NC0000272_Evergreen Packaging Color Perception Study_20131030

f
evergreen �I Canton Office
packaging I 175 Main Street • Conlon, NC 28716
30 October 2013
Overnight Delivery 8t Electronic Mail CCC #80-13
Mr. Jeff Manning
Chief, Classifications & Standards/Rules Review Branch -
Water Planning Section, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C.' 27699-1611
RE: Evergreen Packaging 7 Color Perception Studv — — --
Dear Mr. Manning, ;
I am writing on behalf of Evergreen Packaging,in response to your e-mail inquiry
of October 2, 2013.You asked the following questions:
1) Plots of actual color measurements versus perceptions of each of the
individual characteristics of water color and water clarity at each
observation site. Provide an interpretation of the applicability of the
results to establish a color concentration to serve for the Evergreen
Packaging Company as a numerical translation for the narrative water
,
quality standard for color.
2)Define where, on the range of 1 to 7, the threshold of acceptable and i
unacceptable occurs. For example, is "acceptable" statistically defined as
greater than or equal to 4, or some other value?
3)The list of data limitations and assumptions made about the data and the
study. i.
Enclosed please find Attachment 1, supplemental material from Pinnacle
Solutions,�lroviders of statistical expertise and predictiveanaiytics for a variety of
industries.
i
In response to your first question, the Pinnacle materials include a plot of actual !
color concentrations versus median ratings in Figure 1. The first question also asks for
... an interpretation of the applicability of the results to establish a color concentration {
to serve for the Evergreen.Packaging Company as a numerical translation for the
narrative water quality standard for color." Evergreen believes current levels of color in
the river are in compliance with North Carolina's narrative water quality standard for
color set forth at 15A NCAC 2B.0211(f); and therefore, Evergreen respectfully declines
to speculate on a numerical interpretation of the narrative standard.
rSee Pinnacle Solutions,Ina,Evergreen Packaging Color Perception Ifesh Uydesign,-
Analysis, October 28,2013. (Attachment 1 to this letter).
Z:\Share\Water Files\Color Projects\Color Perception Study CCC8013.doc

Your second question asks Evergreen to "[d]eftne where, on the range of 1 to 7,
the threshold of acceptable and unacceptable.occurs."The scale used in the Color
Perception Study was a Likert Scale(1 to 7)with anchors at 1 for unacceptable, 4 for
acceptable and 7 for very attractive. Evergreen asked Pinnacle Solutions to do
statistical analysis of observer ratings to determine acceptability of the ratings as part of
the Color Perception Study. 2 Based on Pinnacle's statistical analysis, the median
ratings for water color and clarity at all sites for all events are either greater than 4, or
the lower and upper confidence limits for the median rating at the site include 4 meaning
the median rating is statistically no different than 4. 3
In response to your third question, we identified the following data limitations and
assumptions:
• A significant amount of June downriver data was missing; therefore
it was'not used in the analysis.
• The Likert Scale was symmetric and. equidistant and therefore
could approximate an interval level measurement.
• Data was grouped when no significant difference was found
between groups.
• There was some inconsistency between observation. sites. 5 sites
were bridges across the river. 3 sites were on the river bank.
• There were visible disruptions along the river bank and in the river.
The Canton Mill is clearly visible at Site 6 (on both sides of the
river). Cattle were foraging up to the river in some locations.
Vehicular traffic was present at most of the bridge observation
sites. There were fallen trees in the river with some accumulation of
trash and other debris. Weather - It was not possible to predict or
control weather on the observation dates (although the last event
was rescheduled to avoid rain). Morning fog may have affected
some observer's perceptions at some locations.
Evergreen Packaging appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. We
are available, at your convenience, to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely,
c
Chet C. Chiles
Manager, EHS&S
t Pinnacle Solutions Inc., Evergreen Packaging Color Perception Analysis (2012), Exhibit B to the Pigeon River
Color Perception Study(2013).
J See Pinnacle Solutions,Attachment 1,supra,Figure 1 and p 3,4.
I

Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.
Evergreen Packaging Color Perception Analysis
Monica Gehlhausen,M.S.,Statistician
Mia Lyst, M.S., Director of Development and Business Analytics
October 28,2013
Background:
In response to the questions asked by the State of North Carolina regarding the"Pigeon River Color
Perception Study", Pinnacle Solutions performed additional analysis on the data for further clarification.
The questions were:
1) Plots of actual color measurements versus perceptions of each of the individual characteristics of water color
and water clarity at each observation site: Provide an interpretation of the applicability of the results to
establish a color concentration to serve for the Evergreen Packing Company as a numerical translation for the
narrative water quality standard for color. We can provide an example of the kind of plot that is needed.
2) Define where,on the range of 1 to 7,the threshold of acceptable and unacceptable occurs. For example,Is
"acceptable"statistically defined as 2 4,or some other value?
3) The list of data limitations and assumptions made about the data set and the study.
I
1
i

Additional Analysis:
Sections A, B and C below correspond to the questions posed in the Background section.
A. A plot of watercolor and clarity median ratings with 99%confidence limits versus the
actual apparent color measurements by Site.
Figure 1
7.0 T
U 11
6.0 ,.
t I
c Im
a
a
a 5.0 Site
01 Browns Br
m 02 Hepco Br
c
b 03 Ferguson Br
M4 Clyde Br
4.0 ----.-----.-- --- — 05 Thickety 02 St
m
� 06 Fibreville Mix Zn
e6 M7 Canton Rec Pk
o` EB Wells Rd Br
3.0
a
a
'S
2.0
0 20 40 60 60 100 120
Actual Apparent Color -
Pinnacle Solutions plotted the summed Water Color and Clarity median ratings with the 99%
confidence limits versus apparent color rather than the individual observations in order to reduce
the noise in the data due to experimental error. Because the median values are not influenced by
outliers or extreme values,they provide a better estimation of the population ratings recorded for
Water Color and Clarity.
B. Re-analysis of the summed groups where the values where transformed back to the
original scale of l to 7.
2

Pinnacle Solutions performed statistical analysis of the independent observer's ratings and prepared
a report(See Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.,Evergreen Packaging Color Perception Analysis, Exhibit B to the
Study Report).The purpose of that analysis was to evaluate whether or not the characteristic ratings
at different sites along the river were considered acceptable.As a part of that analysis, ratings from
similar characteristics were combined for analysts.Combining the ratings resulted in a scale with
different values for acceptability. In response to the second question on the first page, Pinnacle
Solutions re-analyzed the summed groups to transform the values back to the original scale to
demonstrate, using statistical analysis,where Acceptable falls on the 1 to 7 scale.
Fortune the grouped characteristics and summed scales are shown in Table 1.
Table i
Grouped Characteristic Summed scale
Water Color&Clarity 18=Acceptable (4 x 2 characteristics x 1 UR)
For Sept/Nov Analysis the grouped characteristics and summed scales are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Grouped Characteristic Summed Scale
Water Color&Clarity 116=Acceptable(4 x 2 characteristics x 2 UR/DR)
In order to convert the summed scales back to the original scale of 1 to 7,the average scale was
calculated for each of the summed ratings,i.e.the summed ratings were divided by the
corresponding number of river characteristics that composed the group. For example,the summed
ratings for the Sept/Nov Water Color&Clarity group were divided by 4 where the 4 river
characteristics were—water color upriver,water color downriver,water clarity upriver,and water
clarity downriver.
With the re-scaled values,the data was reanalyzed using the same methodology as described in the
original report. The analysis showed that the Sept/Nov data was no longer normally distributed
therefore non-parametric statistical analysis was performed. Tables 3-4 and Figures 2-3 display the
results of this analysis for Sept/Nov and June, respectively.
In its earlier report, Pinnacle determined the 99%lower and upper confidence limits for the median i
ratings for water color and clarity at each site for each event. As part of the re-analysis,the upper
and lower confidence limits were re-scaled to a scale of 1 to 7 as well. With the rescaled data,the
median ratings for Water Color and Clarity at all sites for all events are either greater than 4,or the
lower and upper confidence limits for the median rating at that site include 4. When the confidence
limits for a median rating include 4,then that median rating is statistically no different than 4.
3

Table 3
JUNE Date (Resealed)
Water Color&Clarity
Site Median 99%LCO 99%UCO
1 Brown's Bridge 5.6 5.4 6.0
2 Hepco Bridge 4A 4.0 5.0
3 Ferguson Bridge 6.0 5.5 65
4 Clyde Bridge 55 4.5 6.0
5 Thickety 02 Station 4.0 3.5 4.8
6 Fbreville/Mixing Zone 4.5 3.6 5.0
7 Canton Recreation Park 6.8 6.5 7.0
8 Wells Road Bridge 5.0 4.5 55
Table 4
SENT/NOV Data(Resealed)
Water Color&Clarity
Site Median 99%LCO 99%UCLt
1 Brown's Bridge 4.7 4.2 5.2
2 Hepco Bridge 4.8 4.3 5A
3 Ferguson Bridge 55 4.6 6.0
4 Clyde Bridge 4A 3.9 5.1
5 Thickety 02 Station 4.2 3.5 4.9
6 Fibreville/MixingZone 35 2.7 4.2.
7 Canton Recreation Park 6.0 5.4 6.2
8 Wells Road Bridge 6.1 5.9 6S
4

Figure 2
Characteristic Group=Water Color&Clarity
Medians for Site-JUNE
nth 99%Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
7.0 rQ
TT 1
6.0, b
Il 11
5.0 p
4.0 jl
3.0
2.0
1.0
9 S S 8
B^o!y IP yP'GC �Q^P(' rd'r0 PrJ
o �,e^r ^ra°P �� rr�2%'
O
5
i
Ii
f
I

F
Eiguie 3
Characteristic Group=Water Color&Clarity
Medians for Site-SEPT/NOV
With 993.Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
7.0
6.0
T
5.0 I
1Q
4.0
3.0
2.0
6 8
O T
6 Z /
o'r6� o'e�� 9��P P 01 rr/�'li ,9Pc. yodad
�O O S/Oe'o7
OOP
C. A list of data limitations and data assumptions:
Data limitations
• A significant amount on June Downriver data was missing;therefore it was not used in the
analysis.
Data assumptions
• The Likert scale was symmetric and equidistant and therefore could approximate an interval-
level measurement.
• Data was grouped when no significant difference was found between groups.
6

• Since all river characteristic ratings used the same rating scale,they were grouped into"like"
characteristics and Likert summing was used in the analysis.
• If the data failed the normality test,Non-parametric statistics was used.
i
7

,RECEIVED_
JAN30 MM
1 DNQ/Surface Natcr Prntcction Section
n.Rr n;np^ C_1
Pigeon River Color Perception Study
Albert M. Prestrude, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor Emeritus
And
Donald S. Cherry, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
January 29, 2013

Table of Contents
Tableof Contents............................................................................................................................ii
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
GeneralMethodology..................................................................................................................... 2
Data Organization and Analysis..................................................................................................... 3
Observation Event I - June 30, 2012............................................................................................... 5
Observation Event II—September 15, 2012................................................................................... 7
Observation Event III -November 10, 2012 .................................................................................. 7
Water Quality Sampling and Analysis............................................................................................ 8
SampleLocations............................................................................................................................ 8
SampleCollection Methods............................................................................................................ 9
SampleResults.............................................................................................................................. 10
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 11
Tables............................................................................................................................................ 12
Pinnacle Solutions Figures............................................................................................................ 16
AquAeTerFigures ........................................................................................................:............... 22
AquAeTerTables.......................................................................................................................... 24
References..........................................................................................................................:.......... 29
Exhibit A—Approved Color Perception Study Plan (including Appendices) ............................. 30
Exhibit B—Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. Color Perception Analysis.................................................. 31
Exhibit C—AquAeTer Individuals Involved in Sample Collection and Analysis....................... 32
Exhibit D—Photographs from Observation Events...................................................................... 33
ii

Introduction
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. d/b/a Evergreen Packaging ("Evergreen") owns and
operates a kraft pulp and paper mill in Canton, North Carolina (the "Canton Mill"). The Canton
Mill discharges treated wastewater to the Pigeon River pursuant to NPDES Permit NC 0000272
(the "NPDES Permit") issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ("DWQ") within
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural ,Resources ("NCDENR") and a
variance from the North Carolina water quality standard for color (the "Color Variance") issued
by the NPDES Committee of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
("EMC").
Certain provisions of the NPDES Permit and Color Variance were challenged in petitions
for contested cases filed in the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings in 2010. (See
Cocke County, et al. v. DENR, DN,Q and Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., 10 EHR 4341, and
Cocke County, et al. v. EMC, NPDES Committee and Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. 10 EHR
4982 (the "Contested Cases"). Evergreen agreed, in a partial settlement of the Contested Cases,
to fund a site-specific study of color in the Pigeon River in North Carolina. The study was to be
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 Color Variance and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") letter to DWQ dated February 22, 2010.
Evergreen and Drs. Albert Prestrude and Donald Cherry, submitted a draft proposal for
the color perception study to DWQ in February, 2012. Dr. Prestrude retired as a professor of
psychology from Virginian Polytechnic and State University ("Virginia Tech"). Dr. Cherry is
professor emeritus in the Department of Biology at Virginia Tech specializing in ecotoxicology.
Dr. Prestrude has performed similar studies of color perception on rivers in the United States and
has written extensively on the subject of color perception by human observers. Dr. Cherry
collaborated with Dr. Prestrude on earlier color perception studies. Dr. Cherry has conducted
extensive research and published numerous articles on aquatic toxicity. Complete copies of the
curriculum vitae for Drs. Prestrude and Cherry are included in Appendix A to the approved color
perception study plan included as Exhibit A to this report.
DWQ submitted the draft to EPA Region IV for review and comment. Evergreen and
1

Drs. Cherry and Prestrude revised the study proposal, in response to comments and questions
from DWQ and EPA. On April 17, 2012, Evergreen submitted the final version of the study plan.
The study plan was approved by DWQ and EPA on June 1, 2012.
Three separate color observation events were conducted. The first event took place on
June 30, 2012, the second on September 15, 2012, and the third on November 10, 2012. The
third event was rescheduled twice to avoid predicted rainfall in accordance with the approved
study plan.
This report discusses and summarizes the results of the three color observation events.
Based on the results, observers found all sites in the Pigeon River in North Carolina acceptable
for all parameters at all sites during the June event and for all parameters at all sites except site 6,
the Canton Mill Mixing Zone, during the September and November events.
General Methodology
All three studies followed the same general protocol, with only minor changes in methods
to improve experimental control and precision. Observers were recruited from within western
North Carolina using telephone and internet databases. Lancaster Consulting Company recruited
all the observers using a screening questionnaire (Appendix C to the Color Perception Study Plan)
to exclude candidates with possible bias. Physical limits on getting in and out of a van, walking
on uneven ground, and vision problems were considered. Those who qualified were offered
$200 for their participation upon completion of the event. Thirty individuals were recruited for
each study. Each individual participated in only one study to prevent potential bias. All studies
were run on weekends so people with regular weekly employment were not excluded.
Participants reported to a central location where they were given a light breakfast and
instructed about their participation. The observers were taken by van to river sites (shown on the
map included as Appendix B to the approved study plan) where they were asked to assign
numerical ratings to their perceptions of the scenic beauty, water color, and water clarity at the
site. Observers also rated each site on its appropriateness for several human activities, including
wading, fishing, swimming, boating, canoeing, and rafting.
2

The ratings were done using a seven (7) point scale with anchors at 1 =unacceptable, 4=
acceptable and 7 = very attractive (Likert 1932). Similar rating procedures, also known as
magnitude estimation, have been in use for 150 years. The scales provide interval scales of
measurement, lacking only an absolute zero (a complete absence of the concept being measured)
(See Marks, L.E., Sensory Processes; the New Psychophysics (1974), and Stevens, S.S., The
Surprising Simplicity of Sensory Metrics (1962), and Psychophysics: Introduction to its
Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects (1975)). The use of such scales by independent
observers has been applied in perception studies estimating fire and insect damage to forests and
appropriate color levels in the Hiwassee River in Tennessee. (See Buyhoff and Leuschner (1978);
Hull and Buyhoff(1984), and Prestrude, Laws and Cherry, (1989)). A sample site observation
sheet with the rating scale is included in Appendix H to the approved study plan.
Data Organization and Analysis
The data set consisted of the ratings of the seven aspects (scenic beauty, water color,
water clarity, and suitability for fishing, wading, swimming, and boating, canoeing or rafting) at
each of the eight sites by each observer for both upriver and downriver views. There were 26
observers in the June 30 event providing 2416 individual ratings in that data set. There were 27
observers in the September 15 event providing 3,024 individual ratings in that data set. There
were 25 observers in the November 10 event providing 2,796 individual ratings in that data set
for total data set of 8,236 ratings.
The results of each event were analyzed separately and are presented in the tables
associated with the sections below. Median ratings were calculated for each of the seven rating
scales at each of the eight sites resulting in a 7 x 8 table with 56 cells for each observation event.
A median rating for all data from each site for each of the seven ratings was calculated as well.
Pinnacle Solutions performed statistical analysis on the data using SAS/STAT software.
Pinnacle grouped the data into three categories, Scenic Beauty, Water Color and Clarity, and
recreation including Wading, Swimming, Fishing and Boating, Canoeing and Rafting. Using
appropriate statistical analysis, Pinnacle analyzed the pooled data from the September /
3

November events, calculated the mean rating for each subgroup and the upper and lower
confidence limit. The results of this analysis are shown in Pinnacle Figures 1-3 (p. 16-18).t All
sites had an average rating no different than or better than Acceptable (4 or equivalent) with the
exception of site 6. Site 6 is the Canton Mill Mixing Zone, and is located just below the effluent
discharge from Evergreen Packaging's Canton Mill. The independent observers viewed this site
from the river bank. The Canton Mill was clearly visible to the observers. The results were
analyzed using least-square means estimates with adjusted Bonferroni multiple comparisons and
99% confidence limits. See Pinnacle Solutions Color Perception Analysis attached hereto as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Data from the June event were analyzed separately. The data were grouped the same
way, Scenic Beauty, Water Color and Clarity, and Recreation. Because the data were not
normally distributed, and normal distribution could not be achieved by summing the data,
nonparametric analysis was performed. The median rating for each subgroup at each site was
calculated along with the 99% confidence limit. Pinnacle Figures 4-6 (p. 19-21) demonstrate the
results of this analysis. All sites had a median rating no different than or better than Acceptable
(4 or equivalent) based on the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric multiple comparison test and
calculation of distribution-free 99% confidence limits. Pinnacle, supra.
The Environmental Response Inventory (FRI) and the vision tests were incorporated as
controls. The ERI was used to determine whether any observers reported extreme environmental
attitudes either for or against environmental uses and policies. All observers in all three events
exhibited ERI profiles corresponding to the norms in the ERI manual. The vision tests were
included to detect any observer who might have misreported vision problems which would
preclude accurate perception of the environmental factors they were evaluating.
Dr. Prestrude assigned a leader from his staff to each van. The van leaders, all graduate
students at Virginia Tech, directed the observers in the rating procedure (but did not tell them
what rating to give to each site and activity). The vans departed from the place of origin at
1 Pinnacle Figures 4-6 actually use different numbers for acceptable in some cases because some ratings were
combined into subgroups for analysis. See Pinnacle,supra,p.2.
4

approximately 9:00 AM. Each van carried bottled water, soft drinks, and snacks for the
observers. Several rest stops were made for the comfort of the observers. The sites were visited
beginning with the site farthest away from the place of origin and worked back to that point. The
vans were accompanied by uniformed security personnel driving clearly marked vehicles to
control traffic at the bridge sites.
The vans returned to the place of origin at approximately 1:00 PM where the observers
were given lunch. During lunch the observers were given three short vision tests and the
Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) (McKechnie, 1974). The vision tests and the ERI are
in Appendices D and E to the approved study plan. No observers were excluded from the data
analysis in any of the studies based on the vision tests and the ERI. Upon completion of these
procedures, the observers were paid $200 for their participation. Each of the studies was
completed in six to seven hours.
During each event, AquAeTer, an environmental consulting firm, collected water quality
samples from the Pigeon River and its tributaries. Information about AquAeTer and individuals
involved in sample collection and analysis is included in Exhibit C.
Photographs of each event are included in Exhibit D (on disc).
Observation Event I-June 30,2012
Thirty observers were recruited by Lancaster Consulting from the western North Carolina
area. Twenty-six reported to the Waynesville Inn by 8 AM on Saturday, June 30, 2012. A light
breakfast and coffee were available. Clipboards containing the necessary rating forms and
pencils were distributed, and each observer was assigned a number to maintain individual
privacy and preserve objectivity. The study personnel were introduced and the procedures were
described, including a brief practice session evaluating a photograph of the Pigeon lziver.
Observers were asked not to share their ratings with each other and not to discuss the procedures
during their participation. They were also asked to turn off cell phones and similar devices for
all of the observations and to remove sunglasses while viewing each site. A"van leader" (part of
5

the research team) sat in a middle seat of each van where he/she could be available for questions
and monitor activities (e.g.,phone use) and conversations.
Observers were taken by vans to eight sites on the Pigeon River beginning at the North
Carolina/Tennessee state line. The sites, listed in order of viewing, were:
Site 1 Brown's Bridge(NC/TN State Line)
Site 2 Hepco Bridge
Site 3 Ferguson Bridge
Site 4 Clyde Bridge
Site 5 Thickety 02 Station
Site 6 Fibreville/Canton Mill Mixing Zone
Site 7 Canton Recreation Park
Site 8 Wells Road Bridge
(Sites are shown on the map included as Appendix B to the Color Perception Study Plan and
Also on AquAeTer Figure 1, p. 22.) Five sites were bridges and three sites were along the river
bank. Observers were instructed to fill out two sets of rating scales for each site, one looking
upriver and one looking downriver.
Water samples were collected from each of the sites and analyzed for true and apparent
color. True and apparent color concentrations for each site are shown in AquAeTer Tables 3 and
4 (p. 26, 27). River flow measured at the Canton Gaging station on June 30`s, 2012 was 71
million gallons per day. Weather was sunny and clear.
Table 1 (p. 12), presents the observers' median ratings by site and characteristic. There
were only three (3) median ratings, out of a total of fifty-six (3/56) of less than 4. The median
ratings for water color and water clarity were 4 or better at all sites.
The highest apparent color was 84 PCUs at the mixing zone,just downriver from site 6,
{ the Canton Mill Mixing Zone.
6

Observation Event II—September 15, 2012
This study followed the same protocols as Event I with the addition that observers were
assigned to vans instead of having the option of choosing their van. If there were discussions
among the observers, it might result in a different pattern of ratings or different mean ratings
from the other two vans. Lancaster Consulting recruited 30 participants, 27 of whom arrived at
the Maggie Valley Country Club by 8 AM.2 A light breakfast,juices, and coffee were available.
Clipboards with rating scales and pencils were distributed and observer numbers assigned.
Observers were oriented in the same manner as Event I, including a practice observation using a
photograph of the Pigeon River, and assigned to vans. Departure for the first site was at 8:45
AM. The same sites were visited as in Event I. Uniformed security personnel in marked cars
were present at each site.
Water samples were collected from each location and analyzed for true and apparent
color. True and apparent color concentrations for each site are shown in AquAeTer Tables 3 and
4 (p. 26, 27). River flow at the Canton Gaging Station on September 15, 2012 was 53.7 million
gallons per day (less than the annual 30Q2 flow of 58.1 million gallons per day and the lowest
flow for any of the three events). Weather was partly cloudy with early morning fog.
Table 2 (p. 13) presents the observers' median ratings by site and characteristic. The
overall pattern of median ratings is similar to Observation Event 1, the first event, though there
are more median ratings of less than 4 (15/56). The highest color measured was 117 PCUs, at
site 6.
Observation Event III- November 10,2012
The procedures were the same as Event H. Lancaster Consulting recruited 30 observers,
25 of whom appeared at the Maggie Valley Country Club by 8:30 AM. Because of the change to
standard time, observers reported later so that lighting conditions at the sites would be similar to
those of the two prior events.
2 A different central location was used for Observation Events II and III because the Waynesville Inn was not
available.
7

Water samples were collected from each location and analyzed for true and apparent
color. True and apparent color concentrations for each site are shown on AquAeTer Tables 3
and 4. River flow at the Canton gaging station on November 10, 2012, was 69.2 mgd. Weather
was sunny and clear.
Table 3 (p. 14) presents the observers' median ratings by site and characteristic. The
results of Event III are similar to the prior two events. Eight (8) out of fifty-six (8/56) median
ratings were less than 4. The highest apparent color, 99 PCUs, was at site 6.
Water Quality Sampling and Analysis
Samples were collected from the eight observation stations on the Pigeon River on June
30, 2012, September 16, 2012, and November 10, 2012. The tributaries were sampled either on
the same day as the Pigeon River samples, or on the day before (June 29, 2012, September 14,
2012, and November 9, 2012). A field team followed the independent observers and collected
the samples following the observer's evaluation of each site.
It is noted that the independent observers evaluated the Canton Mill Mixing Zone station
(CP-6) from the shores of the Pigeon River approximately one-tenth of a mile upstream from the
compliance point. AquAeTer collected samples and measurements from the Mill's compliance
point on the Fibreville Bridge.
Sample Locations
The sample locations are shown on AquAeTer Figures 1 and 2 (p. 22, 23). Eight stations
on the Pigeon River were sampled. Eleven tributaries were sampled. The tributaries sampled
are representative of the largest tributaries downstream from the headwaters as well as a
distribution of drainage basin sizes, as shown in AquAeTer Table 2 (p. 25).
8

Sample Collection Methods
Pigeon River
On the Pigeon River, samples were collected for the analysis of true color, apparent
color, total dissolved solids (TDS), and turbidity. Additionally, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific
conductance at 25°C (conductivity), and temperature were measured in situ using a Hydrolab
Quanta multi-parameter instrument. Samples for true color were analyzed using the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Method 253. True color samples were split.
One set was analyzed by the Canton Mill. The other set was analyzed by an independent
laboratory, ALS-Columbia in Kelso, Washington. Samples for TDS were analyzed by Pace
Analytical Services in Asheville, North Carolina. Turbidity was measured in the field using
either a HACH 2300P or 23000 model Turbidimeter. Each laboratory is certified by the State of
North Carolina for the respective analyses. AquAeTer is certified by NCDENR for measuring
water quality parameters.
Flows on the Pigeon River were measured by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) at the Canton;Hepco, and Stateline gages.
For seven of the eight stations on the Pigeon River, samples collected for laboratory
analysis were collected by lowering a 2.5-gallon pail from the bridge or tossing it from shore.
Water was then poured from the pail into the respective sample jars. Samples for laboratory
analyses were placed on ice and either delivered or shipped to the appropriate laboratory.
Samples for true color analysis by the Canton Mill Laboratory were delivered to the Mill on the
same day they were collected. The other samples were shipped out on the following Monday for
delivery on Tuesday. The sample at the Canton Recreation Park (CP-7) was collected directly
from the River into each sample bottle. A chain of custody form was filled out for all samples
collected that included location, date,time and sampler identification.
Tributaries
For the, tributaries, samples were collected for true and apparent color analysis and
turbidity. Additionally, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and temperature were measured in
situ using a Hydrolab Quanta multi-parameter instrument. Samples for tine color were analyzed
9

using the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Method 253 by the
Canton Mill laboratory. Turbidity was measured in the field using either a HACH 2300P or
2300Q model Turbidimeter. Each laboratory is certified by the State of North Carolina for the
respective analyses.
For the tributaries, discharge measurements were made on the ungaged streams at the
time of the sampling using USGS gaging procedures and a Pygmy flow meter with a wading rod.
For each tributary, samples were collected directly from the tributary. After the samples
were collected, all samples were kept on ice. Samples were delivered to the Canton Mill
Laboratory by the Saturday of each event. A chain of custody form was filled out for all samples
collected that included location, date,time and sampler identification.
Sample Results
True and apparent color sample results are presented in AquAeTer Tables 3 and 4 (p. 26,
27). Flows measured on the Pigeon River and on the tributaries are presented in AquAeTer
Table 5 (p. 28).
The flows that occurred on the Pigeon River at Canton, Flepco, and Waterville during the
June sampling event were 71.7, 170 and 107 million gallons per day (mgd), respectively. Flows
in the Pigeon River during the June sampling event were less than the monthly 30-day, 2-year
low flow (monthly 30Q2) for Canton, Hepco, and Waterville of 150, 304 and 498 mgd,
respectively.
The flows that occurred on the Pigeon River at Canton, Hepco, and Waterville during the
September sampling event were 53.6, 116, and 93.7 mgd, respectively. Flows in the Pigeon
River during the September sampling event were less than the monthly 30Q2 for Canton, Hepco,
and Waterville of 84,191 and 303 mgd, respectively. The flow at Canton was less than the
annual 30Q2 flow of 58.1 mgd.
The flows that occurred on the Pigeon River at Canton, Hepco, and Waterville during the
November sampling event were 69, 175 and 157 mgd, respectively. Flows in the Pigeon River
10

during the November event were less than the monthly 30Q2 for Canton, Hepco, and Waterville
of 142,284 and 637 mgdf, respectively. The November sampling occurred during a snow melt
condition in the basin following a heavy snowfall resulting from Hurricane Sandy.
Conclusion
Table 4 presents the observers' median ratings by site and scale for all three events. Only
seven (7) of the fifty-six (7/56) median ratings are less than 4. Independent statistical analysis of
the data by Pinnacle Solutions concluded that all of the sites observed on the Pigeon River during
the June event had median ratings no different than or better than 4. For the September and
November events, all sites had an average rating no different than or better than 4 except for site
6, the Canton Mill Mixing Zone.
Three separate groups of independent observers viewed the same sites on the Pigeon
River, on three different days and ranked the sites. Numerous factors, such as accessibility,
proximity to existing structures and ongoing operations and uses, may influence an observer's
perceptions of scenic beauty, water color, water clarity, and the suitability of a water body for
wading, fishing, swimming and boating. It is not possible to eliminate these factors in a study
such as this one. The observers in this study viewed the Pigeon River at eight different sites,
spanning approximately 40 river miles from the North Carolina / Tennessee state line to the
upper reaches of the Pigeon River. Sites were located adjacent to an interstate highway, on rural
roads and bridges, in the middle of two towns, Clyde and Canton, and less than %2 mile
downstream from a paper mill. Notwithstanding the significant potential for distraction, the
median rating of all observers for the June event rated the Pigeon River acceptable or better at all
locations during the June event. For the September and November events, the average rating of
all observers for all sites was no different than or better than 4 (Acceptable) except for site 6, the
Canton Mill Mixing Zone.
11

