Water Quality in the Gillham Lake-Cossatot River System During Dry and Wet Periods

Water samples were collected in the Cossatot River-Gillham Lake system during an extended dry period and after heavy rains to determine the spatial variations in certain water quality characteristics. Of particular interest was the influence of the reservoir discharge on the water quality of the tailwater compared with the effects of four tributaries entering the tailwater below the reservoir. The water quality of the Cossatot River below Gillham Lake at low-flow (dry periods) and during the first 3 days after heavy rainfall (wet period) was influenced more by the tributaries entering the tailwater than by the reservoir water release. We estimated, however, that the amount of particulate inorganic matter released to the tailwater from the reservoir after the initial 3-day wet period would be greater than the amounts entering the tailwater from the tributaries

THE LOCATION DECISION OF HARDWOOD MANUFACTURING IN THE NORTHERN AND CENTRAL APPALACHIAN STATES

This study's objective is to identify and understand the factors important to hardwood processors' location decisions in the northern and central Appalachian region. Concepts from neoclassical and behavioral location theories were integrated to develop a general framework for analyzing these decisions. Logit regression analysis was used to determine those establishment characteristics related to the likelihood of location search. To a great extent, establishments locate based on personal ties and do not conduct searches. Most variables found to influence the likelihood of search are not controllable by state or local governments. The implications are that existing establishments should be targeted for retention and expansion, rather than focusing on recruitment.Community/Rural/Urban Development, Industrial Organization,

Curve Shortening and the Rendezvous Problem for Mobile Autonomous Robots

If a smooth, closed, and embedded curve is deformed along its normal vector field at a rate proportional to its curvature, it shrinks to a circular point. This curve evolution is called Euclidean curve shortening and the result is known as the Gage-Hamilton-Grayson Theorem. Motivated by the rendezvous problem for mobile autonomous robots, we address the problem of creating a polygon shortening flow. A linear scheme is proposed that exhibits several analogues to Euclidean curve shortening: The polygon shrinks to an elliptical point, convex polygons remain convex, and the perimeter of the polygon is monotonically decreasing.Comment: 15 pages, 18 figure

The Rule” and the Constitution: Witness Exclusion and the Right to a Public Trial

Federal and state rules of evidence provide for the exclusion of potential witnesses from the courtroom. But, in criminal proceedings, the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial presumes that a courtroom will be open. The public trial right has been widely interpreted to restrict even “partial closures” – the exclusion of an individual or group from a criminal courtroom. The rule on witnesses is potentially at odds with the right to a public trial. Witness exclusion, by rule, is almost automatic. The Sixth Amendment, on the other hand, requires heightened scrutiny before individuals may be excluded from the courtroom. Criminal defendants have accordingly objected to the exclusion of witnesses from their trials as violations of the right to a public trial. This short article concludes that there are two reasons that standard implementation of the Rule is not a Sixth Amendment violation. The first is that historical understandings of the Sixth Amendment’s public trial right would have contemplated the use of longstanding witness sequestration rules. The second is that witness sequestration causes no meaningful prejudice to the amendment’s purposes. This article also concludes that there are some circumstances where sequestration requests must give way to Sixth Amendment demands and proposes an approach to distinguishing between routine exclusions and those that demand a more searching inquir

Edward W. Chance Dissertation Award: The Transition Practices of One County’s Rural Elementary School Districts and Their Receiving Independent School District

The purpose of this study was to describe the transition implementation experienced by rural elementary school district students entering the ninth grade at an independent school district, and to describe the ties to the school that exist among these same ninth grade students. This qualitative research involved interviewing 11 ninth grade students, six rural elementary school district counselors and/or administrators, and one independent school district counselor. Conclusions of the study revealed that the independent school district in the study does not have a structured transition implementation program to assist rural elementary school district students. Despite literature that supports the success of transitional programs for students and the fact that the county in the study once had a transitional program, there is currently no program in place. The one thing every rural elementary and independent school district staff member agreed on was that the transition process for the rural elementary students needs drastic improvement. Suggestions were provided by all participants to assist with improving transition

Asking Too Much: The Ninth Circuit’s Erroneous Review of Social Security Disability Determinations

Disability determinations made by the Social Security Administration’s administrative law judges are subject to judicial review by Article III courts. By statute, these courts apply the “substantial evidence” standard of review on appeal from the agency. The substantial evidence standard is a forgiving one that defers to the findings of the agency. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has modified this standard. It now reviews certain categories of SSA findings not only for substantial evidence, but for support by “clear and convincing reasons.” This heightened standard of review is facially at odds with the statutorily mandated substantial evidence standard. It also undercuts the principle of deference given to the initial factfinder by the substantial evidence standard of review

United States v. Allen and Judicial Review of Early Pandemic Courtroom Closures

Trial court judges in 2020 were faced with a remarkable new problem. They were asked to accommodate both public health concerns (preventing trial participants, jurors, and spectators from contracting COVID-19) and criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. As courts of appeal begin their review of cases alleging violations of the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial arising during the early pandemic, they should be careful to consider conditions as they were at the time. We have learned much about COVID-19 and its management since then. But reviewing courts should not demand that trial courts possess public health expertise (or information) they did not have in 2020

The Right to a Public Trial in the Time of COVID-19

Maintaining social distance in the time of COVID-19 is a public health priority. A crowded courtroom is an environment at odds with public health needs. Accordingly, until science determines otherwise, it will be necessary for judges to manage courtroom attendance and exclude the public from trials, wholly or in part. Courtrooms may be closed to the public, despite the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial, when the closure is justified by a strong government interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest. Typically, this heightened scrutiny is applied on a case-by-case basis and turns on a case’s specific circumstances. This Article proposes that in this period of pandemic, with indisputably strong government interests in public health and with few means available beyond closure to satisfy those interests, courtroom closures may be ordered by trial courts, and approved by appellate courts, almost categorically. It further suggests that there are alternative protections available that may be employed by courts to further the Sixth Amendment’s good government purposes in this time of emergency

Defendant Silence and Rhetorical Stasis

Silence disrupts the classic arrangement of argumentation by preventing the traditional narrowing of issues—i.e., the identification of points of stasis. This burdens the side against which silence is deployed. When the defendant invokes the right to silence, the prosecution must address every possible defense. In those rare instances where a defendant’s silence may be raised by the prosecution, the defendant may be put in a position of concession on multiple fronts. In either case, the economy of argument anticipated by classical rhetoric is lost