ENFORCE24314

two weeks, and that the material would be stored for six months to one year. Based
on these representations, the Board declared the excavation exempt from permitting
requirements consistent with the long-standing position of the Board that landowners
may excavate aggregate for use on their own property without a reclamation permit.
3. On August 29, 2002, the Division received an anonymous complaint about the Sierra
Mojada pit. The complaint alleges that Arthur Vyn Bonnighausen has been removing
gravel from the stockpile at the Sierra Mojada pit and using it at locations other than
the Sierra Mojada subdivision.
4. The Division investigated this complaint to determine if gravel is, in fact, being used
off-site. The Division concluded that if gravel from the Sierra Mojada pit is being
used outside the subdivision, the use would be inconsistent with the premises of the
Board's declaratory order, and the excavation could constitute an illegal mining
operation.
5. The Division inspected the site on September 11, 2002, and found a stockpile of
approximately 2,000-3,000 cubic yards cf gravel. The inspector estimated that half of ~.....
the existing stockpile had been recently removed. He fiu-ther concluded that the
Sierra Mojada pit constitutes an illegal mining operation because material from the
site has not been used by the landowner as intended. He based this assessment on the
anonymous complaint, the existence of a stockpile long after the site should have
been reclaimed, and the recent activity at the site. The inspector concluded that the
material was suppose to be used only on primary roads within the subdivision.
Instead, however, the material had been sold to homeowners within the subdivision
for their use.