|
IBLJ\ 9.6-90, 96-91
<br />James Pendletcn, an ~*+~*-+*+~ geologist, as well as of OSN1's experts,
<br />Michael F. Rosenthal, Dr. Jesse L. Craft, and Dr. Ker,ral K. Kohli, all of
<br />whom inspected appellants' house on one or mJre occasions.
<br />Pendleton relied on the fact that there was no damage anywhere
<br />along the foundation of the house, either in the concrete walls and
<br />carent plaster coating on the walls of the basarent or in the rubble
<br />stone foundation, and that such da~mge was necessary to establish that
<br />the horse had been subjected to mine subsidence. 'This was substantiated
<br />by Kohli. (KOhli Report at 1.) Likewise, Rosenthal stated that he had
<br />"never observed actual subsidence damage to a structure where there has
<br />been no fourrlation involvement," thus ruling out mine subsidence as the
<br />cause of the damage to appellants' house. (MSrorarrhan to File, dated
<br />Feb. 16, 1995.)
<br />In addition, Rosenthal noted that the "worst case subsidence [can-
<br />puterJ modeling" he had done also indicated that mine subsidence was not
<br />the cause of any of the damage to appellants' house. (Ma~orandum to File,
<br />dated Feb. 16, 1995 (referring to Trip Report at 2).) 'This was supported
<br />by CYaft's own co[~uter modeling. (Craft Report at 4-5, 7.)
<br />Appellants contend that CSI erred in declining to initiate a Fed-
<br />eral investigation aryl take Federal enforcertpnt action because BRI's
<br />~~p ~~*r+~*+~ muvng operations caused material damage to their home. (S(Il2,
<br />IBIA 96-91, at 1, 7, 12, 14-15.) 'They argue that the three professional
<br />~na;noo*c hired by them, Gerity, Attwooll, airs Reins, as well as Vigil,
<br />the Las AntIlas County Building Tn r~'-^tor, each support the CCnClusicm that
<br />the "majority" of the damage evident in their house resulted frun mine sub-
<br />sidence. Id. at 1. They state that "[t]he study of the cause and effect
<br />of coal mini ~ is not exact," but that "(n]o other reasonable explanation
<br />can explain what has happened to our hccne + + +,~~ Isi. at 2. Thus, appel-
<br />lants conclude that BRI was required to repair the damage to their house ar
<br />oa~aLSate than for that damage. ~, at 12, 14.
<br />Gerity believed that subsidence could have caused the damage to
<br />appellants' house because there was no verified distance frrm the mine
<br />workings to the house. (MarorarrLan to Tatums fran Gerity, dated Dec. 27,
<br />1994, at 3 ("My criticism of (LNG's] reports is they did not indicate
<br />that they * * *•eliminated the possible [subsidence] effects because of
<br />the unsubstantiated distance").) He later stated, after further reviewing
<br />LNG's files aryl reference infornation aryl again visiting the site, that
<br />"[t]here is definitely the possibility of mine subsidaice, and this sub-
<br />sidence could have affected the stability of the house." ("Report on the
<br />Potential Causes of SUbsida•ice of the Solitario Ranch House," dated Jan„~*y
<br />1995 at 2.) Gerity attriluted this possibility first to the foot that sub-
<br />sidence "does occur" even with limited extraction roan and pillar mining:
<br />"Over' limo, the mine roof may fail, the pillars may fail, or the mine floor
<br />may fail. Failure is often accelerated by water in the mine, affecting
<br />the stability of the rocks, and failure can also occur when the floors are
<br />soft." Id. at 3; ~ Manorarx~sn to T~tums faun Gerity, dated July L3,
<br />1995, at.2-3. ~ ~ - -
<br />151 IffiA 304 .
<br />' .. ,.r ;
<br />
|