DOCSLIB.ORG

Stoughton Area Fuda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................................ 21 B. Surface Water ........................................................................................................................... 23 1. Watersheds and Drainage..................................................................................................... 24 a. Floodplains ........................................................................................................................ 25 b. Internally Drained Areas ................................................................................................... 27 a. Designated Uses ................................................................................................................ 30 b. Current and Attainable Uses ............................................................................................. 34 c. Stream Restoration ........................................................................................................... 38 3. Surface Water Features ........................................................................................................ 42 a. The Yahara Chain of Lakes ................................................................................................ 43 c. Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 60 C. Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 74 1. Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................ 84 2. Groundwater Quantity .......................................................................................................... 87 a. Pumping and Diversion ..................................................................................................... 87 b. Groundwater Recharge Loss ............................................................................................. 88 c. Relative Infiltration ............................................................................................................ 89 D. Open Space Corridors ............................................................................................................... 95 E. Endangered Resources ............................................................................................................ 101 F. Wildlife Resources and Biodiversity ........................................................................................ 108 G. Parks and Open Space ............................................................................................................ 118 H. Natural Resource Impacts from Urban Development ............................................................ 122 1. Hydrologic Impacts (Water Quantity and Quality) ............................................................. 122 2. Habitat Loss and Landscape Connectivity ........................................................................... 127 I. Urban Development Strategies to Maintain and Improve Natural Resource Integrity .......... 135 ii Stoughton Area FUDA Study | February 2014 Introduction This chapter of the Environmental Conditions Report has three main purposes: 1. Provide a natural resource inventory and assessment based on local and regional considerations. 2. Outline considerations for land use planning and decision-making that protect and enhance the integrity of natural areas, both locally and regionally. 3. Outline opportunities for incorporating environmental features in local urban design to enhance the quality of life of local residents and to reduce costs for maintenance and infrastructure locally and regionally. Conserving and restoring regionally important natural resources contributes to a healthy natural environment and makes the region a desirable place to live and work. Conserving and restoring local natural resources improves the quality of life of residents and enhances beauty of our cities and villages. Connecting these regional and local features within environmental corridors helps protect water quality, sustain wildlife and plant habitat, and provides valuable opportunities for recreation and education. Assessing this natural resources information along with agricultural, economic, and community information, provides the foundation for local communities to evaluate where development should be encouraged, where resources should be protected, and where both can occur together and in harmony. The present condition of the region’s natural resources is dramatically different from pre-European settlement times and continues to be altered for agriculture and urban development. Agricultural land use dominates where prairies and scattered oak savanna once flourished. Many wetland acres that once filled the river bottoms and other low lying areas were ditched and drained. Stream channels were dredged and straightened. Development increased as populations in cities and villages and scattered rural communities grew, often with little regard for the natural surroundings. Natural communities and ecological systems were fragmented. Urban development in the 19th and much of the 20th centuries was accompanied by uncontrolled runoff from streets and parking lots, and erosion from construction sites and stream banks added sediment and pollutants and degraded water quality and wildlife habitat. With thoughtful planning, development and management practices these resources can be protected from such impacts, and degraded resources can be restored and enhanced. Impacts from development are, for most individual sites, relatively small. Environmental Conditions Report | Natural Resources 1 When considered on a regional basis, however, their cumulative impact can result in substantial consequences. To manage these impacts effectively, it is critical to understand them on a regional basis, and collectively address them at the individual