Laserfiche WebLink
depicted in the survey that accompany the conversation application, the enclosed <br />Attachment B. It is also sigpificant to note that, while the cemetery is depicted in ' <br />this new survey, it is shown as having only a 10-foot buffer. <br />because of the omission of the cemetery from the listing of "man-made <br />structures" in the conversion application, none of the persons or,agencies who . <br />received the requisite notices of the expansion of the existing Castillo Gravel Pit. <br />would have any idea the expanded gravel pit vKOUid jeopardize the cemetery. <br />CEMETERY NOT PROTECTED BY ADEQUATE BUFFER ZONE <br />r. Espinoza and~I have a legitimate concern that the cemetery boundary is <br />Moot sufficien8y clear of the various graves within, that. the gravel extraction <br />and the equipment used to access the site are not remaining substantially clear of the <br />boundary, afid that many of the graves located therein may be in the future, or <br />already are, exposed by the work• performed there. As is visible from the enclosed <br />- , <br />Attachments C and D, a dozer or grader has stripped approximately six inches of . <br />topsoil from the entire site. The cemetery is bounded by asingle-Strand barb wire <br />fence affixed to steel "T" posts. It is unknown how Mr. Castillo or Road and <br />Bridge Department employees determined the boundaries of the cemetery, and <br />whether they did so accurately. And it is doubtfiil that a 10-foot buffer is sufficient <br />to protect the graves from disinterment., <br />Mr. Tony~Waldron, an environmental,protection specialist with the Division,. <br />performed an inspection of this site Feb. 17, 2005, and, according to Mr: Waldron, a <br />30-foot set-off is desirable. In his inspection report, dated Mar. 18, 2005, Mr. <br />Waldron wrote: <br />Page 5 of Z 1 <br /> <br />