The decision of the department of November 23, 1993, to release the portions of the reclamation bond on the S-39 permit area is affirmed with the exception of approximately six and one-half (6 1/2) acres of Phase I release and approximately four (4) acres of Phase II release on the Butts property.
Since Amax Coal Company has withdrawn their request for bond release on the contested portion of the Butts property, the remainder of this administrative cause is dismissed as moot.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") is an agency within the meaning of IC 4-21.5.
2. The DNR is the state agency responsible for the regulation of surface coal mining in Indiana.
3. IC 14-24[FOOTNOTE 1], IC 4-21.5, and 310 IAC 12 apply to these proceedings.
4. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Amax Coal Company ("Amax") held surface coal mine permit S-39 issued by the DNR which allowed surface coal mining in Vigo County, Indiana.
5. Pursuant to IC 14-34-6-1, Amax posted a reclamation bond with the DNR prior to mining in the S-39 permit area.
6. Pursuant to IC 14-34-6-7 and 319 IAC 12-4-16, Amax requested a partial release of the reclamation bond.
7. On November 23, 1993, the DNR granted a partial release of bond on the S-39 permit area.
8. On December 8, 1993, Everett Woll ("Woll") filed a petition for administrative review of the decision of the DNR to release a portion of the bond.
9. The administrative law judge is the ultimate authority for the agency within the meaning of IC 4-21.5.
10. The DNR bond release decision included both "phase I" (grading) and "Phase II" revegetation on a number properties. See 310 IC 12-4-16(c)(1) and (2).
11. Woll is a non-permit area property owner. He owns farmland adjacent (actually it is separated by a county road) to the permit area.
12. Woll's objection to bond release deals with his contention that the post-mining surface drainage has increased the amount of surface water flowing onto and across his property.
13. Discovery responses referred to in the motion for partial summary judgment show that Woll does not contend that any of the mined properties except a portion of the Butts property contributes to his problem with surface drainage.
14. The only drainage in contention is that drainage which is directed from the Butts property to a culvert which runs under the county road separating Woll's property from the Butts property.
15. Amax is entitled to bond release on those areas not alleged to contribute to the surface water drainage problem.
16. There is a factual dispute with respect to the Butts drainage area which totals 6 1/2 acres more or less for grading bond release and four acres more or less for revegetation bond release.
17. On February 27, 1996, Amax notified the administrative law judge that it was withdrawing its request for bond release on the contested portions of the Butts property.
18. Between the ruling on partial summary judgment and the withdrawal of part of the request for bond release by Amax, a final order disposing of this matter can be issued.
1 IC 14-34 is the recodification of IC 13-4.1. Citations in early briefs filed in this matter may refer to IC 13-4.1. The recodification did not make any substantive changes in the law.