Tables
Table 1. June 30,2012 -Median Ratings by Site and Characteristic
Site(#) Scenic Water Water Wading Swimming Fishing Boating/
Name Beauty Color Clarity Canoeing
/Rafting
(1) -
Brown's 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0
Bridge
(2)
Hepco 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Bridge
(3)
Ferguson 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.8 5.0
Bridge
(4)
Clyde 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0. 6.0
Bridge
(5)
Thickety 6.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.0
O2 Station
(6)
Fibreville 3.0 .4.0 5.0 3.0 2.6 3.8 5.0
/Mixing
Zone
(7)
Canton 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.0
Recreation
Park
(8)
Wells 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Road
Bridge
12

Table 2. September 15, 2012 - Median Ratings by Site and Characteristic
Site(#) Scenic Water Water Wading Swimming Fishing Boating/
Name Beauty Color Clarity Canoeing
/Rafting
(1)
Brown's 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.1 3.1 4.8 3.5
Bridge
(2)
Hepco 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.8
Bridge
(3)
Ferguson 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.4 4.5 5.5 4.9
Bridge
(4)
Clyde 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.1 2.5 4.5 4.5
Bridge
(5)
Thickety 5.5 3.5 . 3.5 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.4
OZ Station
(6)
Fibreville 3.3 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5
/Mixing
Zone
(7)
Canton 5.5 6.0 6.3 6.1 4.5 5.5 4.5
Recreation
Park
(8)
Wells 5.5 5.5 6.3 5.1 5.0 5.5 6.3
Road
Bridge
13

Table 3. November 10,2012 -Median Ratings by Site and Characteristic
Site(#) Scenic Water Water Wading Swimming Fishing Boating/
Name Beauty Color Clarity Canoeing
/Rafting
(1)
Brown's 5.8 4.6 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.4 5.0
Bridge
(2)
Hepco 5.8 5.3 5.4 4.9 4.4 5.5 5.3
Bridge
(3)
Ferguson 6.1 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.1 6.0 5.5
Bridge
(4)
Clyde 4.0 5.0 5.3 3.8 4.0 4.1 5.0
Bridge
Th ckety 5.5 5.0 5.0 4.8 3.6 5.0 4.5
OZ Station
(6)
Fibreville 2.9 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 3.0
/Mixing
Zone
(7)
Canton 5.0 5.5 5.8 5.0 4.6 53 5.3
Recreation
Park
(8)-
Wells 6.0 6.3 6.5 5.5 5.3 5.3 6.0
Road
Bridge
14

r�
Table 4. Pooled Dates - Median Ratings by Site and Characteristic
Site(#) Scenic Water Water Wading Swimming Fishing Boating/
Name Beauty Color Clarity Canoeing
/Rafting
(1) '
Brown's 5.8 5.0 5.3 5.3 3.5 5.3 4.3
Bridge
(2)
Hepco 5.5 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.0 5.3 5.3
Bridge
(3)
Ferguson 5.7 5.9 6.0 5.5 4.5 5.8 5.0
Bridge
(4)
Clyde 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.8 5.0 5.0
Bridge
(5)
Thickety 5.5 4.3 4.5 5.1 4.5 5.5 5.3
OZ
(6)
Fibreville 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
/Mixing
Zone
(7)
Canton 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.9 4.9 5.5 5.3
Recreation
Park
(8)
Wells 6.0 6.0 6.3 5.4 5.5 6.0 6.0
Road
Bridge
15

Pinnacle Solutions Figures
Figure 1: Pooled SeptlMov data, Summary Statistics for Characteristic Group =Scenic Beauty
Characteristic Group=Scenic Beauty(Acceptable=8)
Site _Least Squares Means
Site Estimate Standard Error x Value Pr a IrL-Alplra Lower Upper
1 Browns By 10.7356 03053 35.17 <.0001 0.01 9.9492 11.5219
2 Hepco Br 10.9163 0.3053 35.76 <.0001 0.01 10.1300 11.7027
3 Ferguson Br 11.0010 03053 36.04 <.0001 0.01 10.2146 11.7873
4 Clyde Br 83837 03053 27.46 <•0001 0.01 75973 9.1700
5 Thickety02 St 10.2346 03053 33.53 <•0001 0.01 9.4483 11.0210
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 6.0952 03053 19.97 <0001 0.01 5.3089 6.8815
7 Canton Re c Pk 10.4798 0.3053 34.33 <.0001 0.01 9.6935 11.2661
8 Wells Rd Br 112404 0.3053 36.82 <.0001 0.01 10.4540 12.0267
LS-Means for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits
12
CD
d
:1 10
00
a
a� 8 Acceptable=8
o�
6
�u. sT� SAL C. it,
9 �c��r rtlp�r �P Pao' tP Zt• ��¢Pei �agr
sF p¢
Site
16

Figure 2: Pooled Sept/Nov data, Summary Statistics for Characteristic Group = Water Color &
Clarity
Characteristic Group=Water Color&Clarity(Acceptable=16)
Site Least Squares Means
Site Estimate Standard Error z Value Pr> 1z1 Alpha Lower Upper
1 Browns Br 18.7738 0.6339 29.63 <.0001 0.01 17.1461 20.4116 1
2HepeoBr 19.1404 0.6339 30.20 <.0001 0.01 17.5076 20.7731
3 Ferguson Br 20.7721 0.6339 32.77 <.0001 0.01 19.1394 22.4049
4 Clyde Br 16.7817 0.6339 26.46 <.0001 0.01 15.1490 18AI45
5 Thickety 02 St 16.4663 0.6339 25.98 <.0001 0.01 14.8336 18.0991
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 13.7931 0.6339 . 21.77 <.0001 0.01 12.1653 15.4308 j
7CmtonRecPk 22.6760 0.6339 35.77 <.0001 0.01 21.0432 24.3087
8 W ells Rd Br 23.6154 0.6339 37.26. <.0001 0.01 21.9826 25.2481
LS-Mears for Site
.With 99%Confidence Limits
25
t
� s
d
y
a 20
a
wt
0 Acceptable=16
z
y 15
it-
c
7Pp .h"o�
�. n.
PC t
Site
17

Figure 3: Pooled Sept/Nov data, Summary Statistics for Characteristic Group =Recreation
Characteristic Group=Recreation(Acceptable=32)
Site Least Squares Means
Site Estimate Standard Error x Value Pr> 1!1_ hU _Lower Upper
1 Browns Br 34.1894 1.4924 22.91 <.0001 0.01 30.3451 38.0337
2HepcoBr 353750 1.4924 23.70 <.0001 0.01 31.5307 39.2193
3 Ferguson Br 38.2971 1.4924 25.66 <.0001 0.01 34.4528 42.1414
4 Clyde Br 30.6654 1 A924 20.55 <.0001 0.01 26.8211 345097
5 Tlvckety 02 St 363019 1.4924 24.32 <.0001 0.01 32.4576 40.1462
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 23.1825 1.4924 1553 <.0001 0.01 19.3382 27.0268
7 Canton Rec Pk 383106 1.4924 25.67 <.0001 0.01 34.4663 42.1549
8 W ells Rd Br 403962 1.4924 27.20 <.0001 0.01 36.7519 44.4404
LS-Means for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits
45
i
i
40
m
35
b
Acceptable=32
a� 30
w
y 25
20
u
�r oft u� gr PLO, 4 Pe fad
Site
18

Figure 4: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group =Scenic Beauty
Characteristic Group=Scenic Beauty
Medians for Site-30JUN2012(UR only)
nth 99%Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
7.0
6:o I
5.0
Acceptable=4
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
F F
d„ok 8
yobC P6 CyaP ,Tic i6l Cd�r P� .
O- o TO d. /y
se e. � ''o• O
+�o r^Pd.
07 �20 0 �P
>0 d�
19

Figure 5: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group = Water Color & Clarity
Characteristic Group=Water Color&Clarity
Medians for Site-30JUN2012(UR only)
With 99Y Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
15.0
14.0 7
13.0 lb
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
Acceptable=8
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
T 2 3 A S 6 8
6"O� 'SPAC Pr�O CLPP T/�iC '6"PL Cd�fO P�
7- O J B. / '! Sid
OI> '�P �O�f /P/�,t. 9PP^P OP,
d10 O
>0 0-*
20

Figure 6: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group =Recreation
Characteristic Group=Recreation
Medians for Site-30JUN2012(UR only)
With 99%Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
25.0 7
20.0 I
Acceptable=16
15.0
10.0
e^O �Pq FPS CLO. ThiCG �6"P Cd�f P%
ryes COe Gf0> Pei' 'Pn 4/P O'9 s-90
io^P P �P fdr/ "F'j Oe. ry
O, ?O 0 �P
i
21

Z t d Y
14
pp
StafflonLocations
Pigeon Riv,er
Tributary
AM cis
�.
_ '*K1II1♦ y0}tom ! yR _' i ti
,t- _/ ,�• .J . •�L=fir • �♦- �G' ��?�' �, ^Y'
r' v
i
t ,Y�Si Y! •yam y � sl/
5 2.5 1 1
FIGURE, 1.
STATION LOCATIONS
oytirnizingresources water,air,earth
/ 1
1

FIGURE 2
PHYSICAL SYSTEM Or THE PIGEON RIVER AND SAMPLED TRIBUTARIES"
20 HARTFORD(PRM 20.87) .
STATION I.BROWNS MUDGE(PRM24.7) TENNESSEE
BIGCREEK(PRM25.84) (PRM25.85)
WALTERS PLANT(PRM 25,87) NORTHCAROLINA
30 NOTE:USOS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS MXATH
THAT RIVERMLE 0 FORBIO CREEK IS
CMUREO IN THE FIGEON RNPRCHAN.P
OF THE NORTH CAROLMA/N W MSSEB
BORDER
35
WALTERS DAM(PRM 37.87)
CATALOOCHBE CREEK(PRM 38.00)
STATION2BEPCOBRMGE(PRM4258) MNESCR®K(PRM42.68+026)
5
rONATHAN CREEK(PRM 45.9610.64)
STATION3FERGUSONBRB7GE(PRM48,3) FERGUSON COVE TRIBUTARY(PRM48.3+O.OQ
so CRADTR13ECREEK(PRM49.73+0.01)
BIG BRANCH(PRM SI.74+0.02)
NCSR 1625 BRIDGE(PRM 53.56)
55 RICELANDCREEK(PRM54,91+0.21)
(MAGGIE VALLEY)
POISONCOVE TRIRUTARY(PRM 57,45+0.64) STATION4 CLYDE(PRM 57.60)
STATION 5 TMCKBTY 02 STATION(PRM 612)
MURRAY BRANCH(PRM 6I.6M3 6)
STAT70N6FIBERVU.LEBRIOGE(PRM62.85) BEAVERDAMCREEK(PRM62.85+0.01)
PARKSTBRID RM 63.61 STATION 7 CANT'ONRECREATIONPARK(PRM 645)
s
STATION 8 WELLS ROADBRIDGE(PRM 67.5)
70 BEGINPIGEONRIVER(PRM69.32j
WFORKPR(PRM69.32+0.28) EFORKFR(PRM69.32+021)
LBW PIOEONRPAR(PR) REW
CLIENT:
LocATIGN: FIGURE 2.
FROIECTALE: PHYSICAL SYSTEM
�(jlDl��. BEY oplimizing resources I water,air,earth
23

AQUAETER TABLE 1. SAMPLE LOCATIONS
RIVER/ SAMPLE SAMPLE
STREAM NAME DESCRIPTION LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Pigeon River Station 1 Brown's Bridge 35047'5.86"N 830 6'46.16"W
Pigeon River Station 2 Hepco Bridge 35039'57.89"N 82059'41.06"W
Pigeon River Station 3 Ferguson Bridge 35036'51.89"N 82057'59.74"W
Pigeon River Station 4 Clyde Bridge 35032'6.27"N 82054'43.47"W
Pigeon River Station 5 Thickety 02 Station 35032'36.78"N 82051'48.68"W
Pigeon River Station 6 Canton Mill Mining Zone 35032'29.64"N 82050'47.51"W
Pigeon River Station 7 Canton Recreation Park 35031'28.18"N 82050'36.59"W
Pigeon River Station 8 Wells Rd 35029'55.81"N 82052'22.74"W
Big Creek PR-20 Tributary 35027'15.48"N 8303'41.76"W
Cataloochee Creek PR-19 Tributary 35041'38.36"N 830 2'57.52"W
Fines Creek PR-15 Tributary 35040'6.39"N 82059'38.00"W
Jonathon Creek PR-14 Tributary 35037'16.22"N 830 O'16.95"W
Ferguson Cove trib PR-13 Tributary 35036'51.43"N 82057'57.24"W
Crabtree Creek PR-12 Tributary 35036'2.20"N 82057'2.75"W
Big Branch PR-II Tributary 35034'47.10"N 82056'41.85"W
Richland Creek PR-9 Tributary 35032'51.11"N 82056'43.88"W
Poison Cove trib PR-7 Tributary 35032'3.48"N 82054'52.89"W
Murray Branch PR-5 Tributary 35033'0.02"N 82051'21.96"W
Beaverdam Creek PR-17 Tributary 35032'29.67"N 82050'46.83"W

AQUAETER TABLE 2. TRIBUTARY SIZE
SAMPLE NAME CONFLUENCE DRAINAGE
WITH PIGEON BASIN
RIVER
(PRM")
PR-17 Beaverdam Creek 62.85 + 0.01 11.02
PR-5 Murray Branch 61.66 + 0.36 1.03
PR-7 Unnamed Tributary from Poison Cove 57.45 + 0.04 1.66
PR-9 Richland Creek 54.91 + 0.21 68.49
PR-11 Big Branch 51.74+ 0.22 2.04
PR-12 Crabtree Creek 49.73 + 0.01 19.09
PR-13 Unnamed Tributary from Ferguson Cove 48.3 +0.01 0.55
PR-14 Jonathan Creek 45.96 + 0.64 66.61
PR-15 Fines Creek 42.68 +0.26 25.78
PR-19 Cataloochee Creek 38.01 +4.42 61.28
rHPR-20 Big Creek 25.84+ 0.09 36.4
Note: * -PRM is Pigeon River Mile, representing distance from the confluence with the French
Broad River in Tennessee.
25

AQUAETER TABLE 3. TRUE COLOR RESULTS-ANALYSIS BY EVERGREEN PACKAGING MILL LABORATORY
SAMPLE LOCATION PIGEON TRUE COLOR
STATION RIVER
MILE
.iUNE2012 SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER
2012 2012
(mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU)
Station 1 Pigeon River at Brown's Bridge 24.7 16 17 29
Pigeon River at Brown's Bridge,Duplicat 24.7 15 - -
PR-20 Big Creek 25.84+0.09 <10(3) 8 3
PR-19 Catalochee Creek 38.01+4.42 12 15 12
Catalochee Creek 38.01+4.42 14 - -
Station 2 Pigeon River at Hepco Bridge 42.6 28 31 35
PR-15 Fines Creek 42.68+0.26 11 29 24
PR-14 Jonathan Creek 45.96+0.64 14 1 21 18
Jonathan Creek,Duplicate 45.96+0.64 - 21 -
Station 3 Pigeon River at Ferguson Bridge 48.3 30 55 48
PR-13 Ferguson Cove Tributary 48.3+0.01 12 52 24
Ferguson Cove Tributary,Duplicate 48.3+0.01 - 14 -
PR-12 Crabtree Creek 49.73+0.13 13 12 25
PR-11 Big Branch 51.74+0.02 10 9 18
PR-9 Richland Creek 54.91+0.21 12 - 18
Richland Creek,Duplicate 54.91+0.21 13 5 18
PR-7 Poison Cove tributary 57.45+0.04 10 9 27
Station 4 Pigeon River at Clyde.Bridge 58 35 83 60
Station 5 Pigeon River at Thickety 02 Station 61.2 44 75 64
PR-5 Murray Branch 61.66+0.36 10 13 24
Murray Branch,Duplicate 16 -
Station 6 Pigeon River at Canton Mill Mixing Zone 62.9 47 94 73
PR-17 Beaverdam Creek 62.85+0.1 15 15 28
Beaverdam Creek,Duplicate 62.85+0.1 - - 28
Station 7 Pigeon River at Canton Recreation Park 64.5 <10(7) 11 13
Station 8 Pigeon River at Wells Road 67.5 <10(6) 8 9
26

AQUAETER TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF LABORATORY ANALYSES
SAMPLE JUNE 2012 EVENT SEPTEM 3ER 2012 EVENT NOVEMBER 2012 EVENT
STATION LOCATION
EVERGREEN ALS-COLUMBIA EVERGREEN ALS-COLUMBIA EVERGREEN ALS-COLUMBIA
(mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU) (mg/L PCU)
Station 1 Pigeon River at Brown's Bridge D30
15 17 18 29 24
Station 1 Pigeon River at Brown's Bridge,duplicate 14 - - - -
Station 2 Pigeon River at Hepco Bride 24 31 39 35 34
Station 3 Pigeon River at Ferguson Bridge 28 55 55 48 44
Station 3 Pigeon River at Ferguson Bridge,duplicate - 52 54 - -
Station 4 Pigeon River at Clyde Bridge 40 83 81 60 60
Station 4 Pigeon River at Clyde.Bridge,duplicate - - - - Sample Spilled 60
Station 5 Pigeon River at Thickety 02 Station 44 44 75 77 64 62
Station 6 Pigeon River at Canton Mill Mixing Zone 47 51 94 86 73 70
Station 7 Pigeon River at Canton Recreation Park <10(7) 10 11 11 13 10
Station 8 Pigeon River at Wells Road <10(6) 7 <10(8) 11 9 8

AQUAETER TABLE 5. FLOWS MEASURED DURING STUDIES
STATION STATION NAME PIGEON MEASUREMENT BY NNE SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER 2012
RIVER 2012 2012 EVENT EVENT
MILE EVENT
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Station 1 Pigeon River at Brown's Bridge 24.7 USGS 165 145 243
PR-20 Big Creek 25.84+0.09 AquAeTer 20.75 20.56 73.99
PR-19 Catalochee Creek 38.01 +4.42 USGS 35 29 43
Station 2 Pigeon River at Hepco Bridge 42.6 USGS 263 180 270
PR-15 Fines Creek 42.68 +0.26 AquAeTer 18.22 10.15 23.02
PR-14 Jonathan Creek 45.96+0.64 AquAeTer 55.97 48.89 63.14
Station 3 Pigeon River at Ferguson Bridge 48.3 - - -
PR-13 Ferguson Cove Tributary 48.3 +0.01 AquAeTer 0.06 0.1 0.3
PR-12 Crabtree Creek 49.73 +0.13 AquAeTer 9.95 10.61 11.1
PR-11 Big Branch 51.74+0.02 AquAeTer 0.27 0.62 0.63
PR-9 Richland Creek 54.91 +0.21 AquAeTer 57.29 47.17 52.12
PR-7 Poison Cove tributary 57.45 +0.04 AquAeTer 0.54 0.55 0.55
Station 4 Pigeon River at Clyde Bridge 58 - - -
Station 5 Pigeon River at Thickety 02 Station 61.2 - - -
PR-5 Murray Branch 61.66+0.36 AquAeTer 0.31 0.32 0.42
Station 6 Pigeon River at Canton Mill Mixing Zone 62.9 USGS ill 83 107
PR-17 Beaverdam Creek 62.85 +0.1 AquAeTer 3.49 5.27 4.75
Station 7 Pigeon River at Canton Recreation Park 64.5 USGS 111 83 107
Station 8 Pigeon River at Wells Road 67.5 USGS 106 80 1 107
1 1 1 1 1 j
Note: Station 8 flow estimated by adding the flows measured on the East Fork Pigeon River and West Fork Pigeon River.

References
Buyhoff, G J., Leuschner, W.A., &Arndt, L. K. (1980). Replication of a scenic preference
function.Forest Science, 26, 227-230.
Buyhoff, G.J., Wellman,J. D., &Daniel, T.C. (1982). Predicting scenic quality for Mountain
Pine Beetle and Western Spruce Budworm damaged forest vistas.Forest Science, 28, 4, 827-
838.
Hull, R. B. &Buyhoff, G. J. (1984). Individual and group reliability of landscape assessments.
Landscape Planning, 11, 61-11.
Likert, R. (1932). A teclmique for the measurement of attitudes.Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-
55.
Marks, L. E. (1974). Sensory Processes: The New Psychophysics. New York: Academic Press.
McKecln ie, G.E. (1974). Environmental Response Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Prestrude,A. M, Laws, E. L., & Cherry, D. S. (1988). Hiwassee River Study. 11.• Color
Perception.
Schroeder, R. W.(1984). Environmental perception rating scales: A case for simple methods of
analysis. Environment and Behavior, 16, 573-598.
Stevens, S. S. (1962). The surprising simplicity of sensory metrics.American Psychologist, 17,
29-39.
Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social
Prospects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
29

i
EH)BIT
i�
a AM-
Paul
Dickens
From: Belnick,Tom <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:40 PM
To: Paul Dickens
Cc: Poupart, Jeff; Reid, Dianne; Chernikov, Sergei; Cranford, Chuck; Fritz Wagener
Subject: BRPP/Color Perception Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper
NPDES Permit NC0000272
Color Perception Study Plan
Paul-by this email, DWQ is approving the proposed 2012 color perception study in the North Carolina portion of the
Pigeon River. In their review of the study plan/revisions, EPA raised comments about ultimate data
interpretation. DWQ concurs that the primary goal of this study is to establish an aesthetically acceptable color level in
the Pigeon River based on unbiased observers. Given this goal, it is hopeful that a broad range of instream color levels
are encountered over the study duration. After an acceptable color level is determined,the NPDES permit will be
revisited to ensure consistency with study results. Since the color perception study will focus on a site-specific
evaluation of our narrative color standard, Dianne Reid with our Water Quality Standards Unit will take the DWQ lead
through the study process.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone];fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
1

evergreen 1 Conlon Office
"' I
packaging 175 ht :)in Sheei• Contan, NC 28716
17 April 2012 PSD 30-12
Tom Belnick CERTIFIED MAIL
Supervisor, Complex NPDES Permitting Unit RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Division of Water Quality 7008 3230 0002 2591 1663
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Response to EPA Comments dated 28 March 2012
March 2012 Revised Color Perception Study
NPDES Permit NC0000272
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Canton Mill
Dear Mr. Belnick—
Attached is our response to EPA comments received by the DWQ on 28 March 2012 and
forwarded to Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. for evaluation. The EPA comments concern the
revised Color Perception Study Plan submitted on 16 March 2012. Evergreen has consulted with
Drs. Prestrude and Cherry about the comments. The response to comments is an addendum to the
study plan and is the result of a collaborative effort between the company and Drs. Prestrude and
Cherry.
We understand EPA's interest in clarifying how the perception study data will be analyzed and
used. Evergreen shares this interest. EPA also had specific questions about discrepancies in the
study plan appendices, several of which were submitted as examples. Those discrepancies have
been corrected in a revised version of the study plan enclosed with this letter.
Please let us know if you have questions, or if you need additional information.
Very truly yours,
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
DOING BUSINESS AS EVERGREEN PACKAGING
Paul Dickens Nick McCracken
Manager—Environmental Affairs Water Compliance Coordinator
828-646-6141 828-646-2874
paul.dickens(a,,everyack.com nick.mccrackedr'a.eLerpack:co�Itn
Doing Business in Cardomia as Evergreen Beverage Packaging

Tom Belnick, NC DWQ, 17 Apr 2012
Page 2
Attachment: Response to EPA comments dated 28 March 2012 concerning the
March 2012 Revision to the Color Perception Study Plan
Enclosure: Proposal for Site Specific Study of Color in the Pigeon River—April 2012
cc (w/attachment& enclosure):
DWQ ARO
Color Team, Internal Distribution

evergreen. Conlon Offico
packaging I 175 Main Street•Canton, NIC 28716
Attachment
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging (BRPP)Response to EPA
Comments dated 28 March 2012 concerning the March 2012 Revised Color Perception
Study Plan
17 April 2012
Comments on Revised Color Perception Study dated 28 Mar 2012 received from EPA
via DWQ were in two parts.
EPA Comments- Part 1.of 2:
EPA COMMENTS ON REVISED PIGEON RIVER COLOR PERCEPTION STUDY
The EPA appreciates the revisions that were made to the original study plan based on our
March 6 comments and the inclusion of more detail regarding how the study will be
conducted. We do have the fallowing comments based on the revised study plan. If the
color study is conducted and used to support a future removal of the existing color
variance, our goal is that the study be as credible and scientifically supportable as possible.
1. EPA Comment-Dr. Cherry's response#1 to EPA's previous comments alludes to a
statistical analysis of observer ratings, but provides no details regarding that analysis.
We request additional details regarding how observer ratings for the three days of
observation will be analyzed and assessment of aesthetic quality will be conducted,
especially in light of comments#4 and#5 below. We request this so there is up front
agreement and less need to question the basis behind any study conclusions.
Response
Our response is in two parts — how data may be analyzed and presented and
what specific perception data will be collected in the field.
Data Analysis - Perception study data on the aesthetic aspects of the water will
be organized by descriptive statistics into a group mean, range, and standard
deviation of observation ratings for all categories and individual aspects for each
observation site. Correlations between ratings and color will be determined for
each site and across sites. The statistical evaluation of data including ANOVA,
simple t-test and correlation will determine if there are significant differences and
relationships between and among ratings at each site.
fresh by design,
Doing Business In COIIIOMa as Evergreen Beverage Packaging

Response to EPA Comments, Page 2
Examples of how the perception study data on a specific observation day and on
all observation days may be statistically evaluated and summarized are
illustrated in the following table and graph. Other examples appear in the
published color perception studies cited in the revised study plan.
Example Statistical Comparisons for Color Perception Study(illustration only)
RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM
24.7 42.6 48.3 52.8 61.2 62.9 62.5 67.5
Perception Study Brown's HEPCO Ferguson Clyde Thickety Fiber- Canton Wells Rd
Data Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge 02 ville Park
Aesthetic Aspects
• Scenic Beauty ANOVA,t-tests and correlations on individual aesthetic aspects at each
• Color observation site and across all observation sites to test relationships and
• Clarity trends. Purpose is to determine how individual aspects are related and
• Wading how individual aspects affect overall aesthetic rating scores.Additional
• Swimming purpose is to determine any statistical difference or similarity between
• Fishing observation sites on each observation day and on all observation days.
• Rafting,
canoeing,
boating
River Quality Data ANOVA,t-tests and correlations of individual aesthetic aspects and overall
rating scores against color and turbidity data across all observation sites.
• Apparent Color Purpose is to determine statistical differences between sites, relationships
• True Color between color and turbidity,and if aesthetic ratings are statistically
• Turbidity correlated with color and turbi ity data.
ANOVA,t-tests and correlations of individual aesthetic aspects,overall
River Flow rating scores,and color and turbidity data against river flow and mill color
discharge data across all observation sites. Purpose is to determine
Canton Mill Color statistical differences between sites, relationships between color,turbidity,
Discharge river flow and mill color discharge,and if aesthetic ratings are statistically
correlated with river flow.and mill color discharge.
Environmental ANOVA on environmental attitude survey elements to compare to control
Attitudes Survey group norms and then across rating scores to test for bias. Purpose is
Elements validation of the erce tion study data.