site level. In the end, the site level is where the physical changes to the environment are being made and mitigation measures are easier to implement. Many communities across the U.S. are discovering that a natural resource- based development strategy is a much better alternative to conventional urban design and development, where traditionally less attention has been focused on the environment. The primary objective is relatively straight forward. The quality of our natural environment and the associated resource functions and values should be maintained and, where possible, enhanced. This dovetails with a host of related growth and development strategies related to infrastructure planning, community development, agriculture, and open space. A resource-based development approach has several characteristics: 1. Tangible, measurable, and readily understood by the participants in the local development review process. 2. Directly linked to the local development review process by making natural resources protection a priority during all stages of the development process – from the conception of how the landscape is to be altered, through the planning, design, and construction of individual projects, to the maintenance of the necessary infrastructure such as stormwater management facilities after it is completed. Each step of the development process should only proceed when it can be reliably determined that the impacts of the development will be mitigated or minimized. 3. Clear and practical management approaches towards local development by explicitly directing development away from environmentally sensitive areas along with other necessary protections and safeguards. A resource-based strategy should streamline the local review process, reduce administrative burdens on local government, and be fully responsive to the needs of the development community for clear direction, timely review,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (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]
  • 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]
  • The Waters of Dane County Yahara Lakes History & Setting
    The Waters of Dane County Dane County is blessed with 69 named lakes, and more than 400 miles of streams and rivers including 14 miles of the Wisconsin River. The total surface water coverage in Dane County is more than 23,000 acres, or 36 square miles. Dane County is also home to 52,000 acres of wetlands. These waters are part of what make this area so special. Water-related recreation activities contribute substantially to the region's economy, with lake users spending an average of $15.00 -$22.00 on each outing for fuel and supplies alone, according to a 1995 study. In 2011 Dane County brought in $893.7 million in tourist dollars. (7/5/2012 Waunakee Tribune “Study finds tourism thrives in Wisconsin”) Water resources contribute to business, industry and agriculture as well. We use 42 million gallons of water a day for business and personal purposes. The Dane County State of the Waters Report (follow link above) is a convenient single reference for those seeking in-depth information about area waters and watersheds. Yahara Lakes History & Setting The Yahara River lakes - Mendota, Monona, Waubesa and Kegonsa - are important in providing scenic beauty and swimming, boating and fishing opportunities to area residents and visitors. As a result, the lakes are highly valued physical resources and an integral part of the quality of life the Dane County residents enjoy. The lakes were formed about 10,000 years ago when the last glacier deposited a thick layer of glacial till (unsorted sediment) over the landscape and dammed up the large pre-glacial Yahara River Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Yahara Waterways – Water Trail Guide  Some of the Largest Wetlands That Are Left in Dane County
    This guide is based on Taychopera: A Canoe Guide to Dane County’s Key to Map Symbols 4 Lakes developed in 1984 by the Dane County Environmental Council with text written by Jane Licht. Taychopera means “four Accessible boat launch lakes” in the Ho Chunk tongue. Taychopera is the glacial-formed chain of lakes, marshes and river now known as Mendota, Monona, Accessible fishing pier Waubesa, Kegonsa, Upper and Lower Mud, and the Yahara River. Beach The Yahara Waterways project has been a labor of love for many Boat launch – no parking lot people. This is especially true considering that people volunteering their time have produced this guide. A special thank you and Improved boat launch with parking acknowledgement to the following contributors in the develop- Campsites ment of this 2007 guide: • Dane County Environmental Council for project initiation Carry-in canoe/small boat site and oversight Fishing walk-in access or pier • UW-Extension Environmental Resources Center (Bruce Webendorfer and Jeff Strobel) for editorial assistance, Marina graphic design, and map development Public phone • Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission Seasonal restrooms • Key Members of the Yahara Waterways Steering Committee: - Mindy Habecker, project coordinator and author, State park sticker required Dane County UW-Extension Warning - Dam! – portage required - Robert Beilman, Madison Audubon Society - Steve Falter, Capitol Water Trails GPS reading - Terry Hiltz, Wisconsin River Alliance 24 Place of interest mentioned in text - Sue Jones, coordinator, Dane County Lakes and Water trail Watershed Commission and Dane County Office of Lakes and Watersheds - Wes Licht, McFarland teacher and environmental The maps contained herein educator are intended to be general - David Liebl, UW-Extension references for area boaters and - Karen Matteoni, Mad City Paddlers are in no way to be considered - Ray Potempa, Friends of Lake Kegonsa Society adequate for navigational - Nancy Saulsbury, Rutabaga purposes.
