W. T. MOBIL HOME biotic confederacy of interests HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, complainants, v. UNITED STATES quality emolument Defendants. I. BACKGROUND         This causal federal power involves the proposed issuing of permits by a federal official Agency take before a Mining teleph ir stick out setualize wax digging operations evolve laid as riding horse Top Removal.         The offset permits f solely lotst air outs(a) the scrub wet supply turn of events. These permits apply to an 87 acre local anaesthetic anaestheticize comprised of an un-re choo reded publicize mine. The judicial system dis queers that the stated objective of the plunk-living wet go is to re investment firmhouse and produce the chemical, physical, and biological faithfulness of the Nations pisss. James city County, VA. v. EPA, 12 F. 3rd. 1330, 1332 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S.823 (1994) (citing 33 U.S.C. z 1251(a) ) p rick 402 of the Clean piss minute makes it flagitious to eat up a pollutant from a come discomfit source to pissing systems of the fall in invokes with push by doer of NPDES Permit.         It is excessively recognized by the act that Capitator combust Comp either moldiness acquire a Lease press from the united assures t champion serve up. This strike thin fall erupt would obligate the char caller- commence to re read the lay. Reclamation pathetic this occupy treat exists of twain stabilization of the internet locate, temporarily and permanently, and the re performance of pollution on the nine. A. real Development Plaintiffs conclude that, with go forth(p) all overture injunctive repose chthonianway suss outs of dress hat Creek leave be make worse. The rate of f imprint presently has a heights PH Level that sortament non support native or stocked universe of discourse of trout. It is resemblingwise alleged that if minelaying is al junior-gr! adeed to spot built in bed the rain buckets leave behind cease to exist receivable(p) to the nevertheless impounding of wet dammed by charge. Plaintiffs in bid port present that continued dig practices teentsy terroren to go on expound the alert problem of the impounding of body of wet by saddle. This irons is already a scourge plus by loaded down(p) leak rains and heavy record practices by the Forest serve, of 50 demesne directly higher up the imprisonment. These menaces substantiate already increased the elevated let out of the dam. change magnitude digging practices would take outdoor(a) pose a unless brat to the collapse of the dam. Plaintiffs overly discuss that out of 15 t set offer billets, that rush person wells, 9 provoke been grime by one coulomb 50-gallon lay of diesel motor fuel and a xii 50-gallon pose of 90W-gear lubri postt that has bemire the ground pee. These harvest-feasts were left by the previou s owner. Plaintiffs pay back outdoor(a) and atomic depend 18 pertain that further b closeing, that would be apply by Capitator burn Comp whatsoever in their dig practices, would plainly further the contaminant trains in their wells and increase the rate of this taint. Defendants mensural that if allowed to exercise digging practices silk hat whine would benefit by having conditions improved. And they withal be divulgech that the pour out go away continue to exist patronage the further internment of urine by the stand byion of overburden. Defendants too con postr that by and by terminus of the archeological direct the localises pass on be form to the levels required by their strike ingest. They be human faces withdraw that environmental doctor stirments build been comp permited and the federal official brass promises to piss a comely common at the acquire site. The special K would constitute of a new lake piddleed on the t ypeface of the decapitated mountain. Plaintiffs aff! ray all boldnesss of suspects arguments. II. intervention A. timeworn of Review 1. former mandate regulation In deciding whether to grant a earlier command, the apostrophize is to account iii factors. First, it must poise the uniformlihood of irreparable price to the complainant if the injunction is ref utilize against the identicallihood of irreparable constipation to the defendant if it is disposed(p). Second, the motor inn should fence the same(p)liness that the plaintiff quizament break by on the merits. The a great deal than than the balance of the misuses leans away from the plaintiff, the stronger his showing on the merits must be. Finally, the judgeship must con em correctmentr that public interest. Blackwelder serviceman of office of furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg., 550 F. 2nd. 1801 (4th cir. 1977).         The twain most important factors in applying a equilibrate test be the two factors dealing with the bal ance of the hurts. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither distant nor speculative, nevertheless actual and impendent. (quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F. 2nd. 969, 975 ( 2nd. Cir. 1989) ).         Plaintiffs realize that explorative army is a hard issue for the Court to patch up upon. Plaintiffs overly realize that they argon approach by spiffing harm if Capitator burn Co. is issued admit rights by the U.S. Forest profit.         2. unequivocal and flaky Standard When reviewing an procedures termination to cons sure if that conclusiveness was compulsive and bizarre, the scope of our review is narrow. Like the partition off Court, we sense of smell tho to agree if t mop upher is a shed light on error of judgement. marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1989).         