programs: Current, Future, and Past ............... 76 Current Programs .......................................................................................................................... 76 Future Programs ............................................................................................................................ 82 Past Programs................................................................................................................................ 82 CHAPTER 4 - Regulatory Requirements in Rock County ............................... 84 Local Ordinances .......................................................................................................................... 84 Policies .......................................................................................................................................... 85 NR 151 Implementation Strategy for Agricultural Performance Standards: ................................ 86 NR 151 Performance Standards Implementation Strategy - Non-Agricultural ............................ 89 ii DRAFT 10/22/2019 CHAPTER 5 - Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................... 93 CHAPTER 6 - Information and Education ......................................................... 95 CHAPTER 7 - Plan Implementation ................................................................... 97 Appendix A - Abbreviations & Glossary ........................................................... 102 Appendix B – Impaired Waters List .................................................................. 107 Appendix C – Soil Loss Summary, 2011 Transect survey ............................... 111 Appendix D – Watershed Map Used in Previous Plans .................................. 112 Appendix E – Land Use by Watershed (HUC 10) ............................................ 113 Appendix F – Agricultural Conservation Practices ......................................... 114 Appendix G - Summary of Wisconsin Runoff Pollution Abatement Rules ... 115 Appendix H – Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DNR & Rock County LCD .......................................................................................................... 116 Appendix I – Notice of Public Meeting .............................................................. 130 LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS, AND TABLES Figure 1. Population growth in Rock County, 1974 - 2018. ........................................................... 5 Figure 2. Number of farms in Rock County, 1987 – 2017. ............................................................ 6 Figure 3. Age groups of Rock County producers. ........................................................................ 6 Map 1. Physiographic regions of Rock County. ............................................................................. 7 Map 2. General soils map for Rock County. .................................................................................. 9 Map 3. Major basins and surface waters of Rock County. .......................................................... 11 Map 4. Sub-watersheds (HUC 10) and impaired waters (DNR; listing in Appendix B).............. 12 Map 5. Rock River TMDL area and sub-watersheds (DNR reach). ............................................. 15 Map 6. Wetlands in Rock County. ................................................................................................ 18 Map 7. Soil attenuation potential in Rock County. ...................................................................... 20 Map 8. Depth to groundwater and bedrock in Rock County. ....................................................... 20 Map 9. Nitrate well sampling results from 2009 - 2019. .............................................................. 22 Map 10. Turtle Creek watershed.. ................................................................................................. 28 Map 11. Turtle Creek groundwater nitrates. ................................................................................. 31 Map 12. Keith Creek watershed.................................................................................................... 32 Map 13. Keith Creek groundwater nitrates. .................................................................................. 33 Map 14. City of Beloit - Lower Rock River watershed. ............................................................... 34 Map 15. City of Beloit - Lower Rock River groundwater nitrates. .............................................. 35 Map 16. Blackhawk Creek watershed. ......................................................................................... 36 iii DRAFT 10/22/2019 Map 17. Blackhawk Creek groundwater nitrates. ......................................................................... 39 Map 18. Bass Creek watershed. .................................................................................................... 40 Map
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OLD EXETER and the SUGAR RIVER DIGGINGS by Dwayne L
    OLD EXETER AND THE SUGAR RIVER DIGGINGS by Dwayne L. Marty 1977 The original lead miners in Exeter Township were the Sac Indians. By the time of the Wisconsin lead rush of the 1820's the mines had been taken over by the Winnebagoes, but were known to them, and subsequently to some of the early white men, as the Old Sac Diggings. There were two Winnebago villages within present Green County when the first white men came. White Breast had a settlement twelve to fifteen miles south of Exeter. Spotted Arm's village was located somewhere around the place where Dayton now stands, which puts it within Exeter Township. Neither village exceeded ten houses. The Winnebagoes were sedentary and agricultural in comparison with their Sac predecessors. Spotted Arm's women worked large cornfields and gardens and gathered wild foods, such as turtle eggs. The men were hunters. The Indians didn't have much use for lead until the days of the French fur trade when they began acquiring firearms. Then it was the women who became miners. They worked the float (or surface) mineral and pockets of lead ore. Occasionally, they threw tree trunks into crevices, burned the trunk in order to heat the surrounding rock, and then poured cold water on the rock, which would crack and break loose. They also did some smelting in crude earth furnaces. Sometime in the mid-1820's, an Irishman named Burke discovered the Old Sac Diggings and thus became the first white man in Green County. When he returned to the white settlements, he spread the word, and in 1827 McNutt and Boner built a log trading post on the east line of the northeast quarter of section 34 of Exeter Township and went into business trading whiskey and trinkets for lead ore.