Response to EPA Comments, Page 3
Example Presentation of Aesthetic Rating Data (illustration only)
Range and Mean of Aesthetic Quality Rating
by Pigeon River Mile on DATE
7I
c
Y 6
r 5 —
cY 4
U
3
Y
C1 2
Q
1
VID � 1!�, s1� 6' 6-% s s
d^oiy y`OO P^� �aP �j'c� 14, (dhf P�
h� O 4s B • N� �U/ 0
EXAMPLE se^�q e 01> ^�a�P 02
not actual data &e
Perception Data — In its letter dated February 22, 2010 regarding the NPDES
permit ultimately issued in May 2010 and effective June 1, 2010, the EPA
suggested a study such as the Color Perception Study proposed by Evergreen
Packaging to assess ambient color levels in the Pigeon River in North Carolina.
The purpose of the Perception Study is to assess, in a quantitative fashion, the
aesthetic component of the North Carolina narrative standard for color. The
proposed study will obtain data on how independent observers perceive ambient
color levels in the river, at different locations, in different seasons, under different
flow conditions, and how these perceptions affect the observers' opinions about
use of the water.
Drs. Prestrude and Cherry designed the Color Perception Study to obtain data on
seven (7) "aspects of the water" in three (3) general categories that put the
evaluation of ambient color into context of appearance and appropriateness for
use. These aspects are:

Response to EPA Comments, Page 4
• Scenic beauty
o Upstream and downstream
• Appearance of the water
o Color
o Clarity
• Activities
o Wading
o Swimming
o Fishing
o Rafting, canoeing, boating
Scenic beauty is an important anchor to determine how the environmental setting
may boost or take away from other ratings specific to appearance of the water
and appropriateness for use. [See response to EPA comment 2].
2. EPA Comment-The revised study plan and written instructions in Appendix G indicate
that scenic beauty will be evaluated at each site, along with water color and water clarity.
Our interpretation is that"scenic beauty" includes both the River and the land
surrounding the River. Because "scenic beauty" includes a land component that is not a
direct measure of the aesthetic quality of the Pigeon River and that land component is
likely to be the factor that will be focused on the most(rather than the River color), how
will observers' scenic beauty ratings be used vs. ratings for combined water clarity+
color? Without further clarification,we strongly recommend that"scenic beauty" not be
assessed and that the revised study plan not include it.
Response
Because no observer can look at a river in a vacuum, the observer cannot help
but notice the surrounding topography, vegetation and land use when
approaching an observation site. Rating of scenic beauty is an important anchor
and will be included in the data collected for the Perception Study.
The data can be analyzed with scores for scenic beauty included or not included.
A combined score, including scenic beauty, may or may not be more predictive
than one without, but that cannot be determined if the observers do not rate sites
for impression of scenic beauty. Observer comments recorded on field rating
sheets are valuable in this determination.

Response to EPA Comments, Page 5
3. EPA Comment-The revised study plan states.that observer ratings will be collected
after each site assessment. Because observers will view upstream reference"clean" sites
last, if they then realize they want to change previous ratings for any downstream site,
will they be allowed to do that?
Response
Observers will not be allowed to change ratings for any prior rated sites. It is
standard practice to collect the completed ratings sheet upon conclusion of the
observation at each site. It is also standard practice in rating scale procedures to
instruct observers not to look at other observers' ratings or discuss their ratings.
Similarly, raters are asked for their first response. Observers will be instructed
not to use their mobile phones or other electronic devices for any purpose. The
study procedure would not be valid if observers were allowed to change their
ratings after seeing the mill or sites above the mill.
The example Field Instructions to Observers and the Site Observation sheets in
Appendices G & H have been revised and reformatted to comport with our
response to EPA comments 1, 2 &3.
4. EPA Comment-The environmental attitudes questionnaire/environmental response
inventory in Appendix D was not a part of the original study plan. The majority of its
questions do not directly assess one's environmental views (e.g.,462—"I would enjoy
entertaining famous people"; #106—"I like to ride on roller coasters"; #113 -Birth
control practices should be accepted by everyone.) It is difficult to understand the basis
of further excluding observers based on the responses to this questionnaire. Because
observers have already been screened regarding current or past affiliation with several
environmental groups, it seems the inventory is being used to further exclude observer
ratings that might be considered as "extreme." If available, we request additional details
regarding the basis of the questions and how responses are judged to determine
environmental attitudes that reflect a central tendency and the basis for excluding those
outside one standard deviation from the mean from providing relevant observations
during the survey.
Response
In discussion with Drs. Prestrude and Cherry, we understand that the
Environmental Attitudes Questionnaire / Environmental Response Inventory is an
important control to add credibility to the Color Perception Study. We defer to
their expertise that this recognized standard environmental attitude tool and
control should be part of the Color Perception Study of the Pigeon River. Dr.
Prestrude provides more detail below to explain how the questionnaire is used.

Response to EPA Comments, Page 6
Prestrude - Neither the Environmental Attitudes Questionnaire nor the vision
tests are used to exclude observers. We have used these procedures in three
other river color studies and have not excluded an observer yet. They are
included as a set of controls. All observers' ratings will be included in the data
set, but if an observer or observers do not match the norms, we can look at the
data set with and without their ratings. Actually, by my count, at least 110 of the
items in the ERI [Environmental Response Inventory] are clearly environmental.
All of the items derive from an initial base of over.300 self-report statements.
Over 3000 people responded to these items. These responses were analyzed by
determining the correlation of each item with every other item. Then, by factor
analysis, the items were grouped into "factors" or scales defined by significant
inter-correlations among all the items that make up a scale. This process is
described in the ERI manual. Even items that don't seem to refer to the
environment can be valid because of their relationship to environmental attitudes.
5. EPA Comment-If observers will be disqualified based on both the visual screening and
the environmental inventory, it appears that evaluations will not be based on 25
observers, but a substantially smaller subset that may not be a credible minimum. What
is the minimum number of observers needed for a given day of observation? What
happens if that minimum number is not achieved? Based on the concerns in comment 44
and here, it is difficult for EPA to support use of the environmental response inventory.
Response
A sufficient number of observers will be selected and screened to ensure that
there are a sufficient number of observers on each observation day. Discussion
with Drs. Prestrude and Cherry indicates that a target of 25 observers will provide
sufficient statistical power for a valid study, even if there are a few absences.
Concerning the environmental response inventory (EPA comment 4), it is an
important study control and will be included. The questionnaire is completed at
the end of the day after all sites have been rated. Based on Dr. Prestrude's
experience with prior color perception studies, the number of observers excluded
by screening is minimal, and there are no problems mobilizing sufficient numbers
on observation days.
6. EPA Comment-Dr. Cherry's response#14 states that non-registered voters will not be
excluded as participants. However, question 6 of the Appendix C sample screening sheet
indicates that a non-registered voter will be excluded. We recommend that question 6 be
deleted.
7. EPA Comment-Dr. Cherry's response#12 states that the participant selection screen
will ask potential observers whether or not they have visual acuity or color perception
problems. However, question 8 of the Appendix C screening sample addresses vision

Response to EPA Comments, Page 7
only in the context of riding in a van or walking. We recommend that question 8 be
revised to "Do you have any unaddressed physical or vision restrictions such as color
blindness or nearsightedness?"
8. EPA Comment-Dr. Cherry's response 916 states that canoers and rafters will be
allowed to participate, but question 13 of the Appendix C screening sample still
specifically excludes them. Question 13 should be revised so that canoers/rafters are not
excluded.
9. EPA Comment-Dr. Cherry's response#17 states that members of various
environmental groups that have challenged the most recent mill permit will be excluded,
but question 14 has not been revised to include the names of those groups.
Response to EPA Comments 6-9
All of the Appendix examples have been revised to comport with the text of the
study plan and previous response to comments. .
10. EPA Comment-EPA's original comment 48 related to the color levels occurring in the
river during the surveys. Our concern is that the ambient color levels should be in the
range of 50 to 120 pcu during the surveys. If the ambient color levels are not in this
range, it is not clear that the study will achieve its intended purpose. For example, if
instream color levels are not greater than 50 pcu during the site visits, and the observers'
opinions support the conclusion that the aesthetic criterion is being met,that scenario
leaves open the question as to whether higher ambient color levels also meet the aesthetic
criterion. NC water quality standards require that the narrative color criterion be met at
flows at or above the 30Q5 instream flow. From EPA's perspective, it would not be
sufficient, based on the scenario that observers' ratings during all of the site visits support
an outcome that the color narrative is met, to conclude that continuation of the color
effluent limits at levels in the current permit is consistent with the color narrative—unless
the highest ambient color levels during the site visits were consistent with the projected
ambient color levels that would occur at the current color effluent limits and the 30Q5
flow. EPA has estimated that the current permit color limits,when discharged at the
30Q5 flow, results in ambient color levels in the middle of the 50 to 120 pcu range.
Therefore, we suggest that the study include a contingency plan if ambient color levels in
the upper part of this range do not occur during the site visits.
Response
Observations from independent observers under normal mill operating
conditions, on different dates and under different river flow conditions will provide
a statistically accurate analysis to support the interpretation and application of
North Carolina's narrative color standard to the Pigeon River near Canton.
The governing flow for the NC Narrative Standard is 30Q2, not 30Q5. The 30Q2
at Canton is 58 mgd. We understand that EPA recommended an assessment of
ambient color levels in the range of 50 to 120 platinum cobalt units. Because we

Response to EPA Comments, Page 8
cannot control or ensure color levels in a specific range in the Pigeon River, three
observations in different seasons and river flow conditions are necessary for an
accurate Perception Study that accounts for the river's natural variability. It
would be inappropriate for the Canton Mill to increase color discharge or throttle
river flow as was suggested in some preliminary discussions on the Study Plan.
Those actions are generally not feasible, and/or are contrary to the NPDES
permit. Color discharge on river observation days will reflect normal Canton Mill
operation.
The low flow period on the Pigeon River typically occurs between August and
October of each year. We will monitor how river base flow is trending this
summer and adjust plans for the 3`d Quarter observation to correspond with the
period of normal annual river low flow. Delay in the date of the 3` observation
trip may push back the date by which the study data can be analyzed and the
final study report prepared.
EPA Comments-Part 2 of 2
Based on Dr. Cherry's numbered responses to our first round of comments:
EPA Comment No. 4 -The statement that there is a psychological bias that comes from seeing
the upstream water is not intuitively obvious just by providing this statement. If it is not
scientifically explained using references, it will be questioned by outside parties. Please provide
the references that explain the psychological bias for this bias. This is the same comment as
original EPA Comment No. 4b.
Response
The purpose of this study is not to assess differences in color of the Pigeon River above
and below the mill, but rather the appearance of the water and appropriateness for use
at each observation site. The planned order in which sites are observed forces a site by
site independent assessment that is separate from point and non-point contributions of
color, turbidity and other factors influencing aesthetic quality. The mill is large and
cannot be avoided when viewing the upstream sites, which creates a bias that all
downstream conditions observed are related to the mill. The study design removes the
observers' awareness of the mill to the greatest extent possible so that observations are
neutral evaluations of the water. The observation sites at Fiberville and at the
Recreation Park have the mill as part of the background environmental setting, the
effect of which will be evaluated with the scenic beauty rating.
Dr. Prestrude has provided references on bias that are included in the revised plan. A
key reference is the Masters Thesis by Laws [Laws, E. L. (1990). THE EFFECT OF
INSTRUCTIONS ON SCENIC BEAUTY RATINGS OF RIVERSCAPES AND THE
PREDICTION OF THOSE RATINGS BY ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES. MS
Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.]

Response to EPA Comments, Page 9
EPA Comment No. 14-This is a new selection method not previously mentioned. The
statement that residents from the local geographic area only should be used should be explained.
What will be the extent of the geographic area and what value will that add?
Response
The standard being evaluated is the North Carolina narrative standard for color.
Information on county and state of residence will be used by the opinion research
agency that recruits and screens observers to obtain a mix of independent observers
from the Western North Carolina region. There is also the practical matter of travel
distance. The observers need to live within a reasonable commuting distance of
Waynesville, NC where the observers will gather at the start of each observation day.
EPA Comment No. 16 -The statement is made to avoid rafters from Tennessee. Why?No
explanation is given.
Response
The screening tool to recruit observers has been clarified to exclude rafting guides
working on the Pigeon River in Tennessee. These guides as a group participated in the
February 2010 public meeting on the Canton Mill NPDES permit in Cocke County and
were active in Clean Water Expected in East Tennessee (CWEET).
EPA Comment Paae 5 -Rating Scales. Clarity and color scores will be combined for one score
on water quality? Why will the values for color and clarity be combined? Why not keep those
scores separate?Many people may not understand the definition of clarity, so those scores may
not provide a sound basis for evaluation vs. color which is the main object of the study. Clarity is
also not the basis for the variance. Calling the combined scores 'water quality' gives the
impression that it is rating more than color and clarity but is somehow rating the quality of the
water. If they are combined(which we do not suggest) the combined score should be called the
'combined score for color/clarity'.
Response
See response to Part 1 EPA comments 1& 2 above. Color and clarity are separate
aspects of the aesthetic component. Separate rating of clarity is necessary to separate
the turbidity element of apparent color from true color which is dissolved. Color is tint.
Clarity is how far into the water you can see. For example, are the rocks in the river
bottom visible? Drs. Prestrude and Cherry have determined, based on prior color
perception studies, that the average independent observer intuitively understands the
difference between color and clarity without explanation. These are important aspects
of the appearance of the water to evaluate and relate to the Mill color discharge as well
as to non-point and tributary sources that affect the appearance of the main stem of the
Pigeon River.

Response to EPA Comments, Page 10
The NC narrative standard for color includes the qualitative element of acceptable (not
objectionable) aesthetic quality. The interpretation and application of the standard to
the Pigeon River near Canton should be based on the ratings of independent and
neutral observers who, at a minimum, are not water quality experts, not associated with
the mill and not associated with legal challenges to the wastewater permit. Blue Ridge
Paper expressly asked the experts — Drs. Prestrude and Cherry—to design a Color
Perception Study that is independent so the results are credible to all parties involved in
continued protection and improvement of the Pigeon River.

Proposal for Site Specific Study of Color in the Pigeon River
Albert M. Prestrude, A.D. and Donald S. Cherry, Ph.D.
April 2012
Introduction and Background
The 2010 Color Variance issued by the NPDES Committee of the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") includes the following language in
paragraph 12.1), on page 14.
Compliance with the North Carolina color standard in the Pigeon
River shall be established by results from a site-specific study of
color in the Pigeon River. The'study protocol shall be approved by
DWQ and will generally be as outlined in EPA's letter of February
22, 2010 to DWQ. Results of this study shall be evaluated by the
EMC's NPDES Committee as part of any new request to remove
the variance.
The language, beginning on page 5 of the EPA letter of February 22, 2010, reads as
follows:
Recommendation For Site-Specific Study
In order to create a better record for any future effort to
reinterpret the narrative color standard, and ensure that
authorized discharges are protective of the narrative standard,
EPA recommends the addition of a condition in the draft permit
requiring the permittee to provide funding for an independent
study of color levels in the North Carolina segment of the Pigeon
River, or a segment of a watershed that is reasonably similar to the
physical characteristics of the Pigeon River downstream of the
mill. The study should focus on the aspects of the State's narrative
color standard that are relevant to conditions and limits on the
permit, and should address assessment of color levels in ambient
waters of the Pigeon River (or other watershed(s), as specified
above) when those levels are in the range of 50 to 120 PCU. The
permit could also include a reopener clause to implement the
conclusions of the study ifwarranted.
EPA believes that an independent, unbiased site-specific
study would be useful to determine how the State's narrative color
standard should be interpreted or applied to the Pigeon River near
R&S 928021-1

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012, Page 2
Canton. Such a study would be valuable in addressing
uncertainties relating to the narrative standard for color because
many site-specific factors influence the overall perception of an
individual stream setting and the level of protection needed for a
stream or watershed. Evaluation of the Pigeon River downstream
of the Blue Ridge mill is even more critical for setting regulatory
targets, given the color levels in the river, and the public interest in
the present permitting process for the Blue Ridge facility.
The study would be conducted with unbiased observers.
For example, college students were used in some of the studies
performed by Prestrude. The results of the study could be used by
the State to address other issues related to the application of the
North Carolina narrative color standard, such as whether it would
be more appropriate to establish a regulatory requirement for the
river solely based on a specific color concentration, or as an
increment over "background" color levels. We also suggest that
EPA be involved in the review and approval of the framework of
the plan for conducting the study prior to initiation.
North Carolina Water Quality Standard for Color
The North Carolina water quality standard for color is set forth at 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0211
(f) and reads as follows:
(fl Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes: only such
amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health,
secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the
waters for any designated uses.
Proposed Study
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. d/b/a Evergreen Packaging ("BRPP")proposes to fund a
study of color levels in the Pigeon River in North Carolina focusing on the aesthetic component
of North Carolina's narrative color standard relevant to conditions and limits in the NPDES
permit issued to the Canton Mill. The study will be done, generally in accordance with the
protocol described in the EPA letter of February 22, 2010, to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. The study will be conducted by Albert M.Prestrude,Ph.D. of Alcyon Consulting

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012, Page 3
and Donald S. Cherry, Ph.D. Dr. Prestrude is an expert in environmental psychology and has
performed similar color perception studies on rivers in the United States. Dr. Cherry, an expert
in aquatic ecotoxicology, has worked on similar color perception studies in the past, and is the
author of numerous articles in peer reviewed journals and publications. Curriculum Vitae for
Drs. Prestrude and Cherry are attached (see Appendix A). Both Dr. Prestrude and Dr. Cherry are
retired from the faculty at Virginia Tech. Graduate students at Virginia Tech assisted in past
studies.
The study will focus on the aesthetic component of the North Carolina Water Quality
Standard for Color by measuring independent observers' perceptions of the aesthetic quality of
the Pigeon River in North Carolina above and below the Canton Mill. The observers will be
taken to a number of different locations along the river and asked to answer a series of questions
designed to assist them in evaluating the sites.
Study Procedures
• Observation Sites — Eight sites on the Pigeon River, all in North Carolina, have
been selected for observation. Drs. Prestrude and Cherry have visited and
inspected all the sites. The sites were selected to be approximately equidistant
(between sites), to be accessible, to accommodate vans and passengers and to
limit traffic hazards. The site locations are shown on the map in Appendix B.
The observations will begin at the North Carolina ( Tennessee line and work
upstream so as not to bias the observers. The observation sites include the end of
the mixing zone (Fiberville Bridge) and two locations above the Canton Mill
discharge.
• Independent Observers - Twenty-five (25) independent observers will be
recruited and selected from the western North Carolina area by an independent
consulting firm. Observers will be screened for biasing factors and ability to
carry out the requirements of the study (Appendix C). For example, individuals

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012, Page 4
who work, have worked, or are related to current or past employees of the Canton
Mill, will be excluded. Individuals with, uncorrected vision problems, with
conditions limiting or precluding spending several hours in a van, getting into and
out of a van, and walking short distances on uneven terrain, will not be recruited.
Individuals who are or have been members of entities involved in prior or pending
litigation against the Canton Mill will not be recruited.
On the dates of the observations; observers will be screened for visual acuity,
color vision and contrast sensitivity. The observers will be asked to report to a
central location in Haywood County, North Carolina where they will be provided
a light breakfast and receive instructions. After the observations, the observers
will be provided lunch and will complete an environmental attitudes questionnaire
consisting of 184 statements regarding the environment and its use. The
respondents indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each
statement (Appendix D). All observers will also be given visual acuity and color
vision tests (Appendices E and F). The number of observers will be limited to
twenty-five (25) to ensure observer safety, to allow all observers to view a site at
the same time, and to allow all observers to observe all sites on the same day.
Based on prior experience, screening observers for visual acuity, color vision and
environmental attitudes will not result in an insufficient number of observers.
• Personnel —Research Supervisor (A.M. Prestrude), three assistants, professional
photographer, van drivers and security personnel to direct traffic. The assistants
are Virginia Tech graduates with previous experience in this type of
environmental study.
• Procedures — Dr. Prestrude will introduce himself, the assistants, and the
photographer and describe the procedures. Each observer will be given a
clipboard and pencil. Each clipboard will have a written copy of the instructions
(Appendix G) with the observer's number and multiple copies of the ratings scale.
There will be a brief practice session in which the observers will look at slides of

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012, Page 5
river scenes and rate them. These ratings will be collected and filed. The
observers will then be sent to the waiting vans. Two of the assistants will act as
van leaders to organize and direct the activities of the observers in their vans and
at each site. The third assistant will be responsible for collecting the rating scales
at each site. Observers will be instructed to turn off their mobile phones. No
incoming or outgoing calls or internet searching will be allowed. Observers will
be asked to remove sunglasses. Water, soft drinks and snacks will be available in
the vans. There will be bathroom stops along the way. Uniformed security
personnel will direct traffic at each site.
• Site Evaluations — The sites will be evaluated on three different dates. Exact
dates have not been identified, but it is anticipated that the observations would be
done during spring and summer of 2012 representing river conditions in May,
June/July and August/September. Water samples will be collected at each site by
an independent environmental consulting firm and will be analyzed for
conductivity, total dissolved solids, and true and apparent color. The analysis for
true and apparent color will be done by an independent laboratory and by the
Canton Mill laboratory. Analysis for all other parameters will be done by an
independent laboratory. Observation events will not be done within three days of
a measurable rain event. Individual observers will be contacted via e-mail or
phone on the day prior to the event to remind them to be there, or in the case of
bad weather, that there will not be an event. Multiple light levels will determined
and noted at each site and a computerized photographic record will be maintained
of water appearance, sky conditions, upriver and downriver views and the
location of the observers when they made their ratings.
• Materials—Observers will be provided with 7—Point Likert(Likert, 1932) scales
with anchors at 1 (unacceptable), 4 (acceptable), and 7 (very attractive) (see
Appendix M. This rating procedure, called magnitude estimation, has been used
by psychologists and psychophysicists for 200 years to quantify human perceptual
experience. The rating procedure has also been adopted in other venues. For

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012,Page 6
example, in gymnastics and figure skating, contestants are judged and scored on a
numeric scale, of 1 to 7 or 1 to 10. In recent years, numeric scales have been used
to evaluate fire and insect damage to national forests (see e.g. Buyhoff, Wellman
and Daniel, 1982) and studies of the impact of treated industrial effluent on
receiving waters (Laws, 1990); (Prestrude, 1996, COLOR: Misperceptions About
the Aesthetics of River Color); (Prestrude & Laws, 1988 [study on the Hiwassee
River for Bowater]) (Prestrude, Laws and McMurry, D.K. — Hiwassee River
Color Perception Study, Proceedings, 1991 Environmental Conference, Technical
Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, pages 599-614). These procedures
typically result in at least interval scales of measurement from which the numbers
can be summarized and subjected to statistical analysis (Stevens 1950; 1975).
• Rating Scales -There will be seven rating scales on each sheet. The first scale
will refer to the scenic beauty/aesthetic quality of the site looking up river and
down river. The second scale will refer to the color of the water. The third scale
will refer to the clarity of the water.The last four scales will refer to the
acceptability of each site for recreational activities including wading, swimming,
fishing, and rafting, canoeing, boating: There will be a space for comments on
each rating sheet, and observers will be encouraged to write comments. A sample
rating scale is included in Appendix H.
• Environmental Response Inventory — Upon completion of the rankings,
observers will be asked to complete an environmental attitudes questionnaire
(Environmental Response Inventory -McKechnie, 1974, 1977, Appendix D). The
results of this test will be used to identify observers with extreme environmental
attitudes (defined as one standard deviation above or below the population mean).
A copy of the scoring scales for Environmental Response Inventory is attached as
Appendix I.
• Visual Acuity —Brief visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and color vision testing
procedures will be used to determine whether observers have visual problems not

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012,Page 7
identified or reported during the selection screening process. Observers will be
thanked for their participation, paid $200 and dismissed. The process should be
complete by 3:00 P.M.
• Reporting - A report of the study will be prepared and submitted to the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency on or before January 1, 2013.
References
1. Buyhoff, G.J., Wellman, J.D. &Daniel, T.C. (1982). Predicting Scenic Quality For
Mountain Pine Beetle and Western Spruce Budworm Damaged Forest Vistas. Forest
Science, 28, 827-838.
2. Laws, E.L. (1990). The Effect of Instructions on Scenic Beauty Ratings of Riverscapes
and the Prediction of Those Ratings by Environmental Questionnaires. MS Thesis.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
3. Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of
Psychology, 140, 1-55.
4. McKechnie, G.E. (1974). Environmental Response Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist's Press.
5. McKechnie, G.E. (1977). The Environmental Response Inventory in Application.
Environment and Behavior, 9,255-276.
6. Prestrude, A.M. &Laws,E.L. (1988). Hiwassee River Study. II. Color perception.
Unpublished.
1 7. Prestude, A.M., Laws,E.L., McMurry,D.K.—Hiwassee River Color Perception Study,
TAPPI Proceedings, 1991 Environmental Conference,Technical Association of the Pulp
and Paper Industry,pages 599-614.
8. Prestrude,A.M.,Misperceptions About the Aesthetics of River Color, 1996.

Color Perception Study Plan—April 2012, Page 8
List of Appendices
Appendix A Curriculum Vitae of Albert M. Prestrude,Ph.D. and Donald S. Cherry,
Ph.D.
Appendix B Pigeon River Site Locations
Appendix C Sample Screening Sheet
Appendix D Environmental Attitudes Questionnaire
Appendix E Visual Acuity Test
Appendix F Color Vision Test
Appendix G Field Instructions to Observers
Appendix H Likert Rating Scale
Appendix I Environmental Response Inventory

Appendix A
Curriculum Vitae of
Albert M. Prestrude, Ph.D.
and
Donald S. Cherry, Ph.D.

RESUME
Albert M. Prestrude
December 9, 2011
Born: May 26, 1934, Eastedge, ND
Education: BA, Concordia College, Moorhead, MN. Major- psychology, minor-
chemistry.
MS and Ph.D., Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Major—
experimental psychology, minor- psychobiology.
Employment: I held my first job at age 14 washing dishes in a restaurant within a year
becoming a grill cook. Through my high school and college years, I
worked as a bellhop, cemetery groundskeeper, furniture
warehouseman, truck driver, wheat harvester, sheet metal worker, iron
worker, and Forest Service fire fighter.
1958-1960 - Public School Teacher, Lolc, MT.
1960-1962 - Psychometrist, Univ. of Montana Counseling Center.
1962-1966 - Instructor, Grays Harbor, College, Aberdeen, WA.
1966-1969 - National Science Foundation Trainee, Florida State
University.
1969-2000 - Assistant and Associate Professor, Virginia Polytechnic
and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Retired as Emeritus
Associate Professor.
1995-present- Self employed as Alcyon Consulting.
Professional activities at Virginia Tech: Assistant and Associate Department Head,
coauthored the application for a graduate program to the Virginia Council of Higher
Education, began and chaired the graduate program in Applied-Experimental
Psychology, served on numerous departmental, college, and university committees.
Consulting: Spent one year at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Labs as a
Visiting Scientist developing vision tests for the selection and evaluation of carrier based
tactical jet pilots.
US Army Medical Service - served on a committee evaluating their Vision Research
Program. Later advised on their program to evaluate and prevent ocular damage from
laser range finders.
Science Applications International Corp. Classified.
Federal Aviation Administration - Develop "non-detonable" training aids for bomb
detecting dogs. Five year contract.

