Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90,96-91 <br />i <br />movements and will, in fact, provide a clear and pronounced manifestation of even minor subsidence. <br />(Letter to Appellants, dated May 23, 1995, at 4.) He later explained the absence of any evidence of distress in the <br />foundation on the basis that the'toundation and the overlying adobe structure had moved in tandem, but that the dishes was <br />exhibited only in the relatively fiagile adobe structure and not in the foundation: <br />[B]ecause of the lack of tensile capacity and reinforcing within adobe structures, they will quickly and sometimes <br />dramatically exhibit cracking and separation distress if the original building geometry is distorted. Unlike <br />conventional reinforced concrete, steel or timber structures which have an ability to resist, bridge or redistribute <br />loads, and thuts minimize visible signs of distress, adobe structures immediately tell you if something is moving. <br />(Memorandum to Appellants, dated June 30, 1995, at 34.) In his May 23, 1995, letter to appellants. Reins stated at page 4 <br />Tot he agreed with the opinion of the Tatums' other consultants that mine subsiderx a was the "likely reason for much of the <br />damage to the house." In his subsequent June 30, 1995, he stated at page 3: <br />Apparently, the underlying premise which prompts Mr. Pendleton to reject the notion that subsidence has <br />OCCUrred is that tyre is no known foundation distress. In our practice we routinely observe foundation systems <br />that exhibit no significant distress despite pronounced (many inches) heave or settlement In this particular instance <br />we estimate that the foundation movements are not particularly substantial. As such, the foundation system for the <br />house is simply "going along for the ride." <br />Following completion of briefing in the case, the Tatuuns tiled with the Board on February 26, 1998, a supplemental <br />exhibit, designated by them as Exhibit A-15, in support of their position that mine subsidence caused damage to their home <br />and that OSM acted improperly in finding DMG's response to the TDN to be appropriate. That exhibit is a copy of a <br />decision issued on December 1, 1997, by the District Couut, County of Las Animas, Colorado, in the matter styled James <br />(Jim) Tatum and Ann Tatuun v. Basin Resources Inc, No. 92 CV 127. Therein, District Judge Jesse Maunzanares found, <br />inter alia that <br />[e]vidence at trial established that extensive underground coal mining operations were conducted near, and under <br />the plaintitfso property line;and within 300 feet of their residence. Subsidence was evident in various locations on <br />the Tatun property, including the railroad tracks running through <br />151 IBLA 306