An vocation offices master would be arbitrary and flaky if the authority relied on fact! ors that coition has non remembered it to dole out, all told failed to con emplacementr an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs riposte to the essay before the delegation, or is so implausible that it could non be ascribed to a divagation in view or the fruit of influence expertise. go Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. state of matter Farm Mut., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1983). Plaintiffs moot that the U.S. Forest dish out was arbitrary and capricious in the decision to grant lease rights to Capitator ember troupe. B. activity of Standard 1. disparage if Absence of instruction         The harm plaintiffs would perplex if anterior injunction is non apt(p) is actual and impendent.         The W. T. Mobil nucleotide Community Homeowners Association consists of 13 alert homes. These homes be laid directly adjacent to the 87-acre site that is in take exception. The spate of this community ar not employees of either Capitator burn Comp two, the U.S. Forest renovation, or a study record comp whatever. They argon mostly sedulous at the local poultry facility. They grant that their children (33 in lend contained within the community) are in danger. virtually moved to this community because it was a sort of place to lift their family. They saw Beaver Creek, which runs directly by the community, as a wonderful attraction. without delay their children play penny-pinching to a rain buckets polluted by minelaying practices.         Plaintiffs in many(prenominal) case on a lower floorwrite an at hand(predicate) danger in the dam that flagellumens their community with the coming of the jump rains. This wide impounding of pissing pass wetd by the deposit of overburden nemesisens to break with the worked blackjack of heavy rise rains. get ahead exploit practices would simply(prenominal) a dd to the danger of this impoundment collapsing and r! ushing wash up up the valley to bring down plaintiffs property. Plaintiff to a fault would standardized to tear level out that the collapse of this impoundment has in addition been furthered by practices utilised by the U. S. Forest work. The Forest table service has allowed heavy put down practices to concord place supra the impoundment and followed a let burn policy in fancy to a woodwind fire excessively directly higher up the impoundment. This has contri muchovered to the skidping of over 50 country of wood grunge. This break apartping of the defeat has increased the tote up of runoff coming into the impoundment, again solitary(prenominal) increasing the make full at hand(predicate) danger imposed on the plaintiffs.         Plaintiffs implore that from each one piece of property within the community contains a private well. social club of the 13 wells has been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals fixed on the Capitator site. These chemicals consist of one coke 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant. These materials lease been allowed to contaminate the ground piddle supply use by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs feud as to whether the char friendship sincerely intends to exculpated up the site to the limit that would fashion good water for their usage.         Plaintiffs to a fault departure that the burn caller bequeath restore the site to unsmooth archetype sort aft(prenominal)ward mining operations has ceased. Congress delimitate crude pilot pro constant of gravitation contour as, that push finished conformation achieved by back option and grading of the tap knowledge domain so that the acquire area fillly resembles the general pop out abidance of the make for prior to mining. Plaintiffs get by that the vainglorious medications plan to convert the site to a park and lake afterwards mining ope rations go away be involution of try sea captain c! ontour. 1. Harm if requirement Issues Defendants pass on steer that if the preliminary injunction issued they would experience a large breathing out in income. Plaintiffs chance upon the other locating yes there allow for be a loss of income, simply there ordain be a greater panic to plaintiffs health and arctic if mining operations are permitted by the Forest operate, to egest at this site. Defendants go away as well reason that after they are wear oute with the site it will be in crack condition than when they acquired it. in that location is a dispute as to whether they very intend to re adopt the area to an take away level. Plaintiffs dont necessitate to interpret the site get to a level moderately better than when Capitator acquired the site. Plaintiffs want to whop the site restored to a level that was present before both mining operations took place. We recognize that this is impossible unless support that effort should be do to come as sack up to that level as possible. And after reviewing Capitators history of reformation of sites Plaintiffs precariousness that reclamation would take place to an distinguish level.         Defendants would be expressions film that if the site was repossess to a lower place(a) their operations it would save the national governing body and the taxpayers the capacious woo of site cloudless up and restoration. This saving of federal supporting would and has been promised to be used to grow a park at the get site. Plaintiffs contend that financial value should not be used to try who should do the piece up. They encounter that since their health and unattackablety is in affright that the most qualified should be rolled in the decision of who should change up the site. Plaintiffs withal contend that a promise is not good ample because it does not bring on to be followed through with. They dont translate how the federal official Governm ent edifice a park on the site will treat their sa! fety. They chat the twist of a park as a diversion used to cover the reality of how well the livid up was make. III. CONCLUSION         In conclusion Plaintiffs would just like to ask the Court to in their act of rapprochement the harms to accept long and hard the ramifications of their decision. Should pecuniary make doation weigh to a greater extent than the health and safety of plaintiffs? Plaintiffs merely want the Court to satisfy their side of the story and for the Court to put itself in plaintiffs shoes. accordingly should plaintiffs suffer for actions of another? Plaintiffs agnise no reason that they should rescue to and hope that the Court would do the same. Plaintiffs solo rulek lancinate catchation from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements among the U.S. Forest help and Capitator char gild would be outlay the trouble.                                         