Environmental impact of treated papermill effluent on receiving waters. Four studies:
Bowater Southern Corp., Paper Industry Information Office, Champion Paper, and Blue
Ridge Paper.
North Carolina Dept. of Water Quality - effect of textile mills on the Catawba River.
Expert witness in environmental and hunting accident court proceedings.
Numerous research reports published in national and international journals and papers
presented at regional, national, and international scientific meetings.
Directed the graduate research at the MSc and PhD levels of psychology,
engineering, and architecture students

Donald S.Cherry, Ph.D.—Three-Page Resume-November 2011
Rank: Professor Discipline:Ecotoxicology
Highest Degree: Ph.D. Institution: Clemson University 1973
EDUCATION
1965 Furman University,Greenville,S.C.,B.Sc.Degree,Biology,Secondary Education.
1967 University of Arizona,Tucson,Summer Sessions,Chemistry.
1968 Wofford College,Spartanburg,S.C.,Summer Sessions,Chemistry.
1970 Clemson University,Clemson,S.C.,M.Cs.Degree,("Comparative Radiosensitivity in the Class Insecta"),
Zoology,Radioecology.
1972 Duke Univ.,Marine Institute,Beaufort,N.C.,Summer Program in Marine Ecology.
1973 Clemson University,Clemson,S.C.,Ph.D.Degree,("Dynamics of a Piscine Community in a Reservoir Ecosystem"),
Zoology,Aquatic Ecology,Environmental Health.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1986 Professor—Biology Department and University Centerfor Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies,VATech
1981-86 Associate Professor—Biology Department and University Centerfor Environmental Studies,VA Tech
1976-81 Assistant Professor-Biology Department and University Center for Environmental Studies,VA Tech
1974-76 Visiting Assistant Professor—University Center for Environmental Studies and Biology Department,VA Tech
1973-74 Postdoctoral Appointment with John Cairns,Jr.,University Center for Environmental Studies.Thermal Effects Upon
Fish Populations in the New River at a Site-Specific Field Laboratory and Coal Ash Impact Upon Aquatic Food Chains
1972-74 Instructor,Human Ecology,Man and The Environment,General Biology at Clemson University
MAJOR AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
1990-95 Senior Associate Director—University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies
TEACHING
Description of Teaching Activities:
Taught graduate/undergraduate level in Aquatic Ecotoxicology,Hazard Evaluation of Toxic Chemicals,Environmental
Toxicology,Limnology,and Principles of Ecology.
Student Advising Past Ten Years:
Master Candidates:Travis Schmidt,Jessica Yeager,Matthew Hull,Alan Kennedy,Chad Merricks,Theodore Valenti,
Branden Locke,Matthew Simon,Brandi Echols,Michael Chanov.
Doctoral Candidates:David Soucek,Brandi Echols
Major Professor:12 completed.Past 35 years:49 MS/Ph.D.s,14 Post-dots.
RESEARCH
Description of Research Activities
Developing and carrying out eight specific areas of research.(1)Power Plant Ecology and Effects Upon Aquatic Food
Chains.Documenting preference and avoidance behavior of fish from lethal exposures to heated,chlorinated discharges and
acidic-alkaline pH excursions;studying potential control of Asian clams and zebra mussels that disrupt cooling systems;
predicting safe concentrations of fly ash effluent,pH and ash particulate interactions upon aquatic receiving systems.(2)
Correlation of Physiological-Biochemical Mechanisms with Toxicological Responses of Fish and Invertebrate Populations from
Power Plant Effluents Stressed by Fly Ash and Heavy Metal Effluents.(3)Hazard Evaluation of Toxic Substances in Aquatic
Ecosystems-Industry Versus State or Federal Regulatory Agencies.Investigating hazard evaluation of using field,field
laboratory,field artificial stream microcosms,laboratory artificial stream systems,and accepted laboratory static and flow-
through bioassay techniques;understanding the cost-effectiveness of these protocols to industry;providing the optimal and
most applicable results of hazard evaluation studies in accessing environmental impact;developing new or revised protocols to
optimize the current and future toxicity testing methodologies to access this area of hazard evaluation between industry and
state or federal regulatory agencies.(4)Comprehensive Evaluation of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents—Ecotoxicology,Color

Perception and Dioxin Issues.Investigating the potential toxicity of effluents using US EPA approved test organisms and
endemic species;carrying out In-river surveys of periphyton,benthic macroinvertebrates,and fish;evaluating scenic river
beauty and color perception of darkened effluents;negotiating NPDES permitting between the paper industry and regulatory
agencies and being an expert witness in litigious situations.(5)Waste Water Treatment Plant Revisions with Toxicity Reduction
Evaluations.(6)Recovery/Restoration Ecology of Damaged Stream/River Ecosystems.Investigating the effects of non-point
inputs from abandoned mined land(AML),sedimentation from agricultural runoff,and influences of rural town runoff upon
ecosystem integrity.The overall strategy is to develop a watershed-level approach to restoration ecology.(7)Field Surveys for
Native Unionids and Their Competitive Interaction with Asian Clams.Emphasis was to determine the most sensitive part of the
life cycle of mussels in the laboratory as well as how Asian clam invasion contributes to their demise.(8)Biofouling and Control
Strategies for Asian Clams and Zebra Mussels.Evaluating the efficacy and fate/effects of selected molluscicides upon pest
organisms and endemic creatures residing in the water column and sediment.
More Recent Pertinent Research Activities
Conducted research in the recovery/restoration ecology of damaged stream/river ecosystems.Developed the first
ecological improvement plan in watershed management prioritizing restoration activities between AML,agriculture and other
nonpoint source discharges for the US Department of Justice.Conducted whole effluent toxicity testing for regulatory agencies,
and am developing benthic impairment indices for streams adversely influenced by a bank erosion and sedimentation from
poor land and use practices.Conducting watershed evaluations(N.Fork Holston River&Clinch River,VA)of point/non-point
impacts upon native mussels and developing an improved field/laboratory ecotoxicological testing protocol for ASTM&US EPA
standards.Developing an environmentally safe standard of Total Dissolved Solids for the coal mining industry as well as
studying hollow fill impacts in headwater streams from mountain top-surface mining activities.
RELEVANT RESEARCH PROJECTS
i
Principal Investigator: Evaluation of Coal Mining Discharges for Toxicity in Clinch/Powell River Watersheds,VA.
Sponsor: Virginia Coal Association,2007-2011.
Principal Investigator: Watershed Evaluations(N.Fork Holston River&Clinch River,VA)of Point/Non-point Impacts upon
Native Mussels to Develop an Improved Field/Laboratory Ecotoxicological Testing Protocol for ASTM&US EPA
Standards. Sponsor: U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service,2002-2007.
Principal Investigator: Development of Ecological Restoration Activities for Ten Watersheds Confluencing with the Powell
River Drainage System in Lee and Wise Counties,VA. Sponsor:Virginia Department of Mined Land Reclamation
and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.1995-2007.
Principal Investigator: Development of Leading Creek Improvement Plan in Meigs County,OH.This was a 7-year project
Identifying all major point and non-point source impacts in a 90,000 acre watershed,then prioritizing the 17 major
tributaries for restoration purposes,and Implementing a best management practice for agricultural uses.
Sponsor:American Electric Power Company.1995-2002.
Principal Investigator: Pcotoxicological Analysis of Point and Non-Point Source Discharges In the Clinch River Watershed,VA.
Sponsor:American Electric Power Company.1984-1995.
TOTAL GRANT DOLLARS GENERATED
PI and CO-PI investigator: $4,500,000 past 10 years;$12,000,000 past 35 years.
PUBLICATION TOTAL:224(Book Chapters,Invited Paper,Journal Articles),236(Published Abstracts,Proceedings)and—330
Industrial Reports of Limited Distribution=790 for Career.
RESPRESENTATIVE PUBLISHED ARTICLES,2002 to Present
Soucek,D.J.,D.S.Cherry and C.E.Zipper.2002.Aluminum Dominated Toxicity in Neutral Waters Below an Acid Mine Drainage
Discharge.Can.J.Aquatic.Sci.58:2396-2404.
Cherry,D.S.,J.H.Van Hassel,J.L.Farris,D.J.Soucek and R.J.Neves.2002.Site-Specific Derivation of the Acute Copper Criteria
for the Clinch River,Virginia.Human&Evol.Risk Assess.8:591-601.
Schmidt,T.S.,D.J.Soucek and D.S.Cherry.2002.Modification of an Ecotoxicological Rating to Bioassay Small Acid Mine
Drainage Impacted Watersheds Exclusive of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analysis.Environ.Tox.Chem.21:1091-1097.
Soucek,D.J.,B.C.Denson,T.S.Schmidt,D.S.Cherry and C.E.Zipper.2002.Impaired Acroneuria sp.(Plecoptera,Perlidae)
Populations Associated with Aluminum Contaminated in Natural PH Surface Waters.Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxic.
42:416-422.
Hull,M.S.,D.S.Cherry,D.S.Soucek,R.J.Currie and R.J.Neves.2002.Comparison of Asian Clam Field Bioassays and Benthic
Community Surveys in Quantifying Effects of a Coal-Fired Power Plant Effluent on Clinch River Biota.J.Aquatic

Ecosyst.Stress&Recovery.9:271-283.
Schmidt,T.S.,D.J.Soucek and D.S.Cherry.2002.Integrative Bioassessment of Small Acid Mine Drainage Mine Drainage
Impacted Watersheds in the Powell River Watershed.Environ.Toxic.Chem.21:2233-2241.
Bidwell,J.R.,D.S.Cherry and C.E.Zipper.2003.Toxicity Evaluation of a Commercial Bioremediation Agent Mixed with Oil.
Environ.Tox Chem.22:84-91.
Soucek,D.1.,D.S.Cherry and C.E.Zipper.2003.Impacts of Mine Drainage and Other Non-Point Source Pollutants on Aquatic
Biota in the Upper Powell River System,Virginia.Human&Ecol.Risk Assess.9:1059-1073.
Currie,R.J.,W.A.Bennett,T.L.Bellinger and D.S.Cherry.2004.Upper and Lower Temperature Tolerances of Three Freshwater
Game Fish Species Exposed to 32 Days of Cycling Temperatures.Hydrobiologia.532:127-136.
Mummert,A.,T.D.Newcomb,R.J.Neves and D.S.Cherry.2003.Sensitivity of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels to Total and Ionized
Ammonia.Environ.Toxic.Chem.22:2554-2560.
Kennedy,A.J.,D.S.Cherry and R.J.Currie.2004.Evaluation of Ecologically Relevant Bioassays for a Lotic System Impacted by a
Coal-mining Effluent using Isonychia bicolor.Environ.Monit.Assess.95:37-55.
Hull,M.S.,D.S.Cherry,and T.C.Merricks.2004.Effect of Cage Design on Growth of Transplanted Asian Clams:Implications for
Assessing Bivalve Responses in Streams.J.Environ.Monit.Assess.96:1-14.
Kennedy,A.J.,D.S.Cherry and C.E.Zipper.2005.Evaluation of the Ionic Contribution of a Coal Mine Effluent to Biotic
Impairment.Arch.Environ.Contam.Tox.49:155-162.
Valenti,T.W.,D.S.Cherry,R.J.Neves and J.Schmerfeld.2005.Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Mercury to Early Life Stages of the
Rainbow Mussel, Villosa iris(Bivalvia:Unionidae).Environ.Tox.Chem.24:1242-1246.
Brown,M.E.,M.Kowalewski,R.J.Neves,D.S.Cherry and M.E.Schreiber.2005.Freshwater Mussel Shells as Environmental
Chronicles/Geochemistry Signatures of Mercury-related Extirpations in the North Fork Holston River,Virginia.Envir.
Sci.Tech.39:1455-1562.
Cherry,D.S.,J.R.Sheller,N.L.Cooper and J.R.Bidwell.2005.Potential Effects of Asian Clam(Corbicula fluminea)Dieoffs on
Native Freshwater Mussels(Unionidae)I.Water-column Ammonia Levels and Ammonia Toxicity J.N.Am.Benthol.
Soc.24:369-380.
Cooper,N.L.,J.R.Bidwell and D.S.Cherry.2005.Potential Effects of Asian Clam(Cobiculo fluminea)Dieoffs on Native
Freshwater Mussels(Unionidae)II.Pore-water Ammonia.J.N.Am.Benthol.Soc.24:381-394.
Valenti,T.W.,J.L.Chaffin,D.S.Cherry,M.E.Schreiber,H.Maurice Valett and M.Charles.2005.Bioassessment of an Appalachian
Headwater Stream Influenced by an Abandoned Arsenic Mine.Arch.Environ.Contam.Tox.49:488-496.
Cherry,D.S.and D.J.Soucek.2006.Site-specific Impact Assessment Using In-situ Asian Clam(Corbicula fluminea)Testing
Compared to Traditional Measures,with a Chronological Review of Asian Clam Biomonitoring.In,Freshwater Bivalve
Ecotoxicology.J.L.Farris and J.H.Van Hassel eds.Ch.11 SETAC Press,Pensacola,FL pp.285-305.
Valenti,T.W.,D.S.Cherry,R.J.Neves,B.A.Locke and J.J.Schmerfeld.2006.Sensitivity of Mussel Glochidea and Regulatory Test
Organisms to Mercury and a Reference Toxicant.In,Freshwater Bivalve Ecotoxicology,J.L Farris and J.H.Van Hassel
eds.Ch.14.SETAC Press,Pensacola,FL.pp.351-365.
Hull,M.S.,D.S.Cherry,and R.J.Neves.2006.Use of Bivalve Metrics to Quantify Influences of Coal-related Activities in the
Clinch River Watershed,Virginia.Hydrobiologia 556:341-355.
Locke,B.A.,D.S.Cherry,C.E.Zipper and R.J.Currie.2006.Land-Use Influences and Ecotoxicological Ratings for Upper Clinch
River Tributaries in Virginia.Arch.Enviro.Contam.Toxic.51:197-205.
Valenti,T.W.,D.S. Cherry,R.J.Currie,J.Jones,R.Mair,R.J.Neves and C.M.Kane.2006.Acute and Chronic Exposure of Early Life
Stages of Freshwater Mussels to Chlorine.Environ.Toxic.Contam.25:2512-2518.
Simon,M.L.,D.S.Cherry,R.J.Currie and C.E.Zipper.2006.The Ecotoxicological Recovery of Ely Creek and Tributaries(Lee
County,VA)after Remediation of Acid Mine Drainage.Environ.Monit.Assess.123:109-124.
Merricks,T.C.,D.S.Cherry,C.E.Zipper,R.J.Currie and T.W.Valenti.2007.Coal Mine Hollow Fill and Settling Pond Influences on
Headwater Streams in Southwestern Virginia,USA.Environ.Monit.Assess.129:359-379.
Echols,B.S.,R.J.Currie and D.S.Cherry.2009.Influence of Conductivity upon Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the North Fork
Holston River,Virginia,Downstream of a Point Source Brine Discharge during Severe Low-Flow Conditions.Hum.Ecol.
Risk Assess.15:170-184.
Echols,B.S.,R.J.Currie and D.S.Cherry.2009.An Investigation of Total Mercury In.the.North Fork Holston River,Saltville,VA.
Hum.Ecol.Risk Assess.15:968-984.
Echols,B.S.,R.J.Currie and D.S.Cherry.2010. Preliminary Results of Laboratory Toxicity Tests with the Mayfly,Isonychia
bicolor,for Development as a Standard Test Organism for Evaluating Streams in the Appalachian Coal Fields of
Virginia and West Virginia.Environ.Monitor.Assess.169:487-500.
Echols,B.S.,R.J.Currie T.W.Valenti and D.S.Cherry.2011.An Evaluation of a Point Source Discharge into a Riverine System and
Implications for TDS Limitations.Hum.Ecol.Risk Assess.In Press.
Echols,B.S.,R.J.Currie and D.S.Cherry.2011.Seasonal Availability and Sensitivity of Two Field Collected Mayflies(Isonychiidae
and Heptageniidae)for the Development of a Standardized Toxicity Test:A One-Year Feasibility Study.In Review.

Appendix B
Pigeon River Site Locations

Pigeon River Perception Stud Ma
p Y p
cp re hBmadRiaer Observational.Sites Orderof Observation River Mile
® Wells Rd. 8 RM 69.5
b� d Canton Recreation RM 64.5
Park
t Canton Mill Mining
Zone 6 RM'62.9
2
bt ThicketyO2Station 5 RM61.2
-p 6 a Clyde ridge 4 RM 58.0
Gm 4 6 i'U
G{ OUnton a Ferguson Bridge 3 RM 48.3
fa 6 m
Hepco Bridge 2 RM 42.6
Brown's Bridge
(Stateline) 1 R1GI24sT

Appendix C
Sample Screening Sheet

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE - River Perception Study
PARTICIPANT SCREENER - Revised April 2012
Hi, my name is with We're conducting opinion research with
individuals who would like to participate in a project about current regional topics which will be held in the spring and
summer of 2012.
May I ask a few quick questions? I am not selling anything and if you qualify to participate in the research, we would
compensate you $200 per study event for your participation. Again, I would like to stress that this is a research study
ONLY, and you will not be asked to make any purchases. Everything I ask is solely for research purposes and
everything you say is completely confidential.
Record but do not ask:
1. Gender?
1.1. Male Recruit 15
1.2. Female Recruit 15
2. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family work for...
2.1. A market research company Discontinue
2.2. An advertising or public relations firm company Discontinue
2.3. A radio station, TV station or Newspaper Discontinue
2.4. Manufacturing company such as:
2.4.1. Paper, pulp or Wood Mill Discontinue
2.4.2. Textile mill
2.4.3. Steel fabrication
2.4.4. Mining
2.4.5. Oil refinery
2.4.6. None of those mentioned
3. Which of the following categories includes your age? (must have a good mix)
3.1. Under 21 Discontinue
3.2. 21-24
3.3. 25-34
3.4. 35-44
3.5. 45-54
3.6. 55-64
3.7. Over 64
4. Have you ever participated in an opinion research study before?
4.1. Yes
4.2. No Skip to Q6
4.3. Don't recall Skip to Q6
R&S 926041-1

Screening Tool—Page 2
S. What were the date, location and topic of the most recent past opinion research study in which you
participated?
5.1.
If anything to do with water quality or Evergreen Packaging, Discontinue
6. In what county and state do you live ? (want representative mix from region)
6.1
7. Do you have any restrictions that would prevent you from spending a weekend day — Saturday or Sunday - on
this project?
7.1. Yes Discontinue
7.2. No
7.3. I don't think so
8. Do you have any physical or vision restrictions that would prevent you from walking on uneven terrain or
riding for some time in a van? (Safety and comfort consideration)
8.1. Yes Discontinue
8.2. No
8.3. I don't think so
9. Do you have problems with vision such as color blindness, cataracts or nearsightedness that prevent you from
seeing well when outside in open spaces? (Visual acuity consideration)
9.1. Yes Discontinue
9.2. No
9.3. I must wear glasses when driving
9.4. I see well when I wear glasses or contact lenses
10. What is the highest grade or year of school you have completed?
10.1. Grade school
10.2. Some high school
10.3. High school graduate/GED
10.4. Some college/Technical School
10.5. College graduate
10.6. Completed an advanced or graduate level degree
R&S 926041-1

Screening Tool—Page 3
11. What was your 2010 total household income before taxes? Read list circle until NO.
11.1. More than $10,000
11.2. More than $20,000
11.3. More than $30,000
11.4. More than $40,000
11.5. More than $60,000
11.6. More than $80,00
11.7. More than $100,000
11.8. Rather not say/Refused
12. Are you currently...
12.1. Employed full time
12.2. Employed part time
12.3. Retired
12.4. Student
12.5. Unemployed
12.6. Rather not say/Refused
13. What is your occupation
If rafting guide working on Pigeon River in Tennessee, Discontinue
14. What are your hobbies or interests
15. Which of the following are you a member, contributor or participate with in any way?
15.1. Dead Pigeon River Council
15.2. Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club
15.3. Isaac Walton League
15.4. American Canoeing Association
15.5. Tennessee Environmental Council
15.6. Clean Water Expected in East Tennessee
15.7. Tennessee Conservation Voters
15.8. Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association
15.9. Clean Water for North Carolina
15.10. Western North Carolina Alliance
15.11. Southern Environmental Law Center
15.12. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
15.13. None of them
If they say yes to any of these organizations, Discontinue
R&S 926041-1

Screening Tool—Page 4
16. Do you have any restrictions that would prevent you from being in Waynesville, NC on _dates?
16.1. Yes Discontinue
16.2. No
16.3. I don't think so
We are interested in your thoughts and opinions on current topics in our area. We are conducting a group opinion
research study in spring and summer of 2012.
You qualify to participate in this opinion research study, and we would like to invite you to take part. Your
participation in the study will last several hours on a weekend day starting about 9 am and ending about 3 pm and
will include lunch. You will receive $200 dollars for your participation at the end of the session. Will you be able to
attend?
Yes
No Discontinue
Great! We would like to send you a confirmation letter. May I have your full name, address, zip code and e-mail?
Name
Address
City State Zip
e-mail
And I dialed phone number Is that correct? We look forward to seeing you and one of
our representatives will meet you at 8:00 a.m.
Thank you again for agreeing to attend, we are counting on you to be there. If you find that you can't attend for
some reason, please call us @ as soon as possible because we will need to replace you in order to be sure
that we have a full group. Thanks, Good Bye!
i
R&S 926041-1

Appendix D
Environmental Attitudes Questionnaire

i
ERI BOOKLET
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE
INVENTORY
George E. McKechne
DIRECTIONS
This questionnaire is designed to study attitudes toward the environment. It contains a series
of statements on various subjects. Read each statement and decide whether you agree or disagree
with it. Use the following five categories to describe your response:
5= stronglyagree / 4 agree / 3= neutral / 2= disagree / 1 = strongly disagree
Follow the instructions on the spacial answer sheet provided, and mark all of your answers on it,
Please do not write in this booklet, Make sure that the number on the answer sheet is the same as
the number of the question you are answering in the booklet. Try to answer each question, even
if you must guess.
G Copyright, 1971, by Geurge C, McKmWe. All rights reserved. No portion of this
material may he reproduced by any proem without written permission from the
Publisher,
Publtyhed by
CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGISTS PRESS
577 College Avenue Palo Alto. California
s

5=strongly agree ( 4 =agree / 3.: neutral / 2=disagree / I =strongly disagree
1. I like amusement parks. 34. 1 would enjoy working with precision
2. 1 would enjoy the work of an architect, power tools.
3. Machines increase man's freedom. 35. f have difficulty concentrating when
4, 1 prefer to live in an area where neighbors things are noisy.
keep to themselves. 36. 1 would rather remodel an old house than
i build a new one.
S. I would enjoy driving a racing car.
1 6. Thu idea of walking into the forest and 37. past failures.
We must ahead and not worry above .
"living off die land"for a wreck appeals to me.
38, Cides'are too noisy and crowded for me.
7. Life in the city is more interesting than
life on a farm. 39. 1 often feel uneasy in a large crowd of people.
8, 1 would enjoy building a radio. 40. 1 can repair just about anything around
the house.
9. Traveling isn't really worth the effort.
I 41, 1 often have trouble getting the privacy 1 want.
10, I have my first thoughts when 1 am alone.
42. There should be a law against anyone owning
1 11. 1 enjoy browsing in bookstores• more than a thousand acres of land.
12. It would be fun to move around and live in
43. I feel most secure when I am working
different parts of the country, around the house.
13. It is boring to spend all day working 44. It is hopeless to try.to save our cities.
with your hands.
45. It would be fun to own some
i 14, It is exciting to go shopping in a large city. old-fashioned costumes.
15. There should be a law against skyscrapers, 46. Motorcycles should be kept out of
16. 1 like to be by myself much of the time. recreation areas,
17. 1 enjoy browsing in antique shops. 47. I like modern furniture better than the
18. 1 sometimes daydream of being stranded more traditional styles.
on a tropical island. 48. 1 would like a job that involved a lot of traveling.
19. 1 like places that have the feeling of being old. 49. It is important for me to own
20. I shudder at the thought of finding a spider top quality equipment,
in my bed. 50. As a child, I often watched when someone
21. 1 would enjoy traveling around the world repaired things around the house.
on a sailing ship. 51. I like the sounds of a city street,
22. Alleys tare interesting places to explore. 52. Old sections of the city are more interesting
23, 1 prefer a stick-shift car to one with an than the new areas.
automatic transmission. 53. I often feel lonely when I am by myself.
24. t like crystal chandeliers. 54. As a child, 1 was taught respect for
25. 1 like homes with stone floors. all living things.
26. t like the variety of stimulation one finds 55. 1t is good for man to submit to the
in the city. forces of nature,
27. 1 usually save spare nuts and bolts. 56. 1 prefer friends who are reliable and
28. 1 get annoyed when my neighbors are noisy. even-tempered.
29. When buying clothes,1 usally look more 57. 1 often think of settling down on a farm
some day.
for comfort than for style,
30. 1 am quite skillful with my hands. 58. I don't like being completely alone.
31. It's annoying to have iv share an office or 59. I would like to live in a modem,
work space with someone, planned community.
32. 1 like to visit historic places. 60. Zoning laws and other building controls are
33. Suburbs should replace the city as the center necessary to protect the rights of the public.
of cultural life. 61. 1 like things that have precision moving parts.

5=strongly agree / 4=agree / 3 =neutral / Z=disagree 1 I=strongly disagree
62. 1 would enjoy entertaining famous people. 92. 1 enjoy owning a good piece of equipment,
63. 1 often feel that I am a part of the space even if 1 don't get to use it much.
around me, 93. 1 pride myself on having a home which
64, 1 can identify many of the local flowers and trees, is always open to friends.
65. 1 would like to work with computers. 94. Fences make good neighbors.
66. 1 have vivid memories of where I lived 95. I'd rather live in the suburbs than in the city.
as a child. 96. A complex technological society cannot
67. Our national forests should be preserved in their tolerate individuality:
natural state, with roads and buildings prohibited. 97. I enjoy a change in the weather,even when
68, Flying in a small airplane would it turns bad.
make me nervous. 98. It is unsafe to ride on buses these days,
69, As a child,I was afraid of being outside 99, Country•people are more honest than city people
by myself. 100. Hiking is boring.
70, it is better if people live out their lives 101, 1'd be afraid to live in a place where
in one place. there were no people nearby.
71. 1 would enjoy owning a.fancy watch. 102. 1 find street noisc very distracting.
72. 1 would enjoy riding a motorcycle. 103, 1 have always been somewhat of a daredevil.
73. Making rain by artificially"seeding"clouds 104, 1 would enjoy riding in a crowded subway,
is a grant technological advance.
10.5. i am yui[e sunsitivc to the"character"
74. 1 enjoy staying up all night. of a building.
75. 1 am happiest when I am alone. 106, 11ike to ride on roller coasters.
76. No child should have to grow up in a rural area. , 107. 1 enjoy tinkering with mechanical things.
77, 1 get annoyed when people drop by my house 108. 1 do not like to loan things to neighbors,
without warning.
109. 1 would enjoy living in a historic house.
78, .A fireplace adds s special feeling of
coziness to a room. 110. Sometimes 1 wish 1 had power over the
79. It's interesting to learn about the history forces of nature,
of the place where you live. 111. 1 have no interest in ballet.
80. It is fun to make scale models of things. 112. 1 like to read about the history of places.
81. 1 would enjoy living the rest of my life 113. Birth control practices should be,accepted
in a large city. by everyone,
82. Electricity fascinates me. 1 14, Jet air travel is one of the great advances
83. 1 like social gatherings where I can enjoy of our society.
myself without worrying about other people. 115. 1 have vivid memories of the neighborhood
811. 1 don't think that I would ever want where I grew;up.
to be hypnotized. 116. 1 would enjoy going to the opera,
85. Small-town life is too boring for me. 117. Today people are too isolated from the
86. Fertilizers improve the quality of food, forces of nature.
87. 1 often get the feeling that I just most be alone. 118, It is easy for me to work undistracted
88. A person has a right to modify the in most situations.
environment to suit his needs, 119, 1 like to dress in the latest fashions.
89, Sometimes I'm afraid of too much stimulation- 120. 1 seldom pay attention to what I cat,
from sounds,colors, odors, etc. 121. It is dangerous to work around heavy machinery.
90. 1 understand the architectural idea that 122. The wilderness is cruel and harsh.
form follows function. J 23, Modern buildings are seldom as attracrivc
91. 1 would enjoy working in a flower garden. as older one,.;.

