Nancy & Clay: Shannon’s most recent e-mail below pretty clearly outlines his point of view which didn’t change as a result of the points I raised. On a side note, the highlighted yellow text below may open the door for future fill on the vacant wedge tract east of the Bankston parking lot which they also own if I recall correctly. It appears to me that the primary issues that need to be resolved are – 1. Does the parking lot in the north overbank with an elevation below the 100-year storm (albeit by less than a foot) convey flow or not? 2. Do the parking lot and the tract to the east detain water and, in turn, reduce the flow rate downstream? Shannon’s position on both of these issues is no. Intuitively, his position seems questionable to me. I’ve spent a limited amount of time on this to date in an endeavor to identify the issues that are material to the Town. However, , given the litigation history and the model complexity (relative to the size of the property), I’d feel more comfortable involving an experienced water resource engineer going forward. I have a former colleague who provides this specialty service to other cities if you would like me to request his help as a subconsultant to us. Regards, Bruce From: SLN [mailto:shannon@nave-eng.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:07 AM To: Bruce Grantham; Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Cc: Molly Pierson Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Bruce, I understand this stream and its flooding are a particularly sensitive subject with City of Addison. I appreciate the care in which you have reviewed my work. I hope the following will convey the thought processes that went into modeling the stream as I have. I contend that the area of the Bankston parking lot is flooded on a regular basis. There are two primary flow paths in the area 1) the main channel which flows east to west from the east Lindbergh culverts to Midway and 2) north to south from the west Lindbergh culvert to the main channel. I believe that as flow and depth increases in the channel, there is a back water effect from the main channel that inundates the Bankston parking lot. There may be some minimal north-south flow in the parking lot when the 100-year flood event is peaking, but I contend that the only truly active conveyance in the parking lot and just south of it is from the east to the west in the main channel. During the 100-year storm event peak, the majority of the north-south flow would transpire in the north-south channel east of the parking lot. Further the buildings along the right (north) overbank, along with debris, vehicles, and