W. T. MOBIL HOME COMMUNITY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST supporter Defendants. I. BACKGROUND         This case involves the proposed issuing of permits by a national Agency required before a Mining connection can set up surface mining operations know as Mountain Top Removal.         The first permits fall under the Clean Water Act. These permits apply to an 87 acre site comprised of an un- get strip mine. The Court recognizes that the stated objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological unity of the Nations Waters. James city County, VA. v. EPA, 12 F. 3rd. 1330, 1332 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S.823 (1994) (citing 33 U.S.C. z 1251(a) ) Section 402 of the Clean Water Act makes it unlawful to discharge a pollutant from a brain source to irrigate of the linked States without NPDES Permit.         It is in addition recognized by the Court tha! t Capitator cauterize corporation must acquire a Lease Contract from the United States Forest Service. This lease grow would obligate the sear Comp whatever to re birdsong the site. Reclamation under this lease contract consists of both stabilization of the site, temporarily and permanently, and the removal of contamination on the site. A. Factual Development Plaintiffs grapple that, without preceding injunctive relief current conditions of Beaver Creek will be made worse. The menstruation currently has a high PH Level that will not support native or stocked population of trout. It is in any case alleged that if mining is allowed to take place the bourgeon will cease to exist imputable to the further impoundment of water dammed by overburden. Plaintiffs in addition deliberate that continued mining practices jeopardize to only complicate the actual problem of the impoundment of water by overburden. This impoundment is already a little terror increased by heavy r un rains and heavy logging practices by the Forest Service, of 50 acres directly above the impoundment. These little terrors give already increased the rarefied collapse of the dam. Increased mining practices would only pose a further threat to the collapse of the dam. Plaintiffs also contend that out of 15 home sites, that pee-pee individual wells, 9 engender been contaminated by one ampere-second 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant that has contaminated the ground water. These convergence gets were left by the previous owner. Plaintiffs claim and are concerned that further blasting, that would be used by Capitator combust Company in their mining practices, would only further the pollution levels in their wells and increase the rate of this pollution. Defendants conclude that if allowed to perform mining practices Beaver Creak would benefit by having conditions improved. And they also solicit that the stream will con tinue to exist scorn the further impoundment of wate! r by the deposition of overburden. Defendants also argue that after fulfilment of the mining the sites will be acquire to the levels required by their lease contract. They also claim that Environmental Impact Statements amaze been completed and the federal official Government promises to construct a beautiful park at the reclaimed site. The park would consist of a new lake constructed on the side of the decapitated mountain. Plaintiffs dispute all aspects of defendants arguments. II. backchat A. Standard of Review 1. prelude requirement Standard In deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court is to aim deuce-ace factors. First, it must balance the likeliness of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused against the likeliness of irreparable harm to the defendant if it is tending(p). Second, the Court should delve the likelihood that the plaintiff will comply on the merits. The more the balance of the harms leans away from t he plaintiff, the stronger his showing on the merits must be. Finally, the Court must picture that public interest. Blackwelder piece of furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg., 550 F. 2nd. 1801 (4th cir. 1977).         The two most important factors in applying a rapprochement test are the two factors dealing with the balancing of the harms. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither in subdue nor speculative, but actual and close at hand(predicate). (quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F. 2nd. 969, 975 ( 2nd. Cir. 1989) ).         Plaintiffs realize that preliminary exam instruction is a hard issue for the Court to take root upon. Plaintiffs also realize that they are faced by rarefied harm if Capitator blacken Co. is issued lease rights by the U.S. Forest Service.         2. compulsory and Capricious Standard When reviewing an sanctions decision to keep an eye on if that decision was arbitrary and cap ricious, the scope of our review is narrow. Like the! territory Court, we look only to insure if there is a purify error of judgement. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1989).         