ENFORCE28355

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 1/13/2000
• Doc Name: JIM & ANN TATUM
• From: US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Violation No.: TD1993020370005TV3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

IBLA 96-90, 96-91
Attwooll, who inspected Appellants' horse on February 23, 1995, con-
cluded that the crac]cs observed in the exterior and interior walls were
wider and more pranaunced in the eastern two-story portion of the house
than in the western ~e-story portica~, where the cracks were fran hairline
to less than one-eighth of an inch wide. (Letter to Appellants, dated
March 16, 1995, at 1-2.) He attributed the narxvw cracking generally in
the western cme-story portion of the house to the normal aging process of
an old adobe house, but the severe cracking generally in the eastern two-
story portion of the house, which was "[r]elatively recent (aryl] *
possibly mZgoing," to a "settlen?nt incident." 7.s1. at 3. He pointed out
that the freshness of some of the cracks was "indi.cated by the separation
of recently painted surfaces." Id.
Attwooll then proceeded to assess the possibility that this exten-
sive cxaclciix3 was caused by water leaking-f%n the roof; the rotting roots
attached to the sturtgs of two large nearby oottorHiood trees, fluctuations
in the high water table, poor drainage arrxurl the horse, deterioration of
walls above the foundation, or, finally, subsidence extending northeast
from BRI's First North Main mining. (Letter to Appellants, dated March 16,
1995, at 4-6.) He ruled out each of the possible explanations other than
mine subsidence, irostly because none explained the extent or recent nature
of the damage to the eastern two-story portion of the house. Id. While he
believe3 that the evidence did not categorically point to a specific cause
for the damage, considerirxJ the lack of other possible causes and the fact
that daRege had been occurring since the mining took place, Attwooll con-
cluded that "surface m~vertpnts due to coal mine subsidence are a likely
reason for the damage." Id. at 7.
Reins, who inspected the house on April 24, 1995, agreed with
Attwooll that the damage was "fairly recent" and mostly on the eastern
two-story portion of the house. (Letter to Appellants, dated May 23,
1995, at 2.) He also noted that the da«age was likely due to a rotation
of the east and south walls downwaizi and away frun the rest of the house,
since the consistent (rather than random) orientation and pattern of the
damage supported that c~clusion. ~ at 4; Manorarxhan to Appellants,
dated June 30, 1995, at 3. While, like Pendleton, he had not been able
to inspect the foundation underlying this portion of the house, Reins
nevertheless stated:
The locations, geometry, and orientation of the dis-
tress within house strorr3ly suggest that the east and south
walls are rotating away frun the rest of the structural fram-
ing. It appears that the foundation systans beneath these two
walls have subsided. The magnitude of the subsidence does not
appear to be particularly substantial. However, even a fairly
subtle movan=nt of the faurlaticai would be magnified in the
movat~ts aryl rotaticros of the framing and bearing walls above.
If the residence was a ccurventional, wood-framed house,
these relatively small movanents might have been easily accan-
mcdated without significant distress. However, adobe construc-
tion is ~ nhA*p*+tly incapable of resisting or accanrodati.rig such

151 IHSA 305