shallow ponding conditions in the right overbank limits the active conveyance of the right overbank in either westerly or southerly direction in the parking lot and westerly west of the parking lot. In short, when the channel is experiencing the 100-year peak flow the right overbank is acting as a pond. During the 100-year storm event the area east of the Bankston parking lot is currently inundated. This is due to the backwater of the main channel. This is not helped by the fact that Bankston parking lot acts more like a pond that means of conveyance during the 100-year storm event. I believe the parking lot is inundated before the 100-year peak arrives and has become an area of ineffective flow when the 100-year storm event does arrive. Therefore there the filling of the parking lot would cause no loss of conveyance during the peak of the 100-year storm event and the loss of valley storage, in this case, would be very, very minor. If the volume were larger, or had a more controlled release and or held up, to one degree or another, the entire flow in the basin I could see how that might affect the flow downstream, but not at the parking lot or east of the parking lot. However, the area of ineffective flow (and volume of proposed fill) is small, is off channel, and really is a condition of backwater rather than detention. Therefore I see the filing of the parking lot as not effecting flow or water surface. With this in mind I don’t believe the loss of the valley storage at Bankston effects the west or east culverts or channels east of Bankston since there is no loss of conveyance. The stream itself is in a subcritical flow regime so the filling does not impact downstream. Because the area of proposed fill is currently inundated before the 100-year peak arrives it is filled with water at the time of the peak and its filling with another material should have little to know impact on the downstream flows. The proposed fill will not, in my mind, impact either upstream or downstream. If I had a larger basin to model with an area of minimal incoming lateral flows beside and partly through an area of ineffective flow, I would model as I have this one, with the exception that if it was over 200 ac I would Unit Hydrograph method to generate the peak flows rather than the Rational Method. I don’t believe the use of the Unit Hydrograph method on a basin less than 200 ac is well founded or in this case well suited. I also don’t believe a 2-D model would provide a level accuracy that would compensate for its cost. There is a law of diminishing returns that provides that doubling, tripling, or quadrupling time and cost