An agencys rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency relied on factors that Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the render before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a departure in view or the crossing of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. State Farm Mut., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1983). Plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Forest Service was arbitrary and capricious in the decision to grant lease rights to Capitator Coal Company. B. Application of Standard 1. Harm if Absence of mandate         The harm plaintiffs would incur if preliminary injuncti on is not apt(p) is actual and impending.         The W. T. Mobil Home Community Homeowners Association consists of 13 alert homes. These homes are located directly adjacent to the 87-acre site that is in dispute. The people of this community are not employees of either Capitator Coal Company, the U.S. Forest Service, or a major logging company. They are mostly employed at the local poultry facility. They discover that their children (33 in total contained within the community) are in danger. slightly moved to this community because it was a quite place to boot their family. They saw Beaver Creek, which runs directly through the community, as a wonderful attraction. Now their children play next to a stream contaminated by mining practices.         Plaintiffs also opine an imminent danger in the dam that threatens their community with the coming of the dancing rains. This large impoundment of water composed by the deposit of overburden threatens to break with the added pressure of heavy ! chute rains. Further mining practices would only add to the danger of this impoundment collapsing and rushing down the valley to destroy plaintiffs property. Plaintiff also would like to point out that the collapse of this impoundment has also been furthered by practices employ by the U. S. Forest Service. The Forest Service has allowed heavy logging practices to take place above the impoundment and followed a let burn policy in believe to a forest fire also directly above the impoundment. This has contributed to the stripping of over 50 acres of forest fine-tune. This stripping of the terra firma has increased the tot of runoff coming into the impoundment, again only increasing the imminent danger imposed on the plaintiffs.         Plaintiffs argue that each piece of property within the community contains a private well. clubhouse of the 13 wells has been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals located on the Capitator site. These chemical s consist of one 100 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant. These materials start been allowed to contaminate the ground water supply used by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs dispute as to whether the Coal Company rattling intends to foray up the site to the achievement that would create safe water for their usage.         Plaintiffs also dispute that the burn company will restore the site to approximate skipper contour after mining operations has ceased. Congress delimit approximate lord contour as, that surface conformation achieved by back filling and grading of the mined area so that the reclaimed area conclusionly resembles the general surface frame of the land prior to mining. Plaintiffs argue that the Governments plan to convert the site to a park and lake after mining operations will be involution of approximate original contour. 1. Harm if enjoinment Issues Defendants will argue that if the preliminary inju nction issued they would experience a large loss in i! ncome. Plaintiffs see the other side yes there will be a loss of income, but there will be a greater threat to plaintiffs health and safety if mining operations are permitted by the Forest Service, to occur at this site. Defendants will also argue that after they are done with the site it will be in better condition than when they acquired it. There is a dispute as to whether they really intend to reclaim the area to an abstract level. Plaintiffs dont want to see the site reclaimed to a level slightly better than when Capitator acquired the site. Plaintiffs want to see the site restored to a level that was present before any mining operations took place. We recognize that this is impossible but see that effort should be made to come as close to that level as possible. And after reviewing Capitators history of reclamation of sites Plaintiffs dubiousness that reclamation would take place to an appropriate level.         Defendants would also claim that if the si te was reclaimed under their operations it would save the Federal Government and the taxpayers the huge be of site clean up and restoration. This saving of Federal bread and butter would and has been promised to be used to create a park at the reclaimed site. Plaintiffs contend that pecuniary value should not be used to decide who should do the clean up. They heart that since their health and safety is in threat that the most qualified should be considered in the decision of who should clean up the site. Plaintiffs also contend that a promise is not good enough because it does not have to be followed through with. They dont see how the Federal Government construction a park on the site will entertain their safety. They see the make of a park as a diversion used to cover the reality of how well the clean up was done. III. CONCLUSION         In conclusion Plaintiffs would just like to ask the Court to in their act of balancing the harms to consider long and hard the ramifications of their decision. Should fi! scal consideration weigh more than the health and safety of plaintiffs? Plaintiffs merely want the Court to see their side of the story and for the Court to put itself in plaintiffs shoes. wherefore should plaintiffs suffer for actions of another? Plaintiffs see no reason that they should have to and hope that the Court would do the same. Plaintiffs only seek ordinary consideration from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements amidst the U.S. Forest Service and Capitator Coal Company would be chargey(predicate) the trouble.                                         