5 =strongly agree / .. 4 =agree / 3 =neutral / 2 =disagree / 1 =strongly disagree
124. 1 like experimental art. 154. 1 like to say hello to my neighbors.
125. I often wish for the seclusion of a 155. 1 enjoy collecting things that most people
weekend retreat. would consider junk.
126. 1 would like to own an expensive camera. 156. There are often times when I need
127. Building projects which disrupt the ecology complete silence,
should be abandoned and the land returned 157. 1 worry a lot about the rising crime rate.
to its natural state. 158. The cultural life of a big city is
128. The problems of the cities will never be solved. very important to me.,
129. 1 am easily distracted by people moving about. 159. 1 like to go to shopping centers where
130. I often have trouble finding my way everything is in one place.
around a new area. 160. 1 am fond of oriental rugs.
131. In spite of all the talk about pollution, 161. I am afraid of heights.
the earth is still a safe place to live. 162. People who try to repair appliances themselves
132, 1 need more variety in my life than other usually end up breaking them.
people seem to need,
163. I would like to live in a palace or a castle.
133. 1 usually avoid public rest rooms.
164. Sight-seeing is tedious and boring.
134. I often have trouble figuring out how
to use household appliances. 165. The cities contain the best aspects of
135. 1 usually enjoy having lots of people around. modern life. ,
136, I would enjoy watching movies made 166. It's nice to buy a new car every year or so.
15 or 20 years ago. 167. Bathtubs have become obsolete.
137, Natural resources must be preserved even if 168. Places often play an important role in my dreams.
people must do without. 169. 1 would like to build a cabin in the woods.
138. 1 like to get up early to see the sun rise. 170. I enjoy being in dangerous places.
139. 1 am afraid of driving in the city. 171. Everyone should have the opportunity to live
140. Trespassing laws should be more in a great city.
carefully enforced. 172. It's fun to walk in the rain even if you get wet.
141. 1 am an adventurous person. 173. Old buildings are usually depressing.
142. 1 often have strong emotional reactions 174, 1 would enjoy living on a houseboat,
to buildings.
143. There is too little emphasis on privacy
175. Computers may someday take over the world.
in our society. 176. 1 like to be on the move, not tied down
144. It is dangerous nowadays to live in a large city,
to any one place. '
14.5. 1 seldom vary the route l take to
177. Mental problems are more common in the city everyday destinations, than in the country.
146. It is important for me to feel that 1 am in
178. Odors often bring back distant memories.
harmony with the forces of nature. 179. 1 like to care for animals.
147. When it comes to fixing things, I am hopeless. 180. A man should spend his leisure time at home
148. Modern communities are plastic and ugly.
with his family.
181. If I had the money, I would enjoy owning
149. Science does as much harm as good. an expensive stereo set.
150. 1 get upset if I must do too many things at once. 182. 1 feel a great attraction to the sea.
151. 1 would feel safer on the highway if 183. I would rather sleep on the open ground
speed limits were reduced. . than in a tent.
152. I would like to take flying lessons. 184. Given enough time, science will solve
153. Most jewelry is a waste of money. most human problems.

Environmental Response Inventory by George E. McKechnic, 11h.D.
Name —__A Sex_ Vrs.of Schooling
h7arita;Stalu._,..—.v..�Agcx of ChJdren. Occupauon.._. __!
Date...`..- maceofinimg �01hel ,—••
Read the dlreetlons oil the cuter ui III- ERE Brmktet. Then All in vuur name and u01er intatma«on ieyuestedabova. Rechldyom
response to each item is the booklet m the square with the matching n(1mbe; (Jtl the five response calegmaes
5 means strongly agree 14 means agree 13 means neutral/2 means disagree/I means strungly disagree.
1 24 47 7U 91 lit, •30 1 h4
25 43 71 94 lt7 l 140 161
26 40 72 95 1 17R 141 1IA
4 „ so 73 ar, 11 I1, 14_ I ItiS
$ 18 51 74
rJ? . 120 143 166
n 2e 5- 75 98 121 I 144 In^
7 30 51' 7t, g? i 122 145 I6g
S 31 54 1 , 77
IUU t 123 146 161)
4 32 55 76 I 101 I 124
147, I 170
10
56 ?0 102I I:lS 1.79 }} 17;
11 14 S, 90 103 120 149 t r72
1' 35 sa N: 104 127 I -ISU 17.:
I3 3f, 59 k2 '
1 Itn I ( :2s 131 174
14 1 37 j tiU Y.1 I 11k, 12v
15 rx 6 h4 ` t(r i 130 .
It' in 6" e..5 i Ir1ti i 1;1 154 '
I7' I
I? 4(i 63 H hl t
t8 Est
41. <w Y' 1 •110 133 I56 I s ;79I I
I 42 65 aK I11. 134 ` FF•------
IS7 lNU
20 43 ti6 ,. �9 I I. I
Il ti.3is5
,21 44 BE.
u;ISwFi.
tt1s%3
-- 45 oil !
11
46 _ � t3H1I 161 1u4 �.
DU NOT MARL 11I;LUN"rH15 UNC — — —`—,—•""
PA OR EA s5 .Ef AN NP MP Co
12 54 3fi 12 1201 I 24 74 18 .4
9.t npyn1nt.1914.py CnpenUnp P,y,hwupra,PFC, In..ho nhtutlu,11i"' r 11h.turn:n tep,wnhuui ctnrsw,xmn,,,uG

PROFILE SHEET FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INVENTORY: FEMALES
Nana Age- Sex Date
Other Information
PA UR EA SS ET AN NP MD CO NOTES:
100
-100 -90
=ems' so
-
-uo -00 -100
-90 so _ _B0 _ -woo
fio — —.—..— -------•--.._:_.. .. ..___:_.�. —------— 90_.._—.__ __.__ so
-100
00 — 00
so
70
- 90 _ _ - _ BO - - 80
-TO
60 . . _.___ ____ ______ __ -_._..._— 60
—60
70
u _
50 F.
b - - -Go _ - - 60
-60
u: ' _60 ...__._____ 40
- - —60 .
-{0 _ -
30 - __ aD _ __� ..__...__.-_ yp_ -y0 _- - 'r0_ 30
30 .-40 - _ -40 -
-40
-40 - - - - 30 - 60
- 30
_. 10
30 -
-. 30
30
0 - 20 0
PA UR EA SS ET AN NP DSO CO
keprwluced from the mmml for the NnVironmental knponsc Inventory. a Copyright 1974.by COnsuIIin$PsycholoBlste Prm lac.

PROFILE SHEET FOR THE ENVIRONTNIENIA1, RESPONSE INVENTORY : MALES
Ape Sex- batc
01hvr Inrormation
PA UR E.\ SS F I" AN Nil CO NOTES'.
100 1W
—SIG
Sao —110
90- -
............
IfD sill —100
io
90 —.0
70-
eo
10
8D
430
9D
80
TO —60
7c.
fp
70-- an 50
co
—50 —50
40A... - go.-
rO— 40
30-
So
40 --------— 40
10
TO 20
—20
PA LIR UA Ss FT AN NP MID Co

Appendix E
Visual Acuity Test
(Standard Eye Chart)

print full-size on
8.5x11 inch paper
200 Fr.
PO 61 M
200
20 Loo FT.
100 30.5 M
t0 70 FT.
70 21.3 M 3
20 50 FT.
50 15.2 M I _
40 3? E or D 12.2M 5
20 30 FT.
E D C Z P g14M 6
38
25 FT.
15 E L O P Z D 7.62M
. 20 D sE F P ® T E V 20 FT.
20 6.10 M

Appendix F
Color Vision Test

Color Vistas rest
EMft Tes s _ ft hftk
x ter
Z • cu ox f rnr.
_ -• �u�t i �_.._ Test Jos e a no
I _I
low i
- AaVEF9
Mn nbw
F 1 i
MAW Plow le
R1m
I
1
1' r
F � '
icomj .

Appendix G
Field Instructions to Observers

Appendix G — EXAMPLE
Field instructions to study participants
You are observer #
You are participating in a study of the scenic beauty of rivers. We will visit eight
(8) sites where you will be asked to give your opinion in the form of numerical
ratings.
At each site we visit today, you will use a rating sheet to record your observations.
On the rating sheet, you will find a list of seven (7) aspects* of the water. Each
aspect will have a rating scale numbered from 1 to 7. The number scale is:
1 = "unacceptable"
4 = "acceptable"
7 = "very attractive" or "very appropriate"
Aspect 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Circle the rating number or dash between numbers that corresponds to your
opinion. Please give us your first impression. If your impression rating is between
numbers, the dashes represent quarter points. For example, if your rating is 4.5,
circle the middle dash between 4 and 5. Feel free to write comments in the spaces
provided on any aspect of the rating and site.
Please do not discuss or compare your ratings with the other observers during or
after your site visit: Please do not use your cell phone, smart phone or wireless
device until today's trip to observe river sites is concluded.
Your Van Leader will collect your rating sheets as they are completed at each site.
* Aspect of the water refers to its appearance or appropriateness for use.

Appendix H
Likert Rating Scale

Appendix H - EXAMPLE
Site Observation Sheet
.Site # Observer #
Look in the direction indicated by your Van Leader and rate the scenic beauty of
that view. Circle the rating number or dash between numbers that corresponds to
your opinion. The number scale is:
1 = unacceptable 4 = acceptable 7 =very attractive
Upriver 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Downriver 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Comments:
Now rate the appearance of the water:
Color 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Clarity 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Comments:
Rate the site for its appropriateness for each of the following activities (disregard
accessibility and water depth). Circle the rating number or dash between numbers
that corresponds to your opinion. The number scale is:
1 = unacceptable 4 = acceptable 7 =very appropriate
Wading 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Swimming 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Fishing 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
Rafting, canoeing, 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7
boating
r�
Comments:
Van Leader-record date and time the observation sheet was collected

Appendix I
Environmental Response Inventory

Table 1; Environmental Response inventory Scales
HIGH SCORERS ARE OFTEN LOW SCORERS ARE OFTEN
DESCRIBED AS: SCALE AND MAJOR THEMES; DESCRIBED AS:
r
Aesthetic,offentionak, Complicated,dis- PA(Pa310r"Sna), Opposition M land dtvelop- Apathetic, conscientious, conservative.
tractibk. outspoken, progressive, rebel. Mont;concern about population growth;pmser- conventional. delibmnte, dependable,.
IiOus, unconventional, unpredictable, vation of natural resources, including open friendly,honest,practical,self-controlled.
selfish. space;acceptance of natural forces as shapers
of human life;sensitivity to pure env)routneutal
experiences; self-sufficiency In the natural
environment.
Critical, skeptical. responsive to urban 1JR (Urbanism). Enjoyment of high density Conscientious, conventional, friendly,
aesthetics, highbrow, concerned with living; appreciation of unusual and varied generous, nonverbal, opportrsrtist)e, ro.
philosophical problems in ISe,valuing in- stimulus patterns of the city;interest in culumal bust,simple,tmselBsh.
tellectual activity,managerial interests, life; enjoyment of interpersonal richness and
diversity.
Autocratic,condescending, conservative, EA(Environmental Adaptation)- Modification- Artistic,awkward,Composs)onate,curious,
efficient, enterprising, extroverted. hard- of the envlronmentto satisfy needs and desires, distractible, idealistic, introspective, '
headed.mannerly,methodical,power and and to provide comfort and leisure:opposition moody, nonconforming, sensitive, sen-
money oriented,judgmental,aesthetically to governmental Control over private land use: suous.,worrying,forthright.
unresponsive. preference for highly designed or adapted on.
vironments;use of technology to solve envhon-
memal problems; preference for styU=d bn-
viroomental details.
Adventurous, disorderly, distracuble, SS (Stimulus Seeking). Interest in travef and Console atious, conservative, hu;ddlous,
dreamy:easy-going,immature,impulsive, exploration of unusual places; erdoyment of pmcdwl,responsible,rigid,severe,stingy.
progressive, unconventional, undcpend- complex and intense physical sensations;
able, breadth of interests.
Capable, competent, dIRStnt, efficient, ET(P-nvlronmental Trusr. General environ- Bitter,cold, coarse,dissatisfied,distrust.
helpful, ingenious, resourceful, stable, mental openness, respowiveness, and trust: full intolomm, moody,pttjudtced, speed.
thorough,tolerant, well-odjuslod. wmpeteoce in findiog ones way about the thrift,unkind.
environment vs. fear of potentially dangerous
environments.security of home;fear of being
/. alone and unprotected.
Affectionate, artistic, changeable. de- AN (Antiquarianism). Ett)oyment or antiques Coarse, cool, conservative, deliberate,
pendent, dreamy, emotional, forgiving, and historical places;preference for traditional mischievous, moralistic, practical, sly,
idealistic, introspective, aesthetically vs. modem design; aesthetic sensitivity to stolid.unemotional.
reactive,warm. man-made environments and to landscape:
appreciation of cultural artifacts of earlier crus;
I tendency to collect objects for their emotional
significance.
Aloof, arrogant, autocratic, bitter, cold, NP (Need for Privacy). Need for physical Appreciative, cooperative, easy-going,
formal, hard-hearted, sulky, polished, Isolation from stimuli; en)oymeh or solitude; friendly,seeking reassurance,warm,seeks
resentful,stubborn, dislike of neighboring; need for freedom from acceptance,lacks confidence,Introverted.
distraction.
Arrogant, conceited, egotistical, hard- MO (Mechanical Orientation). Interest in Affectionate,feminine,generous,sincere,
howud,masculine,self-Acking.Inflexible, mechanics in its various Jonas; enjoyment in undcntand)ag, submissive, sympathetic,
soclable,manipulwive. working with one's hands;imorest in techno- warm.
logical processes and basic principlesofscience;
appreciation of the functional properties of
objects.
Calm. civilized, initiatory, mannerly, pa- CO (Communality). A validity scale, tapping Hard-lwaded,flhtatious,good looking.im-
dent,tactful,tr➢Ytittg,rUle-following• honest, atteutivc.'and careful test-taking tltti- mature, opporuni5ac, versatile, witty.
tude; response to items in statistically modal independent-minded, psychologically
manner. complex.

EXkiIBIT
n
3
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.
Evergreen Packaging Color Perception Analysis
Monica Gehlhausen, M.S.,Statistician
Mia Lyst, M.S., Director of Development and Business Analytics
Summary
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.was requested to perform statistical analyses on the Evergreen Packaging Color
Perception study data collected during three events in 2012. The purpose of the analysis was two-fold:
1) to identify which sites showed statistically different or similar river characteristics, and 2)to evaluate
whether the characteristic ratings at the different sites along the river were considered acceptable.
Based on the seven-point Likert scale used in the study, a value of 4 is considered acceptable. All
analysis was performed using SAS/STAT software.
Conclusion
The June data showed that all sites had a median rating no different than or better than Acceptable (4
or equivalent) based on the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric multiple comparison test and calculation of
distribution-free 99%confidence limits.
In a separate analysis using pooled data for September and November, all sites had an average rating no
different than or better than Acceptable (4 or equivalent), with the exception of Site 6- Fibreville/Mixing
Zone. These results were analyzed using least-square means estimates with adjusted Bonferroni
multiple comparison tests and 99%confidence limits.
Data Analysis
As stated in the summary, the purpose of this analysis was two-fold and will be presented in that
manner. For purposes of clarity and readability, only key Tables and Figures will be referenced at the
end of the document. The output for any analysis that is not contained in this document is available
upon request.
Normality Test
Although there were thousands of data points collected in this study, the survey data was collected
using Likert items whose basis is ordinal, so tests for normality of the data were performed to
ensure that the appropriate statistical analyses (parametric vs. nonparametric) were applied to the
data.
The tests for normality were evaluated for the lowestsubgroup level that would be required for
comparison testing. The lowest subgroup level was by date, site and river characteristic, for a total
of 3 x 8 x 7= 168 subgroups. Only 16 out of the 168 subgroups were considered normally
distributed (Appendix A), therefore the initial comparison testing was performed using the
nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis statistic.
In order to simplify the analysis, statistical comparisons were performed to see if the data could be
grouped together for Upriver(UR) and Downriver(DR) data and/or for any combination of the
dates.
1
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Multiple Comparison Testing
• The comparison test showed that UR is not significantly different from DR. Therefore,they
were grouped together as one population.
• The next test showed that the Dates were significantly different therefore the final analysis.
was performed by date.
• The final test showed that the Sites were significantly different from each other when
grouped by Date and river characteristic.
The nonparametric testformultipie comparisons indicates ifthe sitesare significantly:differont,but....,.
does not state specifically which sites are different from each other: tHence additional analysis using•
paired comparisons was performed.
Paired Comparison,Testing :..
A common practice with Likert scale data is to sum the ratings from categories/questions that are
similar. This not only reduces the complexity of the analysis, but also can make the data normally
distributed. For that reason, river characteristic groups of Scenic Beauty{Scenic Beauty);Water ..•'
Color&Clarity (Color+Clarity), and Recreation (Wading+Swimming+Fishing+. . ; ; .. - •,
Boating/Canoeing/Rafting).were created and the appropriate scores weresummed. Analysis Was
performed on these sums instead of the individual ratings. Also, a separate analysis was performed
on UR June data only because 17%of that date's data was missing (almost 500 observations).due to : . ..
people forgetting to score DR.
• Sept and Nov Analysis c..
By summing the Likert scores within the new groups, the data was more normally distributed.
Hence, analyses were conducted using parametric procedures.:.
o The first comparison test showed that UR was not significantly different from DR so
they were grouped as one population.
o The second test showed that the September and the NoVemberdata were'not :.
significantly different from each other. Therefore,the dates were grouped as one
population which allowed the analysis to be performed only by site and
characteristic group. Based on the new population,the new'Acceptable'score was
calculated as:
Grouped Characteristic Summed Scale
- -
Scenic Beauty 8=Acceptable (4'x 1 characteristic x 2 UR/DR)
Water Color& Clarity 16=Acceptable (4 x 2 characteristics x 2 UR/DR)
Recreation 32=Acceptable (4 x 4 characteristics x 2 UR/DR)
Figures 1-3 display the summary statistics for the different sites as well as the distribution of the
summed scores based on 99%confidence intervals. Tables 1-3 show which groups are not •
significantly different from each other. The conclusion can be made that Site 6'is sighificantly ``
different from all other sites. However,all other sites are considered acceptable or better based
on the 99%confidence limits around the mean.
• June Analysis
The summed scores for the UR June observations failed the normality test, therefore
nonparametric testing was performed. The results from the analysis indicated that the sites
1 2
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

were significantly different(Appendix C). Because only UR data for June was utilized in this
analysis,the new 'Acceptable'score for this data is calculated.below:
Grouped Characteristic Summed Scale
Scenic Beauty 4=Acceptable (4 x 1 characteristic x 1 UR)
Water Color&Clarity 8=Acceptable (4 x 2 characteristics x 1 UR)
Recreation 16=Acceptable (4 x 4 characteristics x 1 UR)
In order to evaluate which groups were significantly different from each other, 99%confidence
limits were calculated around the median values by site and characteristic group. The 99%
confidence intervals around the median for each site are defined in Table 4 and plotted in
Figures 4-6. Tables 5-7 arrange the sites into groups that are not significantly different from
each other. From these results, it can be concluded that all sites are considered acceptable or
better based on the 99%confidence limits around the median.
3
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Table 1: Pooled Sept/Nov data, Sites Not Statistically Different for Characteristic Group =Scenic
Beauty
eansiwith'tlie sairie:IeEfer are iigt;sigiiificaatly
rjiffeierit.
Eon Grouping 'Mean 'N Site
A 11.2404 528WellsRdBr
A
A 1 L M10 52 3 Fergason8r
A
A ip.9163 522liepdoBr
A
A 10.7356 52 I Browne Br
A
A 104798 $27 Canton Rep Pk
A
A 10.230 52 5 ThkLe ty 9 2 St
B 8.3837 52 4 Clyde Br
C 6.052 526Fibr6viH614ixZn
*Groupings based on Tables in Appendix B.
Table 2: Pooled Sept/Nov data, Sites Not Statistically Different for Characteristic Group =Water
Color& Clarity
Means Withtlivks eletterare not slgnlfieurtly
,diffe_rent.
Bon Gr¢u �g. yMean N Site
A 21.6154 52 8 Wells Rd Dr
A
A 22.67W 52 7 Canton Rae Pk
A
B A 20,7721 523FezgpsonBr
8
B C 194404 522Hepc9Br
B C
B C 18.7788 521 Brovnrs Br
C
D C 16:7819 524Ciyde9r
D C
D C 16.4663 52 5 Thickety 92 St
D
D 13.Ml 52 6 Fibrevr'Re Mix Zn
*Groupings based on Tables in Appendix B.
4
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Table 3: Pooled Sept/Nov data,Sites Not Statistically Different for Characteristic Group =
Recreation
sans with thesame'letier are ttet signiHeantl"
different:
,Eow ftupfng.� A aj ' N Site
A 40596 52 8 W ells Rd 13r
A
B A. 73311 527CeutanRecPlk
B A
B A 38.297 523FetgusonBr
B A
8 i9 3b102 525Thieleh>02St
B A
-B A 35375 52 2 Hepc6 By
B :4
B A 94.189 52 1 Bibv4w Br
B
B C x645 52 4 ue 131
C
C ZASS 526P(beviileMUZn
*Groupings based on Tables in Appendix B.
Table 4: June data, Summary Statistics by Site and Characteristic Group
Scenic Beauty Recreation Water Color&Clarity
Acceptable=4 Acceptable=16 Acceptable=8
99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Site Median. LCLf ! UCLt Median ILCLt UCLt Median La UCLt .
1 Brown's Bridge 6.0 5.0 6.5 17.5 15.8 19.0 11.3 10.8 12.0.
2 Hepco Bridge 5.3 4.0 7.0 18.5 17.0 20.0 8.8 8.0 10.0
3 Ferguson Bridge 6.0 5.0 7.0 20.0 18.0 24.0 12.0 11.0 13.0
4 Clyde Bridge 5.0 4.0 6.0 21.4 19.0 22.0 11.0 9.0 12.0
5 Thickety 02 Station 5.0 4.0 6.0 20.0 1 20.0 22.0 8.0 7.0 9.5
6 Fibreville/Mixing Zone 3.0 2.0 4.0 15.0 12.0 18.0 1 9.0 7.3 10.0
7 Canton Recreation Park 6.0 5.0 7.0 24.0 22.0 25.0 13.5 13.0 14.0
8 Wells Road Bridge 6.0 5.0 6.0 23.5 20.0 1 24.0 10.0 1 9.0 11.0
t99%confidence interval for the median rating was obtained using nonparametric methods for order
statistics.
5
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

x
Table 5: dune data,Sites Not Statistically Different for Characteristic Group=,Scenic Beauty
Scenic Beauty
Acceptable=4'
site Median„ Group-
1 Brown's Bridge 6.0 A
3 Ferguson Bridge 6.0 A
7 Canton Recreation Park 6.0 A
8 Wells Road Bridge 6.0 A
2 Hepco Bridge 5.3 A
4 Clyde Bridge 5.0 A
5 Thickety 02 Station 5.0 A
6 Fibreville/Mixing Zone 3.0 B
*Groupings based on Table 8 Confidence Limits.
Table 6: June data, Sites Not Statistically Different for Characteristic Group = Recreation
Recreation j
Acceptable=16
Site Group Median
7 Canton Recreation Park A 24
8 Wells Road Bridge A B C 23.5
4 Clyde Bridge B C 21.4
3 Ferguson Bridge A B C D 20
5 Thickety 02 Station B C 20 '
2 Hepco Bridge C D E 18.5
1 Brown's Bridge D E 17.5
6 Fibreville/Mixing Zone F 15
*Groupings based on Table 8 Confidence Limits.
t
6
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Table 7: June data, Sites Not Statistically Different for Characteristic Group =Water Color&
Clarity
Water Color&Clarity
Acceptable=8
Site'. Group fldi
7 Canton Recreation'Park A 3 Ferguson Bridge B C 1 Brown's Bridge B
4 Clyde Bridge B C D E 11
8 Wells Road Bridge C D E 10
6 Fibreville/Mixing Zone D E F 9
2 Hepco Bridge D E F 8.8
5 Thickety 02 Station D F 8
*Groupings based on Table 8 Confidence Limits.
7
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Figure 1; Pooled Sept/Nov data, Summary Statistics for Characteristic Group =Scenic Beauty
Characteristic Group=Scenic Beauty(Acceptable=8)
Site Least Squares Means
Site Estimate Standard Error,x Value Pr i hLAlpha_Lower Upper
1 Browns Br 10.7356 03053 35.17 <.0001 0.01 9.9492 115219
2 Hepco Br 10.9163 0.3053 35.76 <.0001 0.01 10.1300 11.7027
3 Ferguson Br 11.0010 0.3053 36.04 <.0001 0.01 10.2146 11.7873
4 Clyde Br 8.3837 0.3053 27.46 <.0001 0.01 7.5973 9.1700
5 Tluckety 02 St 10.2346 0.3053 33.53 <.0001 0.01 9.4483 11.0210
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 6.0952 0.3053 19.97 <.0001 0.01 5.3089 6.8815 V
7 Canton Re Pk 10.4798 03053 34.33 <.0001 0.01 9.6935 11.2661 4
SWellsRdBr 11.2404 0.3053 36.82 <.00QI 0.01 10.4540 12.0267
B
LS-Means for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits
12
m
10
be
al 8 Acceptable=8
a
I
6
�O' Od "t4 �yaPq f 7dr�, d4F �NIG
,SSF -Qj. 164
Site
8
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Figure 2: Pooled Sept/Nov data, Summary Statistics for Characteristic Group =Water Color&
Clarity
Characteristic Group Water Color&Clarity(Acceptable=16)
Site Least Squares Means
F11F3FergusonBr
Estimate Standard Error r Value Pr> L�pha Lower Upper
Br 18.7738 0.6339 29.63 <,0001 0.01 17.1461 20.4116
r 19.1404 0.6339 30.20 <,0001 0.01 17.5076 20.7731
20.7721 0.6339 32.77 C0001 0.01 19.1394 22.4049
4 Clyde Br 16.7817 0.6339 26.48 C0001 0.01 15.1490 18.4145 +
5 TWckety 02 St 16.4663 0.6339 25.98 <,0001 0.01 14.8336 18.0991 I
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 13.7981 0.6339 21.77 <.0001 0.01 12.1653 15.4308
7 CautonRec Pk 22.6760 0.6339 35.77 <A001 0.01 21.0432 24.3087 j
SWellsRdBr 23.6154 0.6339 37.26 <.0001 0.01 21.9826 25.2481
LS-Means for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits
t
25
i
G1
En
a 20 {
be
i
a,
' w 1:
0 Acceptable=16
y 15
i
s
i
1
1 d 3 S d 1 6
94
I
Site
I
9
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

r Figure 3: Pooled Sept/Nov data, Summary Statistics for Characteristic Group = Recreation
Characteristic Group=Recreation(Acceptable=32)
Site Least Squares Means
Site Estimate Standard Error x Value Pr� Jxj Alpha Lower Upper 1
1 Browns Br 34.1894. 1.4924 22.91 <.0001 0.01 30.3451 38.0337
2 Hepco Br 35.3750 1.4924 2iM <0001 0.01 31.5307 39.2193
3 Ferguson Br 38.2971 1.4924. 25.66 <.0001 0.01 34.4528 42.1414
4 Clyde Br 30.6654 1.4924 2055 <.0001 0.01 26.8211 34.5097 i
5 Thickety 02 St 363019 1.4924 24.32 <0001 0.01 32.4576 40.1462 j
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 23.1825 1.4924 15.53 <0001 0.01 .19.3382 27.0268
7 CentonRec Pk 383106 1.4924 25.67 <0001 0.01 34.4663 42.1549
8 Wells RdBr 405962 1.4924 27.20 <.0001 0.01 36.7519 44.4404
- i
LS-Means for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits f
45
1
i
40
m
r �
,4 35
Acceptable=32
m �
30
w
O
177
i
20
�c t �'do P Q�,Q, A4.
446
P P!�'a� t tl�'PAc �7�r i
'� ..
i
Site
1
10
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