    [Show 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 ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • YAHARA RIVER T
    YAHARA RIVER t: United Spates Department of the Interior Geological Survey EFFECT OF TREATED EFFLUENT DIVERSION ON YAHARA RIVER FLOW, WISCONSIN by K. B. Young Prepared as part of cooperative program with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Open-file report Madison, Wisconsin December 1965 Effect of Treated Effluent Diversion on Yahara River Flow, Wisconsin by K. B. Purpose and Scope Before December 1958 the treated sewage effluent from the Madison, Wisconsin, metropolitan area was discharged into the Yahara River at the north end of Lake Waubesa, which is upstream from the USGS gaging station on the Yahara River near McFarland, Wis. Since December 1958 the effluent has been diverted southward from the sewage treatment plant into Badfish Creek and enters the lower reach of Yahara River, thus byrpassing the gaging station. The purpose of this report is to demon­ strate the effect that this diversion seems to have on the flow of the Yahara River near McFarland. Indirectly, it also demonstrates the effect on streamflow of withdrawing ground water for use in the Madison metro­ politan area since the treated effluent is primarily the major portion of the used ground water. Background Information Ground water makes up a large part of the water entering streams and lakes in the Madison metropolitan area (Cline, 1965). Ground water, also, is the source of water supply for this area. Consequently, any substantial withdrawal of ground water which is eventually diverted from a part of the Yahara River basin as treated sewage effluent will reduce the contri­ bution to local streams and lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sun Prairie and City of Madison Cooperative Plan
    FINAL TOWN OF BURKE, VILLAGE OF DeFOREST, CITY OF SUN PRAIRIE AND CITY OF MADISON COOPERATIVE PLAN January 512007 INTRODUCTION The TOWN OF BURKE, a V/isconsin municipality with offices at 5365 Reiner Road, 'Wisconsin Madison, 53718 (hereinafter "Burke" or the "Town"), the VILLAGE OF 'Wisconsin DeFOREST, a municipal corporation with offices at 306 DeForest Street, DeForest, Wisconsin 53532 (hereinafter "DeForest" or the "Village"), the CITY OF SUN PRAIRIE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation with offices at 300 East Main Street, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 53590 (hereinafter "Sun Prairie'o) and the CITY OF MADISON, a Wisconsin municipal 'Wisconsin corporation with offices at 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Madison, 53703 (hereinafter "Madison"), collectively the Parties, enter into this Cooperative Plan, (hereinafter 'oCooperative Plan" or "Plan"), subject to approval of the State Department of Administration, under authority of Section 66.0307, Wisconsin Statutes. WHEREAS, Section 66.0307, Wisconsin Statutes, authorizes municipalities to determine the boundary lines between themselves upon approval of a cooperative plan by the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration; and, WHEREAS, the pu{pose of a cooperative plan is cited in Section 66.0307(3Xb), Wisconsin Statutes, as follows: (b) Purpose of plan. The cooperative plan shall be made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the tenitory covered by the plan which will, in accordance with existing and future needs, best promote public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or the general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development. and, WHEREAS, Section 66.0307(2)(a.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Lake Kegonsa Society, Inc. P.O. Box 173 Stoughton, WI 53589-0173 January 2021
    Friends of Lake Kegonsa Society, Inc. P.O. Box 173 Stoughton, WI 53589-0173 January 2021 President’s Message ̴ Peter Foy I’m sure you were all happy to bid farewell to 2020 and welcome in a new year. Despite all of the complications and uneasiness we all experienced in 2020, I can cheerfully report that your FOLKS organization enjoyed another successful year. The Board has continued to meet via Zoom throughout the year and everyone has stayed engaged and kept our projects moving forward. Because of Covid-19 we had to postpone our annual meeting this year, but I am happy to report that all of the Board members and officers have agreed to stay on until we can hold our next annual meeting. We will be electing directors and officers at that time. We are currently planning to hold our annual meeting on Saturday June 19, 2021. We are hoping to be able to conduct our usual in person meeting, but if that is still not possible, we will schedule a Zoom meeting. So, either way, our next annual meeting should be on June 19th. We always enjoy presenting an update about our projects at the annual meeting and getting your comments and questions. Because we can’t do that this year, we have included a little update on each project in this newsletter. Continued on Page 2 In This Issue: President’s Message ……………………….……………………………………………………………………………… 1 2020 Lake Kegonsa Water Levels …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 FOLKS Membership and Financials ……………………………….…………………………………………………… 3 Update on Carp Removal Project ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Update on Leaf Management Project…………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Update on Aquatic Debris Collection Program ………………………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • WIS 19 Study, Final Report, April 2016
    WIS 19 SAFETY AND OPERATIONS STUDY Final Report April 2016 Arlington Columbus Lodi Arlington Lodi Columbus Leeds Hampden Elba Columbia County Dane County Dane DeForest Dane Vienna York Portland Bristol Windsor Deforest Dodge Co. Sun Prairie Waunakee DaneCo. Town of Springfield Town of Marshall Waterloo Burke Town of Town of Sun Prairie Westport Town of Medina fersonCo. Jef Maple Bluff Middleton Madison Middleton Cottage Deerfield Shorewood Grove Hills Lake Blooming Mills Grove Cottage Grove Deerfield Monona Deerfield [ 0 2 4 Madison McFarland Miles CONS IS IN W D N E O P I A T R A T T M R E O N P T S OF TRAN Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Existing Conditions Summary and Recommendations .................................................... 2 1.2 Corridor Issues ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Study Team .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Corridor Importance .............................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Relation to Other Projects, Studies, and Plans ................................................................... 5 1.6 Study Input .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]