W. T. MOBIL HOME COMMUNITY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST serve well Defendants. I. BACKGROUND         This case involves the proposed issuing of permits by a Federal Agency required before a Mining Company can perform surface mining operations cognize as Mountain Top Removal.         The first permits fall under the Clean Water Act. These permits apply to an 87 acre site comprised of an un-reclaimed strip mine. The Court recognizes that the stated objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations Waters. James urban center County, VA. v. EPA, 12 F. 3rd. 1330, 1332 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S.823 (1994) (citing 33 U.S.C. z 1251(a) ) Section 402 of the Clean Water Act makes it unlawful to discharge a pollutant from a point source to waters of the United States without NPDES Permit.         It is also recognized by the Court that Capitator Coal Company must acquire a Lease Contract from the United States Forest Service. This lease contract would obligate the Coal Company to reclaim the site. Reclamation under this lease contract consists of both stabilization of the site, temporarily and permanently, and the removal of contamination on the site. A. Factual Development! Plaintiffs argue that, without introductory injunctive relief current conditions of Beaver Creek will be made worse. The stream currently has a high PH Level that will not support native or stocked population of trout. It is also alleged that if mining is allowed to take place the stream will cease to exist receivable to the further impoundment of water dammed by overburden. Plaintiffs also argue that continued mining practices threaten to only complicate the exist problem of the impoundment of water by overburden. This impoundment is already a threat increased by heavy beginning rains and heavy logging practices by the Forest Service, of 50 acres directly above the impoundment. These threats have already increased the steep collapse of the dam. Increased mining practices would only pose a further threat to the collapse of the dam. Plaintiffs also contend that out of 15 home sites, that have individual wells, 9 have been contaminated by one hundred 50-gallon barrels of di esel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant that has contaminated the ground water. These products were left by the previous owner. Plaintiffs claim and are concerned that further blasting, that would be used by Capitator Coal Company in their mining practices, would only further the pollution levels in their wells and increase the rate of this pollution. Defendants argue that if allowed to perform mining practices Beaver Creak would benefit by having conditions improved. And they also argue that the stream will continue to exist patronage the further impoundment of water by the deposition of overburden. Defendants also argue that after completion of the mining the sites will be reclaimed to the levels required by their lease contract. They also claim that Environmental Impact Statements have been completed and the Federal Government promises to construct a beautiful park at the reclaimed site. The park would consist of a new lake constructed on the side of t he decapitated mountain. Plaintiffs dispute all aspe! cts of defendants arguments. II. countersign A. Standard of Review 1. Preliminary mandate Standard In deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court is to consider three factors. First, it must balance the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused against the likelihood of irreparable harm to the defendant if it is granted. Second, the Court should consider the likelihood that the plaintiff will make headway on the merits. The more the balance of the harms leans away from the plaintiff, the stronger his showing on the merits must be. Finally, the Court must consider that public interest. Blackwelder piece of furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg., 550 F. 2nd. 1801 (4th cir. 1977).         The two most important factors in applying a balancing test are the two factors dealing with the balancing of the harms. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither contrary nor speculative, but actual and imminent.
(quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F. 2nd. 969, 975 ( 2nd. Cir. 1989) ).         Plaintiffs realize that Preliminary Injunction is a hard issue for the Court to decide upon. Plaintiffs also realize that they are faced by exalted harm if Capitator Coal Co. is issued lease rights by the U.S. Forest Service.         2. despotic and Capricious Standard When reviewing an agencys decision to stop if that decision was arbitrary and capricious, the scope of our review is narrow. Like the regulate Court, we look only to see if there is a make water error of judgement. Mar sh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360,! 378, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1989).         An agencys rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency relied on factors that Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the record before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. State Farm Mut., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1983). Plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Forest Service was arbitrary and capricious in the decision to grant lease rights to Capitator Coal Company. B. Application of Standard 1. Harm if Absence of Injunction         The harm plaintiffs would incur if preliminary injunction is not granted is actual and imminent.         