    [Show full text]
  • Stoughton Area Fuda
    STOUGHTON AREA FUDA Natural Resources Environmental Conditions Report | Natural Resources i Stoughton Area Future Urban Development Area Planning Study Environmental Conditions Report: Natural Resources Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Physical Geography and Surface Geology .................................................................................. 3 1. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................. 5 2. Steep Slopes and Woodlands ................................................................................................. 5 3. Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 14 a. Soils Underlain by Sandy Loam Glacial Till ........................................................................ 14 b. Soils Formed in Outwash Material.................................................................................... 15 c. Hydric Soils ........................................................................................................................ 15 d. Depth to Bedrock .............................................................................................................. 17 e. Development Site Analysis ................................................................................................ 21 f. Relative Infiltration
    [Show full text]
  • Usrwa News: June 2013
    USRWA NEWS: JUNE 2013 Coldwater Stream Management in the Upper Sugar River Watershed Text originally written by Tom Beneke, M.S. Water Resources Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison Adapted by Megan Phillips, Executive Director The Upper Sugar River Watershed (USRW) sits nestled in the Driftless Area, which is a biologically and geologically unique region on unglaciated terrain shared by Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Rolling hills, deep valleys, diverse ecosystems, and spring-fed coldwater streams are characteristic of the region. Within the USRW we are fortunate to have several designated trout streams, including the Mt. Vernon Creek State Fishery Area and sections of Deer Creek and Fryes Feeder (continue reading for a partial list of USRW trout streams and the meaning of the various types of designations). These sensitive coldwater habitats are threatened by warming surface temperatures. Last year (2012) volunteer stream monitors recorded surface temperatures at record highs (in the high 80’s/low 90’s (F)), due to the drought and high number of days that topped 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Trout rely on cold water due to their physiology, and their habitat needs to remain within a narrow temperature range to ensure that nutrient uptake does not become too costly. As temperature increases, trout must either minimize swimming effort to conserve energy or gather food resources at a faster rate to keep pace with their increased metabolism. Current climate models predict that trout will be In this Issue: most susceptible to habitat loss during the warmest months of the year - the remaining months will afford them consis- tently habitable temperatures (Lyons et al., 2010, Wiscon- Page 1, 2, 3 - Coldwater sin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts).
    [Show full text]
  • The West Branch Sugar River Year 2017 Assessment Report
    May 31, 2020 The West Branch Sugar River Year 2017 Assessment Report A Water Quality Report Prepared by the Bureau of Water Quality to West Branch Sugar River Water Restore Wisconsin’s Watersheds. Quality Monitoring Report, 2017 The Contemporary Condition of the West Branch Sugar River 15 Years After Stream Rehabilitation Dane County, WI WBIC 886100 West Branch Sugar River EGAD #3200-2018-84 Water Quality Bureau Wisconsin DNR 0 | 21 May 31, 2020 The West Branch Sugar River Year 2017 Assessment Report The Contemporary Condition of the West Branch Sugar River 15 Years After Stream Rehabilitation Dane County, WI May 2018 WBIC 886100 Project South_3_CMP17 By James Amrhein, Southern District Water Quality Biologist P a g e 1 | 21 May 31, 2020 The West Branch Sugar River Year 2017 Assessment Report Table of Contents Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Water Quality Monitoring and Planning ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Basin/Watershed Partners ...........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (G) Intergovernmental Cooperation Information
    TOWN OF VIENNA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MSA PROJECT 0120125 (G) Intergovernmental Cooperation Information 1. LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLAN COORDINATION Smart Growth Grant Joint Application (Westport, Springfield, Waunakee, Middleton) North Mendota Parkway Corridor Project (2002 – ongoing) U.S. Highway 12 Planning Project (2002) Dane County Farmland Preservation Plan (1981) Dane County Design Dane! (1998) Dane County Farmlands and Neighborhoods Plan (2000) Dane County Storm Water Management Plan and Ordinance (?) Madison Urban Area and Dane County Bicycle Transportation Plan (2000) Village of Waunakee Comprehensive Plan City of Middleton Comprehensive Plan Town of Springfield Comprehensive Plan Lower Rock River Basin Plan (DNR) (1998) Lower Rock River Water Quality Management Plan (DNR) (2001) • Lake Mendota-Yahara River Watershed Plan (DNR) • Six-Mile Creek and Pheasant Branch Watershed Plan (DNR) District 1 Six-Year Construction Project Plan (WisDOT) Dane County 10-Year Capital Projects Plan (2002) Town of Vienna Comprehensive Plan (1999) 2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS, AGREEMENTS AND RELATIONSHIPS There are several areas of intergovernmental cooperation between the Town of Vienna and its neighbors: • The Village of DeForest exercises extraterritorial zoning authority over the commercial development area near the I39/90/94 interchange, and jointly reviews development projects within the Town portion of this area through the ETZ committee. • The Town of Vienna provides water and sanitary services to its urban service areas through cooperation with the Village of DeForest. • There are informal growth management agreements with the Village of DeForest regarding annexation. • There are no agreements in place with either the Village of Waunakee or the Village of Dane. • The Town often works cooperatively with special districts such as the Waunakee and DeForest Public Libraries, as well as the Waunakee, DeForest, Poynette, and Lodi School Districts.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Yahara Chain of Lakes Flooding Technical Work Group Report