does not double the level of accuracy. I don’t expect the filling of the Bankston parking lot to have any impact, either in a model or in the field. I don’t believe that a 2-D model will show a much different answer. If the right overbank had been free of buildings, not been a parking lot of cars which impede flow, and or had deeper depths it would not be an area of ineffective flow. However, the building on the west property line prevents water from flow west. The building on the south property line limits the flow to the south. And the south building coupled with the west building and the other downstream buildings prevents westerly flow in the right overbank. This, together with a parking lot that is routinely packed tight with cars and flow depths of less than a foot indicates to me an area of ineffective flow. I believe the cross sections should run north to south as the flow is in the east to west direction. The existing parking lot is an area of inundation, but also ineffective flow. The area is small and filled with water before the peak 100-year discharge arrives. Therefore I believe I have modeled the pre- and post project correctly and the proposed filling of the parking lot will have no describable impact on the adjacent property owners. I am sorry but I am leaving after I send this e-mail. I hope it was some small help into conveying my thoughts and modeling practices in this case. Thank you, sln Shannon L. Nave, P.E., CFM President Nave Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineers - Hydrologists Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-7457 P.O. Box 759, Weatherford, TX 76086 110 W. Josephine Ave., Weatherford, TX 76086 Off: 817-596-7575, Cell: 817-992-8031 e-mail Shannon@Nave-Eng.com Fax 817-887-3016 From: Bruce Grantham [mailto:bgrantham@gra-ce.net] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:39 PM To: SLN; Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Cc: Molly Pierson Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Shannon: Unfortunately, I missed your call yesterday. However, I have made some additional comments below in black that may help to clarify our respective points of view. If you have an opportunity to respond via e-mail, I will talk to Nancy while you are out of town next week. Regards, Bruce From: SLN [mailto:shannon@nave-eng.com] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:45 PM To: Bruce Grantham; Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Please see below Shannon L. Nave, P.E., CFM President Nave Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineers - Hydrologists Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-7457 