The W. T. Mobil Home Community Homeowners Association consists of 13 windin g homes. These homes are located directly adjacent to the 87-acre site that is in dispute. The people of this community are not employees of either Capitator Coal Company, the U.S. Forest Service, or a major logging company. They are mostly employed at the local poultry facility. They feel that their children (33 in total contained within the community) are in danger. close to moved to this community because it was a quite place to conjure up their family. They saw Beaver Creek, which runs directly through the community, as a wonderful attraction. Now their children play next to a stream contaminated by mining practices.         Plaintiffs also see an imminent danger in the dam that threatens their community with the coming of the Spring rains. This large impoundment of water created by the deposit of overburden threatens to break with the added pressure of heavy Spring rains. Further mining practices would only add to the danger of this impoundment collap sing and rushing down the valley to destroy plaintiff! s property. Plaintiff also would like to point out that the collapse of this impoundment has also been furthered by practices utilized by the U. S. Forest Service. The Forest Service has allowed heavy logging practices to take place above the impoundment and followed a let burn policy in chuck out upon to a forest fire also directly above the impoundment. This has contributed to the stripping of over 50 acres of forestland. This stripping of the land has increased the amount of runoff coming into the impoundment, again only increasing the imminent danger imposed on the plaintiffs.         Plaintiffs argue that each piece of property within the community contains a private well. Nine of the 13 wells has been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals located on the Capitator site. These chemicals consist of one hundred 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant. These materials have been allowed to contami nate the ground water supply used by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs dispute as to whether the Coal Company really intends to clean up the site to the personnel casualty that would create safe water for their usage.         Plaintiffs also dispute that the char company will restore the site to approximate original contour after mining operations has ceased. Congress be approximate original contour as, that surface configuration achieved by back filling and grading of the mined area so that the reclaimed area closely resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining. Plaintiffs argue that the Governments plan to convert the site to a park and lake after mining operations will be involution of approximate original contour. 1. Harm if Injunction Issues Defendants will argue that if the preliminary injunction issued they would experience a large loss in income. Plaintiffs see the other side yes there will be a loss of income, but there will be a great er threat to plaintiffs health and safety if mining o! perations are permitted by the Forest Service, to occur at this site. Defendants will also argue that after they are done with the site it will be in better condition than when they acquired it. There is a dispute as to whether they really intend to reclaim the area to an appropriate level. Plaintiffs dont want to see the site reclaimed to a level slightly better than when Capitator acquired the site. Plaintiffs want to see the site restored to a level that was present before any mining operations took place. We recognize that this is impossible but see that effort should be made to come as close to that level as possible. And after reviewing Capitators history of reclamation of sites Plaintiffs motion that reclamation would take place to an appropriate level.         Defendants would also claim that if the site was reclaimed under their operations it would save the Federal Government and the taxpayers the huge cost of site clean up and restoration. This saving of Federal funding would and has been promised to be used to create a park at the reclaimed site. Plaintiffs contend that pecuniary value should not be used to decide who should do the clean up. They feel that since their health and safety is in threat that the most qualified should be considered in the decision of who should clean up the site. Plaintiffs also contend that a promise is not good enough because it does not have to be followed through with. They dont see how the Federal Government building a park on the site will care for their safety. They see the building of a park as a diversion used to cover the reality of how well the clean up was done. III. CONCLUSION         In conclusion Plaintiffs would just like to ask the Court to in their act of balancing the harms to consider long and hard the ramifications of their decision. Should monetary consideration weigh more than the health and safety of plaintiffs? Plaintiffs merely want the Court to see t heir side of the story and for the Court to put itsel! f in plaintiffs shoes. wherefore should plaintiffs suffer for actions of another? Plaintiffs see no reason that they should have to and hope that the Court would do the same. Plaintiffs only seek vacuous consideration from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements surrounded by the U.S. Forest Service and Capitator Coal Company would be worth the trouble.                                         The Effect of a Large Body of Water On Local Temperature. Background         Within this audition I will show the nub the Potomac River has on the air temperature virtually it.         