Laserfiche WebLink
roads to be added and whether the disturbed area under the NOI and previous <br />amendments was being increased. <br />6. Applicant responded to the Notice of Deficiencies for MD -04 on <br />December 18, 2018, specifying that the proposed road increase consisted of 2727 feet <br />and that MD -04 would not increase the bonded disturbed acreage. <br />7. On February 12, 2019, the Division notified Applicant that it was <br />approving MD -04. The Division also notified interested parties, including INFORM <br />and the Kellers, that it had approved MD -04 and that they had the right to appeal <br />the decision. <br />8. On February 20, 2019, INFORM and the Kellers submitted a joint <br />request for an appeal of the Division's approval of MD -04. INFORM and the Kellers <br />argued that Applicant did not have an easement over the Keller's road and, given <br />the lack of an easement over the access road on the Keller's property, questioned <br />whether Applicant had a legal right of entry for the roads added to the NOI by MD - <br />04. <br />9. At the Board's April 24, 2019 meeting, the Division presented <br />testimony regarding MD -04 and the arguments advanced by INFORM and the <br />Kellers. According to the Division, the issue of whether Applicant had a right to <br />access the road over the Keller's land was a property issue outside the scope of the <br />Division or Board's jurisdiction. The Division also presented testimony that the <br />road through the Keller property used to access the NOI were not "affected land" <br />under the Act because the road in question was not being substantially upgraded, <br />existed prior to the application, and was not constructed for purposes related to the <br />Dawson Gold Project <br />10. INFORM and the Kellers presented testimony regarding the <br />Applicant's contested right to access the road through the Keller's land and argued <br />that a right to access land included in an NOI is an implied requirement under the <br />Act and Rules. <br />11. Applicant presented testimony regarding the road at issue. In <br />particular, Applicant presented testimony that the access road has been in <br />existence since at least 1903, when it appeared on a historic plat, and that they <br />would not be constructing a new access road under MD -04. Applicant acknowledged <br />that there is a dispute as to their right to access the road on the Kellers' property <br />but argued that that dispute is beyond the scope of the Board's or Division's <br />jurisdiction. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />12. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Act, Article 32 of Title 34, C.R.S. (2018) ("Act"). <br />Zephyr Gold USA Ltd <br />P-2013-002 2 <br />