Laserfiche WebLink
findings clearly support the Board's decision to deny the Application. As such, the <br /> Board met any requirement it had to provide such findings, and the Order should <br /> be affirmed. <br /> D. The Application failed to satisfactorily take into account the <br /> safety and protection of wildlife at the proposed site to the <br /> satisfaction of the Board. <br /> The Board also denied the Application because it failed to adequately take <br /> into account the safety and protection of wildlife at the proposed site, and therefore <br /> did not comply with 2 Colo. Code Regs. § 407-4, Rule 3.1.8. Under C.R.S. § 34- <br /> 32.5-115(c), the Board can deny an application if it fails to comply with the laws or <br /> regulations of the Act. Transit Mix attacks this conclusion on two grounds. First, <br /> Transit Mix argues that the conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence. See <br /> Opening Brief, p. 26. Second, it argues that the Board did not make factual <br /> findings to explain its conclusion. Id. <br /> The Board's order is supported by substantial evidence and includes factual <br /> findings about the testimony regarding the protection and safety of wildlife. The <br /> Board found the objectors' evidence more credible and concluded that the <br /> Application did not comply with Rule 3.1.8. The order should not be overturned <br /> because Transit Mix would have weighed the evidence differently. <br /> The protection of wildlife is integral to the Act. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-102 <br /> (1) ("It is the... intent of the general assembly to conserve natural resources [and] <br /> 17 <br />