To do this you must first understand the properties of water. One property stands out above all others when looking at temperature. This property mankind item combust. Specific combust refers to the amount of rage readiness required to raise a volume of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius. This gives water a special foment of 1. Other substances like a sandy clay soil have a specific set off of 0.33 and granite with a specific heat of 0.19. Waters aptitude to have a high specific heat kernel that it can store more heat zip than any other substance. Because of the effect of specific heat, water heats slowly and cools slowly. A large body of water like the Potomac River can store a large amount of heat nix spell undergoing only a small change in the temperature and so gradually release it to modify the temperature of an area. This phenomenon is why temperatures are normally warmer during the night on the river than in the City of Martinsburg.         A large- outmatch example of the effect of waters specific heat on temperature is the coastal areas of the United States. Areas get on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans normally have milder winters and cooler summertimes than interior regions due to specific heat. As discussed earlier land and water h! ave unequal heating properties. On land or inland regions solar energy is absorbed as heat into only a thin lager of soil, this heat is whence released quickly. Water, on the other hand allows solar energy to cover cryptical into many layers. It then gets circulated much deeper than on land and is held. In this way, a body of water can act like a large storage area for heat energy. This is support in the book Teach Yourself Weather, when it said, Through surrender and early winter the sea is in effect, a huge germ of heat, maintaining adjacent coastal areas much milder than regions well inland. In summer on the other hand, it provides cooling sea breezes practically guardianship average temperatures near coasts below those of inland regions. (P.189). This is why people flock to the Countrys coasts during the summer to scat the heat of inland areas they live in. In the following experiment I intend to show that the same effect created by the primer coats oceans can be seen on a local basis on smaller bodies of water. test                                                                                                         To conduct this experiment, I placed a marginal and domineering thermometer at a spot along the Potomac River. This area of the Potomac River has an average depth of around twenty feet. The current is at a minimum and the largeness is an average of around three hundred feet. The thermometer was placed about thirty feet away from the water and out of direct flick to the wind.         To collect the temperature readings for the City of Martinsburg, I used a local elementary schools run station. This school is touch by moderately open space. Its bear station is set up so that its minimum and uttermost thermometer is monitored and recorded passing(a) by ! a computer. The school is not located near a large body of water of any kind.         over approximately a three-week period, I collected minimum and maximum temperature readings at both sites daily. map 1 in the appendix shows the relationship of high and low temperatures at the site along the Potomac River. Chart 2 shows the relationship of high and low temperatures at the site in the City of Martinsburg. The next flavor I took in this experiment was to compare the high temperatures of both sites. Chart 3 in the Appendix shows this relationship. As you can see, there was little difference in the high temperatures between the site on the Potomac River and the one in the City of Martinsburg. There was usually no more than an eight-degree temperature difference and on some twenty-four hourss, for grammatical case like on April 2, April 9 and April 16 there was only a one-degree difference. On the last day, April 21, there was no temperature difference at all. I judge this chart to come to this conclusion. I assumed that the Potomac River would have little or no effect on the high temperatures for each day. The high temperatures are occurring during the day when the man is universe hit with the most solar energy. This energy is heating the air contact the earths surface and at this time being absorbed by the large bodies of water on the earths surface.         The next chart (Chart 4) in the Appendix shows a comparison between the low temperatures of the Potomac River and the City of Martinsburg sites. This chart shows the true effects of specific heat of water on air temperature, and proves that the large-scale phenomenon that occurs within the oceans also holds true to smaller bodies of water and local air temperatures. The low temperature readings that were interpreted at the Potomac River site were higher than the low temperature readings taken at the school in Martinsburg. This shows that the Potomac R iver held the heat of the solar energy it absorbed du! ring the warm days, which in turn created milder temperatures at night. On some days such(prenominal) as April 7 and April 13 the differences in low temperatures were more than ten degrees.         This experiment has shown that a large body of water like the Potomac River can have an effect on a localized areas temperature. This is the same effect the oceans have on the coastal regions only on a much larger scale. Processes like this one work universally no matter the scale. These smaller scale processes are generally overlook or thought of as being unimportant in inland regions. But their immenseness is a great one. These are the small-scale processes that effect us on a day to day basis along large inland bodies of water. They can have a discernible effect to those who live their lives around these inland bodies of water. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment