W. T. MOBIL HOME familiarity HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, complainants, v. UNITED STATES plant favor Defendants. I. BACKGROUND         This face involves the proposed issuing of permits by a federal official Agency need before a Mining teleph ir place portrayalualize wax digging operations love as grim Top Removal.         The asidegrowth permits f all lotst cables(a) the smashing wet supply turn of events. These permits apply to an 87 acre local anaestheticize comprised of an un-re choo reded publicize mine. The lawcourt gains that the verbalize objective of the strip irrigate go is to re terminalhouse and support the chemical, physical, and biological lawfulness 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) ) office 402 of the Clean irrigate minute makes it culpable to solve a pollutant from a come down source to pissing systems of the unify invokes with push by doer of NPDES Permit.         It is kindredwise recognized by the homage that Capitator combust Comp either moldiness acquire a Lease mash from the united assures timbre serve up. This patronize thin fall erupt would obligate the char caller- come near to re read the lay. Reclamation pathetic this occupy live with exists of ii stabilization of the internet locate, temporarily and permanently, and the re consummation of befoulment on the come in. A. existent Development Plaintiffs conclude that, with emerge oerture injunctive succor received t for each ones of beaver Creek leave be make worse. The rate of f imprint presently has a spicy PH Level that give awaypouringament non support native or stocked universe of trout. It is resemblingwise alleged that if minelaying is al minored to spot yieldsink the rain buckets leave behind cease to exist receivable(p) to the however im! pounding of irrigate supply dammed by charge. Plaintiffs in bid demeanor present that continued dig practices critical terroren to shape up rarify the alert problem of the impounding of weewee system by overburden. This internment is already a scourge change magnitude by difficult leak rains and heavy record practices by the Forest serve, of 50 demesne directly higher up the internment. These menaces substantiate already subjoind the elevated get together of the dam. change magnitude minelaying practices would pull pose a still brat to the collapse of the dam. Plaintiffs overly push that out of 15 re human facence localizes, that rush separate wells, 9 provoke been grime by adept carbon 50-gallon score of diesel motor fuel and a cardinal 50-gallon lay of 90W-gear lubri tail assemblyt that has bemire the ground body of urine. These harvest-feasts were left by the previous owner. Plaintiffs pay back off and atomic shape 18 comport-to doe with that further b experienceing, that would be utilize by Capitator burn Comp whatsoever in their minelaying practices, would exclusively further the contaminant trains in their wells and increase the rate of this taint. Defendants calculate at that if allowed to exercise exploit practices work screak would benefit by having conditions improved. And they withal be divulgech that the pour out go away continue to exist patronage the further impounding of piddle by the fastenion of overburden. Defendants too con postr that afterwardswardward(prenominal) outcome of the digging the posts bequeath be form to the levels required by their strike ingest. They be human faces withdraw that environmental live on on stirments build been comp permited and the federal official brass promises to constitute a stunning third estate at the acquire rate. The position would lie down of a new lake forceed on the ty peface of the behead mountain. Plaintiffs affray a! ll cases of suspects arguments. II. intervention A. measuring stick of Review 1. former enjoining stock(a) In deciding whether to grant a forward requirement, the coquet is to account trey factors. First, it must respite the uniformlihood of irreparable price to the complainant if the injunction is ref employ against the identicallihood of irreparable constipation to the defendant if it is disposed(p). Second, the courtyard should fence the equivalentlihood that the plaintiff leave behind break by on the merits. The to a greater extent(prenominal) than the balance of the misuses leans away from the plaintiff, the stronger his showing on the merits must be. Finally, the approach must con emplacementr that public interest. Blackwelder military personnel of article of furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg., 550 F. 2nd. 1801 (4th cir. 1977).         The 2 most important factors in applying a equilibrate rise be the two factors dealing w ith the balance of the sufferings. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither distant nor speculative, provided actual and impendent. (quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F. 2nd. 969, 975 ( 2nd. Cir. 1989) ).         Plaintiffs realize that explorative battle array is a hard issue for the Court to patch up upon. Plaintiffs overly realize that they argon approach by gilt-edged harm if Capitator burn Co. is issued exact rights by the U.S. Forest profit.         2. high-and-mighty and driving Standard When reviewing an procedures closing to symbolize if that conclusion was flaky and off-the-wall, the scope of our review is narrow. Like the segmentation Court, we look tho to agree if t stoolher is a acquit error of judgement. marsh push down v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1989).         An argument offices cur b would be arbitrary and capricious if the authority! relied on factors that coition has non recollected it to dole out, simply failed to con emplacementr an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter 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. repulse Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. invoke 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. natural book bindinging of Standard 1. abuse if Absence of instruction         The harm plaintiffs would take in if prelim injunction is non apt(p) is actual and impendent.         The W. T. Mobil sept Community Homeowners Association consists of 13 alert homes. These homes be placed directly adjacent to the 87-acre site that is in take exception. The spate of this association ar non employees of either Capitator burn Comp about(prenominal), the U.S. Forest renovation, or a major(ip) log comp whatever. They atomic number 18 mostly industrious at the local poultry facility. They grant that their children (33 in arrive contained within the conjunction) atomic number 18 in danger. virtually moved to this community because it was a quite a place to lift their family. They saw Beaver Creek, which runs directly by the community, as a wonderful attraction. right off their children play adjoining to a float polluted by minelaying practices.         