HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (7)Bob,
The 2006 report by ESI labels the dunal ridge in the middle of the
property (shown as a dashed line on the survey map from the 2006 ESI
report *See highlighted attached map) as "disturbed", a conclusion they
reached from 3 test holes near it. They did Not label the entire front
side (A1A side, east side) of the property as "disturbed", which by the
way does not disqualify anything from having archeological potential or
"not meet the state standard for archeological sites" as you state, what
ever that means in your mind. The map does show that there were No Test
Holes done on the A1A side (east side) of the parcel in question and
that there are three small structures there since 1948+/- and the
majority of the east side of the parcel is in state as it was since the
1943 aerials, undeveloped other than the "yards" of these small homes
under the trees. The existence of these small structures does not make
any archeology in the ground around them evaporate.
There is archeological occupation evidence throughout the area that
includes this parcel, including the known and recorded midden site on
the river edge side (west side) of this parcel (BR1936). We have learned
recently that there are at least 4 new significant ancient archeological
sites in context and contiguous to this parcel indicating a here to
unknown or recorded probable large village site. We have recently
discovered, standing in this area of Cape Canaveral, portions of it's
ridge mound still intact in plain sight with midden and artifacts all
over it, until now unrecorded (we are in process of site filing these
new discoveries). These new parts of this ancient puzzle explaining and
unifying the archeology of this parcel's site (BR1936) and most if not
all the sites in the adjacent area, including the Fuller Mounds, middens
and Burials to the north end where part of the ridge mound still stands,
with the other end of the Ridge mound standing in the Cape Shores Condo,
right next door to this parcel. In fact the dunal ridge that runs
through this parcel appears to be aligned as the natural structure that
the ridge mound starting in Cape Shores was built upon, adding
significance to the disturbed dunal ridge on the parcel. I have informed
DHR of all this new information along with the attached diagrams and
asked for their consideration.
The attempt to confuse the Mini Golf Course site and the new Dollar
Store site for purposes of obfuscation of the recipients is sad. This
parcel is mostly open never before developed land all the way from the
river to the highway (A1A), We all know this reality. And the A1A side
(east side) has not been phase one tested with test holes, the ESI
survey map shows this. The ESI 2006 report quite rightly included -
"Unexpected findings can occur during project development and might
include discovery of human remains, which would require additional
coordination with the state archeologist in compliance with Chapter
872.05, Florida Statutes...". Considering that other bodies of
pre-contact individuals have been found in the adjacent area (within 50
meters+/-) in the recent past, taking 2 days to allow some properly
supervised phase one test holes (small holes) and gather the data that
is present before your development destroys and paves over anything that
may be there, is only rational. It's not a big deal. If by any chance
human bones are found during the middle of your excavating, you Will
have to Stop or be Breaking the Law, and at that point it could be way
more of an expense than getting in and getting out right now.
There is archeological data available on this site to help complete the
understanding of this overall ancient site that is revealing itself in
this area of Cape Canaveral (even if we find very little it establishes
the limits of the known site). There is no real downside for you or the
developer that is engendering your knee jerk reaction of lashing out and
trying to impugn the Chairman and the Unanimous Advice from the BCHC,
that a look should be taken at the east side of the parcel in question
because it has never been tested, before the opportunity is gone. You
could decide to be a good corporate neighbor and citizen and allow this
little thing to happen to help preserve the history of Florida that
belongs to all of us, but apparently there is a desire, rational or not,
to believe that this cooperation somehow injures you or is a plot to
take something from you, when it is just about preserving historical
data and science. The chance of finding anything so unimaginable that it
would initiate some major expense or difficulty for you and the
developer is extremely remote, even fanciful and in Florida there is
nothing the state will do to stop development anyway. Even bodies are
just examined and removed for protection and development proceeds. This
is not Windover, a site that turned out to be one of the most important
anthropological sites in the world... and still the development
continued all around it. We are not going to find the Dead Sea Scrolls
but perhaps some pieces of evidence that will help with filling out our
understanding of what went on in the daily lives of our amazingly
ancient local culture of the Ais (Ah-eez) people, who lived their lives
around a thriving village for perhaps a thousand years (dated material
from your site) right there on your property. The Ais are one of the
oldest resident cultures in North America, possibly 4000 years on this
barrier island, and their history was almost wiped out, save for
precious pieces like this last stretch of beautiful original shoreline
hammock, and coincidentally a probable archeological site of a here to
unknown and unrecorded significant village occupation. I have informed
DHR of all this new information and asked for their consideration.
What is the big deal? Is your only thought "Who Cares!" Why so dark and
angry about this simple reasonable idea of preserving historical DATA
before it's lost? You could be the good guy that helps add to our
communities knowledge of our own local history with no down side. You
won't be compelled to do anything to stop your development... unless you
dredge up bodies in your excavation and then it will screech to a halt
for however long that takes. Is this really the way Cumberland Farms
wants to be known in the community before it even opens it's doors,
destroy and insult the community's concerns about history as well as all
the other unfavorable feelings they seem to be engendering in their
local neighbors and potential customers? There's a lot of places to
choose to get gas.
Rick Piper
Alan: What you seem to be missing and I'm not sure it is intentional or
not that the eastern half of the property has already been developed.
It has a 36 miniature golf course on it, with several ponds dug to 10',
now a Dollar General (time of the report a defunct restaurant), and the
section that the proposed Cumberland Farm sites on has 3 buildings (two
story house, duplex, and a foundation for a house that was torn down)
all on the eastern section. This section of the land is clearly label
disturbed land on the report and has no archaeology value because the
land has been previously developed and does not meet the state standard
for archaeology sites. If you are proposing all developed land in that
area has to meet a higher standard then state and federal law I suggest
you have no standing to make such a request and that you are either
misinformed or politically motivated in the "stop the redevelopment" of
the site. Either way I do not think you are doing the mission of the
Brevard County Historical Commission by your actions. When you sit on a
public board I would think one of the minimum requirements is following
the laws of the land, including laws on archaeology sites. I believe
(do not have the report in front of me while I'm responding to this
email) that page 28 of the 43 page report clearly shows this.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry, 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 tional <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 portio 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
<image001.png>
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
<image002.jpg> <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
曖伿런㘖�觕쪈銎改੪쾏Ạ춽呍ኒ⬂궏鳾釟컬↡乳枉䬺긶갧淩⼊䵯蟾忺緺ꤽ⒉됪䞵ᄠ꧃⡱忺꽿�⥞ꬁ嵼ꍐ鄃࿗ጋꉲÿ㠞ࢡ䌈ꑡꬃᐴ掫澮ᨱ롈ꛓÿ抃빾෪㴈蹗㩽ઙ脪൦ͫﹱ꓾퐠픃욉Ȋኻ勞缚猪䳻ή픓⨝䎫鵎ꮣुὝ䛯ῖ汎�筟༾졍䵀˪⒕Ʒ掁率ﲹ蝿�⇩灢䵇螩Ҭ肽劸㢒ﳶ脢Ἃ팳⻱䎦㫸핋끓㲔進嗟窛�¦Èꔃ芺쾷튨ᙚ㦦蠪Ő颙Ზ䍿羨�ꖱ琐룻됧畐댕鲹옴穊鞺坐ⲇ䣣刿袺笼孤핸V꡴豎伲幂㈉ⶱ䔮
鼒靌ᵩㆂ�缎쬞�䚤尥飩蛘晧Ꜵ浂睎렞䣱㆕봶眶흰鬀맺咦巩⠵㸖祪ᓪꮳ腄㩀⾵涥Ձ쾀큚ዀ㩆ﵓ労飸ꝋせ䉕潭⏁槚⻁㰨犺崵먃窜⢖◮﹂坏뒥㣲䋝钐ݮႥ⏐蹵☊雾ꑓᲖ濲⋀ᛗ卆鄫釖蟃臔ƌ뭴뜩쫒헗㿵ኋꗞ麅뒆컩ේᴣ퐶࣓뒑⒝䥺�ꞿ�럽䆿訔⛕薫ଢ଼⥀ꉞ┬䂄꒶�ﵩ㙖筫ꍽ艱稨ፏ逅⺳먼탠鳨욺⥊郺�緾ヮ헚콼驊茆�驤甆芺␀玛醨Űÿ꠸垯芉䎁鑞⤘㖒鑥ᴲ縺亟Ｔ똀�⍒阅㢼ÿ谮患䓒ﰣଽ燛놬ᘱ禎�迺坡綮퐳떧
渼㚆樕똫㞶㤰㧚쭂ᐃ憨奰≦孫䮚뺂删低筄헆嘥Jﾺ쌀웓⡮턿㕵ᬽ⩞鵺享ᗜ쮴熸剞붖壗�諵䓪ꤵ鿑ꂷ耤쒥铒ﺯ纅䴲ᘥ絪뚭�籅�帽夌屿劕ផ罐❈浻땕䦁˶䨌ꛖ컟돎潲魯줝좎狣鮴搟빬課禓奁�擑硲ꭧ용䡃곓쿓㱍롿ੑ惘綐릢몡렺㪀踵䒟�錄䕓㴡Ս譄븻Ⱇꩣ隺躬뱆畕缄䓊芠�뭥䎨ࠒꜘ顚ㅿ�봴뻉钰间വ勏哗ể蒥ꐡ癱䨪ÿ蒫猪㫦耳醬터博᷼봓랥ݷ崏뻴俕쮺䫮䦺ᠲퟨꗂ敤瑺䁾ᅗ㽲範�㕅cÿꤾḐ䘢鸸�最糐꾾
珸쮁䥏鑓믫ꁑ閎뉪᳙⊕僔⭢楪禥퇱廝ј㷲犽ᓞ쀱∟뺅⩿뫼癕䁔零틪쨾卽揉ᑰ鞸�昚Ɽ固呉⠛頥괭뿸熴�䋖匁䗑쫌š읉䚟嵮拉쨃ࣱ篫阮䦠М᳇퀲䧖嘌喙荋䑭㽰퐞�언艁繸⁝禒복쨇阜湫ꋦ쾧ㅥ㖫ᨶ潪ḭ驆ꪖꦚ▪Ι劼㓅㐢⇶䌌윐⧱켇窭皾Ữ�땝瞲盝釛⸷ꯑᓘ研榩釖쇲⠪�誖娽俞ĬŃ량偳퉗쾿箣ᩣ塚ྸ♮�慄ꚜ㌿﮼輾頣췂봃텔꼍ᡙꈥ하秵숅랕△䛗糖⦺⮹璩藺卵ÿꃰ竺둌庝峸�쿸ꦻ햳쏒戆잓ᥟ澹먜͵㷽㞅퀬뛓辧汋
뛖쎒♑눺ᘊ됕᬴虮届궤嚨볓שׂꏔ단්ﳸ㓻ʴ嚈穼⥝⨪簰皶깊螞偱闎ﴒ䷕匓姏㣰ᨂູ冸풿ꞏ嚳怈聑Ꮭᵈ↥푳㉨舻굼�瓛馔폺䕉ᙑ죖굀╋㥄椚ꏑ蚝㢑꠩筠㒨驏睴Ⴔ䆲ě퓢濵氹掯㙤㘽ᴾ侙礬ԬהּЙ떏넆횧䐌ጛỵ�䮁Ҵ殒쫐ᩰᴉ⥎嗕嶬뭌툣ꩥ秱앆ൢ屸◇䐚茜␜䝺篸嬓븬萔駼⫪擞溍聭弾ꚙ�誑䡷龱냡쳊꧖⹕꣎݀纏ᾱ〛⺍㍐�넙颵ꈾ髫헍窒鏓沦㖤늎쪊ꤧ▕ᥚਣ塖龄ᙀ笜�吤㎄صꖾ娾柔얧籈퇾哑⿹ꞝ�왳હ仅
푞ð曔걗�ᶏ띂绐ᒈ�勢挌�濐ꮘ䫢⍁ꥏ捫퓇ⵖ䬖�咯㢫騑灡�됇㡌ƻ数躷먰⌀瓐ᄓौ垗��솝띟⢫ㅪᳩ秊鸗隚娹卭╉⡁ᢉᢺ뗔ꢿ姶춹ⱦ揧騚亏䋭륦抷헙듕叼俈곝濴ᵋᑜ䕊塆貪ᓉ轷މ皒쁒꾏箸驳紣蠑鋶퐩랻輹멭썗흐Ỷ쾫撻㇜延쟹ꧮᘵ뱶≔啄펢騬筁樍큇潳䵣샸冷뒩썿蟓㫁話ﳬ嗋噑啐ᐌ咲諻塩靸ໆ뺖ꮡ⿼꯭�ꟊ嘵ÿ骶꧵詓펊뷼╮悺來뢏◘䟱�⢇谶桌扪吁㫘飸羛硏뒛緑�轱计㳾䢽䜬쟓쑃ÿ궓⻫�⎟忩䄙㎸椽嬽ꖫ
ꪑҩサ癉⨾儺퀡튶ⶊワ䙣Ἦꃋ껼멘쟪뭆霏䉣켍롌躬䝼龪콷ꂈ圑䤳⠭꒤ԭ蹌劗팏滘滳鞺㍶겄띥齯뉍棅⺷মꋆἀㄠ瓹꺣ᮕ暿⥢ㄫ伏캉瘵쇜䮾铸昱䞡䣲�ᦣ㟧혈浒板녖ㄼ䖀㴀뜇셍摯搪儭拾鮻홷�璔䮻੪㨚ᱪ㉶땬䧢㠌Ꭷ䫔枱럺ҵ胸䐷⩒賂ꐺ�쪘다딴拘ᣕᷠⷤ鴺쩰አ稣墳⭥⍍�슌뚤孏罗踩�徛㎬ￛ대砱�赃ർ䙕꿖⓻㦇ꐠ露꣤쳇㫾Ωߔગ슮㓢Ⱨ⻝䵘Ⳓ푴㗩幾鹴鷝덥ᐱ친爿䏁⢷ꖣᓚゴ쵑ⵍ㰍ᰫᕋ㱂飁锢学�
⚮췔垧ᩨϙ㇊ﴍÿ藴桌⤩蓨秦ㄠ仇어쉩⋃斩⬲룪�榟ᇑ띟⊤硋ퟧ瘢鞟㵋놡鍺鈻澋婮苼ꑑ鈦荜ꈘ雱ȍ初눗�쌺廛ᬽᗅ쎫དྷ㎝ῒ뚸䝆敡칶ꈺ덚氍ᗵ破摩陷ꪺ侚銷벙ҥ쒴ி᳴녻䄅擕튊唩┼鰄ꭣ诛嗘ᕿ㷷䷛趐ᢰ굾�䱹ᴝ㙶踼鋬熟樮ꪭ鉏㆙軉脨爯﯀ⶼ䦕䷕뜿ꯏ㛊歅�⛕繷秏�홱賽�囜ᕇ잎袪ㅪ苢蘥ਤ事큦䟁Ỵᯫ༐䦊鹯⽺Ⓔꆑ徱甬�ⵗ芓⮗辖唳昖봽놲裓䋵䮉ᰞ囝濗哛몷㦎틡㟺蒂့討쮮跫�⤟猾捑�櫹⻌鎮齫ᖏ덃蛦
Ꞧ⌋䴼琝䩰뙴憡旮渀콝�번䕆ܬ븒ꁣﯭ譕卷纫菸鿒뜢㮾놺巴�䎝폎泑嵚뗽㧱친ቻ튔투䵦繝좪怞�掓懬얖綸뵣톤걅馧뫼熗儅伭嵕쯼ᵾྲྀ跇肽��牴껭痢댵鸺ⶂ䦑흃홏묛벪ᚆᐽ맫묲Ꮃ⁉溕䵠ꑈ착鏼쭩┛䟃鈨껡⚐℈㘘ꕗ瞖�쑝騘㕩㸟䚊ﻌ뽎眬叧ﭢ꿟즎ꕝ욗翛�艁篟ῃő鎞뜳쿱達䟉瘜䤆㙞≦�䷶黙淟䢚ᦑ踀붜盟㭛랅�訠た饿渝닳﨨䙧黵꓾�慪㢱드屸⛶皏七㒵埓坐㵗昮⾢萧讵拉俶麛拜믺怩¯哪쎑ᤕ됞滩뫛韭䟆
붰憊癚樰둽锦맨ÿ돜꿵湐촍ꛡ퇅�튄見Ꞙ哅ꚉ颎掀䩰ᗽ疡踑嶖攕㡀귗樶ㆪ喱다⸭癆䣊櫞䠈叚肩ꭓⳉ纤윍늵훦⸪㨍鰢瘷䚓竔ಪ䙾鎦輛⫇뛔䝄䠵劁륏픶踗菤ꋬ셂ẘ㤝ݬ肈파쮣魏밸⫎⒳邴ꄠ㋛见挒彩㿐坢⽲ϫ擝쌃ꕦ퀱얒Ḵս웛֓쪗࣮뒱楿춌䷖㑑셡匵䯊徉겒㿷桟㻘殂仛磃⡲戔ԯ炶ⵔꢷ鸠ᱏ퉲孁�鶞增闔쥳ැﻀ�쥭緔⌺㞆㵌㵬�딵鄽몷豇䜱�債ᔬ혱ꋂ뺚▣羿ꐓᚭꦃ㙚�玔鰔ꠁᲡ݁⎈ῌ贾⛌ૡ僤ẊḄἵꟕ큋褽ᵛ坮
浫诟몹梊骤ᆟ窹湧㇡ᗵᤍ俱朾䤟簽ᑭ䧄葰뚒ﯼ뭂┧♪䩮瓛Ꟗዴ澿㴎鈩駯꘩攞ල㥏鵚됂⽻皱ᙅⅫ篙ྗ랸蚪鬌롭쭾ꎡᗕ⌮䤁㶢�츸몔풭㵽禿靰∲ࣅ�⨔ᐨꌊ