Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90,96-91 <br />James Pendleton, an engineering geologist, as well as of OSM's experts, Miclhael F. Rosenthal, Dr. Jesse L. Craft, and Dr. <br />Kewal K. Kohli, all ofwhon inspected appellants' house on one or more occasions. <br />Pendleton relied on the fact that there was no damage anywhere along the foundation of the house, either in the <br />concrete walls and cement plaster coating on the walls of the basement or in die rubble stone foundation, and that such <br />damage was necessary to establish that the house had been subjected to mine subsidence. This was substantiated by Kohli. <br />(Kohli Repot at 1.) Likewise, Rosenthal stated that he had "never observed actual subsidence damage to a structr-e where <br />there has been no foundation in'volvement," thus riding out mine subsidence as die cause of the damage to appellants' house. <br />(Merrrorrndum to File, dated Feb. 16, 1995.) <br />In addition, Rosenthal noted that the "worst case subsidence [computer] modeling" he had done also indicated that <br />mine subsidence was not the cause of any of the damage to appellants' house. (Memorandum to File, dated Feb. 16, 1995 <br />(referring to Trip Repot at 2).) This was supported by Crafl's own computer modeling. (Craft Reportat 4-5, 7) <br />Appellants contend that OSM erred in declining to initiate a Federal investigation and take Federal enforcement action <br />because BRI's Underground mining operations catrssed material damage to their home. (SOP, IBLA 96-91, at 1, 7, 12, 14- <br />15.) They argue that the three professional engineers hired by them, Gerity, Attwooll, and Reins, as well as Vigil, the Las <br />Animas County Building Inspector, each support the conclusion that the "majority" of the damage evident in heir house <br />resulted fiom mine subsidence. Id. at 1. They state that "[t]he study of the cause and effect of coal mining is not exact," but <br />drat "[n]o other reasonable explanation can explain what has happened to our home * * *." Id. at 2. Thus, appellants <br />conclude that BRI was required to repair the damage to their house or compensate them for that damage. Id. at 12, 14. <br />Gerity believed that subsidence could have caused the damage to appellants' house because there was no verified <br />distance from the mine workings to die house. (Memorandum to Tatums from Gerity, dated Dec. 27, 1994, at 3 ("My <br />criticism of [DMG's] reports is they did not indicate that they * * * eliminated die possible [subsidence] effects because of <br />the unsubstantiated distance").) Fle her stated, after father reviewing DMG's files and reference information and again <br />visiting the site, that "[t]here is definitely the possibility of mine subsidence, and this subsidence could have affected the <br />stability of the house." ("Report on the Potential Causes of Subsidence of the Solitario Ranch House," dated January 1995 <br />at 2.) Gerity attributed this possibility first to the fact that subsidence "does occur" even with limited em-action room and <br />pillar mining: "Over time, the mine roof may fail, the pillars may fail, or the mine floor may fail. FAure is often accelerated <br />by water in the mine, affecting the stability of the rocks, and failure can also occur when the floors are soft." Id. at 3; see <br />Memorandum to Tatums from Gerity, dated July 13, 1995, at 2-3. <br />151 IBLA 304