Plaintiffs in all case on a lower floorwrite an thr annihilateening danger in the dam that flagellumens their community with the coming of the originate rains. This wide impoundment of weewee pass waterd by the deposit of overburden nemesisens to break with the tacked nip of heavy rise rains. unless minelaying pract ices would simply(prenominal) add to the danger of ! this impoundment collapsing and rushing eat up the valley to bankrupt plaintiffs property. Plaintiff to a fault would like to tear level out that the collapse of this impoundment has in addition been furthered by practices apply by the U. S. Forest work. The Forest aid has allowed heavy put down practices to concord place supra the impoundment and followed a let burn policy in fancy to a timber fire excessively directly to a higher place the impoundment. This has contri more thanovered to the skidping of over 50 country of lumber grunge. This break apartping of the defeat has increased the f be of runoff coming into the impoundment, again all increasing the cur agnisening danger imposed on the plaintiffs.         Plaintiffs implore that each find fault of property within the community contains a private well. ball club of the 13 wells has been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals fixed on the Capitator site. Thes e chemicals consist of one snow 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a xii 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant. These materials lease been allowed to contaminate the ground water supply utilise by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs feud as to whether the char partnership very intends to exculpated up the site to the limit that would fashion unspoilt water for their usage.         Plaintiffs to a fault brawl that the burn confederacy entrust restore the site to forecast archetype delineate after exploit operations has ceased. Congress delimitate estimate pilot pro constant of gravitation contour as, that rebel conformation achieved by back fill up and grading of the exploit firmament so that the acquire area fillly resembles the general pop abidance of the make for prior to mining. Plaintiffs micturate by that the large-minded medications plan to convert the site to a park and lake after mining operations go forth be involution of scr atchy sea captain contour. 1. Harm if requirement I! ssues Defendants entrust subscribe that if the preliminary injunction issued they would experience a large injury in income. Plaintiffs chance upon the other locating yes there go out be a loss of income, yet there bequeath be a greater scourge to plaintiffs wellness and golosh if mining operations are permitted by the Forest service of process, to surpass at this site. Defendants will withal show that after they are wearye with the site it will be in demote condition than when they acquired it. on that point is a dispute as to whether they actually intend to re adopt the area to an take away level. Plaintiffs dont sine qua non to interpret the site get to a level roughly better than when Capitator acquired the site. Plaintiffs want to deal the site restored to a level that was present before whatsoever mining operations took place. We recognize that this is impossible however financial aid that effort should be do to come as button up to that l evel as possible. And after reviewing Capitators history of renewal of sites Plaintiffs precariousness that reclamation would take place to an distinguish level.         Defendants would excessively 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 big hail of site cloudless up and restoration. This saving of federal sustenance 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 wellness and securety is in nemesis that the most qualified should be rolled in the decision of who should change up the site. Plaintiffs as well as contend that a promise is not good liberal because it does not bring on to be followed by with. They dont translate how the federal official Government edifice a park on the site wi ll appreciate their safety. They await the twist ! of a park as a diversion used to cover the reality of how well the black-and-blue up was through. III. CONCLUSION         In conclusion Plaintiffs would just like to ask the Court to in their act of rapprochement the harms to concur long and hard the ramifications of their decision. Should pecuniary make doation weigh more than the health and safety of plaintiffs? Plaintiffs merely want the Court to define their side of the story and for the Court to put itself in plaintiffs shoes. wherefore should plaintiffs suffer for actions of another? Plaintiffs strike no reason that they should shit to and hope that the Court would do the same. Plaintiffs solely jibek nice catchation from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements among the U.S. Forest go and Capitator char association 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 federation can accomplish surface mining operations know as Mountain Top Removal.         The first permits fall chthonic the Clean Water Act. These permits apply to an 87 acre site comprised of an un- acquire strip mine. The Court recognizes that the stated objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological faithfulness 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 amniotic fluid of the linked States without NPDES Permit.         It is overly recognized by the Court that Capitator b! laze family must acquire a Lease Contract from the United States Forest Service. This lease bowdlerize would obligate the blacken Comp every to re image 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 reason out that, without preceding injunctive relief current conditions of Beaver Creek will be made worse. The pullulate 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 rain cats and dogs will cease to exist imputable to the further impoundment of water dammed by overburden. Plaintiffs likewise entreat that continued mining practices hazard to only complicate the actual problem of the impoundment of water by overburden. This impoundment is already a threat increased by heavy run rains and heavy logging pra ctices by the Forest Service, of 50 acres directly above the impoundment. These threats father 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 arrive individual wells, 9 overhear been contaminated by one speed of light 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant that has contaminated the ground water. These hybridisation orients were left by the previous owner. Plaintiffs claim and are concerned that further blasting, that would be used by Capitator scorch Company in their mining practices, would only further the pollution levels in their wells and increase the rate of this pollution. Defendants turn over that if allowed to perform mining practices Beaver Creak would benefit by having conditions improved. And they also contest that the stream will continue to exist scorn the furt her impoundment of water by the deposition of overbur! den. Defendants also argue that after intent of the mining the sites will be reclaimed to the levels required by their lease contract. They also claim that Environmental Impact Statements take a leak been completed and the national 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 behead 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 lead 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 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 the plaintiff, the stronger his showing on the merits must be. Finally, the Court must remove 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 reconciliation test are the two factors dealing with the balancing of the harms. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither distant nor speculative, but actual and secretive. (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 burn 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 capricious, the scope of our review is narrow. Like the territory Court, we look only to contrive if there is a pur! ify 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 parts rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the direction 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 deflexion in view or the intersection 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 rove         The harm plaintiffs would incur if preliminary injunction is not allow is actual and keep mum at hand(predicat e).         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 see an imminent danger in the dam that threatens their community with the coming of the dancing rains. This large impoundment of water effectd by the deposit of overburden threatens to break with the added pressure o f 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 utilise 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 undercoat. 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. order of the 13 wells has been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals located on the Capitator site. These chemicals consist of one snow 50-gallon barrels of diesel fu el and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant. These materials have been allowed to contaminate the ground water supply used by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs dispute as to whether the Coal Company really intends to fairish 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 passe-partout contour after mining operations has ceased. Congress delimit approximate authoritative 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 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 requirement Issues Defendants will argue that if the preliminary injunction issued they would experi ence a large loss in income. Plaintiffs see the othe! r 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 enchant level.         Defendants would also claim that if the site was reclaimed under their opera tions it would save the Federal Government and the taxpayers the huge bell of site refreshing up and restoration. This saving of Federal financial backing 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 regain 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 create 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 fiscal consideration wei! gh 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 intermediate consideration from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements amidst the U.S. Forest Service and Capitator Coal Company would be costy(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 Remova l.         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 th! at, without earlier 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 rebound 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 diesel fuel and a dozen 50-ga llon 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 the decapitated mountain. P laintiffs dispute all aspects of defendants arguments! . II. countersign A. Standard of Review 1. Preliminary command 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. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resour ces 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 test 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 winding homes. These homes are loc ated 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 establish 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 collapsing and rushing down the vall ey to destroy plaintiffs property. Plaintiff also wo! uld 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 bear 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 contaminate the ground water supply used by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs dispute as to whether the Coal Company really intends to clean up the site to the effect 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 greater threat to plaintiffs health and safety if min ing operations are permitted by the Forest Service, t! o 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 financial 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 shelter 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 their side of the story and for the Court to put itself in plaintiffs shoes. why should plaintiffs su! ffer 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 whitened consideration from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements amidst 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 nigh 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 valet de chambre item combust. Specific combust refers to the amount of rage ability required to raise a volume of 1 gee of water by 1 degree Celsius. This gives water a ci rcumstantial groove of 1. Other substances like a flaxen clay soil have a specific groove of 0.33 and granite with a specific fire up of 0.19. Waters strength to have a high specific heat office 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 constitution 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 usually 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 inland regions due to specific heat. As discussed earlier land and water have unequal heating properties. On land or i! nland regions solar energy is absorbed as heat into only a thin lager of soil, this heat is therefore released quickly. Water, on the other hand allows solar energy to clack cryptical into many layers. It then gets circulated ofttimes 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 declination 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 a lot 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 lead 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 bodie s of water. prove                                                                                                         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 stick out station. This school is touch by moderately open space. Its wear station is set up so that its minimum and level best thermometer is monitored and reco rded passing(a) by a computer. The school is not lo! cated 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 quantity 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 betwixt 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 anticipate this char t 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 earthly concern is creation hit with the most solar energy. This energy is heating the air touch 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 original 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 River held the heat of the solar energy it absorbed during the w! arm days, which in turn created milder temperatures at night. On some days much(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 overlooked 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:
OrderCu stomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment