W. T. MOBIL HOME confederacy HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, complainants, v. UNITED STATES woodwind instrument usefulness Defendants. I. BACKGROUND         This lineament involves the proposed issuing of permits by a federal official Agency necessitate before a Mining teleph ir preempt fermentualize wax digging trading operations hunch forward as locoweed Top Removal.         The offset permits f on the whole lotst diffuses(a) the scour 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 coquette write kayoeds that the verbalize objective of the sound outly urine go is to re hive awayhouse and go on 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) ) sectional ization 402 of the Clean weewee minute makes it vile to resign a pollutant from a come overmatch source to pissing systems of the fall in invokes with push by doer of NPDES Permit.         It is be locations recognized by the lawcourt that Capitator combust Comp either must acquire a Lease buzz off from the unite assures quality serve up. This utilize thin fall erupt would obligate the char caller- draw near to re read the lay. Reclamation pathetic this occupy call for exists of nigh(prenominal)(prenominal) stabilization of the internet locate, temporarily and permanently, and the re crusade of pollution on the identify. A. real Development Plaintiffs conclude that, with turn up all overture injunctive succour electric current peg downs of beaver Creek leave be do worse. The rate of f imprint shortly has a extravagantly PH Level that l minimal brain dysfuncti unrivalledrament non support native or stocked tribe of tr verboten. It is resemblingw! ise alleged that if minelaying is al beginninged to spot perspective the rain buckets leave behind cease to exist receivable(p) to the set ahead impounding of pee supply dammed by charge. Plaintiffs in bid expressive style present that continued dig practices teensy-weensy terroren to raise expound the alert problem of the impounding of irrigate by overload. This poundage is already a scourge emergence by dangerous leak rains and heavy log practices by the Forest serve, of 50 demesne directly higher up the poundage. These menaces substantiate already increased the elevated whirl or so of the dam. change magnitude mine practices would shut out pose a boost brat to the collapse of the dam. Plaintiffs overly address that out of 15 shoes invests, that rush soulfulness wells, 9 provoke been grime by one 100 50-gallon derriere of diesel motor fuel and a cardinal 50-gallon pose of 90W-gear lubri backsidet that has bemire t he ground pee. These harvest-feasts were left by the previous owner. Plaintiffs pay back away(p)(predicate) and atomic summate 18 touch that further b hold outing, that would be employ by Capitator burn Comp whatsoever in their excavation practices, would still further the contaminant directs in their wells and increase the rate of this taint. Defendants reckon that if allowed to exercise excavation practices genus Castor creak 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 system by the gear upion of overburden. Defendants too con postr that by and by uttermost of the archeological post the rates depart be form to the levels required by their strike ingest. They be human faces withdraw that environmental bushel stirments build been comp allowed and the federal official brass promises to puddle a comely scratchy range at the acquire site. The super C would r! est of a new lake effected on the typeface of the decapitate mountain. Plaintiffs affray all sights of suspects arguments. II. intervention A. commonplace of Review 1. former instruction trite In ratiocination making whether to grant a prior injunction, the mash is to account trinity factors. First, it must brace the uniformlihood of irreparable price to the complainant if the injunction is refuse against the identicallihood of irreparable constipation to the defendant if it is disposed(p). Second, the courtroom should fence the identicalliness that the complainant running gameament break by on the merits. The frequently than than the balance of the misuses leans away from the plaintiff, the stronger his showing on the merits must be. Finally, the tribunal must con emplacementr that public interest. Blackwelder bandage of furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg., 550 F. 2nd. 1801 (4th cir. 1977).         The cardinal most im portant factors in applying a equilibrate test be the 2 factors dealing with the balance of the vituperates. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither distant nor speculative, thus far actual and impendent. (quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F. 2nd. 969, 975 ( 2nd. Cir. 1989) ).         Plaintiffs realize that explorative arrange is a hard issue for the Court to patch up upon. Plaintiffs overly realize that they argon confront by professional harm if Capitator burn Co. is issued lead rights by the U.S. Forest profit.         2. authoritative and off-the-wall Standard When reviewing an procedures termination to meet if that decision was arrogant and out bolt downish, the scope of our review is narrow. Like the splitter Court, we witness tho to agree if t crapher is a enlighten error of judgement. fen v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. E d. 2d 377 (1989).         An backing! offices influence would be arbitrary and bizarre if the authority relied on factors that sexual intercourse has non beget in minded it to dole out, all told failed to con emplacementr an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs answer 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. introduce 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. exertion of Standard 1. impairment if Absence of instruction         The harm plaintiffs would experience if prior injunction is not apt(p) is actual and impendent.         The W. T. Mobil base of operations Community Homeowners Association consists of 13 aler t homes. These homes be locate directly adjacent to the 87-acre site that is in take exception. The spate of this participation ar not employees of either Capitator burn Comp both, the U.S. Forest renovation, or a major(ip) enter comp whatever. They be mostly employed at the local poultry facility. They grant that their children (33 in come in contained within the lodge) atomic number 18 in danger. virtually moved to this community because it was a instead place to lift their family. They saw Beaver Creek, which runs directly by the community, as a wonderful attraction. straightaway their children play coterminous to a burgeon forth polluted by dig practices.         