-1
Figure 4: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group =Scenic Beauty
Characteristic Group=Scenic Beauty
Medians for Site-30JUN2012(UR only)
With 99Y Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
7.0
6.0 I5.0
4.0
Acceptable=4
3.0
0
2.0
1.0
T 2 S v S 6 8
A
e1Ok yP Pi CL hi �6r Cd7 P
os AOOe �GTO aPg^. o,�P/y P°T/ r°o f9
Ire
' PPO^P °dPei
P S'P d'l0> ,all '➢r10' l�P
0'P Ad^�
11
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Figure 5: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group =Water Color& Clarity
Characteristic Group=Water Color&Clarity
Medians for Site-30JUN2012.(UR only)
With 99Y Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
15.0
14.0 7
13.0 TI Jb
12.0 Q
11.0 JI JIT,
10.0 y
9.0 11
Acceptable=8
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
F
d"O y06, T Pid CLO, I�iC �6�' Cd1.
00
O,, �20 °pp �P
_ OP P„f
I
12
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Figure 6: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group = Recreation
Characteristic Group=Recreation
Medians for Site-30JUN2012(UR only)
wth 99%Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
25.0 7ATII
1
20.0 I I
1
Acceptable=16
15.0
10.0
6^Ok, y06, �P� CyVP T�cL j6 CP7 �
cPe 4.O Bi •P� PLjjj IP P%? `rq
Sr
P C'P dFj% ij�r rlP' �P
O'P Ad'F
13
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Appendix A: Normality tests
_ I Test for Normality p-value
Site Characteristic Date Mean, SD Skewness__ _ _Kurtosis _ (Shipiro-Wilk(W))._.. _IWj_.
Clarity 30-Jun-12 5.7 1.2 -1.1470 1.0080 0.8554 0.0000
Clarity 15-Sep-12 - 4.6 1.3 0.0724 -0.9400 0.9537 0.0361
Clarity 30-Nov-12 4.9 1.2 -0.2193 -0.7437 0.9646 0.1389
Color 30-Jun-12 5.4 1.0 -0.4798 -0.6040 0.9130 0.0010
Color 15-Sep-12 4.5 1.1 -0.2566 -0.8609 0.9518 0.0299
Color 10-Nov-12 4.8 1.1 -0.0412 -0.1002 0.9666 0.1683
Fishing 3"un-12 5.4 1.4 -0.7392 -0.1319 0.8959 0.0003
Fishing 15-Sep-12 4.5 1.7 -0.4638 -1.0097 0.9118 0.0007
Fishing 30-Nov-12 5.0 1.4 -0.8532 0.1694 0.9280 0.0046
RCB 30-Jun-12 4.0 1.9 -0.0922 -1.1580 0.9333 0.0060
1 Browns Br RCB 15-Sep-12 3.5 1.6 0.2059 -1.1662 0.9316 0.0042
RCB 10-Nov-12 4.7 1.8 -0.5779 -0.9446 0.9068 0.0008
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 5.9 1.0 -0.5847 -0.8114 0.8548 0.0000
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 5.2 1.3 -0.7833 -0.3850 0.9007 0.0003
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 5.5 1.0 -0.2092 -0.9569 0.9410 0.0147
Swimming 30-Jun-12 3.7 1.9 0.0611 -1.0413 0.9332 0.0060
Swimming 15-Sep-12 3.2 1.2 0.1060 -1.0559 0.9426 0.0120
Swimming 30-Nov-12 3.8 1.9 0.0440 -1.1585 0.9438 0.0192
Wading 30-Jun-12 5.3 1.6 -0.7264 -0.4837 0.8860 0.0001
Wading 15-Sep-12 4.7 1.6 -0.6643 -0.8307 0.8781 0.0001
Wading 10-Nov-12 4.8 1.6 -0.2709 -1.4510 0.8943 0.0003
Clarity 30-1un-12 3.9 1.4 0.0236 -0.1947 0.9623 0.0981
Clarity 15-Sep-12 4.5 1.3 -0.4797 -0.6040 0.9364 0.0066
Clarity 10-Nov-12 5.2 1.3 -0.6976 -0.1372 0.9430 0.0178
Color 30-Jun-12 4.3 1.1 0.4432 0.0674 0.9239 0.0026
Color 15-Sep-12 4.5 1.2 -0.1618 -0.4966 0.9600 0.0688
Color 10-Nov-12 5.0 1.3 -0.6339 -0.2995 0.9411 0.0148
Fishing 30-Jun-12 5.3 1.6 -0.9247 0.1710 0.8671 0.0000
Fishing 15-Sep-12 4.5 1.6 -0.4161 -0.7298 0.9418 0.0111
Fishing 30-Nov-12 5.0 1.5 -0.7325 -0.4682 0.9109 0.0011
RCB 30-Jun-12 5.2 1.8 -0.7386 -0.7179 0.8593 0.0000
2 Hepco Br RCB 15-Sep-12 4.2 2.0 -0.2679 -1.5696 0.8600 0.0000
RCB 10-Nov-12 4.8 1.6 -0.9248 -0.1418 0.8906 0.0002
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 5.5 1.4 -0.6922 0.2042 0.8732 0.0001
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 1 5.3 1.1 -0.5368 -0.7479 0.9134 0.0008
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 1 5.6 1.1 -0.5738 -0.1772 0.9399 0.0134
Swimming 30-1un-12 4.1 - 1.8 -0.2468 -0.9950 0.9305 0.0047
Swimming 15-Sep-12 3.8 1.6 0.0394 -1.1288 0.9434 0.0130
Swimming 10-Nov-12 4.1 1.8 -0.3920 -1.1421 0.9217 0.0027
Wading 30-Jun-12 3.8 1.9 -0.0490 -1.0682 0.9341 0.0065
Wading 15-Sep-12 4.4 1.6 -0.1120 -1.1786 0.9435 0.0130
Wading 10-Nov-12 4.6 1.6 -0.4033 -0.7146 0.9561 - 0.0613
Clarity 30-1un-12 6.0 1.1 -0.7877 -0.3341 0.8454 0.0000
Clarity 15-Sep-12 4.9 1.3 0.0082 -0.9960 0.9435 0.0130
Clarity 10-Nov-12 5.7 1.3 -1.6838 2.4032 0.7952 0.0000
Color 30-Jun-12 5.7 1.1 -0.6638 -0.3054 0.8908 0.0002
Color 15-Sep-12 4.7 1.2 -0.1727 -0.8096 0.9373 0.0072
Color 10-Nov-12 5.6 1.3 -1.7554 2.9713 0.8039 0.0000
Fishing 30-Jun-12 5.4 1.4 -0.4926 -0.5981 0.9047 0.0005
Fishing 15-Sep-12 5.1 1.4 -0.6351 -0.6981 0.9073 0.0005
3 Ferguson Br Fishing 30-Nov-12 5.2 1.7 -1.2909 0.6297 0.8036 0.0000
RCB 30-Jun-12 4.6 1.7 -0.5695 -0.1687 0.9114 0.0009
RCB 15-Sep-12 4.6 1.4 -0.5599 -0.4428 0.9295 0.0035
RCB 30-Nov-12 4.9 1.7 -0.8319 -0.4693 0.8836 0.0001
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 5.4 1.3 -0.3835 -0.7144 0.8810 0.0001
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 5.2 1.2 -0.4032 -0.9881 0.9200 0.0015
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 5.9 1.1 -1.5433 3.0282 0.8629 0.0000
Swimming 30-Jun-12 4.0 1.8 -0.3423 -0.9159 0.9250 6.0029
14
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

--- - __-
Test for Norroahty p-value
Situ Characteristic - _ Date '_Mean SD,_-. ,Skewness Kurtosis,_ _. .. (Shipiro-Wilk(W)) ,_(W)____
_ Swimming 15-Sep-12 4.2 1.2 -0.0160 -0.5585 0.9645 0:1095
Swimming 10-Nov-12 4.5 2.1 -0.4610 -1.3181 0.8730 0.0001
Wading 30-Jun-12 5.4 1.4 -0.6737 -0.2003 0.9063 - 0.0006
Wading 15-Sep-12 4.9 1.4 -0.4680 -0.9686 0.9047 0.0004
Wading 10-Nov-12 5.0 1.8 -0.8105 -0.5319 0.8802 0.0001,
Clarity 30-Jun-12 5.2 1.5 - -0.5958 -0.4843 0.9094 0.0009
_ Clarity - 15-Sep-12 3.7- 1.4 0.0461 -0.8818 0.9575 0.0533
Clarity 10-Nov-12 5.0 1.3 -1.0872 0.9774 0.8948 0.0003
Color 30-Jun-12 4.9 1.4 -0.3121 -0.6349 0.9387 0.0109
Color 15-Sep-12 3.6 1.3 -0.0748 -1.2207 0.9361 0.0064
Color 30-Nov-12 4.7 1.2 -0.9393 0.2501 0.9017 0.0005
Fishing 30-Jun-12 5.3 1.9 -1.2347 0.4710 0.7950 0.0000
Fishing 15-Sep-12 4.3 1.5 -0.1517 -0.8047 0.9576 0.0538'
Fishing 10-Nov-12 4.2 1.6 -0.4500 -0.5239 0.9435 0.0186
RCB 30-1un-12 5.1 1.7 -1,0912 0.5249 0.8559 0.0000
4 Clyde Br RCB 15-Sep-12 4.3 1.7 -0.4481 -0.9550 0.9028 0.0004
RCB 10-Nov-12 4.5 1.6 -0.9176 -0.0966 0.8907 0.0002
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 4.8 1.5 -0.3352 -0.3296 0.9487 0.0257
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 4.1 1.6 -0.1614 -0.8359 0.9620 --..0.0850,
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 4.2 1.3 -0.1588 -0.6539 0.9526 0.0438
Swimming _ 30-Jun-12 3.9 1.8 -0.0985 -0.5959 0.9010 0.0005
Swimming 15-Sep-12 2.9 1.5 0.7278 -0.4895 0.8966 0.0002
Swimming 10-Nov-12 3.5 1.5 -0.4258 -0.9754 0.9100 _ 0.0010
Wading 30-Jun-12 4.7 1.9 '-0.6594 -0.5306 0.8881 0.0002
Wading 15-Sep-12 3.3 1.6 0.5590 -0.7583 0.9066 0.0005
Wading 10-Nov-12 3.7 1.6 -0.1404 -0.7562 0.9526 0.0437
Clarity 30-Jun-12 4.0 1.6 -0.0927 - -0.1342 0.9532 0J7756
Clarity 15-Sep-12 3.7 1.4 0.1817 -0.8438 0.9507 0.0267
r Clarity 10-Nov-12 4.7 1.3 -1.1504 1.3329 0.9003 0.0006
Color 30-Jun-12 4.0 1.2 -0.2113 1.5006 0.9183 0.0409
Color 15-Sep-12 3.7 1.2 0.1705 -0.3318 , 0.9760 0.3484
Color 10-Nov-12 4.6 1.2 -1.1785 1.7582 0.9100 0.0012
Fishing. 30-1un-12 6.0 1.4 -1.4836 1.4610 0.7552 0.0000
Fishing 15-Sep-12 5.2 1.5 -0.7858 -0.0708 0.9138 0.0009
Fishing 10-Nov-12 4.5 2.1 -0.4100 -1.3286 0.8873 0.0002
.RCB 30-Jun-12 5.4 1.5 -1.0316 1.0935 0.8842 0.0071
5 Thickety 02 St RCB 15-Sep-1.2 4.9 1.6 -0.8816 -0.1234 0.8871 0.0001
RCB 10-Nov-12 4.4 1.9 -0.4959 -0.9946. 0.9106 0.0011
Scenic Beauty. 30-Jun-12 5.5 1.2 -0.4829 -0.6242 0.9047 0.0017•
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 5.0 1.4 0.6920 -0.1412 0.9287 0.0032
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 5.2 1.2 -1.3293 2.0103 0.8838 0.0001
Swimming 3D-lun-12 4.9 1.7 -0.6340 -0.2721 0.9186 0.0476
Swimming 15-Sep-12 4.5 1.8 -0.5093 -1.0732 0.8924 0.0002
Swimming 10-Nov-12 3.7 2.1 0.1127 -L4282 0.9063 0.0008
Wading 30-Jun-12 4.7 1.8 -0.4245 -0.8346 0.9214 0.0485
Wading 15-Sep-12 4.7 1.7 -0.6997 -0.6703 0.8915 0.0001
Wading 10-Nov-12 4.3 2.1 -0.2741 -1.4741 0.8904 0.0002
Clarity 30-Jun-12 4.5 1.6 -0.0497 -0.5650 0.9277 - 0.0683
Clarity 15-Sep-12 3.3 1.3 0.3467 -0.3209 0.9479 0.0203 .
Clarity 30-Nov-12 3.7 1.3 -0.0839 -0.8713 0.9643 i0.1342
Color 30-Jun-12 4.4 15 -0.4541 0.3708 0.9262 0.0711
Color 15-Sep-12 3.31 1.2 0.3556 -0.0747 0.9234 0.0020
Color 10-Nov-12 3.5 1.4 -0.1746 -0.9333 0.9550 0.0551-
6 Fibreville Mix Zn Fishing 30-1un-12 3.8 2.1 0.0917 -1.2508 0.9163 0.0368
Fishing. 15-Sep-12 3.2 1.7 0.5117 -0.9D46 0.8760 0.0000
Fishing 10-Nov-12 2.7 1.5 0.3584 -1.2315 0.8945 0.0003
RCB 30-lun-12 4.7 1.8 -0.7064 -0.2734 0.9017 0.0171
RCB 15-Sel�12 3.5 1.5 0.3538 -0.9245 0.9333 0.0049
RCB 10-Nov-12 3.2 1.6 0.2023. -1.1132 0.9252 0.0037
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 3.2 1.6 0.6974 0.0631 0.9037 0.0014
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 3.3 1.5 0.3422 -0.5173 0.9490 0.0226
15
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. ,

/- -- - - - - -- 'n -- -- -- Test for Normality ;p value
Slte� Characteristic .Date_ Mean. _ 50' Skewness Kurtosis _(Shipiro-Wilk(W)) . __(W) _
Scenic Beauty - 10-Nov-12 2.8 1.2 0.0969 -1.1562 _ 0.9465 0.0246
Swimming 30-Jun-12 3.0 1.7 0.7066 -0.4533 0.9046 0.0198
Swimming 15-Sep-12 2.8- 1.3 0.7775 -0.4195 0.8794 ..0.0001
Swimming 10-Nov-12 2.3 1.3 0.6022 -0.8400 0.8690 0.0001
Wading 30Jun-12 3.6 1.9 --0.2538 -1.1760 0.9215 '0.0487
Wading 15-Sep-12 2.8 1.4 1.1823 0.6952 _ 0.8511 0.0000
Wading 10-Nov-12 2.6 1.6 0.5352 -1.2006 0.8526 0.0000
Clarity 30-Jun-12 6.6 0.7 -1.5345 1.1131 0.6433 0.0000
Clarity 15-Sep-12 6.0 0.8 -1.0193 0.8728 0.8826 D.0001
Clarity 10-Nov-12 5.6 1.0 -1.7527 4.0590 0.8417 0.0000
Color 30-Jun-12 6.3 0.9 -1.1696 0.4467 0.7603 0.0000
Color 15-Sep-12 5.8 1.0 -1.3522 2.3000 0.8726 0.0000
Color 10-Nov-12 5.3 1.2 -1.3838 2.3185 0.8717 0.0001
Fishing 30-Jun-12 6.0 -1.0 -0.6591 -0.7281 0.8549 0.0018
Fishing 15-Sep-12 4.9 1.5 -0.5377 -0,8296 0.9212 0.0017
Fishing 10-Nov-12 4.8 1:7 -1.1224 0.4242 0.8652 0.0000
RCB 30-Jun-12 5.8 1.2 -0.4936 -1.3266 0.8250 0.0005
7 Canton Rec Pk RCB 15-Sep-12 4.7 1.7 -0.5617 -0.7437 0.9088 0.0006
RCB 10-Nov-12 4.7 1.8 -1.0136' -0.0800 0.8540 0.0000
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 5.9 1.0 -0.5346 -0.9401 0.8536 0.0000
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 5.5 1.1 -0.7187 0.3395 0.9081 '0.0005
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 5.0 1.1 -0.5396 0.6921 0.9610 '0.0976,
Swimming 30-Jun-12 5.2 1.9 -0.7625 -0.6661 0.8623 0.0025
Swimming 15-Sep-12 4.6 1.6 -0.3862 -0.6084 0.9403 N 0.0096
Swimming 10-Nov-12 4.1 1.9 -0.3369 -1.3044 0.9093 0.0010
Wading 30-Jun-12 6.1 1.1 -0.8842 -0.4649 0.7973 0.0002
Wading 15-Sep-12 5.7 1.3 -1.6840 - 2.6268 0.8005 0.0000
Wading 30-Nov-12 4.8 1.6 -0.6883 -0.3955 0.9289 0.0050
Clarity 30-Jun-12 5.8 1.1 -0.5122 -0.8088 0.8781 0.0001
Clarity 15-Sep-12 6.0 0.8 -0.7459 -0.5528 0.8660 0.0000
Clarity 10-Nov-12 6.3 1.0 -2.4906 5.8237 0.6388 0.0000
Color 30-Jun-12 5.5 1.2 -0.4554 _-0.7789 0.9008 0.0004
Color 15-Sep-12 5.4 1.0 -0.4053 -0.4004 0.9564 0.0478
Color 10-Nov-12 1 6.0 1.3 -2.5091 6.1070 0.6590 0.0000
Fishing 30-Jun-12 5.8 1.2 -1.4164 2.9810 0.8403,' 0.0000
Fishing 15-Sep-12 5.5 0.9 -0.7157 -0.0523 - 0.9152 0.0010
Fishing 10-Nov-12 5.0 1.7 -0.9752 -0.0962 0.8739 0.0001
RCB 30-Jun-12 5.8 1.1 -0.7782 -0.2278 0.8618. 0:0000
8 Wells Rd Br RCB 15-Sep-12 5.6 1.2 -1.6023 2.9495 0.8303 0.0000
RCB 10-Nov-12 5.3 1.7 -1.2406 0.4471 0.8224 0.0000
Scenic Beauty 30-Jun-12 5.9 0.9 -0.7562 0.4994 0.8811 0.0001
Scenic Beauty 15-Sep-12 5.7 0.9 -0.4185 -0.9480 0.9160 0.0011
Scenic Beauty 10-Nov-12 1 5.6 1.2 -1.3202 1.1821 0.8524 0.0000
Swimming 30-Jun-12 5.2 1.7 -1.0623 0.2933 0.8548 0.000o
Swimming 15-Sep-12 4.9 1.5 -0.6032 -0.5507 0.9260 0.0025
Swimming 10-Nov-12 4.7 2.0 -0.5595 -1.1218 0.8814 0.0001
Wading 30-Jun-12 5.3 1.6 -0.6463 -0.3883 0.8964 0.0003
Wading 15-Sep-12 4.8 1.5 -0.5979 -0.4939 0.9379 0.0076
Wading _ 10-Nov-12 4.8 2.0 -0.6617 -0.9659 0.8718 0.0001
a
l
16
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Appendix B: Bonferroni Pairwise Comparison Test Statistics for Pooled
Sept/Nov Data
Characteristic Group =Scenic Beauty
Differences of Site least Squares Means
Adimtrnent for Multiple Comparisons:Bonferroni
Standard - Ad
Sites _ Site2_ _ Estimate Error zValue Pr> z Ad'P Alpha Lower Upper lower
1 Browns Or 2 Hepco Or -0.1608 0.4317 -0.42 0.6754 1 0.01 -1,2928 0.9313 -L722
1 Browns Or 3 Ferguson Or -0.2654 0.4317 -0.61 0.5387 1 0.01 -1.3774 0.8467 -L8066
1 Browns Or 4Clyde Or 2.3519 0.4317 5.45 <0001 <0001 0.01 1.2399 3.464 . 0.8107
1 Browns Or 5ThJckety02St 0.501 0.4317 1.16 0.2459. 1 0.01 -0.6111 1.613 -1.0403
1 Browns Or 6Fibrevtlle Mix Zn 4.6404. .D.4517 10.75 <0001 <0001 0.01 3.5233 5.7524 3.0992
1 Browns Or 7Canton Rec Pk 0.2558 0.4317 0.59 0,5536 1 0.01 -0.8563 1.3678 -1.2854
113rowns Br 8 Wells Rd Or -O.SMS 0.4317. -L37 0.2423 1 0.01 -1.6169 0.6072 -2.046
2 Hepco Br 3 Ferguson Or -0.03462 0.4317 -0.2 0.3446 1 0.01 -1.1967 1.0274 -1.6258
2 Hepco Or 4Clyde Or 25327 0.4317 5.37 <0601 <0001 0.01 1.4206 3.6447 0.9915
2Hepco Or - SThickety02St 0.6817 0.4317 L58 0.1143 1 0.01 -0.4303 1.7938 -0.8595
2 Hepm Or 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 4.8212 0.4317 LL17 <0001 <0001 0.01 3.7091 5.9332 3.2799
2 Hepco Or 7Cardon Rec Pk 0.4365 OA317 1.07 0.3119 1 0.01 -0.6755 1.5486 -1.1047
2Hepco.Br 8Wells Rd Or -0.324 OA317 -0.75 0.4529 1 0.01 -1.4361 0.788 -1.8653
3 Ferguson Or 4 Clyde Or 2.6173 0.4317 6.06 <0001 <0001 0.01 L5053 3.7294 1.0761
3 Ferguson 8r SThicketyUSt 0.7663 0.4317 L78 0.0759 1 0.01 -0.3457 1.8784 -0.7749 .
3 Ferguson Or 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 4.9058 0.4317 1L36 <00M <,0001 0.01- 3.7997- 6.0178 3.3646
3 Ferguson Or 7 Canton Rec Pk 0.5212 0AW L21 0.2274 1 0.01 -0.5909 1.6332 -1.0201
' 3 Ferguson Or 8 Wells Rd Or -0.2394 OA317 -055 0.5792 1 0.01 -1.3515 0.8726, -L7806
4Clyde Or 5Thicke 025t -1.851 0.4317 A29 <0001 0.0005 0.01 -2.963 -0.7399 -3.3922
14CI de Or 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 2.288 W 5 0.4317 5.3 <0001 < Oi 0.01 1.1764 3.4005 0.7472
4ClydeOr 7 Canton Rec Pk -2.0962 . 0.4317 -4.86 <0001 <OOD1 0.01 -3.2082 -0.9841 -3.6374
4 Clyde Or 8 Wells Rd Or =2.8567 OA317 -6.62 <.0001 <0001 0.01 -3.9698 -1.7447 4.3979
15Thickety02M 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 4.1394 0.4317 9.59 <co01 <0001 0.01 3.0274 5.2515 25982
_ [5-rhickety 02 St 7Canton Rec Pk -0.2452 0.4317 -M57 05701 1 0.01 -1.3572 0.8669 -1.7864
S Thickely 025t 8Wells Rd Br -L0058 0.4317 -2.33 0.0193 0.5551 0.01 -2.1178 0.1063 -2.547
6FIbrevIIIe Mix Zn 7Canton Rec Pk -4.3B46 0.4317 -10.161 <0001 <,0001 0.01 -5.4967 -3.2726 -5.9258
6 Fibrevtlle MixZn 8 Wells Rd Or -5.1452 OA317 -1L92 <00M <0001 0.02 -6.2572 -4.0331 -6.6864
7Canton Rec Pk' 8Wells Rd Br -0.7606 OA317 -L76 0.0781 1 0.01 -1.8726 0.3575 -23018
17
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Characteristic Group =Water Color& Clarity
_ 'Differences of Site Least Squares Means
Ad'ustmentfor Multi Ie Comparisons:Bonferroni
Standard - I - Adj
Isitel Site2 Estimate Error i Value Pr>Izi Adj P AI ha Lower Upper lower
1 Browns Br 2 Hepco Or -0.3615 0.8964 -0.4 0.6867 1 0.01 -2.6706 1.9475 3.5617
1 Browns 8r 3 Ferguson Or -1.9933 0.8964 -2.22 0.0262 0.733 0.01 -4.3023 0.3158 -5.1934
1 Br0 ns Br 4Clyde Or 1.9971 0.8964 2.23 0.0259 0:7249 0.01 -0.3119 4.3062 -1.203
10rowns Br 5ThicketyUSt 2.3125 0.8964 2.58 0.0099 0.2769 0.01 0.00346 4.6215 0.8876
1 Browns Or 6Fibreville Mix Zn 4.9808 0.8964 5.56 <0001 <.0001 0.01 2.6717 7.289E 1.7806
1 Browns Or 7Canton Rea Pk -3.8971 0.8964 -4.35 <.0001 0.0004 0.01 -6.2062 -1.5881 -7.0973
1 Browns Or 8WeIIs Rd Or -4.83651 0.8964 -5.4 <.0001 <0001 0.01 -7.1456 -15275 -8.0367
2 Hepco Or 3Ferguson Or -1.63171 0.8964 -1.82 0.0687 1 0.01 -3.9408 0.6773 -4.8319
2 Hepco Or 4Clyde Or 2.3587 0.8954 Z63 0.0085 0.2383 0.01 0.04961 4.6677 -0.8415
2 Hepco Or 5Thickety02St 2.674 0.8964 2.98 0.0029 0.0799 0.01 0.365 4.9331 -0.5261
2 Hepco Or 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 5.3423 0.8964 5.96 <0001 <0001 0.01 3.0333 7.6513 2.1422
2 Hepco Or 7Canton Rea Pk -3.5356 0.8964 -3.94 <.0001 0.0022 0.01 -5.8446 -1.2265 -6.7357
2 He co Or S Wells Rd Or -4.475 0.8964 -4.99 <.0001 <0001 0.01 -6.784 -2.166 -7.6751
3Ferguson Or 4Clyde Or 3.9904 0.8964 4.45 <0001 0.0002 0.01 1.6813 6.2994 0.7902
3 Ferguson Or 5Th1ckety025t 4.3058 0.8954 4.8 <.0001 <0001 0.01 1.9967 6.6148 1.1056
3Ferguson Or 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 6.974 0.8964 7.78 <.0001 <0001 O.ol 4.665 9.2831 3.7739
3 Ferguson Or 7Canton Rea Pk -1.9038 0.8964 -2.12 0.0337 0.9432 0.01 -4.2129 0.4052 -5.104
13 Ferguson Or 8 Wells RdOr -2.8433 0.8964 -3.17 0.0015 0.0424 0.01 -5.1523 -0.5342 -6.0434
4Clyde Or 5Thlckety02St 0.3154 0.8964 0.35 0.725 1 0.01 -1.9937 2.6244 -2.8848
4C1 de Br 6Fibreville.Mix Zn 2.9837 0.8964 3.33 0.0009 0.0245 0.01 0.6746 5.2927 -0.2165
4 C1 de Br 7 Canton Rec Pk -5.8942 0.8964 -6.58 <.0001 <.0001 0.01 -8.2033 -3.5852 -9.0944
4CIjde Br swells Rd Or -6.8337 0.8964 -7.62 <.0001 <0W1 0.01 -9:1427 -4.5246 -10.0338
5Thlckety02St 6Fibreville Mix Zn 2.6683 0.8964 2.98 0.0029 0.0816 0.01 0.3592 49773 -0.5319
�SThlcketV02St 7Canton Rea Pk -6.2096 0.8964 -6.93 <W01 <A001 0.01 -9.5187 -3.9006 -9.4098
5Thicke 025t SWells Rd Or -7.149 0.8964 -7.98 <0001 <0801 6.01 -9.4581 -4.84 -10.3492
�6Fibreville Mix Zn 7Canton Rec Pk -8.8779 0.8964 -9.9 <.0001 --cool 0.01 -11.1869 -6.5688 -12.078
6Fibreville Mix Zn 8WeIIs Rd Br -9.8173 0.8964 -30.95 --.cool <,0p01 0.01 -12.1263 -7.5083 -13.0174
,7Canton Rea Pk 8 Wells Rd Or -0.9394 0.8964 -1.05 0.2947 1 0.01 -3.2485 L3696 -4.1396
18
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Characteristic Group=Recreation
_ Differences of Site Least Squares Means
•AdjustmentforM iti le Comparisons:Bonferroni
_ 'standard - Adj
Sitel Site2 Estimate Error z Value Pr>Iz Pull AI ha Lower Lippe Lower
1 Browns Br 2He oo Br -1.1856 2.3.106 -0.56 0.5743 1 0.01 -6.6222 4.2511 -8.7203
11 Browns Br 3 Ferguson Br -4.1077 '2.1106 -1.95 0.0516 1 0.01 -9.5443 1,3299 -11.6424
1 Browns Br 4 Clyde Br 3.524 2.1106 1.67 0.095 1 0.01 -1.9126 8.9607 -4.0107
1 Browns Br SThickety025t -2.1125 2.1106 -1 0.3169 1 0.01 -7.5491 3.3241 -9.6472
1 Browns Br 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 11.0069 2.1106 5.21 <.0001 <.0001 0.01 5.5703 16.4436 3.4722
�1 Browns Br 7Canton Rec Pk -4.1212 2.1106 -1.95 0.0509 1 0.01 -9.5578 1.3155 -11.6559
1 Browns Br 8WeIIs Rd Br -6.4067 2.1106 -3.04 0.0024 0.0672 0.01 -11.8434 -0.9701 -13.9414
2 Hepco Br 3 Ferguson Br -2.9221 2.1106 -1.38 0.1652 1 0.01 -8.3587 Z5145 -10.4568
2He ooOr 4CIyde Br 4.7096 2.1106 2.23 0.0257 0.7184 0.01 -0.727 10.1462 -2.8251
2 Hepco Br SThickety02St -0.9269 2.1106 -0.44 0.6605 1 0.01 -5.3636 45097 -8.4616
2 Hepco Br 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 121925 2.1106 5.78 <0001 <0001 0.01 6.7559 17.6291 4.6578
2 Hepco Br 7Canton Rec Pk -2.9356 2.1106 -L39 0.1643 1 0.01 -3.3722 2.5011 -10.4703
12HepcoBr 8WeIIs Rd Br -5.2212 2.1106 -2.47 0.0134 0.3744 0.01 -10.6578 0,2155 -12.7559
3 Ferguson Br 4 Clyde Br 7.6317 2.1106 3.62 0.0003 0.0084 0.01 2.1951 13.06841 0.09702
3 Ferguson Br 5Thickety02St IM52 2.1106 0.95 0.3445 1 0.01 -3.4414 7.4318 -55395
3 Ferguson or 6 Fibreville Mix Zn 151146 2.1106 7.16 <.0001 <.0001 0.01 9.678 20.5512 7.5799
3 Ferguson Br 7Canton Rec Pk -0.01346 2.1106 -0.01 0.9949 1 0.01 -5.4501 5.4232 -7.5482
13 Ferguson Or 8 Wells Rd Br -2.299 2.1106 -1.09 0.276 1 0.01 -7.7357 3.1376 -9.8337
4CIyde Br 5Thickety02St -5.6365 2.1106 -2.67 0.0076 0.212 0.01 -11.0732 -0.1999 -13,1712
4Clyde Br 6 Fibreville.Mix Zn 7.4829 2.1106 3.55 0.0004 •0.011 0.01 2.0463 12.9195 -0.05182
4 Clyde Br 7Canton Rec Pk -7.6152 2.1106 -3.62 0.0003 0.0082 0.01 -13.0818 -2.2096 -15.1799
4 Clyde Br 8 Wells Rd Br -9.9303 2.1106 -4.71 <0001 <0001 0.01 -15.3674 4.4941 -17.4655
S Thickety 025t 6Fibreville Mix Zn 13.1194 2.1106 6.22 <,0001 <,0001 0.01 7.6828 18.5561 5.5847
SThlckety O2St 7Canton Rec Pk -2.0087 2.1106 -0.95 0.3413 1 0.01 7.4453 3.428 -95434
15ThicketyO2St 8 Wells Rd Br -4.2942 2.1106 -2.03 0.0419 1 0.01 -9.7309 1.1424 -11.8289
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 7Canton Rec Pk -15.1281 2.1306 -7.1.7 <0601 <.0001 0.01 -20.5647 -9.6914 -22.6628
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 8 Wells Rd Br -17.4137 2.1106 -6.25 <0601 <,0001 0.01 -22.8503 -11.977 -24.9484
7Canton Rec Pk IBWellsRdBr -2.2856 2.1106 -LOB 0.2789 1 0.01 -7.7222 3.1511 -9.82W
r�
19
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Appendix C: Kruskal-Wallis Multiple Comparison Test Statistics for June Data
Characteristic Group=Scenic Beauty
Nonparamettie One-WayANOVA
The NPARINVAY Procedure
chargoup=Beauty
Median Scores(Number of Point sAbovehfedian)for Variable SUM-of Rating
Classified by Variable Site
Sum of Expected Std Der Mean
Site N Scores UnderHO Unde:HO Stare
1 Brmms Br 26 18.000000 12937198 2374333 OAM08
2 Hepco Br 25 12333333 12.439614 2334649 0.493333
3 Fergumn Br 26 14.000OW 12.937199 2374333 0.538462
4 Clyde Bt 26 9.666667 12.937198 2374333 0371795
5Thirke1yMSt 26 11.000000 12937198 2374333 0.423077
6 FibmiM N&x 7n 26 4.000000 12.937198 2374333 0.153846
7 Canton Res Pk 26 18.000000 12.93719S 2374333 0.692308
8 Wells RdBr 26 16.00WW 12.937199 2374333 0.615385
Average scores vote used for ties.
Median One-Way Analysis
Chi-square 24.2132
DF 7
Pr>.Chi-Square 0.0010
Generated by the SAS System('SASApp,X64 S08R2)on lanvary2l,2013 at 11:57:46 PM
Characteristic Group =Water Color& Clarity
Nonparametric One-lVayANOVA
The NPARIWAY Procedure
chatgroupAVater
Median Scores Number of Points Abovenfedian)for Variable SUM of Rating
Classified by Variable Site
Sam of Expected Std Der :Beau
Site N Scores UnderHO UnderHO Store
IBronnsBr 52 36.571429 26.0 3263526 0.703297
2 Hepco Br 52 13.714296 26.0 3.263526 0.263736
3 Ferguson Br 52 36-957143 26.0 3263526 0.708791
4 Clyde Br 52 28.295714 26.0 3263526 0-543956
511iickety02St 52 7.428571 26.0 3263526 0.142957
6 HwL%i0e IY&x 7a 52 14.857143 26.0 3263526 0295714
7 Canton Rec Pk- 52 45.142957 26.0 3263526 0S63132
S Wells Rd Br 52 25.142857 26.0 3263526 0.483516
Average scores note used for ties
Median One-Way Analysis
Chi-Square 1003967
DF 7
&>Chisgaare <0001
Genemtedbythe SAS System CSASApp,30& SOM2)on 7anuary2l,2013 at 11:57.46 PM
20
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

