That would be great. Thanks, and stay warm. 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: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:58 PM To: SLN; Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Shannon: I’m sorry to have missed your recent calls but this week which has been a disrupted one for us due to the weather. I’m tied up tomorrow morning but hope to have time to call you tomorrow afternoon. Would 3 p.m. be a good time? Regards, Bruce From: SLN [mailto:shannon@nave-eng.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:39 PM To: Nancy Cline; Bruce Grantham; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion All, I haven’t heard back from you and my Friday February 4th trip to Dallas has been canceled. I recommend the following course of action. 1. Bruce please give me a call at your earliest convenience 817-992-8031. Perhaps we can find some common ground. 2. My meeting for Dallas will take place next week. If Bruce and I can’t see eye to eye over the phone I think we will need to get together. Perhapse the same day I am in Dallas. Thanks, 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: Nancy Cline [mailto:ncline@addisontx.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:55 PM To: SLN; Bruce Grantham; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Shannon, I hope your trip went well last week. It appears there are some disagreements on the analysis of the modeling of the impact of the proposed fill for the Bankston site. Would you prefer to meet (this Thursday at 3:00 pm works for me and I can check with the others) or would you rather we send a formal, specific comment letter detailing our requirements on the modeling for this site? It does not seem productive at this time to continue the e-mailing back and forth. Please let me know your preference. Thank you, Nancy Cline 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. ******************************************************************************************************************* ****************************************************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************************************************* ﾝ῟龥꛿낯沟㷿㺏㾟䂯뒿�᫃쾵뤦ꨐ⛚Ẉ낒䥜쌠쑰錀璠삨ꍣゔ⁖⁡鉰珢ゔ甧鍐曠⃁鑯 쥌恗扤)桧炳㊽攜셬曐迀₢桷槚烁圠덠疀ꁔ邓鑷씡喠澰₷”Áꙹ爮쒰漐鍷犠s돯鏰鍐蠑无肸⃄鍷윧댰璐釁tꏅ굂ズ띫봰晱噯＠シ情傹⾨㾩㾗侘徙髿깯꾯떿놟닟돯뗿／ᾶ⾷㾸侹徺澻Ῐ鿋뷿ꪯꮯ첿컿켏퀟턯缿俒쿣濔翕蛖⃃⃚睐䃩냭び썰�줥砰�쏐笱ⵒ地㭠涚��㨠罬僚Á틱ꃛ�꓅嬡
℠䃆왰䃣싮嵳濡뿙쿚���䥇罧悽デ翼蓽ჹ껷㘺圷澳槰 傓邓敎쟵刀ㅰ煮﴿＿ἇ⼈㼉伊弋漌缍輎࿿႟ᆯ኿Ꮟ῟￿４８༚Ἓ⼜㼝滴偻铽晰濶ἃ迸鿹꿺뿻ۋ蔟矠⃆卆惖쁦홿⎠运钱鏡작휱爰毾釁熽닅늓↔ၿ쟹暱흩씠송씰溣ⴰ敹䃩냄⇉傔웿╁犰쓱섐鐰엡０邓탄郃䆔慳脫慗濰舰탁坯瑠˿ởἏＯ传俬忭濮翯述鿱꿲㯿⋟⏟⓯⛿✏뼟⼨轃ཇ濿缀坍ȲＯ齇伄弅Ὅ�뽖콗壿姟嫯峿崏帟弯怿ｏ彡潢罣轤＝ἠ槿毿氏洟䐯≟刏䣏弿佉彊潋콕摰⩃旱燼筵畑翰쩐휡⸠댭儰燊ㅷ싂⺓玐拉呷싰 潰Á偧Æ엿を㉕얄섑⺱穇鎳邓惃絴䀰얐⦤ﳡ畢炔퀱釅蓉엃㋿㏯㗿渏漿㡏㤿㩏｟罰缼輽鼾꼿뽀콁轸賿䐏䛿猏琏生瘯眿뽏彸侔쾗齏ྜྷᒞ刳Ｏ⾘佔录꾝�侧徨꧿ꩯꭿ겏궟꺯꾿냏￟ﾲྴ᾵ｭ羇ὰ羹뫿뮏벟붯钿狯ꌏ顟ￏ�ﾛ徦甩≾儰ㄭ엯쐰酰⸡槀쀮牻緻縰慐낒䊁ト炀拪ိ읂歰僄䀫炾䀫냇჆낒荳ｿ辄龅쾾�쾈�࿁跿踏輟逯鄿鉏쥟휟ﾟ辕龖鿃꿄뿅쿆��ꁟ㒤뾢뿣꓿ꗟ똿띯￿࿶ῷ⿸㿹俺忻濼翽ﾏŸ뺯펏쀏֯؏？⼇㼈伉翠鿂 忤濥೯춄り챡ቲ｠샚☭넫댭ノူ터綽炅≼犁桾魺�뀲脪畯뇋瀯匪丱苿⮜糖Ⴓ�綠p膰ᩲ沠瀞‮﭅䃞ꀑ⁵稱纁脓篶ﳒ摯ￎ࿐ῑ伊弋俔헿홟౯���󻲿ￏ�鼔鼫࿡ῢἏ⼐㼑ዿፏᑟ㍯㟟㶿ﺥ㝏㵿ŏϿ／ｇཉὊ⽋㽌位彎俿偯兿劏原咯િ✟？㼌Ὑ⽚㽛作彝輴⼎䉿㣿㥯㩿㮏䖟惿䆔Ჷតᙢ称쑻倛晵ㄝ乿遺㇌腤䃐纐聦䄲呻≭滠ᵁἱꃋ䂀킀䀱晥ﱦ捥닎ꑫ瀩ꉻ᳽挰ၬᅻ௎ꔟꀗ菿聐쩰拡獐⌒弍怏㼟｣ཥὦ⽧灿あ㔼栰墟㉅吐 㧠虜あ䤠臊끀쁧聀秿៑ᳵ⊮↴₰聰比�섞끀ꋊၹ怙Ⅳ獲ﷀ倜浭埡᪀ᠠᯁ⃓῰惊憃聺熃숞䕈刭十ꑮ뀰㛿Ṱ欇蒳έ᠃淁ᾐ︢᭨췠洡쫲ャ涰漀襰쁹据䒆뉫텯熃炾恧䅢r瀮⁲ﳰ摁摴⎄숞瘠텯"涯ₐ潁蓁爐"ㄨ뵀ᜩ稑ᦐ蒔拄重៽朔ꉰ䅱퀮섘柽痀懋㢓ȶ⥳풓诟藋蚯ᮻᬀ斱쯟Ẅ篂᪠渐⣠쎄낒響炚琯痟盯磿礏稟Ｏ㽻彧潨὘㽖佗御⓿⛿鼏⣯⤯⨿ꭏⱟ꽯缭輮餯끅鑲湰ꀱ烿぀ꓠㄡぁㅏ땚㊀︸Ꜷ뒏㕏㘏ꈟꌏꐟ区浹Ꙣꛀ벯῿羡＾ཀ쿅熱戧Ｗￆ罃轄 齅㿆復澪ￏ퇿툏팟퐯픿홏흟�ｿ这鿚꿛뿜쿝�￠ꠟ꾟끿ﾟ꿪뿫྾�鿋ￂྥ꛷츗奔m䀚郳珯茓肢誶敀㆛덫龑᫽瞁သ뉿愘ƹ퇴蓿ᮀ᫢誑蹔牁駱ﾤ恮냎ㇺᘞ䐜䂦烿璁쑻겟￟῭⿮㼅㼉伊辱龲돿뒯떿뛏럟룯뫿묏？⾼뼄켅徿激俲忳鿃쓿᦯읟죟⋯쭟␏＿⿍㿎鼦缣迥뿣㼭伮⿿たㅯ㉿㎏㒟㖯㚿ￏ�Ｙ༻Ἴ⼽㼾伿யಯ䂿䒿䖿䛏䟟￯ｈ㿰༝�⼟翴迵꼫䳽伂࿸쾀ꍿ넎敳袋靖㮖煥᝵Ｑ灑灭獗묀㚊の韾熀滷鳑꘤最遏퇸肕響觽⵲ 守邉ŗ㍬閂郲槁끐ʄ邖넪闿诀ᑂᝀ渐ᔰ薰猃ﾒ犉�缂弡当㽌뼆켇䧿䪿柏欯氯฿༯ဿｏ弑漒缓輔鼕꼖뼗켘替䲯᭯䷿仟俯⃿政｟罻｀缤輥侄꼧⾆켩⫿裟䆏䈟䀯轟逯鄿ｏ徒澓羔辕龖꾗뾘쾙髿鯟鳯黿鼏ꀟꄯ䌿ｏ齭꽮꾢꾦뾧쾨�䳿统諿臏償刟贯莿䩕〱ⴰ嵹�肶獕㉘쁢埒ﾐꧼﭕ胻酢偾遹ꉜ샽ꓛ댠汀큖恢年祀፠邽큢畢䂳肯쁟囿볐抁Ô넧嬑屑蝰�㉛⁡婵啐玿䂃艡曺Zﱭ抔ﶲ밅惂眢碾슼⁡빲쇲莏洠瀮炱選燼荢捀ｫᑠ罣轤澃뽧佪槿ꯟ곏쳟킯澯瀯焿ｏ 彲潳罴轵齶꽷뽸콹竿쳟簯绿젏냟닿舏ｏ�￠翤辆龇꾈뾉忥诿賟ꏟꐯ﾿쿶�࿻ῼ⿽㿾￿OşɯͿҏ֟گ﾿徥ΐ⿔習⼌㼍伎式ჿ깯뎟됯？罔轕酖፟셖‘뇇骺憟᳀帠惰밢⠙뱷弐ꂿ⁜灚凅凅帠楀犼ḩ뤳懔벀擠뀛囟恂렢店涰㇄⁗⃿᳤姐ᶔ延⅃婀ἃ칕쎼λ羽蚾‮ｗ遗䂾ቛ僛쉘揄峯嘱専씁撳큢ロῇ죿帤⪚ࡰॏݟᖏ쪏＿ῩＱ濍翎뼷缑輒꼹㫿풿헟훯㯿��󛼿蘖﫞⇠㔴䄯﾿꿢뿣꼖뼗켘퐙濨䦿㉏厯䄟㛰쿈䷿协⽿ワ巿帟Ｏ㽟你 彡潢罣轤齥꽦柿梿槏櫟㳯㴿㭏澟ｏ彰潱署轳뽊뼔⽙齎俟傯冿峏瘯哄ꋁꁄ竳⬠猣륨띀빁⑁﹣띷ᦀⳠ런뼰�웠ｑ犼刞팟{怢䗯䘠⣐�棠瀪㊀᧿章밠腤笔ᯀ簀ﾰ遻!ꁼ퀛炇兛ꌜ焫�쟰淀ꆹ윥σ菻薧懲"㉌咅䊸ﺅ篣럐勐偃ꒈꈡ現ソㆂ䖋Ü䓿뜐㿐랠声㞌㡯瑿ｯ罵漾缿轀꽶꽂뽃콄䗿䛟䟯䧿餏䬏䰯礿＿佺彻潼罽轾価쾤콕囿ꯟ娗ꮰ妯媯宿꫏￯佬彭辴龵꾶뾷쾸�뫿믯뷿븏뼟쀯섿浏￟꾓뾔뿂뿆쿇�ￊ矿硯끿ꚟ꜏ꠟ꤯댿烈卆뀮퀙倡ㄜ⇿깱≀ᥠ 黰ⱑↁꎑ뼡銍㞎傇팟嚏ὲ還⩦䥰胑熐ე냑◿Რℐ踹⧓ᦐ⧰釠繐衲⋰ᾰ돓遀⸀瞷᳷‐�朱Ɛ킝無퐜蟿⽎첍춟킯텿튏펟쎯뿔あ〵⿖ᕘ⃸㜭⎀윮㚊茦銍⣷薣ⷁ茦옮䈨⛫覃灥り�遱�擟ꍪ⮠换脜䋟᳿蕅깓羷㗟쿯㛯ç茦㇟ｍ傄‚툤鄡ႉ黻摐￣࿥ῦ⿧푏헟￯鄏鈯錿ｏ鿽澕羖辗龘꾙뾚쾛鳿זྟoůɿΏￏ뼓旗炣킭熐傊斉柰��➐⚷ﱑᝤ〉耗뀮塓匭�⍴㟀㔵㌨눲‹⇟㛠ᜳ⩰婢ｒ龉ꎅ냳쇟꼤ꧮ㬡㗾⇄윦퇴Ø 놅脬�㌱‸⒡䤡ီ탹�衐₡탻ᄬ돴옟ӽ犰䂮郲怘뼊쿾ᗿᘯ᜿ᡏᥟկᐯܿｏ弈漉켮�鼌꼍뼎켏ჿᇟ鳯궿艠邱관忐炞焳톞�鼳㢹㙿䃟ꊯꎟㆯ㉟㍯㩿台浹㙢㔐䧿た迏辬龭⽒턽戧匷｟ྱᾲ⾳齒꿃뿄彜潝廿彿悏憟抯掿擏旟￯ｦཨὩ⽪㽫佬彭潮濿앿㯟㳟珯瓟痯矿／ὸ潊濏ｗ低彏弴朵寻筟妴ʇ鷳ᛳ္p㦶쁱銍㨨⊀⧒㟯�腂肐Ề蝰﨔罂欀聕섡䇲냢恌�脐⒰䄰銎၌䋻�祀劄䁌ꌡ퇴蟿ﮀ�ﰐ�罐⬐﯀鋚ꄜ�覒╧ｂﾉঋ惴ボ톌⃘⶿絣�ₔ啃 �浐耾↑蟁ㆂ瀚礭蓟ﱰ䘐蒀䱰爐⃴鿑﯐⧠缂礀샻뇵꿿绯凛茟笟㧿㨿祏ｿ轺ﾠ＾ཀὁ䋿䌯䐿䕏䙟䝯䡿鮏ｯ羜뽋콌꽾뽿ｏད㾰烿咿唿륏圏멯姯媏ﾟ侽⾺ὰￄ࿆ῇ죿줯쨿쭏챟쵯칿쾏ﾟ꿐뿑쿒�ￕཱི徢ꏿ흯󫱯���粯羟뾳辿��忂닢溄瞍ꏸ뱸ṑ鍒ﲧ뽄ᆌ䃲惁怨郲筰‥鍬⩰求痾킭⏶õ䃁炥惻̧⢴ᨳ⭰コ걩ｱ憗栞郧憄탹胨惧탰♱豹鞀蹐敀惻采፱␡激捣悄뀙ế靡螓╠᷃ꔕ歡刞뢿┐᧱蒰ⳕ某낫돿⨠═⯰꿳데譀〦豤 ⵦ鎈̧•⟿ꩠ戀蔛鐂◀볰⑐Ｐ뿤澙侸쿂龜꾝뾞꿠܏꓏ꔏꘟꜯ꠿ｏ復澪羫讬輂Ἇ鼀翦㖟ᗯᘏП��ｏ弝⼆）་Ἄ⼍㼎伏Ⴓᅟ潯덎섰泰伜⣿៿᠟᤯ᨿ᭏ⱟ⧟똑爫㈀新¼싵赵ﾕ″怱芉쀲섵厔膇㋿蒰ヤ뱢뉐쇰赡ﾁ톔ㆳ䀯苻醅Ž킭ỿㅀ轰㆐む鈰�票詤㏰杀傋䊇㳽慢傌탰匹ᆋ愺僁擾췿伤켈伮弯漰缱㐯虾㈡衭萀靠ﾀℶ놲ꆌ膈醅킭充懭铿蹓䌀䒰雡贑靠ｳ퇵㞑㋸肄䂏䀓惷雇⡐摡悇큃ﻟ賆閐椐炯䏲螷谐䖀歠瓱탁䍷쨠充䌀邅步㠽◮跿蒳 굒䑠䠁蕢䒐뾐E肈コ헾懴炄♇￐삭肌恔傌悇≉䀞偿㉥셠돰訐闰栀㿾삋낼膇⊖傋폵낭兽憐낷⢑芍낔ｶ傼懯셃燲㏴拲軿辗뉱ﾱ䥱崳큂䐲낋赗藃貑ﾣ肇傄჻邳艓邒邅枾퀦闼㇭䆎㍢﹀兣藺霄㏰酐웵랕勲ᴿắ⊿㾯？⽀�Ｇ彁Ἢ⼫㼬ⷿ䅏䋟䏯䗿㈏㎟环ｏ콦἟⼠㼡⽨㽩佪彫泿浯繿濿炟熯窿猟뿟ｵཷὸ⽹꾊当塚뱮溰胶䑐‷䵐㚐︠㡃洣僁낎珺胶走ቀ㠐༠腢⅟ㄲⴴ㠈㤶˜㔸⸶篿籏聟腏艟药葿薏ﾟ羋뾇쾈�ﾋྍᾎ迿逯鄿 ꕏ馏簏綿经￟澚羛辜龝꾞뾟㾱�ꋿꏯ곿ꙟꜟ꠯ꤿ꩏魟澫慒阃䈱䱲ﻠ굥꺏늟뎏뒟떯뚿ￏ�뾽ﾹྻᾼ⾽㾾便샿셟쉯썿펏옏꺏냿／ᾱ￈࿊Ή⿌㿍뿞쿛㘉郧�彟뛨ە恙ち惘錺敁㯪哬ﰭ㩁怒胗遡⎀㕂㑃䙄灥홏丠㫁혳⁂ᓿ�퀿퇯푟稙戫蟣濵꿔뛕俖吢孡ፀ䗐燦坆涐ﾟ姿髶＀鿸꿹뿺쿻�⃙Վ捠䥃﷡⁛፛ퟐ搐ᆰ௰มሒ홠碰朮籯嵶ﳚ⃖퇨ꃗ㤉｜ላ�쎒ŝ�꼂્圗逾摳遘냅䪖怅쀸㱲㇠씹Ұ〲⃖㐠㈺倠്๏ཟၯᅿﶏ됚 ᎀᑏ੟씦嗓냖ၟᡭ᤟ᨯᬿ弜ꖒ扵佪ᵑữᜊ坆᜺嗠閁憷﹣卦堐鐳䯥󰐏／⿿㼀㿣俤忥㼤翧̢ヺᄅ̌㞏㠿㥏｟�켻伭鿜꿝㼿꼮㋿㍿㒏㖟킯㴟㹏䡟ｏ�濕翖迗鿘⽌㍍폅⳾�Ｏ༱ἲ彆䟿䵯䥏䪏䮟䲯䶿仏￟ｐདྷὓὢ齕佁彂䏿噯壿夏娟嬯尿浏ￏ潞罟轠꽢뽣콤�昗柯秿䥿邗鹯鍫ↇ鐑隢棓艩＀戫솓,避쀊み逈飿殟漟瀏焟爯猿瑏｟㽺罶轷齸꽹뽺콻�緿绯胿鈏蕏每汿涏ﾟ⾇㾈侉徊澋羌辍龎迿邯馿鈟鏟铯雿霏⾘꾩焪ꡥₐ菐⭃＀䪂澅徛侟徠澡羢 辣꓿ꪟꙿꞿ꣏꧟ꫯ곿／ᾭ⾮㾯侰鿀ᾴ뾛쾜鷿뗟뙿랏뢟릯몿믏￟ﾽ྿濇⿁㿂促忄엿왯흿૿좔즯춿캯﾿쿏�ￒ�῕⿖㿗���󫱿��ﾟῡῊ⿋㿌翢迣鿤꿥紐ﯯ⊙㩡雯撐퀋ヱ斔ػⷤ뀋㩰惬⬐⎀㕂㑃Ṅᝆﻓರ湡㩧㏲티〠耣昊⿴켄ஏ⓯◟࿯䈷⋟慔⩨懠୬ሯ䙤⩲⟠ﲟｯ꼻༨Ἓ뼒켓�６ᢃ⨏匠乌嬠耎ࢠࠐ桀儇湀憐敶⬭朐⨮뫑㥝ㆍĆヲ줣弐瀇缀漐缑ሪ♓瓀᥇ᵯ␿垧摥瀇䁳慤ⱹ䨠镵샾ॹ㤠耰〲냰₄㢠䄠❍�漨缩 輪鼫쐴ﭔⴐ漮똤揠䌠␴伲弳㓏㕯㙿㺏䌒㝣㧿뼏Ꜥ;怰쁔샾瀇넀쑔䜠色⛑洀弻㰟㵯㹿㾏ⲟ疥橢旜ⵣ䈿␯劘郰Ʋ᾿⟱눁葀荰曒낄䗷ݐ蓠椆ヱ鿵꿶鿺᧿ᪿ﷏ﻏ￟䣯ɟ䘏﨣ἰ⾡鰃἞彛潜罝෿๯彿凯挿剟ￏ齖꽗뽘콙漂缃㽬懷�ⲁ｣ཥｨཪ毿氟洯崿廟端港澿ￏ�ྀᾁ罵�辄盿矟磯裿箏簟累贿뽏彿羁辂⾓膍덉할䂳佬抠悲镧侠쮠ဈㅥ所ੵ靐毠胱肘९⃑䂳倊뙯衦ࠠ眐 瀇੸큐敷步獏ㅭ倀絠P顤눠信♠ゐ瓱榼蝧俀隰頰棐톜鯝⺂톗育ᆛ੯限繐뉫ૡࡐ 【饓陲祐飿ᥡࠠむ덠螼蠟萯￯ﾅﾊྌ辣⾎㾏侐꧿銿鍯鑿閏꾟ꎟꗿ／쾡�ᾴ澦羧辨Ᾰ꾪꯿겿볏껟돯녿눏숟뾿솗恏炘1䍷旱꒞䑧⁠项倐焠痮〰傝ヱㅳ顐霢肛ぐ乡满읦胠炘삞汬䀱솝ჳ鿯鲂집쨓珱ₘ䃱鷽懡倊&恏柉斠P侷鹳뒤泰뒛˜魲ﾰ憚㾡쾶���퓏헯⳿⚖ 鹌䍠逦䀱⹐⹅䀱﹃㉆딜뤯먟묯밿뵏罟཮㿂翡忄濅彳逦븠ॅ훠ৱ㇠䥀쀺퇿튏펟����ﾟ忭뿢쿣忨￦࿨俷ᾋ쩥棐샇㵦ꉠࡴ⼰眯ヽ�ᘢ⛑⋲�楦㭥゘顦र⃐笠H偙剅䥌䭎 ⁦뿼웽絽゘色局晣就ₘ኿ę쁎嘏쁩咏愫ữ༟漎㿸俹ఒㄸⴷ㔢ထ㜭ᘵ⃠ﰨ⥏（༊Ἃ⼌㼍伎ཿၟᅯᵿጏᒟᖯ㦽吡ⶠ〸ㄳ⢐ｃ弗漘缙輚鼛꼜뼝龾뿿⮯὏⌿⇏≟ㅯ㈯䜿卉ꔳ灡鱰ⶠ￝称ౕ夵体伱우ղ鰀椂桐Ëꇖ叿嗿㔏⚏❯⡿⦏⪟ﾯ뼫켬�Ἵ罅轆齇꽈䧿䪿䯏䳟䷯俿倏〟龯㼵켲�゜㈸✽瀴爲戭႟㩭ㆀ⸲瀰❴潔喯��䍏俰Ð졊㠱샛〲샛㗈〺䵐샛짷齠∹굳탛瓖འ憷娟徥⛟偖㧬娼꿻㐢楰偖〿恴狖䂞나ご‴郍⹸š盾㿾俿嘀⽪㥫 