P.O. Box 759, Weatherford, TX 76086 110 W. Josephine Ave., Weatherford, TX 76086 Off: 817-596-7575, Cell: 817-992-8031 e-mail Shannon@Nave-Eng.com Fax 817-887-3016 From: Bruce Grantham [mailto:bgrantham@gra-ce.net] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:13 AM To: Nancy Cline; SLN Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Shannon & Nancy: I have attached a plan sheet from our Lindbergh channel project which includes the topo survey. Below are some conceptual comments related to the Bankston flood study: 1. Two FS cross sections are marked on the plan and they confirm that the 100-year water surface elevation is higher than the parking lot high point. 2. Consequently, stormwater that is flowing from east to west overtops this high point in a 100-year storm and flows between the two buildings to the channel. 3. This is consistent with what we have been told by Bankston representatives. 4. Bankston reps have also confirmed that prior to overtopping the high point, stormwater drains south across the parking lot to the channel on the east side of the small building. Eventually, this building floods. 5. As the parking lot conveys flow during a 100-year storm, we do not believe that modeling it as an ineffective flow area is an accurate representation of the field conditions. 1 – 5 It is recognized that the parking lot floods, but the flow there is typically from north to south. Therefore the HEC-RAS model that depicts channel flow from east to west should not consider it as active flow since the flows are perpendicular. Additionally the buildings as well as cars (in the parking lot) along the north bank also give reason not to count the north portion of the overbank as active flow. Therefore the HEC-RAS model was set up with the right (north) overbank as ineffective flow . · Your position is that the sheet flow in the parking lot, which is primarily north-south, should dictate the orientation of the main channel cross sections. · Our position is that the parking lot is part of the channel overbank; consequently, the cross sections should be orientated at right angles to the main east-west channel flow starting at the four elliptical pipes under Lindbergh to the east. · Your position is that the east-west 100-year flow that overtops the north-south parking lot high point and spills between the two buildings into the channel can be ignored because the parking lot slopes from north to south, and the buildings and cars in the parking lot completely block the flow. · Our position is that the parking lot flow is only north-south until the high point (which acts as a weir) is