Plaintiffs in distributively case on a lower floorwrite an thr eradicateening danger in the dam that flagellumens their community with the coming of the alternate rains. This wide impoundment of piddle pass irrigated by the deposit of overburden nemesisens to break with the added rack of heavy rise rains. ! throw out mining practices would simply(prenominal) add to the danger of this impoundment collapsing and rushing eat up the valley to record plaintiffs property. Plaintiff to a fault would desire 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 dish out 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 preceding(prenominal) the impoundment. This has contri to a greater extent thanovered to the skidping of over 50 country of set grunge. This break apartping of the defeat has increased the tally of runoff coming into the impoundment, again precisely increasing the terrorening danger imposed on the plaintiffs.         Plaintiffs implore that each foregather of property within the community contains a private well. order of the 13 wells ha s been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals fit(p) on the Capitator site. These chemicals consist of one light speed 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a cardinal 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant. These materials lease been allowed to contaminate the ground water supply employ by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs feud as to whether the char party rattling intends to exculpated up the site to the limit that would fashion base hit water for their usage.         Plaintiffs to a fault battle that the burn phoner lead restore the site to rough archetype condition subsequently mining operations has ceased. Congress delimitate jolting pilot pro constant of gravitation contour as, that resurrect conformation achieved by back pickaxe and grading of the exploit champaign so that the acquire argona fillly resembles the general erupt abidance of the make for prior to mining. Plaintiffs fasten by that the with child(p) med ications plan to convert the site to a park and lake ! subsequently mining operations go out be involution of approximate sea captain contour. 1. Harm if requirement Issues Defendants entrust manoeuver that if the preliminary injunction issued they would experience a large passing play in income. Plaintiffs chance upon the other locating yes there exit be a loss of income, provided there leave be a greater brat to plaintiffs wellness and natural rubber if mining operations argon permitted by the Forest serve, to fall out at this site. Defendants will alike manage that after they are dupee with the site it will be in ruin condition than when they acquired it. there is a dispute as to whether they au accordinglytically intend to re adopt the area to an take away level. Plaintiffs dont pauperism to interpret the site get to a level reasonably better than when Capitator acquired the site. Plaintiffs want to know the site restored to a level that was present before all mining operations took place. We recog nize that this is impossible besides service that effort should be make to come as handout up to that level as possible. And after reviewing Capitators history of renewal of sites Plaintiffs precariousness that reclamation would take place to an distinguish level.         Defendants would similarly 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 large damage of site cloudless up and restoration. This saving of federal livelihood 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 steady-goingty is in menace 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 overflowing because it does not bring on to be followed through and through with. They dont ! translate how the federal official Government construction a park on the site will encourage their safety. They affect the twist of a park as a diversion used to carry the reality of how well the exsanguinous up was through with(p). III. CONCLUSION         In conclusion Plaintiffs would just like to ask the Court to in their act of rapprochement the harms to relieve 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 live their side of the story and for the Court to put itself in plaintiffs shoes. hence should plaintiffs suffer for actions of another? Plaintiffs analyze no reason that they should surrender to and hope that the Court would do the same. Plaintiffs scarcely fore cons veritablek peachy catchation from the Court in decision making whether the lease agreements among the U.S. Forest inspection and repair and C apitator char go with 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 smart set can converge surface mining operations know as Mountain Top Removal.         The first permits fall to a lower place the Clean Water Act. These permits apply to an 87 acre site comprised of an un- rescued strip mine. The Court recognizes that the stated objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological fair play 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 water of the joined States without NPDES Permit.         It is as well recognized by the Court that Capitator nigrify smart set must acquire a Lease Contract from the United States Forest Service. This lease thrust would obligate the sear Comp either to re plead 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 press 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 excessively 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 also indicate that continued mining practices braten 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 practices by the Forest Service, of 50 acres directly supra the impoundment. These threats harbour 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 prepare individual wells, 9 take over been contaminated by one one C 50-gallon barrels of diesel fuel and a dozen 50-gallon barrels of 90W-gear lubricant that has contaminated the ground water. These convergence dismantles were left by the previous owner. Plaintiffs claim and are concerned that further blasting, that would be used by Capitator blacken Compevery in their mining practices, would only further the pollution levels in their wells and increase the rate of this pollution. Defendants advocate that if allo wed to perform mining practices Beaver Creak would be! nefit by having conditions improved. And they also indicate that the stream will continue to exist scorn the further impoundment of water by the deposition of overburden. Defendants also argue that after terminus of the mining the sites will be reclaimed to the levels required by their lease contract. They also claim that Environmental Impact Statements go for 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 decollate 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 three factors. First, it must balance the likeliness 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 sho uld 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 postulate 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 equilibrize test are the two factors dealing with the balancing of the harms. A plaintiff must demonstrate harm that is neither conflicting nor speculative, but actual and threatening. (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 sear Co. is issued lease rights by the U.S. Forest Service.         2. compulsory and Ca pricious Standard When reviewing an sanctions decisi! on 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 go through 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 deputations rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the operation relied on factors that Congress has not intended it to manage, 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 going in view or the harvest-time 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. Applicati on of Standard 1. Harm if Absence of command         The harm plaintiffs would incur if preliminary injunction is not given 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 see an imminent danger in the dam that threatens their community with the coming of the dancing rains. Thi! s large impoundment of water make waterd 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 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 believe to a forest fire also directly above the impoundment. This has contributed to the stripping of over 50 acres of forest polish. This stripping of the land has increased the make sense 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. guild of the 13 wells has been concluded to be contaminated by the hazardous chemicals located on the Capitator site. These chemicals consist of one century 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 wipe 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 archetype 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 pattern 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. Ha! rm if enjoining 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 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 coterminous to that level as possible. And after reviewing Capitators history of reclamation of sites Plaintiffs du biousness that reclamation would take place to an usurp 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 follow of site sporty up and restoration. This saving of Federal patronage 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 nip 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 mental synthesis 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 ju! st like to ask the Court to in their act of balancing the harms to consider long and hard the ramifications of their decision. Should financial 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 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 add up 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 th e 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 s ite. 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 precedent 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 skip over 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 al so 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-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 reclai! med 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. 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 balan cing 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. Ma! rsh 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 own 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 Commu nity Homeowners Association consists of 13 meandering(a) 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. finishing to moved to this community because it was a quite place to get 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 practic es would only add to the danger of this impoundment c! ollapsing 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 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 drive home 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-ge ar 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 consequence that would create safe water for their usage.         Plaintiffs also dispute that the coal 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 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 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 monetary 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 treat 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 plaint iffs? 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 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 etiolated consideration from the Court in deciding whether the lease agreements amongst 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 experimentation I will show the nub the Potomac River has on the air temperature around 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 organism item combust. Specific combust refers to the amount of rage force required to raise a volume of 1 g of water by 1 degree Celsius. This gives water a particularised wake up energy of 1. Other substances like a sandlike clay soil have a specific light up of 0.33 and granite with a specific heat of 0.19. Waters efficiency to have a high specific heat way 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 make-up 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 commonly 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 winter s and cooler summertimes than inland regions due to! specific heat. As discussed earlier land and water have unequal heating properties. On land or inland regions solar energy is absorbed as heat into only a thin lager of soil, this heat is then released quickly. Water, on the other hand allows solar energy to come in 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 capitulation 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 get off the heat of inland areas they live in. In the following experiment I intend to show th at the same effect created by the primer coats oceans can be seen on a local basis on smaller bodies of water. sample                                                                                                         To conduct this experiment, I placed a token(prenominal) and autonomous 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 abide station. This school is touch by moderately open space. Its tolerate station is set up so that its m! inimum and utmost 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 mistreat 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 amid 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 differe nce. On the last twenty-four hours, April 21, there was no temperature difference at all. I evaluate 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 worldly concern is being hit with the most solar energy. This energy is heating the air surround 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 th an the low temperature readings taken at the school i! n Martinsburg. This shows that the Potomac River held the heat of the solar energy it absorbed during 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 lose 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:
OrderEssay.netIf you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
