Laserfiche WebLink
8806, 9023-24. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board <br /> determined that Transit Mix's offer was insufficient to minimize the impact to the <br /> area's hydrologic system. See R. at 4410. <br /> The Board weighed expert testimony from both Transit Mix and the <br /> Objectors. See Order, R. at 4405-06. The Board found the objectors' evidence <br /> "credible" and "compelling." R. at 9165, 9166. The Board believed the testimony <br /> of Charles Norris, the objectors' expert. Mr. Norris testified that there was no <br /> perched water (no underlying aquifer) in the area, that the mining operation will <br /> drain water from the flanks of Little Turkey Creek, reduce the base flow (and <br /> possibly the perennial flow) of the creek, and reduce availability of water to wells <br /> in the area. See R. at 4406, 8912-29. The Board may have been persuaded that <br /> the objectors' experts were more credible because they provided a real life <br /> analogy. NORAD bored out a nearby mountain that was geologically similar to <br /> the proposed mining site, which adversely affected the hydrologic balance and <br /> caused the surrounding water to disappear permanently. See R. at 8820-23. <br /> Despite Transit Mix's proffered testimony that there would be no adverse impact <br /> to hydrologic balance, including the objectors' wells, the Board appropriately <br /> credited the objectors' testimony. See R. at 4405, 9165, 9166. The Board credited <br /> the witnesses presented by the objectors and applied the proper legal standard to <br /> 15 <br />