Laserfiche WebLink
The Board must determine the weight and credibility of this evidence. <br /> Chostner, 327 P.3d at 297. A reviewing court may not reweigh evidence or <br /> substitute its own judgment for that of an agency. Microsemi, 200 P.3d at 1125. <br /> The Board found the testimony of Dr. Sanderson, the director of science for The <br /> Nature Conservancy, credible and convincing. R. at 9179. Dr. Sanderson's <br /> testimony is competent evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion <br /> that the Application did not adequately account for the safety and protection of <br /> wildlife. <br /> The Board adequately explained its conclusion with factual findings. An <br /> agency's findings need not be specific as long as they "apprise the parties and the <br /> reviewing court of the basis for its decision." Moya, 870 P.2d at 624. The absence <br /> of express findings is not fatal to a decision provided there is evidence in the <br /> record that supports its decision. Burns, 820 P.2d at 1177. <br /> Here, The Board's findings regarding the wildlife at the proposed Quarry <br /> and the totality of the evidence at the hearing are sufficient to apprise this Court of <br /> the basis of the Board's decision. Rule 3.1.8(1) requires the mining and <br /> reclamation plan to give special attention to critical periods in the life cycle of <br /> species that require special consideration, including elk calving and migration <br /> routes. The Board found that the proposed mining operation is within a migratory <br /> corridor for animals, including elk and mule deer, and is a critical connection point <br /> 20 <br />