overtopped during the 100-year storm, at which time, the flow is west across the parking lot and south between the two buildings. We would also contend that parked cars do not completely block the channel flow. 6. The plan also shows two stormwater discharge points on the south side of Lindbergh. The eastern point shows four elliptical pipes that convey most of the flow from the southern airport. The western point shows one RCP which conveys a smaller airport drainage area. 7. The FS cross sections are oriented as if the RCP conveys all the airport runoff. In reality, it acts as a small tributary to the main channel with originates at the elliptical pipes. 6 -7 The channel from the west RCP and the east-west channel south and west of the project area are the major concerns to this project. Therefore the channel from the west RCP south to the east-west channel and then west to Midway are what was modeled. The upstream of the channel starting at the west RCP is modeled with 25.0 cfs at X-Section 1755 and 27.09 cfs at X-Section 1631. When the flow from the east pipes join the flow from the west RCP at X-Section 1584 the flow is increased to 385.01. I believe we have this modeled correctly. · Your major concerns are the 24” RCP (25 cfs) and the main channel west of and along the south Bankston property line. As a result, your position is that a wall can be constructed along the east and south Bankston property lines under proposed conditions with no impact on the 100-year water surface elevation anywhere. · Our major concern is that the existing condition model represent actual field conditions which include the primary flow (300+cfs) originating at the four elliptical pipes to the east, valley storage occurring on and east of the parking lot prior to the high point being overtopped, and east-west flow across the parking once it is. It seems to us that coming to terms with these conceptual issues is important before a detailed analysis of the hydrology and hydraulics is performed. I’m curious if you were dealing with a similar situation to Bankston on a much larger scale (add zeros to the respective flows), like the Rowlett Creek hydraulic model that our team in currently working on for Garland, would you take the same approach? Another way to think about Bankston is to visualize how the flow would be represented if it were modeled in 2D. What are your thoughts in this regard, and would you still block off the whole Bankston property to the 100-year flow? Shannon, if you would like to discuss these comments, please call my cell at 214-869-8856. Regards, Bruce From: Nancy Cline [mailto:ncline@addisontx.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:28 PM To: Bruce Grantham Subject: FW: Plan comments and further discussion Bruce, I am ok if you want to call him and discuss your concerns. Please call me if you want. Nancy From: SLN [mailto:shannon@nave-eng.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:18 AM To: Nancy Cline Cc: Clay Barnett; Bruce Grantham Subject: Re: Plan comments and further discussion Nancy, I would be glad to come, but I am going out off town next week and my schedule is very tight for this week. I can not make it today, but maybe Friday. Is there any way I can get your questions, could we do a conference call, or if it is your consultant that has questions maybe he and I can talk and work this out. Shannon L. Nave, P.E., CFM Nave Engineering, Inc. www.Nave-Eng.com 817-596-7575 (O) 817-992-8031 (C) Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:02 PM, "Nancy Cline" wrote: Shannon, If possible, we would like to discuss some questions on the submittal you made. We are available to meet either tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon at 2:00 pm or 3:00 pm or on Friday afternoon at 3:00 pm. Do either one of these times work for you? Thank you, Nancy Nancy Straub Cline, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, TX 75001-2818 Office: (972) 450-2878 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. ****************************************************************************************************************** This e-mail and any files or attachments transmitted with it contains Information that is confidential and privileged. This document may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) or other information that is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity(ies) to whom it is addressed. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited without proper authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, printing, or use of this information is strictly prohibited and possibly a violation of federal or state law and regulations. If you have received this information in error, please delete it and notify Hamid Khaleghipour at 972-450-2868 immediately. Thank you. ******************************************************************************************************************* 愠⁳湩晥敦瑣癩⁥汦睯⸠†਍਍₷††††潙牵瀠獯瑩潩獩琠慨⁴桴⁥桳敥⁴汦睯椠桴⁥慰歲湩⁧潬ⱴ眠楨档椠⁳牰浩牡汩⁹潮瑲⵨潳瑵ⱨ猠潨汵⁤楤瑣瑡⁥桴⁥牯敩瑮瑡潩景琠敨洠楡档湡敮牣獯⁳敳瑣潩獮‮਍਍₷††††畏⁲潰楳楴湯椠⁳桴瑡琠敨瀠牡楫杮氠瑯椠⁳慰瑲漠⁦桴⁥档湡敮癯牥慢歮※潣獮煥敵瑮祬‬桴⁥牣獯⁳敳瑣潩獮猠潨汵⁤敢漠楲湥慴整⁤瑡爠杩瑨愠杮敬⁳潴琠敨洠楡慥瑳眭獥⁴档湡敮汦睯猠慴瑲湩⁧瑡琠敨 映畯⁲汥楬瑰捩污瀠灩獥甠摮牥䰠湩扤牥桧琠桴⁥慥瑳മഊ뜊††††夠畯⁲潰楳楴湯椠⁳桴瑡琠敨攠獡⵴敷瑳ㄠ〰礭慥⁲汦睯琠慨⁴癯牥潴獰琠敨渠牯桴猭畯桴瀠牡楫杮氠瑯栠杩⁨潰湩⁴湡⁤灳汩獬戠瑥敷湥琠敨琠潷戠極摬湩獧椠瑮桴⁥档湡敮慣敢椠湧牯摥戠捥畡敳琠敨瀠牡楫杮氠瑯猠潬数⁳牦浯渠牯桴琠潳瑵ⱨ愠摮琠敨戠極摬湩獧愠摮挠牡⁳湩琠敨瀠牡楫杮氠瑯挠浯汰瑥汥⁹汢捯桴⁥汦睯മഊ뜊††††传牵瀠獯瑩潩獩琠慨⁴桴 ⁥慰歲湩⁧潬⁴汦睯椠⁳湯祬渠牯桴猭畯桴甠瑮汩琠敨栠杩⁨潰湩⁴眨楨档愠瑣⁳獡愠眠楥⥲椠⁳癯牥潴灰摥搠牵湩⁧桴⁥〱ⴰ敹牡猠潴浲‬瑡眠楨档琠浩ⱥ琠敨映潬⁷獩眠獥⁴捡潲獳琠敨瀠牡楫杮氠瑯愠摮猠畯桴戠瑥敷湥琠敨琠潷戠極摬湩獧‮敗眠畯摬愠獬潣瑮湥⁤桴瑡瀠牡敫⁤慣獲搠潮⁴潣灭敬整祬戠潬正琠敨挠慨湮汥映潬⹷†਍਍⸶†††吠敨瀠慬污潳猠潨獷琠潷猠潴浲慷整⁲楤捳慨杲⁥潰湩獴漠桴⁥潳瑵⁨楳敤漠⁦楌摮敢杲⹨吠敨 攠獡整湲瀠楯瑮猠潨獷映畯⁲汥楬瑰捩污瀠灩獥琠慨⁴潣癮祥洠獯⁴景琠敨映潬⁷牦浯琠敨猠畯桴牥楡灲牯⹴吠敨眠獥整湲瀠楯瑮猠潨獷漠敮删偃眠楨档挠湯敶獹愠猠慭汬牥愠物潰瑲搠慲湩条⁥牡慥മഊ㜊‮†††桔⁥卆挠潲獳猠捥楴湯⁳牡⁥牯敩瑮摥愠⁳晩琠敨删偃挠湯敶獹愠汬琠敨愠物潰瑲爠湵景⹦䤠敲污瑩ⱹ椠⁴捡獴愠⁳⁡浳污牴扩瑵牡⁹潴琠敨洠楡档湡敮楷桴漠楲楧慮整⁳瑡琠敨攠汬灩楴慣楰数⹳㘠ⴠ‷桔⁥档湡敮牦浯琠敨 眠獥⁴䍒⁐湡⁤桴⁥慥瑳眭獥⁴档湡敮潳瑵⁨湡⁤敷瑳漠⁦桴⁥牰橯捥⁴牡慥愠敲琠敨洠橡牯挠湯散湲⁳潴琠楨⁳牰橯捥⹴吠敨敲潦敲琠敨挠慨湮汥映潲桴⁥敷瑳删偃猠畯桴琠桴⁥慥瑳眭獥⁴档湡敮湡⁤桴湥眠獥⁴潴䴠摩慷⁹牡⁥桷瑡眠獡洠摯汥摥‮਍਍桔⁥灵瑳敲浡漠⁦桴⁥档湡敮瑳牡楴杮愠⁴桴⁥敷瑳删偃椠⁳潭敤敬⁤楷桴㈠⸵‰晣⁳瑡堠匭捥楴湯ㄠ㔷‵湡⁤㜲〮‹晣⁳瑡堠匭捥楴湯ㄠ㌶⸱圠敨桴⁥汦睯映潲桴⁥慥瑳瀠灩獥樠楯 桴⁥汦睯映潲桴⁥敷瑳删偃愠⁴ⵘ敓瑣潩㔱㐸琠敨映潬⁷獩椠据敲獡摥琠㠳⸵㄰‮⁉敢楬癥⁥敷栠癡⁥桴獩洠摯汥摥挠牯敲瑣祬മഊ뜊††††夠畯⁲慭潪⁲潣据牥獮愠敲琠敨㈠鐴删偃⠠㔲挠獦
湡⁤桴⁥慭湩挠慨湮汥眠獥⁴景愠摮愠潬杮琠敨猠畯桴䈠湡獫潴牰灯牥祴氠湩⹥䄠⁳⁡敲畳瑬‬潹牵瀠獯瑩潩獩琠慨⁴⁡慷汬挠湡戠⁥潣獮牴捵整⁤污湯⁧桴⁥慥瑳愠摮猠畯桴䈠湡獫潴牰灯牥祴氠湩獥甠摮牥瀠潲潰敳⁤潣摮瑩潩獮眠瑩⁨潮椠 灭捡⁴湯琠敨ㄠ〰礭慥⁲慷整⁲畳晲捡⁥汥癥瑡潩湡睹敨敲മഊ뜊††††传牵洠橡牯挠湯散湲椠⁳桴瑡琠敨攠楸瑳湩⁧潣摮瑩潩潭敤敲牰獥湥⁴捡畴污映敩摬挠湯楤楴湯⁳桷捩⁨湩汣摵⁥桴⁥牰浩牡⁹汦睯⠠〳⬰晣⥳漠楲楧慮楴杮愠⁴桴⁥潦牵攠汬灩楴慣楰数⁳潴琠敨攠獡ⱴ瘠污敬⁹瑳牯条⁥捯畣牲湩⁧湯愠摮攠獡⁴景琠敨瀠牡楫杮氠瑯瀠楲牯琠桴⁥楨桧瀠楯瑮戠楥杮漠敶瑲灯数Ɽ愠摮攠獡⵴敷瑳映潬⁷捡潲獳琠敨瀠牡楫杮漠据⁥瑩椠 ⹳ഠഊ ਍਍瑉猠敥獭琠獵琠慨⁴潣業杮琠整浲⁳楷桴琠敨敳挠湯散瑰慵獩畳獥椠⁳浩潰瑲湡⁴敢潦敲愠搠瑥楡敬⁤湡污獹獩漠⁦桴⁥票牤汯杯⁹湡⁤票牤畡楬獣椠⁳数晲牯敭⹤䤠涒挠牵潩獵椠⁦潹⁵敷敲搠慥楬杮眠瑩⁨⁡楳業慬⁲楳畴瑡潩潴䈠湡獫潴湯愠洠捵⁨慬杲牥猠慣敬⠠摡⁤敺潲⁳潴琠敨爠獥数瑣癩⁥汦睯⥳‬楬敫琠敨删睯敬瑴䌠敲步栠摹慲汵捩洠摯汥琠慨⁴畯⁲整浡椠畣牲湥汴⁹潷歲湩⁧湯映牯䜠牡慬摮‬潷汵⁤潹⁵慴敫琠 敨猠浡⁥灡牰慯档‿湁瑯敨⁲慷⁹潴琠楨歮愠潢瑵䈠湡獫潴獩琠楶畳污穩⁥潨⁷桴⁥汦睯眠畯摬戠⁥敲牰獥湥整⁤晩椠⁴敷敲洠摯汥摥椠䐲‮桗瑡愠敲礠畯⁲桴畯桧獴椠桴獩爠来牡Ɽ愠摮眠畯摬礠畯猠楴汬戠潬正漠晦琠敨眠潨敬䈠湡獫潴牰灯牥祴琠桴⁥〱ⴰ敹牡映潬㽷਍਍ഠഊ匊慨湮湯‬晩礠畯眠畯摬氠歩⁥潴搠獩畣獳琠敨敳挠浯敭瑮ⱳ瀠敬獡⁥慣汬洠⁹散汬愠⁴ㄲⴴ㘸ⴹ㠸㘵മഊ ਍਍敒慧摲ⱳ䈠畲散਍਍ഠഊ䘊潲㩭丠湡祣䌠楬敮嬠 慭汩潴渺汣湩䁥摡楤潳瑮⹸潧嵶ഠ匊湥㩴圠摥敮摳祡‬慊畮牡⁹㤱‬〲ㄱ㐠㈺‸䵐਍潔›牂捵⁥片湡桴浡਍畓橢捥㩴䘠㩗倠慬潣浭湥獴愠摮映牵桴牥搠獩畣獳潩൮ഊ ਍਍牂捵ⱥ਍਍ഠഊ䤊愠歯椠⁦潹⁵慷瑮琠慣汬栠浩愠摮搠獩畣獳礠畯⁲潣据牥獮മഊ ਍਍汐慥敳挠污敭椠⁦潹⁵慷瑮മഊ ਍਍慎据൹ഊ ਍਍牆浯›䱓⁎浛楡瑬㩯桳湡潮䁮慮敶攭杮挮浯⁝਍敓瑮›敗湤獥慤ⱹ䨠湡慵祲ㄠⰹ㈠㄰‱㨸㠱䄠്吊㩯丠湡祣䌠楬敮਍捃›汃祡䈠牡 敮瑴※牂捵⁥片湡桴浡਍畓橢捥㩴删㩥倠慬潣浭湥獴愠摮映牵桴牥搠獩畣獳潩൮ഊ ਍਍慎据ⱹ਍਍ഠഊ䤊眠畯摬戠⁥汧摡琠潣敭‬畢⁴⁉浡朠楯杮漠瑵漠晦琠睯敮瑸眠敥湡⁤祭猠档摥汵⁥獩瘠牥⁹楴桧⁴潦⁲桴獩眠敥⹫䤠挠湡渠瑯洠歡⁥瑩琠摯祡‬畢⁴慭批⁥牆摩祡‮਍਍ഠഊ䤊⁳桴牥⁥湡⁹慷⁹⁉慣敧⁴潹牵焠敵瑳潩獮‬潣汵⁤敷搠⁡潣普牥湥散挠污ⱬ漠⁲晩椠⁴獩礠畯⁲潣獮汵慴瑮琠慨⁴慨⁳畱獥楴湯⁳慭批⁥敨愠摮䤠挠湡琠污 湡⁤潷歲琠楨⁳畯⹴ഠഊ匊慨湮湯䰠‮慎敶‬⹐⹅‬䙃്ഊ上癡⁥湅楧敮牥湩Ⱨ䤠据‮਍਍睷⹷慎敶䔭杮挮浯਍਍ㄸⴷ㤵ⴶ㔷㔷⠠⥏਍਍ㄸⴷ㤹ⴲ〸ㄳ⠠⥃਍਍敓瑮映潲祭椠桐湯൥ഊഊ伊慊㠱‬〲ㄱ‬瑡㔠〺′䵐‬丢湡祣䌠楬敮•渼汣湩䁥摡楤潳瑮⹸潧㹶眠潲整ഺഊऊ桓湡潮Ɱ਍਍ ਍਍䤉⁦潰獳扩敬‬敷眠畯摬氠歩⁥潴搠獩畣獳猠浯⁥畱獥楴湯⁳湯琠敨猠扵業瑴污礠畯洠摡⹥†敗愠敲愠慶汩扡敬琠敭瑥攠瑩敨⁲潴潭牲睯⠠敗湤獥慤⥹愠 瑦牥潮湯愠⁴㨲〰瀠牯㌠〺‰浰漠⁲湯䘠楲慤⁹晡整湲潯瑡㌠〺‰浰‮䐠楥桴牥漠敮漠⁦桴獥⁥楴敭⁳潷歲映牯礠畯ിഊऊഠഊऊ桔湡潹Ⱶ਍਍三湡祣਍਍ ਍਍三湡祣匠牴畡⁢汃湩ⱥ倠䔮മഊऊ楄敲瑣牯漠⁦畐汢捩圠牯獫਍਍吉睯景䄠摤獩湯਍਍ㄉ㠶㄰圠獥杴潲敶䐠楲敶਍਍䄉摤獩湯‬塔†㔷〰ⴱ㠲㠱਍਍伉晦捩㩥⠠㜹⤲㐠〵㈭㜸സഊऊഠഊऊ⁐汐慥敳挠湯楳敤⁲桴⁥湥楶潲浮湥⁴敢潦敲瀠楲瑮湩⁧桴獩攠慭汩മഊऊഠഊऊഠഊऊഠഊ ऊ⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪਍吉楨⁳ⵥ慭汩愠摮愠祮映汩獥漠⁲瑡慴档敭瑮⁳牴湡浳瑩整⁤楷桴椠⁴潣瑮楡獮䤠普牯慭楴湯琠慨⁴獩挠湯楦敤瑮慩湡⁤牰癩汩来摥‮桔獩搠捯浵湥⁴慭⁹潣瑮楡牐瑯捥整⁤效污桴䤠普牯慭楴湯⠠䡐⥉漠⁲瑯敨⁲湩潦浲瑡潩桴瑡椠⁳湩整摮摥漠汮⁹潦⁲桴⁥獵⁥景琠敨椠摮癩摩慵⡬⥳愠摮攠瑮瑩⡹敩⥳琠桷浯 椠⁴獩愠摤敲獳摥‮晉礠畯愠敲琠敨椠瑮湥敤⁤敲楣楰湥ⱴ映牵桴牥搠獩汣獯牵獥愠敲瀠潲楨楢整⁤楷桴畯⁴牰灯牥愠瑵潨楲慺楴湯‮晉礠畯愠敲渠瑯琠敨椠瑮湥敤⁤敲楣楰湥ⱴ愠祮搠獩汣獯牵ⱥ挠灯楹杮‬牰湩楴杮‬牯甠敳漠⁦桴獩椠普牯慭楴湯椠⁳瑳楲瑣祬瀠潲楨楢整⁤湡⁤潰獳扩祬愠瘠潩慬楴湯漠⁦敦敤慲牯猠慴整氠睡愠摮爠来汵瑡潩獮‮晉礠畯栠癡⁥敲散癩摥琠楨⁳湩潦浲瑡潩湩攠牲牯‬汰慥敳搠汥瑥⁥瑩愠摮渠瑯晩⁹慈業⁤桋污来楨 潰牵愠⁴㜹ⴲ㔴ⴰ㠲㠶椠浭摥慩整祬‮桔湡潹⹵਍ഉऊ⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪പഊ