HomeMy WebLinkAboutcorrection 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of propertySorry, I keep getting my east-west confused. Replace "eastern" in
previous email with "western" etc.
thanks,
Alan Brech
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com>
To: Timothy.Parsons <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>; D.Dickey
<D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net>; kkopp <kkopp@orlandolaw.net>; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>; rko153 <rko153@gmail.com>; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com>; ricksbigart <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 7:10 am
Subject: 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test
eastern half of property
Dear Doctor Parsons and Mr. Dickey (and distinguished co-recipients):
ESI's map from their 2006 report (Figure 5, page 21, FMSF #13871)
clearly shows that ESI did not conduct any subsurface testing on the
eastern half of the property in question (6455 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape
Canaveral, FL, called "Cabo Verde" in ESI documents).
If you consult that map you will see that ESI did not excavate any tests
along the eastern half of the property, and, perhaps just as important,
did not place a sufficient number of tests along the relict dune line
that roughly bisects the property, an landform that has been known from
nearby sites to often contain prehistoric sites.
How could this happen? Perhaps the 2006 "area of impact" was different
than the present-day "area of impact?" From my experience in both
contract archaeology in general and as a technician who has worked for
ESI and for Mr. Brent Handley, it is too often the case that archaeology
companies limit their sub-surface testing to the areas specified by the
client as the "area of impact." Once given the "all clear" by the
archaeology company and the Division of Historic Resources, the client
then shifts the area of impact.
Regardless how it came to be that half the property was not tested, the
ESI survey was plainly deficient for the current proposed impacts--the
eastern portion of the site was never tested and the central portion of
the site was not tested sufficiently.
yours,
Alan Brech
Chairman, Brevard County Historical Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Osborne <info@a1aresearch.com>
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com>; Alan Brech <AEBrech@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:56 pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
I followed up with Mr. Parson to see if David Dickey left anything out.
Here you go. Nice long exchange
of email with important points that David leaves out.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parsons, Timothy A. <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Subject: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
To: Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com>
Hello Ray,
Here is the email exchange that I had with David last week.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of Historical
Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South Bronough Street
| Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 | 1.800.847.7278 |
Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com <http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:53 PM
To: 'David Dickey'
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
No further investigation is required or requested by the state in the
area covered by the survey report, because the area was previously
surveyed to Florida standards as part of a permit application process
(pursuant to Ch. 267 and 373, Florida Statutes). I can’t speak to local
(county, city, etc.) requirements. Based on the information that we
have, it seems that the entire tract was surveyed. That said, I have
not seen the boundary/project area for the proposed project, so it is
possible that part of the project area remains surveyed if it is not
contiguous with the surveyed area in the report.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of Historical
Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South Bronough Street
| Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 | 1.800.847.7278 |
Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com <http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:43 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – I have another question related to the Cabo Verde tract
(BR 1936) in Cape Canaveral. First, let me spell out the issue and
share several observations.
On August 8, 2014, the City received the attached letter from the
Brevard County Historical Commission regarding its recommendation for
further archaeological analysis of the entire property on which the BR
1936 site is located. The impetus for the Commission’s letter is the
proposed development of the northeast portion of the Cabo Verde Tract,
adjacent to A1A.
The Commission indicates in its letter that the “2006 survey did not
test the entire property going to the east, towards Highway A1A.” This
is their justification for further analysis. However, in Section I.
Introduction, of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Cabo
Verde Tract (Study), which is attached, it states that the survey
includes a 10.61 acre property, between U.S. 1 and the Banana River.
Further, page 2 (Project Location Map) and page 5 (Soils Map) of the
Survey shows the project boundary, which includes the area from the
river to A1A (U.S. 1). In fact, page 21 of the Survey shows that
several sites (BR 1939 & BR 1940) on the extreme east end of the study
area, adjacent to A1A were evaluated.
My understanding is that no further investigation is required of the
10.61 acre Cabo Verde Tract prior to its development. Should any
research be conducted of the Cabo Verde Tract, it will be voluntary on
the part of the property owner. This understanding is largely based on
the position you articulate in your email below.
Now for my question…would you agree that no further investigation within
the 10.61 acre project area is required prior to its development?
Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this further,
please call me at (321)868-1221, ext. 11. Thank you for your assistance
with this. Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A. [mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:03 PM
To: David Dickey
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Yes, that is correct (though we recommend avoidance of the site whenever
possible). The exception would be if human remains or significant
amounts of archaeological material were to be uncovered during
development. At that point, Ch. 872.05 requires consultation with the
Division regarding human remains, and most state/federal permits contain
conditions requiring notification if archaeological material is
discovered.
Any research that takes place at this point is voluntary, would be a
collaboration between the property owner and the researcher(s), and does
not involve DHR. Though, if any archaeological work does take place, we
would be pleased to receive an updated Site File form and a copy of the
report for our records.
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of Historical
Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South Bronough Street
| Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 | 1.800.847.7278 |
Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com <http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons - Thank you for your quick response. My understanding of
your email is that if a site has been determined to be ineligible for
listing, the State will not require protective measures be taken during
its development. And, any further investigation or protection once a
finding of ineligible has been made, will be voluntary on the part of
the property owner. Is that correct? Thanks! Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A. [mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Dickey
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
BR1936 is the only archaeological site recorded as part of the 2006
survey of the Cabo Verde Tract. The site was evaluated as ineligible
for listing on the National Register at that time, as I noted in my
letter to Mr. Osborne in 2013.
Unless a state or federal permit (Water Management District, Corps of
Engineers, DEP) will be necessary for the development, no further review
by the Division of Historical Resources is required under law. If a
permit is required, we will review it for impacts to eligible sites
pursuant to Ch. 267, Florida Statutes, and/or Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Since the site was
determined to be ineligible in 2006, it is unlikely that my office would
request any specific course of action as regards the preservation or
investigation of the site. That said, we obviously have no objection to
further investigation of the site before it is destroyed, as long as
such a project involves a professional archaeologist and proceeds with
the permission of the landowner.
It is not unusual for human remains to be present at archaeological
sites in Volusia County (and along this stretch of coast generally). If
human remains were to be encountered during development regardless of
eligibility status, all work must stop and notification procedures to
law enforcement and the State Archaeologists office must be followed
pursuant to Ch. 872.05, Florida Statutes.
I hope that this has been helpful. Please let me know if I can answer
any other questions.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of Historical
Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South Bronough Street
| Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 | 1.800.847.7278 |
Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com <http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:18 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – by way of this email I would request your assistance in
determining the status of the Cabo Verde Tract (BR 1936) that is within
the city limits of Cape Canaveral.
The City has received a development application for a site that may
include a portion(s) of the Cabo Verde Tract. As part of the City’s due
diligence, we are reaching out to your office to: 1- determine what
resources are on the site; 2- if these resources are of a quality to
warrant preservation; and, if so, 3 - what measures are required by the
State to protect these resources.
In the attached letter you indicate that site BR 1936 is ineligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. I have also included a
letter (below) from Mr. Frederick Gaske, with the State Historic
Preservation Office, dated June 1, 2006, where he states his office
concurs with the finding by Environmental Services, Inc. that
development of the Cabo Verde site “will have no effect on cultural
resources listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, or otherwise of
historical, architectural, or archeological value.”
Thank you for your assistance with this matter and I look forward to
hearing from you. If it would be helpful, I can be available for a
phone conference at any time.
Dave
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
@ItsWorkingFL
Image removed by sender. What's Working Today
<https://twitter.com/ItsWorkingFL>
The Department of State is committed to excellence.
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey
<http://survey.dos.state.fl.us/index.aspx?email=Timothy.Parsons@dos.myfl
orida.com> .
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
⁉휐䇲⌾葬༑愗֑�ﲡ筤Ṉ鏑͎䮶ᆘ쩥∄㊿儕ۀ蜼藗鄀綈ᨑ쟬穵㏲赬⎍쪙䘒䖆簑᷂⎛뉤路⪀鹋飣䦲ﮬ垭墝舠ന㬒䨤荸厜⠞�衯і炒輊訲쭐猧蠂顠脤ﴤ䪈ꗩ䄃㮚Ⲧ䘚ಥ茨諊﵉뿊坼ႏ쉷뺮䗡鵰枘㮫忄煫䣠铇㧺Ꮄ阹즥炳ㄉ럢睴陽鿋쏅셺袜ಜ婓訋뻹흜꘎袊㗤辩�꽟乓噓둽歫龡㳲ࡷ䷠ᔺꅦ㪉뛦輊듫硉鹸鰋㫳�庯응넛㶣퇵浞숵믈㋰黭픶爳낍샫훑길켳∨쫜픳蹝洍뫎瘣ꌷ槢∗ৢ죱遜葸琨縧⟢섆⃯ᤴ鷣ૣ♅⊲舁벃琢ｺᬭ볫
䶞詂⌡ࢲゝ搠鶌⍱蚺∇䡡噦䉺ჸ䐰⤊뗤晁䜑蓂쳧鳳똓ꌌ遐�ɶ墏蔃ꂈ쇡뻰㱙⁇袽陪䓠ꖰ麛ṱ鸆䰯덈ᅻꕔ邠뎋籞噃㼈亢ꎐꆭ䏲�⼐ྡ숑⏫ꧤ☼�ﾌৄႏ誏咊춥裮≰鶉侲件ၜ竩꼬묐⻲짃繸✜ࡼ珊薢읷쩵ↈ귙嶊怙ꂉ㵷ꑱ⊱银䌯࣑愐久�鰻엣泴엂⭰鑡稖积눇ᎂ⾱蹌⤑䤼࿊䆡벯쭊从ᰉ㧗ᷧﵙ뢋繑➔�经内뤾幆ሙ츩漚蓥◈褶ꉏ豶䈗⃙蒼썓憘쉌⺣⚒짒船幑醣㶈緥靿⽺把⋷遳馲噱鴚ߧ쯍Ꞓ툃賹쥴␜㷭냱잕휡㧧煫壡㏦釸
〺ଋ坭䓯칾ㅻ㰥賱麤튳㱣슰巠膸䪶립ꧬ畻ꛞ풭롉亙쒐�뿔ꏚ䞽豘ば䇒슌蹢㚫⭮亗ຨ浥뱨튮私菭ᱺ퐏퍈楦硟ሼ≎棋鴍�등쉕嗚眝⠸ꠞ�尐ꡭ䥷鰇魒严Ժ榵ꅻ槢舗悰貈ᄖ⮙销戃︿쏣鸥㠘蒲ᇜ전섏ꡡ숇킇ℒꂈ涞�䐑凤ŏಏ蓱⋰衅�콥깂ⱔ梁ต葂䈷㢏苁챇䌅遼蕇笴撂힙첬墄꼋ꗸ呧䖡ᵎ兗鍦�렊࠰鈏秪➈镏ࣟậᕲ誑랛態렦斐鄞瞌똯㬆蠠⦥※尡抈簕䯤唦䮳頢蠧㣝ぎƱ�⒐ꖶ␑덬Ψ⎑ࣟ贝粁ﳍ�ꯜ넱褰鶊褧뀝ᵷ⨇ꉫ
⬺餝쒯哖駦쨹욟ⶑ鍦䉑�蛙벽躻౫➕㷳ઈ敞킚Ò㞹䖫ࡦﾓ쨙추ﵹ槣㷘쌣蒹⍑밥棒鿾遫杉籹䧫딖혞䃱㶬릵ጾᬡ煅ᄰ玦珫衹㱒㬇㌍䘒곗ଷ攚孓ꆔ쪆몬戩ᵀ�㳎䉱痖擤誤㎎䉂甽몡ݝ縎뺠뽓ϡᔼ딈ℸ볼伾睉珏ݸꋎȮ흽⑩�⒆㳫꽚埒橺球暔ퟃ૰⃜꞊悎荢₀눰람㫿貱ᆤ뗟�⍮읷█♭䑞䤼∫궈꾨熵⏙숫燔ꑭ拎䬼딘璐흞∞❆㚚匱쐹낗䱲ꗧ䣸浣冡ꢅ潛໘⛚䧂딇㠎骶䂶됸㫗떣ꌺ됪둥�眖ꇹ叓벸㢩䐠
儼ꧭ䘶ᒾ鸦㧧欑쓱鄀႒ぃ垑囤芯翗嚅엥蓋駼ꂧ㭐삎匒䀑ప版낪┬㊪쥕Ꜹ叒啠੨竍ᵕ鼅쀇ॻȝ㴭夏X嚑嶰ꖓﵬ⇦桓օ☩벆敗Ⲉ䈓齄䬰锧䄓报뽴礰쪧树䅩规쪋ꭥ럊忸삍❠쟳礱༷逭ﺧ㸓߲恑夃핺ጧ돡勒䥙捉㆛᧓䒲梀�ﵘᵶ횛ꗘ틗㏻篙䐦鞞竘ꓕ鬜沗惕０⼚巂痜⫆鑕늺녒䈩侬￥缳❡븂ⓞ鸾礪黣伛ﻁꕮ禑곯集䙡館ⶕ埭쟦篎춨랫䭩꿝�츪ۙ뤃㭋뜉⻲ℌ萈뭝墆ؒꭨᇺ䗩薔�沉귲△撫踢梈㬶ﻎ䘼梉뗓穇痥깘왅ॉ⋩旒ᦁ䉜
ꠝ䭣ᜧ噼䔕ඞ캡ٖ嗚荱᯼荥⍌㏖倿⏧᳷䅢饧鼺튄엤䙡搆ꟿꌈ緀苲⏷증╙�霊陴裆ꌘ쐙�⻱滹苚룣㙑斫넧囑⦱⳹狏궎譈≬뼭⭝숽会㼑쬢鰈믤덧鵓婂砓䵬遹㰿ဓ氺穕垰ॢ鑏�㑋信ㄺ鬽퉅❞㢤쑢ꕅต滅᫊锻롆ﮝ駥ᓼ읯鯄髣蠍ᡞ傩등ꄋ僠⫻؋烆ᎊ㰉ꝃ�䛩䏯ዦ頨馌剈ᔨ腓Q轹ᨔ菂偨鄠䙘珏ហ䂧䐪ପ뼕朂ᄨꅡ噆秠첩₃ᒘ镂瞉釩䇢⎄鍳憄ᔯ誄ő炛㦞ꁏ礐볣ꯧᕴɈ䛰נၐ苵᧩簲㡉娕꽳ᵸ㉔랈䐊胥櫸㶨
敇밪鎮崇癮蛧猴㈞捼泾鱅ꐲ釢불짫㣔稐㢝쩾ጬ䰈࠼غ⌐⇄꿃濕Ỉ왲푎㠴竮鹢省햿쌦캠�枼랶䀬ℑ蠿㚟�햰乜䗏ၴ甘꿸턝蹽ꬉʶ틉ⵋ躜⭫쿼䊼�Ჴ輈⏧窬ᆠ漷爂뚘鱃췔燈༺琳痉ۚ⢣Ꝝ䳣�䕺胐㉰ᮄ≁㗅죃Ꭴ蝒譨䡥붦ፙ楋钁ꍪ讵䣲뒳Ị�ꑣ屟어뻱�ꑄﳝꑝ僴ৎ싉퉔杀ꈑ⮲넝䏒⎚㾃▰⣩�癨ﶡ컕寊糞ꨫ埇➈꣩났瘩㧡➞챏䖕�ﲍגּঙ뱛봳ᜇ๑韜㉎욜ੈ䯢캝炆㭠萸샼琵쩚犝涐ৠ⢀ⰹ铊抎쯃ά땻땥
ꠓ䟬塙㎋櫩ṱ䵼ꕧꯧ瑻덦휧鷏针�瘫꼦妴迲饢℆믔覥ᇴ楮滆ⷥ鋏捲Ṉ⧞풽쨳㊠ᡧ㱺�ᴯ鎴俙빎圪㿲ઢ孏�裝꞊肅ᆑ᥏銣簢挌搣㩔潳ꌖꡗ夳ꅞ셓༐ꑩ㾘ꐳⓊ蕲�ࢋ锈蚅㴡ᩆ锭庁ꈢ蔶䟇ꐥ卒嗨ੌ꼝愎㰣多앢뵱ᤴଓ똊ᄞ⎕葏擸텃袭뱂⨜蕭鬸껤㎇杹㊆뢓ጣᬩꫵ뎄峑불㔆ꏄ舞❢ꕤರ崝贏䯛죱鯊מּ뜒踙�╾툙গ䣑보媲慖ퟛꞰ蚽А䊝⯪䢄뭏墺�䮙釩г몏ﵚ碊ࡅ慠礞웉䈄瑤넼뵉�䐓鬫웠㍫돗泪오ψꏹ┎葦➓뭁�彗ᶧ山雧⁸馤
ꞿ틍럙ⴖꏞ䕾휐榞䟩鏜採㭏底뙹緣䏚ア쪶畮皣꣏ሕꆚ馷Ꭷ㡤눓�칬⢊䍫鿤쪼Ш蟹면䄞㹇긓油㏈値衜�殹䴑垤ꏇ橷糷ԓ䒑鄪⑀㨉肼ꇌ皀拖蠹㙵曹뱗㠏䄄ᣡ仏䪶ꐡ漐㢘䕥ɖ鶂➳뫗幦䄄梁랖㲈劻曏딮턴譹䢻뼿뉵䏊⯂ࣃ闙箏붥⠑閭㣣귞盾伽婘﨣㫲陵ѳﮖ螅颍䨟ᄼ汣݅綴ࣚ쩯犯함쳤휕︸ﺧ䳰僥曠ᅯ퉠Ɣ蔣㍰⥥Ǜ顤賤㱸䮉틱슾쁁㨑ᝆ轹㭈⏱풌ᘙ諴凰䦏癋ﴪ䇕婬륇틣뢗⼲輞퍤㧪乥䤝䦐㙻ᖕ얚ꂗ幖㭷�䒥醆渱㈅ꅃ尘䒆ҩ�㒮
踼겫箳ꌵ⽌퉙⠀᪤㙘쭯핎뜚Ꙭ癘皢볿擬峦깤㳅槼喫뚙ɚ㭶땬泴鱑袔꾍灭노名鑦귑㱖湒蹘伩銼をꌨ鳳ᦨ⦎ബ蚑ṩ钎ꓥ쮽㊳≴젽㨺⼏䚸♳껆ᠧ蘴渚禿အѐ䍊䰩裈ሆ햩㥋鉏쯞析߄ꤒ횎躳䩨獓ꐦ爅㶘磸ࠓ礠洣ᰈ䋔픊ࣽ캢禪䊵⌶觽�猠硆愁萫招ѧ愑䖓눿꾜䕬痘↶ؕ䔢ᪧ鞒�⟚≾邅䁀藙㏎軄飐ᭇླྀ쿛툆䍬召ᆘ켴遄䉻醢숸�쫲蹤쐬锫裄槧遟�䏚㧄鸫뮉䆼鄾㙺衊찡쯮鼪‼菙婋Ꝗᄜ伦㷤ꪂ褼숧䡡脓氨㧒ￋ�銄쀎
簲멌㶯✩∵藄�ႌࠪ笼纓角쩝䐧鞜ꂍ齡休㯠緿消똶͉객Ⰴ裯얲䞣↨䣥璿蚕䆔减࣎粙뙐䭼�⛂ࣿ�杖㈦嗄䑞⤼㞲苢놽풙躯矋ቱ뙬❎�巌砼㲜ꌳ鑧ᴕ氆ଽ䠼戋牢躔⏬㪣�殟㋙ꔡ駑參貦ὤ壟㲭㿋ຣ朑叵葖ெꆥ䁺熼凌ಣ⼪糪ꕹ폾룮⬿꒩Ɏ籌ས滤악⻓㳅㭱ꃃ�酛캍⢧ⱎ쏌㋭戧ﵞ猨툝㟃�厙冤ᵴ鋂岽窶䊄宖猹늤鍒㙊⋳倴韙赬ֈ鷯漧᧧댾뗛럑歷㑸鬬䱺鮼큀䘡碬㐘蠬퉗�㰵꼚Ⲭ憙稘돓飯↰좵꼳ᒈ䇏䗡鍆ᨯ
�㴐姺嚖蹃桎㔄殈Ꮘ䌄깃鎡Ⴆ蝯儆枉줣拱Ⱓඈ芲핱窻ᱱ뀬Љ褁뱀쳵䘚눔䑏Ⱒ凄衖�鏑�刣ೈ腡敘품炼刈벃䞱쯗搯�ꤠ嘼ᮈᝂ製刹庸顶ᘠ೮牙�ᵴ䁍ၪ执ᥜ밢臅䘰島悇᮲䝡鸃זּ픽亩氵浡쩧炲䭈頤₠틌杙遮સ鬣諒늓븬迢朠Ꮑᛩ뗾哇窚䄯弪暼䟮连㮐ꏝ䧮落昈ࢤꂓ♐톚蠣늧䄈ꡃ昐哄閸鸋㝹뿌ݥ⻊곡釞甲㒂乷뇚楋ฮ閮奏ⷁ➞铩츹툾鵃憒馉靗効ǒ❹헐퉑垔䟃䠞賿Kॊଟ꤈礧푵첼툳⤞餋ꐷ臃ⴇ㤊窓