异樃湿毯冡ۯ栿࠿杘搕㺊奥㩷璀㩥㻿㼟䀯䄿䉏䍟䑯偿ޏ齑齿뙓汢捯彫剤炘ﱗ夵㭢壿蝬夃莯叏觟訯謿꽏後轖鱗‴蘭ⵘバ瓨愺肙蝯酐壸俔잒龈╴烖㘳埚Ｌὺ⽻㽼佽彾潿羀澏郿酿銏鎟钯閿棏￯￬꾗뾘쾙�쾨ྞ齿ꀟꄯꈿꍏꑟ陯䤌꣩瀰㍯槠ゅ凛燊탷쪰혲歰ハ肵郊郌揼㍵埠נ케츰�采扵챭큠줡㤂敤�徧殨圠쿫읡盂腮롡릡뫂�챥읠릡淁Ì耺瞖‗À猐졤퀩晠��췁뛡弲꽠瀐ꀺnj쐳ﴸ쇚썀쌁쑌뷕븏ﴟⲿ륄쇠㮕턡ꡀ묰몡륳榱ꂺノ돐앦ﵑ膼ꤿ꨿ ꭏ걟굯깿ﾏ龯꾰뾱쾲�ﾵྷ꛿졏꡿쵯칏콟큯텿ﾏ濞꿓뿔쿕�￘࿚雽同惌膼得�ｯ翪迫鿬畢濮翯述鿱刺﨏？⿻㿼ￜ࿞￾ༀǿȟ༯ЏՏٟݯࡿﾏ鼉꼊뼋㼶肻背䀺㡹椐祺苰蜰–昳憂Ⴜ祬∺앁ꇀⰢ猢ꀸ㡳ㄐ胃晩ᰢ抏区ᩴᱲ所_⹐ｅ泇⼼侃꼏뼐켑�⣿ᙿᜏ᠟᤯ᨿ᭏ᱟ罯缝輞鼟꼠뼡켢沎멄楩提䀵懅瀎뭐ၝ뽣쳰獁㼦伧弮⧿⩯⭿ⲏ⶟䊯⼿ハ￟Ｒ༴ἵ㼷伸弹㫯㭯㱿䞏哘惂肻䇋䇾ᑫ뼿콀�ｃཅ䛿䜟嬯䤯䩏䭟䱯 䵿ﾏ齎潖뽐콑�ｔབ惁㇈㠶㄰»柪쁹쭶䐠샅灱꽘姿悿寏峟巯忿怏琟ｿ㽢佣彤潥罦轧彯꽩櫿殿泏淟滯竿堘렵鳐塔鼌꼍㮿㔷䃄㇀㈭ㄸ焸珿／ὺ⽵㽶佷彸潹뾐轻糿綟纯羿胏裟芯蓿Ἇᾅ⾆㾇侈墖晏띦〿ア胂霹쏀㐰ꂍ跽㟡⾎㾏侐徑澒羓铿閏ꪟ霏颿駏髟鯯￿ྜྷ�⾟ﾊྌﾪྫྷ귿긟꼯뀿녏뉟덯둿�龵꾶뾷쾸皠쥢╋뽠迁徠涡羢q塢聐杮㭳潣㽬p⌺㌳㤹㘶짻촿偤龧꾨⿍맔⫌훿쭟챿�칯쾯ꊷ텯｟濒ￖ俕濗濤㿜��ꆿ�⋟뽇ﮰ₣聘ꍤꓢ푿鼂僬샄聱郯イ摩炤 ₈桴聱湥㹶蕀聘琐戠ꉥ燎倾瀠ꂣ⇠쇲恘윀ꏐ♀Ｏᾼ⾽㾾便忀濁翂迃쓿얟욯잿죏짟몯＿侻࿻ῼ⿽㿾俿⼌漁˿Ϳҏ֟گ޿࣏য়￯＊༒Ἅ⼎㼏伐弑㼞᏿ᑿᖏ᚟ឯᢿ᧏᫟￯；༝ἤ⼟㼠伡弢漣⒯╿㄰⼱偘略罿Ｕ倸넦ჴ鬫섳䝤뀳'郴晜㴱猐�⬙ⲿ⫈＿ཁὂ䍿䐯䔿䙏㜉炜爁⯻ⲙ滱ᥗ鄨䂣⃊샶䩤私꘠轐õ逧쁊뀪捡붂õ꒐ꌰ⨰新矲M⁨M㋲郴䤀⫱墀￁ꁍõ䇲傦郲燴섧䪯材き䨮潤畣菳‪か燀䵐挠≍⛰썐 遍穎倨䥈녋⫿亐喟䷑뿐ㅍ쁔傣䁋녋틲븑⽯㢐疀+⠼꙳䫰僒⠰ၱ쀪偍⩨䷐廱詡✐儠䥂䀯籹畯쁊ᇴ䕗ჴ鱣灩쁚悊畦 嗧誢☑濰平䯠嶁䃴拠M㕍냳悽灑ꇲ䄫偛ꂣ乺﷓譜⩮嶠幏䭖弒詘怒郯祰釴悊䛴悊녋壿嚇図燱ꌠ厠坰⿑奠荐ꁟ坢懑ンꃯ푎션䵦ꐰ❰�녋ⁱ聱'䩷畧쑫屳侇煀幱縡煥䫁棰刯ꓱ牐替浐䵁䪱插�邤聒ꍈ䨡䯰䁏ᅑ櫠廠䯠⃑솦ꜭ㬶楀誀洐ꌱﭐ扑샶屫䝼䣯㫿ｍླྀόཆ⽾㽿侀征澂䛿く㆏ ㊟㎯㞾⶜㜠Ｒ謻꼹Ｗ㾊例和に毸畱䅓張缺輻㳿㶟ꖯ荫顏餏騟鬯＿侜龃罺轻轉齊꽋뽌䷿仏俟僯勿匏吟唯＿佖彗潘罙轚齛꽜㽤廿忏惟懯揿됏斯是＿佧彨潩罪轫齬꽭뽮濿烏營狯瓿甏瘟鸯＿侟役翎迏澖鿔꿕뿖퟿��鷯藏蘏蜟蠯뼿侉ᾍ⾎羌�⛝鈵퇁價摯�㞾ㄷ�綰惨