Laserfiche WebLink
and after the mining operation and during reclamation, shall be <br /> minimized. <br /> C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(4)(h). This standard was emphasized multiple times <br /> while the Board was deliberating. R. at 9161, 9167, 9168, 9170. Transit Mix <br /> claims that the Board denied its Application because the Application failed to show <br /> that there would be no disturbances. See Opening Brief, p. 21. In support of this <br /> position, Transit Mix cites statements made on the record by individual members <br /> of the Board. See id. Despite those individual statements, it is clear that the Board <br /> found Transit Mix's Application failed to show that impact to the hydrologic <br /> system of Hatch Rack Ranch and the surrounding areas would be "minimized." <br /> See Order, R. at 4410. Specifically, the Board found Transit Mix failed to <br /> "demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the impact of the proposed <br /> mining operation on the prevailing balance of the proposed affected land and the <br /> surrounding area and on the quality and quantity of groundwater systems will be <br /> minimized." Id. <br /> The Board is within its discretion to determine whether the Application met <br /> the legal standard. Transit Mix's position assumes that the evidence it offered at <br /> the hearing was credible and sufficient to meet the applicable burdens. The <br /> Objectors presented substantial and credible evidence to the Board, which the <br /> Board relied upon. It is the Board's responsibility to determine the weight and <br /> credibility of the evidence. Chostner, 327 P.3d at 297. A reviewing court may not <br /> 13 <br />