Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA %-90,96-( 1 <br />Attwooll, who inspected Appel lants' house on February 23, 1995, concluded that the cracks observed in the exterior <br />and interior walls were wider and more pronounced in the eastern two-story portion of the house than in the western one- <br />story portion, where the cracks were from hairline to less than one-eighth of an inch wide. (Letter to Appellants, dated <br />March 16, 1995, at 1-2.) Heat pibuted the nan-ow cracking generally in the western one-story portion of the house to the <br />normal aging process of an old,adobe hose, but the severe cracking generally in the eastern two- story portion of the house, <br />which was "[r]elatively recent [and] * * * possibly ongoing," to a "_settlement incident" Id. at 3. He pointed out that the <br />fieshness of some of the sacks was "indicated by the separation of recently painted stufaces." Id. <br />Attwooll then procetxied to assess the possibility that this extensive cracking was caused by water leaking fimm the <br />roof, the rotting roots attached to the stumps of two large nearby cottonwood trees, fluctuations in the high water table, poor <br />do nage around the house, deterioration of walls above the foundation, or, finally, subsidence extending northeast from <br />BRI's First North Main mining., (Letter to Appellants, dated March 16, 1995, at 4-6.) He ruled out each of the possible <br />explanations other than mine subsidence, mostly because none explained the extent or recent nature of the damage to the <br />eastern two-story portion of the house. Id. While he believed that the evidence did not categorically point to a specific cause <br />for the damage, considering the lack of other possible causes and the fact that damage had been occuuring since the mining <br />took place, Attwooll concluded,that "Surface movements due to coal mine subsidence are a likely reason for the damage." <br />Id. at 7. <br />Reins, who inspected the house on April 24, 1995, agreed with Attwooll that the damage was "fairly recent" and mostly <br />on the eastern two-story portiomof the house. (Letter to Appellants, dated May 23, 1995, at 2.) He also noted that the <br />damage was likely due to a rotation of the east and south walls downward and away from the rest of the house, since the <br />consistent (rather than random) orientation and pattern of the damage supported that conclusion. Id at 4; MemorandLan to <br />Appellants, crated Atne 30, 1995, at 3. While, like Pendleton, he had not been able to inspect the foundation underlying this <br />portion of the house, Reins nevertheless stated: <br />i <br />The locations, geometry, and orientation of the distress within house strongly suggest that the east and <br />south walls are rotating away fivm the rest of the structural fiaming. It appears that the foundation systems beneath <br />these two walls have subsided. The magnitude of the subsidence does not appear to be particularly substantial. <br />However, even a fairly subtle movement ofthe toLuAdion would be magnified in the movements and rotations of <br />the fiaming and bearing walls above. <br />If the residence was a conventional, wood-flamed hose, these relatively small movements might have <br />been easily accommodated without significant distress. However, adobe construction is inherently incapable of <br />resisting or accommodating such <br />151 IBLA 305