    2018 Yahara Chain of Lakes Flooding Technical Work Group Report Photo of flooding in Tenney Park with Lake Mendota in the background. Courtesy of Rick Lange (Dane County Sheriff Office) performing drone footage of flooding in August 2018. February 1, 2019 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 The Yahara Lakes and Flooding .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 2018 Water Levels and Management ................................................................................................ 7 3.0 Technical Approach ................................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 INFOS Framework .............................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 INFOS Model Performance .............................................................................................................. 10 3.2.1 Comparison between Modeled and Observed Lake Levels ...................................................... 10 3.2.2 Comparison between Modeled and Observed River Water Surface Profiles ........................... 11 3.2.3 Comparison between Modeled
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Watershed Assessment Sugar River Watershed Wisconsin Illinois
    SUGAR RIVER WATERSHED (WI) HUC: 07090003 Wisconsin Illinois Rapid Watershed Assessment Sugar River Watershed Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help landowners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. Wisconsin June 2008 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. SUGAR RIVER WATERSHED (WI) HUC: 07090003 Contents INTRODUCTION 1 ASSESSMENT OF WATERS 5 SOILS 6 DRAINAGE CLASSIFICATION 7 FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION 8 HYDRIC SOILS 9 LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION 10 RESOURCE CONCERNS 11 PRS PERFORMANCE MEASURES 11 CENSUS AND SOCIAL DATA (RELEVANT) 12 POPULATION ETHNICITY 13 URBAN POPULATION 13 ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES 14 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT 15 WATERSHED PROJECTS, STUDIES, MONITORING, ETC. 15 FOOTNOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY 17 SUGAR RIVER WATERSHED (WI) HUC: 07090003 1. INTRODUCTION The Sugar River watershed encompasses nearly 487,000 acres in south central Wisconsin and a small area of north central Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Dane County, Wisconsin
    Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Dane County, Wisconsin GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1779-U Prepared in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Dane County, Wisconsin By DENZEL R. CLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPEF 1779-U Prepared in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after index. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract____-_.___.___._____.___..__.__.._.. _ Ul Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 Description of the area_________________________________________ 2 Physiography _____________________________________________ 3 Climate __________________________________________________ 4 Previous investigations._______-__--________-_-___---__-__---___ 5 Numbering system.__________________________________________ 5 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 5 Geology._________________________________________________________ 7 Bedrock units and their water-yielding characteristics ______________ 11 Precambrian
    [Show full text]
  • Yahara Waterways Water Trail Guide – 2007 a Guide to the Environmental, Cultural and Historical Treasures of the Yahara Waterways
    Yahara Waterways Water Trail Guide – 2007 A guide to the environmental, cultural and historical treasures of the Yahara waterways. Land Shaped by the Glaciers For centuries waterways have been usable long-distance “trails and highways” prior to other forms of transportation. They played a key role in the exploration and settlement of North America. Early European settlers and Native Americans used the area for fishing, hunting and transpor- The Yahara Watershed in Dane County tation. Mail at one time was delivered by (showing sub-watersheds) boat on the Yahara Lakes. Now only some Yahara River & Lake Mendota of our major rivers are being used for Six Mile & Pheasant Branch Dane Creeks commercial transportation as railroads, Lake County Mendota Lake Lake Monona highways and air transportation carry Wingra Yahara River & Lake Monona Lake Waubesa Yahara River & Lake Kegonsa the majority of commercial traffic. The Lake Kegonsa waterway trails described within are for recreation, giving you a chance to enjoy the local blueways (paddling trails) and explore the vast array of wildlife, commune with nature, and learn about our area’s rich cultural heritage. The Yahara Watershed, or land area that drains into the Yahara River and lakes, covers 359 square miles, more than a quarter of Dane County. Much of the wa- tershed is farmed; however, the watershed also contains most of the urban land of the Madison metropolitan area. In addition, the Yahara Watershed includes Lake Wingra Yahara Waterways – Water Trail Guide 3 some of the largest wetlands that are left in Dane County. The lakes’ watershed includes all or parts of five cities, seven villages and sixteen towns, and is home to about 350,000 people.
    [Show full text]
  • Yahara Kegonsa Focus Watershed Report PUBL-WT-711 2001
    Yahara Kegonsa Focus Watershed Report PUBL-WT-711 2001 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2001 Comprehensive Plan for the Yahara River/Lake Kegonsa Watershed: LR06 i GOVERNOR Scott McCallum NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD Trygve A. Solberg, Chair James E. Tiefenthaler, Jr., Vice-Chair Gerald M. O'Brien, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Howard D. Poulson Catherine L. Stepp Stephen D. Willett Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Darrell Bazzell, Secretary Franc Fennessy, Executive Assistant Steve Miller, Administrator Division of Land Susan L. Sylvester, Administrator Division of Water Ruthe E. Badger, Director South Central Regional Office Marjorie R. Devereaux, Water Leader _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2001 Comprehensive Plan for the Yahara River/Lake Kegonsa Watershed: LR06 ii South Central Region Headquarters 3911 Fish Hatchery Road Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711 608-275-3266 Fax: 608-275-3338 TDD: 608-275-3231 Susan J. Oshman, Land Leader Ken Johnson, Lower Rock Basin Water Team Leader Tim Galvin, Rock Basin Land Team Leader Scott McCallum, Governor Darrell Bazzell, Secretary Ruthe E. Badger, Regional Director Subject: Yahara Kegonsa Focus Watershed Report Dear Reader: This Yahara Kegonsa Focus Watershed Report is an appendix to the Rock River State of the Basin report, an "umbrella" report that will provide a broad perspective the resources of the entire Rock River Basin. The Yahara-Kegonsa Watershed Report provides detailed information about water and land resource conditions and emerging threats to these resources and a strategic direction for managing those issues. This focus watershed report is a starting point in our work to find out more about the rich land and water resources and to articulate a management approach that effectively merges citizen perception of issues with scientific understanding of resource condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Pecatonica River Water Quality Monitoring Report of Non-Wadable Waters, 2015]
    PUBLICMay 31, 2020 REVIEW [PECATONICA DRAFT RIVER WAT– FORER QUALITY PUBLIC MONITORIN COMMENTG REPORT OF NON -WADABLE WATERS, 2015] The Pecatonic a River Targeted A Water Quality Water Quality Assessment of Monitoring Report by the Bureau of Water Quality Non-wadable Waters to Restore and Protect Wisconsin’s Waters. Lafayette and Green Counties WBICs = 889100 and 897800 By James Amrhein and Michael Sorge Southern District, Wisconsin DNR February, 2016 EGAD # 3200-2015-36 Water Quality Bureau Wisconsin DNR Pecatonica River at HWY, 2015. Photo by James Amrhein, Southern District Water Quality Biologist, DNR. Page 1 | 23 May 31, 2020 [PECATONICA RIVER WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT OF NON-WADABLE WATERS, 2015] Table of Contents Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Water Quality Monitoring and Planning ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Basin/Watershed Partners ...........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Native American People in the Lower Sugar River Valley: 12,000 Years Ago to the Present
    1 NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE LOWER SUGAR RIVER VALLEY: 12,000 YEARS AGO TO THE PRESENT INTRODUCTION Native American history in the Lower Sugar River Valley (hereinafter referred to as “the valley”) spans nearly 12 millennia from the end of the Pleistocene to the present day. The great story of these people is visible across our landscape in the form of ancient village sites, winter rock shelters, and ancestral burial mounds on prominent bluff tops (Fig. 1, 2 and 3). Additional insights into how these people lived can be seen in the oral traditions and ceremonies of contemporary Native American people. This rich historical record is a palimpsest that allows us to examine and learn from cultures who occupied the area for thousands of years prior to the arrival of the first Europeans. Within this saga are stories of cultures who lived in relative peace and successfully managed their environment meticulously well for centuries, countered by other examples of groups failing under the stress of population pressure, resource depletion, and warfare. The challenges and issues faced by these cultures would be very familiar to us today. We can understand and learn from their experience or ignore it at our peril. If we choose the former, it is important for us to preserve, understand, and respect these places of past endeavor, for by doing so we may well create a foundation for solving some of our contemporary global difficulties. An excellent way to approach an understanding of past environments and the way humans interacted with and altered their surroundings over time is through a close examination of the archaeological remains on the landscape.
    [Show full text]