Characteristic Group = Recreation
Non1mrsmetric Oae-WayAMVA
7heNPARIWAY lIvoaedure
dargmup=Rec
Median Scores(Number of Points Abocehledian)for Variable Sllilf of Rating
Classified by Variable Site
Sbmof Expected -Rd Dec Mean
Site N Scores UnderHO Under HO, Score
I Browns Br 104 26.117647 52.0 4.630068 0.251131
2 Hepco Br 104 44.235294 52.0 4.630068 0.425339
3 Fergumn Br 104 54.117647 52.0 4.630068 0-520362
4 Cl5de Br 104 60-000000 52.0 4.630068 0576923
5I1ur1rety02St 104 63294118 52.0 4-630068 0.608597
6 Fibreville Mix 7h 104 27-05SS24 52.0 4.630069 0.260191
7 Canton Rec Pk 104 75-058824 52.0 4.630069 0.721719
8 Welis Rd Br 104 66.117647 52.0 4.630068 0.635747
Amezage mores we re osedfor lies
\ledian One-Way Analysis
Chi-Square 93.0323
DF 7
Fr>Cbi-Square <0001
Genemtad by the SAS System CSAS.W,X64 SO8R2)on danuasy21,2013 at 11:5146 PV1
21
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

ABOUT PINNACLE SOLUTIONS
Formed in 1996 by founder and President DJ Penix, Pinnacle Solutions' mission is to empower
Y
clients to analyze and interpret the "mountain" of data that they collect and utilize to run their
department, division, or company. Pinnacle Solutions adopted the SAS system, one of the most
prominent analytic and reporting tools since the late 1970s, as the primary programming language for
development of custom analytic applications.
Pinnacle Solutions' focus from day one has.been the life sciences market. The earliest projects
delivered by the company's consultants involved development of SAS-based applications for clinical
trials data analysis and reporting at Eli Lilly and Company. Pinnacle Solutions also entered the
manufacturing sector, creating a custom SAS Internet-based SPC application for manufacturing
process improvement at medical device company Roche Diagnostics.
As the company completed projects, clients requested additional services. Pinnacle Solutions'
offerings gradually expanded to include all phases of the systems development life cycle (SDLC). In
an effort to provide fully documented and validated software, the company created service teams in
technical writing and validation & testing. Veteran statisticians were added to the Pinnacle Solutions
team to help clients interpret data and to ensure that SAS applications incorporated sound analysis
techniques. In 2001, Pinnacle Solutions' launched the.Solutions Development Center as a complete
outsourced SAS application development resource for the United States marketplace. In 2004, the
Solutions Development Center expanded to encompass project management services as well as to
create graphical user interfaces for web and stand-alone products.
Focused on providing innovative solutions that integrate with SAS, Pinnacle Solutions introduced
their Backpack Solution Kit in 2010. Comprised of a tools such as Pinnacle Compass, Binoculars,
Shelter, and First Aid Kit,the Backpack Solution Kit has as set of must have tools that help customers
with their data needs.
Today, Pinnacle Solutions is a SAS Alliance Partner, a Futrix business partner and continues to
expand their offering by now selling SAS software directly to its clients. Pinnacle Solutions has
been the number one SAS reseller in the Midwest since 2007 and has had the highest sales volume of
any reseller in the United States since 2009.
From a concept to a complete implementation, Pinnacle Solutions' full service offering includes
everything a company needs to build a customizable Business Intelligence and Analytic solution from
scratch. The company's corporate offices and Solutions Development Center are located in downtown
Indianapolis. Pinnacle Solutions has clients in numerous industries such as Biotechnology, Clinical
Research, Communications, Education, Financial, Government, Healthcare, Insurance,
Manufacturing, Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical, and Retail, Pinnacle Solutions' services empower
companies to rise to a higher level of clarity,thus increasing work output and profitability.

426 East New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317.423.9143
MIA LYST mia.lyst @psiconsultants.com
CAREER SUMMARY
o A results-driven technical leader with over 15 years of experience in applied statistics, data
management and data analysis, application development and project leadership.
o A self-motivated individual contributor who has successfully implemented several innovative solutions
to advance process understanding, to enable process improvements, and to support root-cause
investigations thereby maximizing operational excellence.
o An effective mentor who is passionate about improving the technical skills of others across the
organization empowering them to perform their jobs better.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. Indianapolis, IN Nov 2012- Present
Director, Development and Business Analytics
Manage the Development and Statistical groups. Lead and direct the application of advanced analytical
processes, quantitative methodologies, and visualization techniques to complex business problems across
multiple industry issues or functional domains.
Roche Diagnostics Indianapolis, IN 2007—2012
Lead cross-functional projects that focus on process or product improvements and efficiencies for
Diabetes Care strip manufacturing and product quality. Propose and apply statistical methodologies to
enable multi-factorial understanding of complex processes. Provide and implement innovative business
intelligence systems for data integration, data analysis and data management.
Principal Scientist—Product Development& Product Performance 2009 -Present
o Implemented multivariate analysis, Design of Experiments and EVOP designs to identify critical
parameters in the manufacturing process that can be used to adjust product performance.
o Enabled continuous monitoring of the strip production process as well as immediate access to
summarized process and performance data for product performance investigations.
o Collaborated with cross-functional project teams to incorporate new data sources into a business
data warehouse(s) and utilize business intelligence tools to develop prototypes, reports and
visualizations that allow data to be analyzed and acted upon.
o Mentored and guided individuals in the use of data extraction and statistical analysis tools and
techniques.
o Designed and proposed a new calibration process being developed for the next generation of bGM
systems which implements Quality by Design principles in the strip manufacturing process.
o Increased yields for No Code bGM systems by as much as 5% prior to product launch.
Process Scientist—Product Development 2007-2009
o Implemented systems that have realized an estimated YTD cost savings of$500K and an estimated
yearly cost savings of$400K.
o Reduced cycle time of a calibration process by an average of 2-3 days per cycle.
o Ensured product and/or process improvements were validated and met specifications and
requirements according to Roche Quality System procedures.
n

MIA LYST Page 3
o Performed project management tasks such as budget planning, resource allocation, scheduling and
working with internal and external vendors.
Lyst Consulting, LLC Indianapolis, IN 2005 - 2007
Owner/SAS and Statistical Consultant
o Started a consulting company which focused on providing statistical and data analysis support to
pharmaceutical and medical device companies.
o Developed and verified statistical applications used for data analysis and report generation.
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. Indianapolis, IN 2001 - 2004
Director of Programming Services/Project Leader
o Helped define the mission and vision of the company.
o Involved in the hiring process of potential employees and consultants and defined performance
metrics of employees.
o Led the development of statistical applications used to analyze and generate reports on clinical and
research data.
Roche Diagnostics Indianapolis, IN 1998 - 2001
Quality Engineer and Process Analyst
o Performed statistical analysis (e.g. Design of Experiments, SPC, Gage R&R, ANOVA analysis, and
hypothesis testing) that allowed manufacturing engineers and QA management to understand the
variability of the process and the impact of changes made to the process.
o Implemented new statistical procedures to improve strip manufacturing process control.
o Developed a web-based intranet application that provided continuous monitoring and quality control
feedback of the manufacturing process
Boehringer Mannheim Indianapolis, IN 1996 - 1998
Applied Mathematician and Statistician
EDUCATION
Purdue University at IUPUI Indianapolis, IN 1991 - 1994
M.S. in Applied Statistics
St. Mary's College Notre Dame, IN 1987 - 1991
B.S. in Mathematics, Minor in Business
COMPUTER EXPERIENCE
Programming languages: SAS, SQL, HTML, XML
Tools: SAS/EG, SAS/BI Server and Client Tools, SAS Base/Foundation, JMP, SimcaP+, Stat-Ease,
Microsoft Office, MS Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft SQL Server, Rational Requisite Pro Suite

MIA LYST Page 3
RECOGNITIONS
Healthcare Businesswomen's Association Committee member(2013) —Volunteer as a
Corporate Relations committee member for the HBA Indiana chapter.
WLI Community Impact Committee member (201.2)—Selected to be a Committee member of the
Roche Women's Leadership Initiative.
ASPIRE Mentee (2011-2012) —Selected to participate in Roche's leadership training program.

426 East New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-423-9143 x8081
MONICA GEHLHAUSEN monica.gehlhausen@psic:onsultants.com
SKILLS
• SAS (Enterprise Guide, Enterprise Miner, Management Console, Information Map Studio,Web Report Studio, Portal,
Sentiment Analysis Studio),SAS Certified Predictive Modeler
• Microsoft Office(Word,Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher)
• Strong Written/Verbal Communication
• Six Sigma Black Belt Trained • Leadership' • Strong Work Ethic
• Minitab • Teaching/Training Meticulous
• Project Management a Client Relations
STATISTICAL EXPERIENCE
Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., Indianapolis, IN June zolz—Present
Data Scientist
Create analyses that have impacts on business through optimization,segmentation, prediction analysis,and simulations.
Interpret the results and empowerthe client to understand and use the information gleaned.
• Cleanse and prepare data,create necessary variables, analyze through various modeling techniques.
• Transfer knowledge of projects'architecture and purpose to clients so that they may continue to use the SAS
software themselves
• Segmentation analysis of client's customer base to create distinct customer categories and created predictive model
to capture the target customer.
iinTek Consulting,Atlanta,GA Feb 2022—Present
Analyst and Trainer
Analyze a multitude of different work systems based on Six Sigma project goals.
• Reduced heat rate loss through system optimization, simulated the financial savings, and will be implementing the
project in at least two of the power plants for Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
• Optimized inventory by analyzing shipments through container mix,frequency, and inventory turn.
• Teach and train future Six Sigma Green Belts.
University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN Fall Semester zolz
Adjunct Faculty
Teaching Introduction to Statistics to non-math majors. Responsible for all instruction, homework&tests,grading, and
office hours.
OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE
Five Star Dance Studios, Indianapolis, IN March 2004—May zolz
Manager,Trainer
Drove 53%revenue growth, achieving$1.2M in annual sales,while greatly increasing profitability.Act as both chief
administrator of growing 5-1S person staff and principal liaison to too+students/client families at every stage of relationship
with studio;drive innovative sales,training,and customer relations.
• Eliminated account delinquency issues affecting approximately 5o%of total account base by streamlining payment
systems and processes, bringing current all active students and many past-due accounts.
• Eliminated nearly S5oK in annual refunds caused by customer dissatisfaction by retraining office and teaching staff in
professional procedures and personalized sales presentation methods.Also initiated regular progress checks and 1-
on-i attention for students.
• Spearheaded move to quantitative, metric-based performance evaluations permitting merit-based bonuses.

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Statistics, Miami University, Oxford, OH, GPA 3.zo, December zoil
Graduate Project with Eli Lilly&Company,Indianapolis, IN
• Analyzed different methods to discover a more robust and less bias method of calculating the minimum significant
ratio(MSR)for different biological assays.
• Streamlined SAS coding used for calculations.
• Modified existing simulations to check the robustness and bias of several different methods to find the optimal
method.
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis,IN,magna cum laude, GPA 3.791,May zoos

I&EXd(OlBliTi ,
A � resources I water, air, earth
optimizing
MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E., BCEE
EDUCATION:
M.S.,Environmental& Water Resources Engineering,Vanderbilt University,Nashville, Tennessee, 1979
B.S.,Nuclear Engineering,University of Tennessee,Knoxville,Tennessee, 1972
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES:
Professional Engineer: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North
Carolina,Ohio,Oklahoma,Oregon,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island,South Carolina,Tennessee,Texas,Virginia,West
Virginia,Wisconsin
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS:
American Nuclear Society,Member
American Academy of Environmental Engineers
Harpeth River Watershed Association,Secretary bf Board of Directors and Technical Advisor
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement(NCASI),Member
Treated Wood Council,Life Cycle Assessment Committee
Water Environment Federation,Member
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND AWARDS:
Board Certified Environmental Engineer(BCEE)-American Academy of Environmental Engineers
Roy F. Weston Environmental Technical Award, Engineering Division at TAPPI
Co-holder U.S. Patent for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment of Petroleum Sludges
Co-inventor U.S. Patent for In-Situ Biostimulation of Groundwater and Vadose Zone Double-Bonded Carbon
Atoms
Honor Award for Diffuser Design from Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT: 1992-present,AquAeTer,President
Mr.Com provides technical direction and management of projects involving groundwater,surface water resources,
water quality/environmental management(including modeling),contaminant transport,fate and effects analyses,toxicity
identification/reduction evaluations,bioassays,bioconcentration/bioaccumulation studies and modeling,geomorphologic
analysis, environmental permitting, air, CERCLA, SPCC, SWPP, and evaluations, NPDES, RCRA, TSCA, and
hazardous waste management. Mr. Corn is a Board Certified Environmental Engineer(BCEE)working in the areas of
solid, hazardous and nuclear waste management, permitting, disposal and remediation. He has over 30 years of
experience in environmental engineering, including the design and construction oversight of the remediation of
contaminated soils and other complex earth projects. He is a co-holder of a U.S. Patent for a hazardous waste land
treatment unit for petroleum sludges and co-inventor of a U.S.Patent for in-situ biostimulation of double-bonded carbon
atoms in vadose zone soils and groundwater. Mr. Corn is also an adjunct instructor of environmental engineering at
Vanderbilt University where he teaches classes on environmental sampling,modeling,permitting and regulatory affairs
for air,water quality,wastewater, and solid hazardous and nuclear.waste.
PRIOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT:
1985-1992 The ADVENT Group,Inc.,Brentwood,Tennessee, PrincipalNice-President
1980-1985 AWARE,Inc.,SE,Nashville,Tennessee, Senior Project Engineer/Project Manager
1975-1980 Law Engineering Testing Co.,Marietta,Georgia,Water Resources Engineer/Project Manager
1973-1975 Vanderbilt University,Nashville,Tennessee, Research Assistant
AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
Water Quality Monitoring/Modeling CO2 Emissions' Estimates Environmental Remediation
Contaminant Transport Fate&Effects Air Monitoring&Modeling Total Maximum Daily Loads
Bathymetric Surveys Bench-scale Treatability Studies Human Health Risk Assessments
Ecological Risk Assessments Sediment Mapping Hazardous Waste Management
Expert Report/Expert Testimony Environmental Permitting Wetlands Delineations
KEY CLIENTS AND INDUSTRIES: i
Industrial Law Firms Neal&Harwell
Iron and Steel Charles Doerflinger Roberts& Stevenson
Organic/Inorganic Chemicals Chisenhll,Nestmd&Julian Wildman, Harrold,Allen &Dixon
Pulp and Paper Hill Wallack
Refinery/Petrochemicals Lewis,King, Krieg&Waldrop Government/Municipal
Wood Treatment Lightfoot,Franklin&White USEPA,DOE,DOD, ORNL
Maynard Cooper&Gale USACE

Aqu� Optimizing
eTeir resources � water, air, earth
JOHN MICHAEL CORN, P.E.
EDUCATION:
B.S.Chemical Engineering,University of Tennessee,Knoxville,Tennessee,2001
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS:
Professional Engineer,Tennessee
Certified AHERA Inspector for Asbestos
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING:
40-Hour Training for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response(HAZWOPER)
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT: 2003-present,AquAeTer,Project Engineer
Mr. Corn has 10 years of experience in environmental engineering. His current projects include water quality
studies and modeling,air emissions calculations and modeling, environmental litigation support,dispersion studies,
groundwater investigation, geomorphologic analysis, wastewater treatment selection, bioaccumulation, and
environmental site assessments. He has been involved in environmental sampling, bench and pilot-scale studies,
groundwater tracer tests, site assessments for spill prevention, control, & countermeasures plans, wastewater
allocation studies, design of single-port and multi-port 'diffusers, statistical distribution analyses, emissions
estimations for facility permitting,toxicity testing,surface water remediation,and project planning and budgeting.
PRIOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT:
2002-2003 Environmental Systems Corp., Senior Technologist. Mr. Coin's work included management and
development of over 90 SPCC Plans,asbestos surveys,and air quality assessments.
2000-2001 AquAeTer, Inc., Summer and Winter Intern. Mr. Com's work included tidal dispersion study,
creosote emissions analyses, SVE system design, groundwater and soil monitoring, and ambient
air monitoring.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
Permitting and Best Management Plans(BMPs)
Environmental Investigations and
Mo.and Remediation Title V Operating Permits
Ambient Air Testing and Monitoring Minor Source Permitting
Air Modeling NPDES
Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling SPCC Plans
Total Maximum Daily Load Determination BMPs for Sediment Control
Dispersion Analysis BMPs for Discharge Control
Site Remediation BMPs for Sediment Mitigation
Soil/Groundwater Investigations
Bioremediation Water Ouality Modeling
Bench&Pilot Scale Studies HEC
Asbestos Sampling Evaluation WASP
Sediment Investigation and Surveys EPD-RIVI _
Bathymetric Surveys CORMIX
Visual PLUMES
Industrial WATER9
Wood Treatment
Chemical Hazard Analysis Air Emissions Modeling
Air Emission Inventories ISCST3
Emission Data Analysis WATER9
Emission Control Evaluation Geomorphologic Analysis
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs Flood Sampling and Flow Analysis
Creek Surveys and Profile Assessment
r

ACjuAe�her optimizing
resources water, air, earth
CHRISTOPHER A SLICER, E.I.
EDUCATION:
B.S.,Nuclear Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2010
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS:
Engineering Intern -Tennessee
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS:
American Nuclear Society, Member
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT: 2010-present, AquAeTer, Project Engineer
Mr. Sliger joined AquAeTer in the Brentwood, Tennessee office in 2010 to assist with
environmental and civil engineering related projects. Mr. Sliger has extensive coursework in
low-level and high-level radiation shielding, along with radiation detection and measurement.
Mr. Sliger also has course experience in thermal hydraulics, and has specifically studied and
modeled Boraflex degradation in spent fuel pools. He now assists on projects related to water
quality modeling using EPD-RIV1 and AERMOD, diffuser performance reporting, litigation
support, and dredging reports.
PRIOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT:
2008-2010 Wolfclan Combat Sports, Knoxville, Tennessee, Marketer
2005-2006 Friendly Environment, Technician
AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
Environmental Investigations
Erosion/Sediment Control
Water/Wastewater Treatment
Pollution Prevention
Computer/Modeling
AERMOD
EPD-RIV1
MATLAB
FORTRAN
SCALE
KENO

AquAeTer optimizing
resources water, air,earth
r

MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E., BCEE Page 1
PRESIDENT
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Corn, P.E., BCEE has over 37 years of experience as an environmental
engineering consultant. He is currently President of AquAeTer, Inc. and a Technical
Director for the company. He is recognized as a leader in the fields of air emissions
inventories, air modeling, and air permitting, water quality studies including wasteload
allocation modeling, dispersion modeling and contaminant transport, wastewater
treatment using biological, physical/chemical and wetlands treatment of wastewaters,
water.supply and treatment, soil, vadose zone, and groundwater sampling, modeling and
remediation, as well as, solid hazardous and nuclear waste management. Mr. Corn is also
working in the areas of cost analysis for environmental impacts, life-cycle analysis
including carbon dioxide sequestration, and pollutant analysis and impacts from
industrial sources. Since AquAeTer's inception in 1992, Mr. Corn has worked with
clients including industry, electric utilities, telecommunications, trade groups,
municipalities, state governments, federal agencies, defense agencies and law firms.
Mr. Corn has worked with industry, trade groups, municipalities, state
governments, federal agencies, and defense agencies. Mr. Corn has worked on projects in
over 40 states, two U.S. territories, and 16 foreign countries. Mr. Corn is a Registered
Professional Engineer in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin.
Mr. Corn is an Adjunct Instructor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department at Vanderbilt University. He teaches classes on monitoring, modeling,
permitting, and regulatory affairs for air, water quality, wastewater, and solid, hazardous,
and nuclear wastes.
AWARDS AND HONORS
Mr. Corn and AquAeTer along with Horner and Shifrin were recognized with an
Honors Award from the Illinois Consulting Engineering Council for work on an effluent
diffuser to the Rock River Water Reclamation Authority located in Rockford, Illinois.
Mr. Corn received the Weston Award from TAPPI for technical excellence in
environmental studies for the pulp and paper industry including his work in water quality,
wastewater, and air.. Mr. Corn was recently;selected and certified by the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers as a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, one
of only 2,500 Board Certified Environmental Engineers in the world.

MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E.,BCEE Page 2
PRESIDENT
TRADE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Corn previously served on the Te6linical Association for the Pulp and Paper
Industry (TAPPI) as Committee Chair for the Environmental Subcommittee for the
annual Engineering, Pulping and Environmental conference. He received the Weston
Award for outstanding Technical Contributions to the Pulp and Paper Industry in 2008.
Mr. Corn is a member of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), the National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) for the pulp and paper industry, as well as, a
member of the Treated Wood Council (TWC) where he serves on the committee for Life
Cycle Analysis of Treated Wood including CO2 sequestration, energy use, environmental
effects, and water use. Mr. Corn is a member of the Water Environment Federation. He
serves as the Secretary for the Board of Directors and is a Technical Advisor for the
Harpeth River Watershed Association in Tennessee on water quality and wastewater
treatment issues at POTWs in the basin.
PATENTS
Mr. Corn is a co-holder of an U.S. Patent for a hazardous waste treatment system
(U.S. Patent No. 4,844,813 issued July 4, 1989). This patented design remains the only
land treatment unit to receive a Resource Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) Part B
Permit in the State of New Jersey. He is also the co-inventor of a patent for co-metabolic
biostimulation for in-situ treatment of groundwater contamination containing double-
bonded carbon molecules, such as, polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated organics
and volatile organics. He has applied•this•technology at two creosote wood treating sites,
at two chlorinated organic sites, and at a site with volatile organics including toluene and
acetone.
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY AND RELATED EXPERIENCE
Mr. Corn, P.E. has 37 years of experience as an environmental engineering
consultant having worked on Clean Water Act (CAA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) related projects. He is currently
President of AquAeTer, Inc. and the Technical Director for the company.
Mr. Corn is recognized as a leader in the fields of water quality modeling and
diffuser design, nutrient analysis of receiving waterbodies, both free-flowing and
reservoir/lake settings, stream reaeration, measurement of deoxygenation rates in-stream,
time-series biochemical oxygen demand analyses, non-point source analyses, hydrologic
flow-event characterization including monthly low-flow event analyses, non-point source
contributions to water systems, and biological analyses of streams including
macrobenthos and fisheries studies, total chlorophyll analyses and caged fish studies for
contaminant uptake for uptake and depuratiori rates for modeling, and contaminant

MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E.,BCEE Page 3
PRESIDENT
transport for chemicals and radionuclides. A list of the waterbodies Mr. Corn has worked
on is provided in Table 1. Mr. Corn has worked on numerous municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities conducting pretreatment assessments, conceptual design
of wastewater treatment including biological activated sludge and aerated stabilization
basins, hydraulic analysis and capacity of treatment facilities, and physical/chemical
treatment of toxics.
Mr. Corn served on a team that assessed the .City of Columbus, Ohio POTW
advanced design which included activated sludge treatment, sludge handling, and
hydraulic capacity analysis. He worked with Gulf Shores in Alabama to add carbon for
meeting stringent BOD limits for meeting water quality limits in the Intracoastal
Waterway. He worked with the American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility in Sauget, Illinois on a USEPA Notice of Violation for effluent ammonia
concentrations. This work also included an assessment of pretreatment requirements to
prevent toxicity to the POTW. He worked with a Monsanto plant near Detroit, Michigan
on mercury impacts to the POTW. He worked with Kerr-McGee and The Dalles, Oregon
POTW on impacts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the POTW. He addressed
concerns from POTWs in Columbus, Mississippi and Texarkana, Texas on impacts of
PAHs and Arsenic on the POTW including sludge landspreading. He was the Engineer
of Record for a aerated stabilization basin design and installation for a pulp and paper
mill located in Riceboro, Georgia for meeting effluent BOD5 limits of 5 mg/L. He is
assisting the City of Camden, Tennessee on.effluent ammonia limits. He is also working
with a pulp and paper mill to nitrify and denitrify a wastewater containing 500 mg/L of
ammonia. He assisted the City of Dalton, Georgia on alternatives for their discharge to
the Conasauga River which required an effluent BOD5 of less than 5 mg/L. Hold and
Release and land treatment were two alternatives considered with land treatment being
the ultimate treatment selected. Mr. Corn worked with Tronox and the City of
Springfield, Missouri on an accidental release of a petroleum-creosote mixture to the City
POTW. The release caused the loss of the activated,sludge capacity and resulted in a fish
kill. After working with the state investigator's, no criminal.charges were brought against
the contractor who released the material.- 'Mr. Corn has testified before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board on effluent ammonia impacts from the Emerald Performance
Materials industrial wastewater treatment facility. Mr. Corn also worked on a conceptual
design for nonradioactive wastewater treatment facility for Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
Mr. Corn has conducted water quality studies and assessments on over 200
streams, lakes, and estuaries in the United States and internationally. Mr. Corn is a
recognized expert in water quality and water resource studies. These studies include
wasteload allocations and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies and analyses,
dispersion analyses for near-field and far-Feld mixing zones, diffuser designs, and
diffuser performance testing, water supply and treatment, biological inventory, fish
advisory analysis, QUAL2E dissolved,oxygen and WASP dynamic DO modeling studies,
stream remediation studies, and contaminant transport, fate and effects analysis. He also
assists clients in permit applications and negotiations; with the goal of receiving the best

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E.,BCEE Page 4
PRESIDENT
technically sound and cost effective permits possible for the client. Mr. Corn has been a
leader in real-time permitting for complex receiving stream effluent discharge scenarios.
Mr. Corn is a recognized expert in water quality and water resource studies. He
has conducted water quality and quantity studies including modeling. He has trained the
Texas Water Resources staff in radiotracer reaeration of streams, trained the West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources in Wasteload allocation stream studies and
QUAL2E modeling, and worked in cooperation with Bob Ambrose and Tom Barnwell of
USEPA, Athens to provide the first calibration of the USEPA WASP model. He has
previously worked with Jim Greenfield of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(former TMDL Coordinator for USEPA, Region 4) and the USGS in Doraville, Georgia
to provide monthly wasteload allocations for the Conasauga River in Dalton, Georgia,
and provided through a State of Tennessee grant to the Duck River Agency a monthly
wasteload allocation for the Duck River near Columbia, Tennessee. Mr. Corn is
currently working on a Use Attainability Analysis for Coffee Creek and Mossy Lake,
tributaries to the Ouachita River in,Arkansas; a wasteload allocation study for nutrients
and carbonaceous ultimate biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD ) for about 60 miles of
the Conecuh/Escambia River in Alabama and Florida in response to a TMDL for
nutrients for Escambia Bay; a wasteload allocation study on the Tombigbee River from
Demopolis Lock and Dam to Coffeeville Lock and Dam; and a wasteload allocation on
the Grand Neosho River near Pryor, Oklahoma. He has previously completed wasteload
allocations and TMDL analyses for the Turtle River in Brunswick, Georgia; the
Altamaha and Ocmulgee Rivers from Warner Robbins to Everett, Georgia; ,the Flint
River/Lake Blackshear from Oglethorpe to Flintside, Georgia; the Broad River/Lake
Murray near Elberton, Georgia; the Grand Neosho River in Oklahoma; the Red River in
Arkansas and Oklahoma; the Duck River near Columbia, Tennessee; the West Fork
Stones River at Murfreesboro, Tennessee; and the Saluda River/Lake Murray near
Newberry, South Carolina. Mr. Corn has.-considerable.experience in effluent discharge
dispersion and water quality analyses on diffusers and dispersion analyses, in rivers,
estuaries, and oceans. Mr. Corn has conducted radiotracer reaeration measurements on
about 200 miles of streams, has used most water quality models, and has knowledge of
most water quality investigative and field procedures. Mr. Corn was Project Manager for
radiotracer reaeration studies conducted for NCASI in Arkansas and Louisiana in 1980.
The data were used to develop the current versions of the QUAL2E model.
Mr. Corn has considerable experience in.-.effluent discharge dispersion and water
quality analyses on diffusers and dispersion.analyses in rivers, estuaries, and oceans. He
has conducted radiotracer reaeration measurements on approximately 200 miles of
streams, using most of the standard water quality models. Mr. Corn was Project Manager
for radiotracer reaeration studies conducted for NCASI in Arkansas and Louisiana where
the data were used to develop the current versions of the QUAL2E model.
Additional studies have included dye, salt, radiotracer and other tracer studies,
near-field and far-field mixing regimes, modeling, diffuser designs for acute, chronic,
human health and wildlife criteria. Constituents studied have included color, salt,
ammonia, metals including mercury, chromium, arsenic and lead, organics, temperature,

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E.,BCEE Page 5
PRESIDENT
radionuclides, PCBs, DDT, lindane and other pesticides/herbicides. The studies have
also included biological inventories, habitdf analyses, macrobenthos investigations,
mussel identification and counts, and uptake and depuration studies of constituents from
the water column, food sources and sediments within the mixing zones.
In 1993, Mr. Corn received the Engineering Excellence Award, along with an
affiliate design firm, from the Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois for work on a
multiport diffusion system for treated wastewater effluent for the Rock River Water
Reclamation District of Rockford, Illinois. Mr. Corn was responsible for the field study
to delineate the mixing zone and the modeling to determine dispersion and the
preliminary diffuser design. The multiport diffusion system is an application of water
resource engineering on inland waterways and provides a cost effective method for
developing rapid initial mixing and dispersion of treated wastewater.
. Mr. Corn has conducted over 40 mixing zone studies involving computer
simulations, dye tracing and diffuser design. He has given expert testimony before state
regulatory agencies and before hearing judges on establishing mixing zones, impacts
from discharges and defining mixing in rivers, lakes, estuaries and oceans. Specific
experience includes mixing zone studies and diffuser designs for the Turtle River in
Brunswick, Georgia, the Chattahoochee River at Atlanta and Marietta, Georgia, the
Broad River/Russell Lake at Elberton, Georgia; the Mississippi River at Cordova, Alton
and Sauget, Illinois, the Illinois River at Joliet, Ottawa, and Henry, Illinois, the Rock
River at Rockford and Joslin, Illinois, the Green River near Sheffield, Illinois; the Ohio
River at Mount Vernon, Indiana, Lake .Michigan at Whiting, Indiana; Fields
Brook/Ashtabula River in Ashtabula and Lake Erie in Ashtabula, Ohio; Taunton River at
Dighton, Massachusetts; Quinnipiac River in North Haven, Connecticut; Arthur Kill in
Port Reading, New Jersey, Atlantic Ocean off Toms River, New Jersey, the Delaware
River at Thorofare, New Jersey; the Allegheny River at Natrona, Pennsylvania; the
Kanawha River at Institute, West Virginia; the Cape Fear River near Castle Hayne, North
Carolina; the Saluda River/Lake Murray near Newberry, South Carolina; Hillsborough
Bay at Tampa, Florida, West Bay of St. Andrew Bay, near Lynn Haven, Florida; the Mill
Creek and the Cumberland River at Nashville; the Tennessee River at Counce,
Tennessee; the White Oak Creek and the Clinch River at Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
the Tennessee River at Decatur, Alabama, the Alabama River near Burkville, Alabama;
Huntsville Spring Branch, Indian Creek on Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; Black Creek
Cooling Water Facility near Pascagoula; 'Mississippi; the Pearl River at Monticello,
Mississippi; the Tennessee River at Calvert City, Kentucky; the Green River at Maxey
Flats, Kentucky; the Red River near Valliant, Oklahoma; the Cedar River at Columbus,
Junction, Iowa; Hylebos Waterway at Tacoma, Washington; Amuay Bay at Amuay,
Venezuela; and the Mediterranean Sea off Jaffa, Israel.
Mr. Corn has conducted water quality studies and analyses for the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division, the Texas Water Resources Department, the
Tennessee Department of Environment and.Conservation, West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources, the Cities of Columbia,•Murfreesboro, and Nashville, Tennessee, the
City of Columbus, Ohio, the Cities of Sauget, East Alton, and Rockford, Illinois, and the

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E.,BCEE Page 6
PRESIDENT
Cities of Atlanta and Dalton, Georgia; the-Department of Energy; and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. These water quality studies were usually in cooperation with the
USEPA.
Mr. Corn has worked on quantity and quality studies for water supply systems in
Nashville and Franklin, Tennessee; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Dalton, Georgia; Kill
Devil Hills and Hatteras, North Carolina; and>Thorofare, New Jersey. This has included
estimates of water quantity available; treatment of water for supply, residuals
management including solids and water discharges, and impacts of water withdrawals.
LITIGATION SUPPORT/EXPERT TESTIMONY
Mr. Corn has prepared reports, expert reports, and given depositions and/or
testimony in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas on toxicity, water quality impacts, mixing
zones, diffuser designs and expected dispersion, CERCLA and TCSA remediations, soil
contamination, stream sediment assessments for impacts to human health and ecological
risk, TRI reporting, ambient air monitoring, air emissions estimates, air modeling from
point and area sources, biological wastewater treatment and technologies of wastewaters
and sludges, soil and groundwater biorbmediation including land treatment, spray
irrigation and evaporation techniques, sludge fixation, risk analyses for both human and
ecological health, environmental costs, and the impacts of various pollutants to the
environment.
AIR EMISSIONS ESTIMATES, MODELING AND PERMITTING
Mr. Corn is a recognized expert in"aht emission estimates, air permitting, air
modeling and ambient air monitoring. • He has performed air projects at refineries,
inorganic and organic chemical manufacturing facilities, wood-treating facilities, steel
mills, coal, oil and gas-fired boilers and electrical generation units, and at pulp and paper
mills. Mr. Corn has conducted air permitting including Title V Air Permitting at the
Emerald Performance Materials chemical manufacturing facility located in Henry,
Illinois and was an expert witness for a permit appeal before the Illinois Pollution Control
Board on SOZ emissions; at the Augusta Newsprint Mill located in Augusta, Georgia; for
Kerr-McGee former wood treating facilities located in Avoca, Pennsylvania,
Indianapolis, Indiana, Madison, Illinois, Columbus, Mississippi, Springfield, Illinois,
Texarkana, Texas, and The Dalles, Oregon; for Koppers wood treating facilities located
in Montgomery, Alabama, North Little Rock, Arkansas, Grenada, Mississippi and
Denver, Colorado; for Atlantic Wood treating facilities located in Savannah, Georgia and
Hainesport, New Jersey; for SCM Chemicals located in Ashtabula, Ohio; and for the U.S.
Ecology Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill located in Beatty, Nevada. He. has
conducted AERMOD modeling for SOZ emissions from a pulp and paper mill and
prepared estimates of HzS emissions from wastewater treatment units at a pulp and paper
mill.

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E.,BCEE Page 7
PRESIDENT
Mr. Corn has prepared numerous air emission estimates for pulp and paper
manufacturing facilities, wood treating facilities, chemical facilities, petroleum refineries
and petrochemical plants, steel mills, and other manufacturing facilities. He has
recommended air emission control equipment and made estimates of equipment capacity
for pollutant removal based on plant 'capacity. He has assessed air permitting
requirements for a steel mill in the Great Lakes area. He has also assessed costs for
controlling air emissions including mercury emissions.
Mr. Corn has conducted air emissions modeling for the Weyerhaeuser Pine Hill
pulp and paper mill located near Yellow Bluff, Alabama; Koppers North Little Rock
facility; for the SCM Titanium Dioxide facility located in Ashtabula, Ohio; for the
Arkansas Eastman Chemical Manufacturing facility located in Batesville, Arkansas; for
the Tronox, Texarkana facility; and for the J.S. Ecology Hazardous Waste Landfill
located in Beatty, Nevada.
Mr. Corn has conducted ambient air quality and emissions monitoring at the
Amerada Hess Purvis, Mississippi Refinery; at the Pennwalt Superfund site in Natrona,
Pennsylvania and their chemical manufacturing facility located in Calvert City,
Kentucky; at the Koppers North Little Rock wood treating facility in North Little Rock,
Arkansas, at their Tie Plant wood treating facility located in Grenada, Mississippi and at
their Guthrie wood treating facility in Guthrie, Kentucky; at the New Holland tractor
manufacturing facility located in New Holland, Pennsylvania; and at an abandoned
building site owned by Woodmen of the World in Morristown, New Jersey.
Mr. Corn was also a technical director for ambient air emission tests conducted
around creosote and pentachlorophenol plants located in Arkansas and Mississippi.
These tests included analyses for PAHs, volatile organics, metals, dioxins/furans, and
phenolics. He presented the results of one of these emission monitoring studies before a
jury in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Corn has also directed soil sampling in a
neighborhood downwind from a creosote and pentachlorophenol plant.
Mr. Corn was the Technical Director for preparation of a Title V Permitting
Manual for the wood treating industry sponsored by the American Wood Preservers
Institute (AWPI). This model is still widely used by the industry.
REMEDIATION
Mr. Corn has conducted remediation projects for pulp and paper manufacturing
facilities, wood treating facilities, chemical facilities, petroleum refineries and
petrochemical plants, and other manufacturing facilities. Mr. Corn has worked as an
engineer, manager, or technical director on at least 15 CERCLA sites and 25 RCRA sites
during his career.

MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E.,BCEE Page 8
PRESIDENT
Mr. Corn assisted in negotiations of the first remedial action to be carried out on a
Superfund site in Ashtabula, Ohio where the USEPA CERCLA, TSCA, and RCRA
offices oversaw remediation activities at the site. The remedial action was implemented
in accordance with a TSCA work plan, but was a hybrid procedure based on the three sets
of regulations. Approximately 6,600 tons of soil was removed from this active chemical
manufacturing site for disposal in an efficient manner both in costs to the three owners
(past and current) and plant operations. He also represented the facility owner on the
Technical Committee for this Superfund site and evaluated USEPA data, remediation
plans, and project costs in the interest of the clients.
Mr. Corn directed an in-situ bioremediation pilot study for groundwaters
contaminated with creosote and petroleum residuals that resulted in removal of the
constituents over an 18-month period to less than the state's risk-based standards. The
success of this in-situ bioremediation system resulted in a patent, in which Mr. Corn was
a co-inventor.
Mr. Corn has been performing contaminant transport, fate and effects analyses
which include risk assessment since 1976. He has projected transport of radionuclides,
inorganic and organic chemicals, conservative pollutants. such as salt, and he has
addressed the fate of these pollutants in the various media, i.e., air, water and earth, as
they are transported away from their source. He has compared the projected
concentrations of these pollutants as to theirimpact on known risk-based concentrations
published by federal and state agencies. He has provided these risk assessments in the .
wood treating industry including the oil-borne preservatives, creosote and
pentachlorophenol, and the inorganic preservatives, copper-chromium-arsenic; in the
inorganic chemical industry for chlorine, titanium tetrachloride, and metals; in the
organic chemical industries for dioxins and furans, organic chemicals and metals; in the
pulp and paper industry for dioxins and furans, organics and salt; in manufacturing
including farm implements for metals, solvents and pesticides/herbicides; and in the
nuclear industry for radionuclides and mixed wastes.
Mr. Corn has worked on RCRA, Superfund and Voluntary Clean-up sites in
Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee,-Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington.

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 9
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS:
"Dissolved Oxygen in the Harpeth River: Connecting Point Source, Non-Point
Source, and Water Withdrawals", Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn, P.E., Harpeth
River Association: Dorie Bolze Pam Davee, .American Water Resources Association,
April 17, 2007
"Wastewater Treatment Upgrades", Michael R. Corn, Dr. Wes Eckenfelder; Paul
Marotta, Interstate Paper, 2007- 2008
"Expert Testimony on AERMOD Modeling of S02 and TRS from a Pulp and
Paper Mill", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta; John Michael Corn, Weyerhaeuser, 2007 -
2008
Expert Testimony on Title V Permit S02 Emissions, Michael R. Corn, Emerald
Performance Materials,2007 -2008
Benzene in Creosote; Vapor Analysis of Door Openings, Michael R. Corn, Paul
Marotta; John Michael Corn, Koppers Inc, 2007-2008
"Wastewater Treatment Model of Refinery WTF", Michael R. Corn, Dr. Wes
Eckenfelder; Paul Marotta; Chrisie Brown, Koch Flint Hills Refinery, 2007
"Comments on SARA Form R Modeling for Creosote Wood Treating", Michael
R. Corn, Paul Marotta, John Michael Corn, Texas Electric Cooperatives, Burke-Parsons-
Bowlby, AmeriTies, 2007
"Carbon Sequestering in the Treated Wood Industry", Michael R. Corn, John
Michael Corn; Chrisie Brown; Paul Marotta, Treated Wood Council, 2007
"Determining Labile and Recalcitrant Organic Nitrogen for TMDL Projections",
Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn, P.E., AquAeTer; Georgia-Pacific Corp. - Stephanie
Kilgore, Tim Jones, Kim Grantham, Robert Sackellares, Bill Jernigan, TAPPI
Engineering, Pulping&Environmental Conference-Atlanta, Georgia,Nov-7-2006.
"Expert Reports; Expert Testimony; Technical Review", Michael R. Corn, John
Michael Corn; Chrisie Brown; Paul Marotta, Tronox, Texarkana, TX & Avoca, PA, 2006
-present
"TMDL Analysis and Water Supply Availability of the Harpeth River", Michael
R. Corn, John Michael Corn, Harpeth River Watershed Association, 2006 - present
"In-Situ Bioremediation of PAHs in Vadose Zone Soils", Michael R. Corn, Paul
Marotta,John Michael Corn, Seaman Timber, 2006 - present

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E.,BCEE Page 10
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONVD:
"Expert Testimony on Nutrient Runoff and Lake Eutrophication", Michael R.
Corn, Petro Stopping Centers, 2006 -present
"Nitrification/Denitrification of an- Ammonia-Based Pulp & Paper Mill
Wastewater", Michael R. Corn, Wes Eckenfelder; Paul Marotta; Chrisie Brown; Ram
Ramaswami, Temple-Inland, 2006 -2007
"Mixing Zones for Stormwater and Continuous Discharges", Michael R. Corn,
John Michael Corn, Wabash Mine Company, 2006- 2007
"Water9 Modeling", Michael R. Corn, St. Louis Metropolitan Sanitary District,
2006 -2007
"Pretreatment Permit Assistance", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta, Saturn
Corporation, 2006
"Form R Reporting Meeting with USEPA, Region 5", Michael R. Corn, Paul
Marotta; Tom Zordan -Zordan &Associates, Koppers Inc, 2006
"Mixing Zone in Manatee River for Copper", Michael R. Corn, John Michael
Corn;Ned Fiss - AWARE Environmental, Tropicana, 2005 -present
"Technical Overview of Mercury Treatment Technology", Michael R. Corn, Ram
Ramaswami, Wes Eckenfelder, Kobe Steel,2005 -2006
"Expert Report; Expert Testimony; Field Investigations", Michael R. Corn, Dr.
James Clarke; Chris Green, Elmo, Greer& Sons, 2005 - 2006
"Diffuser Performance Test", Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn, Emerald
Performance Materials, 2005
"Acid Neutralization in Groundwater.", Michael R. Corn, Chrisie Brown, Wes
Eckenfelder, Steve Wampler, Tierra Solutions, 2004 - present
"Ammonia Release from Wetlands", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta, International
Paper, 2003-2004
"Expert Report; Ambient Air Monitoring; Soil Monitoring", Michael R. Corn,
Paul Marotta, Chrisie Brown, Koppers Inc, 2003 - present
"Emissions Monitoring", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta; Darci Scherbak,
Koppers Inc, 2003 - present
"Mixing Zone for Meeting Water Quality Limits", Michael R. Corn, Chrisie
Brown,Noveon, 2003

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 11
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONVD:
"Lagoon Closure", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta, John Michael Corn, Kerr-
McGee, 2003
"Dynamic TMDL of the Arkansas River", Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn,
Georgia-Pacific, 2002-2004
"Technical Assistance for Expert Report", Michael R. Corn, Jim Clarke,
Monsanto, 2002-2003
"Cap Design for Foundry Slag", Michael R. Corn, Guyton Giannotta, Steve
Wampler, Case-New Holland, 2002
"Wastewater Treatment Turn-key Project", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta, Kerr-
McGee, 2002
"Stormwater Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Kerr-McGee, 2002
"RCRA Subpart W Drip Pad Closure", Michael R. Corn, Guyton Giannotta,
Universal Forest Products, 2002
"Sediment TMDL Analysis", Michael R. Corn, City of Murfressboro, TN, 2002
"Mixing Zone Confirmation Study into Lake Erie", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen
McCormick, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, 2002
"DO Monitoring of the Tombigbee River", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen
McCormick, Georgia-Pacific, 2002
"TMDL of Big Bear Lake for Nutrients", Michael R. Corn, Ray Lawing, City of
Big Bear, CA, 2002
"TMDL Training", Michael R. Corn, , Georgia-Pacific, 2002
"TMDL Training", Michael R. Corn, Jerry Schwartz, AF&PA, TAPPI, 2002
"Due Diligence for Acquisition of Potlatch Mills", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover,
Paul Marotta, Sappi, 2001-2002
"Diffuser Performance Test in Pamlico. Sound", Michael R. Corn, John Michael
Corn; Eric Weatherly,, Dare County Water Department, 2001
"NPDES Permit for Once-Through Cooling Water", Michael R. Corn, Dr. Ted
Helfgott, Beth Hebert, Enterprise, Enterprise, 2001
"Side-Channel Discharge Design and Mixing Zone Modeling", Michael R. Corn,
Chris Green, Fifth-Third, 2001

MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E.,BCEE Page 12
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONT'D:
"Treatability Tests for In-Situ Treatment of Creosote Residuals", Michael R.
Corn, Chrisie Brown, John Michael Corn, Kerr-McGee Chemical, 2001
"Remediation of Old Landfill", Michael R. Corn, Steve Wampler, Guyton
Giannotta, New Holland, 2001
"Title V Permit", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover, Augusta Newsprint, 2000 -
present
"Design Review of Wastewater Treatment, RCRA ", Michael R. Corn, Wes
Eckenfelder, Bob Stein,Hovenza, 2000- 2004 '
"Bathymetric Studies of Red River for Effluent Diffuser", Michael R. Corn, Barry
Firth, Weyerhaeuser, Weyerhaeuser/CH2MHill, 2000 -2001
"Title V Air Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover, Inland Container, 2000
"Technical Analysis of Contaminant Transport", Michael R. Corn, Seaman
Timber, 2000
"NPDES Permit for New Discharge", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover, Enterprise,
2000
"Bioswale Design for Metals Removal,•RBCA'", Michael R. Corn, Chrisie Brown,
Chris Green, Universal Forest Products, 1999-present
"Expert Testimony; Emissions Controls; Title V Permit; Emissions Estimates",
Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta, John Michael Corn, Koppers Inc, 1999 -2002
"TMDL for Coal Mine Drainage", Michael R. Corn, Ray Lawing, State of
Virginia, 1999-2000
"Title V Air Permit", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen McCormick, Koppers Inc, 1999 -
2000
"Audit for Odor Reduction for ADPCE", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen McCormick,
Koppers Inc, 1999 -2000
"Title V Air Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Steve Wampler, Koppers Inc, 1999 -
2000
"Expert Report on Historical Air Emissions", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen
McCormick, Lincoln Creosote, 1999
"Pretreatment Permit Assistance", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover, Inland
Container, 1999 ,J

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 13
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONVD:
"SARA Form R Preparation for RCRA Subtitle C Landfill", Michael R. Corn,
Shaleen McCormick, Pam Hoover, U.S. Ecology, 1999
"SARA Form R Preparation for RCRA Subtitle C Landfill", Michael R. Cam,
Shaleen McCormick, Pam Hoover, Texas Ecologists, 1999
"Hard Piping Analysis to ASBs", Michael R. Corn, Moira Layman, International
Paper, 1999 „
"Thermal Cooling Pond Analysis", Michael R. Corn, Ray Lawing, Mike Foster,
Mississippi Power, 1999
"Bathymetric Study for Sediment Buildup in High Rock Lake", Michael R. Corn,
Ned Fiss, Davidson County,NC, 1999
"Environmental Risk Mitigation Strategies for Commercial Real Estate
Transactions"; Michael R. Corn, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, February
1998
"RCRA Part B Permitting, Air Modeling and Landfill Design", Michael R. Corn,
Steve Wampler, Chris Bolin, Paul Marotta, US Ecology, 1998 to present
"Due Diligence for Acquisition", Michael R. Corn, Steve Wampler, Dana
Bradford, Chris Bolin, Universal Forest Products, 1998 to present
"Title V Permitting, Stormwater, Emissions Testing", Michael R. Corn, Paul
Marotta, Koppers Inc, 1998 to present
"Due Diligence for Acquisition of 50% of HOVIC Refinery", Michael R. Corn,
Steve Wampler, Pam Hoover, PDVSA, 1998
"Due Diligence of City Park", Michael R. Corn, Dawn Blackledge, City of
Jacksonville/Aerostar, 1998
"Fields Brook Technical Advisory Board", Michael R. Corn, Bill Schildt,
Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, 1998
"Mixing Zone Analysis", Michael R. Corn, Ritchie Taylor, Millennium Inorganic
Chemicals, 1998
c
"Mixing Zone Analysis", Michael R. Cam, John Boren, Millennium Inorganic
Chemicals, 1998
"Stormwater Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Dana Bradford, Koppers Inc, 1998

MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E., BCEE Page 14
PRESIDENT
"Stormwater Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Dana Bradford, Universal Forest
Products, 1998
"Algal Influences on the Assimilative Capacity of the Red River", Michael R.
Corn, , Biological Sciences Symposium - San Francisco, California, October, 1997
"Due Diligence for Acquisition Interest in Phillips Sweeny Refinery", Michael R.
Corn, Van -Worm, Steve Wampler, Pam Hoover, PDVSA, 1997-1998
"Environmental Due Diligence for'Acquisition", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover,
Bob Lasater, PDVSA, 1997
"Nitrification in an anaerobic lagoon; Feedback from sludges", Michael R. Corn,
Dana Bradford, International Paper, 1997
"Title V Air Permit", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen McCormick, Ross Worsham,
Atlantic Wood, 1997
"Expert Report and Deposition on Nitropropane Fire and Water Release",
Michael R. Corn, , Angus Chemical, 1997
"Air Modeling for Dioxin", Michael R. Corn, Van-Wurm, Arkansas Eastman,
1997
"Title V Air Permitting, RCRA, Wastewater Treatment, Ambient Air Monitoring,
Expert Testimony", Michael R. Corn, Paul Marotta, John Michael Corn, Koppers Inc,
1996 to current
"Fugitive Emissions from Creosote Treated Wood Products", Michael R. Corn, ,
TAPPI Environmental Conference, Orlando, Florida, May 1995
"Tank Removals, In Situ Bioremediation, Vapor Extraction, Product Removal",
Michael R. Corn, Guyton Giannotta, Steve Wampler, Case-New Holland, 1995 -current
"Title V and SARA Modeling Manual for Wood Treatment Industry", Michael R.
Corn, Mike Pierce, John Boren, AWPI, 1995 - 2000
"Due Diligence and Environmental Cost Analysis for $250 Million Bond Issue",
Michael R. Corn, John Uptmor, Cravath, Swain & Moore, 1995 - 1996
"Diffuser Design", Michael R. Corn, John-Boren,,Weston Paper, 1995
"Title V Air Permitting, SARA Form R's", Michael R. Corn, Shaleen McCormick,
Pam Hoover, Kerr-MCGee/Tronox, 1994-2003
"Technical Advisory Committee for Fields Brook Superfund Site", Michael R.
Corn, Bill Schildt, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, SCM Chemicals/Millennium, 1994-
1998

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 15
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONT'D:
"Wetlands Analysis for Pipeline to Lake Erie", Michael R. Corn, John Boren,
Ritchie Taylor, SCM Chem icals/MiIlennium, 1994-1995
"Title V Air Permitting Model", Michael R. Corn, John Boren, Mike Pierce,
AWPI, 1994-1995
"Asbestos Survey, Removal Oversight and Building Demolition", Michael R.
Corn, Elizabeth Holliday, Woodmen of the World Life Insurance, 1994-1995
"Title V Air Permitting, RCRA, Remediation, Wastewater Treatment, Expert
Testimony", Michael R. Corn, Steve Wampler, Paul Marotta, John Michael Corn, Kerr-
McGee Chemical/Tronox, 1994 -current
"Mixing Zone for Ammonia in the Illinois River", Michael R. Corn, Jim
Patterson,Amoco, 1994
"Underground Tank Removal and Remediation", Michael R. Corn, Elizabeth
Holliday, Chris Bolin, Woodmen of the World Life Insurance, 1994
"Mixing Zone Analysis for Discharge.of POTW Effluent to Mississippi River",
Michael R. Corn, John Boren, City of Alton,1994
"Mixing Zone Analyses for Discharge of Groundwater from Dewatering",
Michael R. Corn, Tom Thompson, John Boren, Illinois DOT; 1994
"Wetlands Permit", Michael R. Corn, Ritchie Taylor, Monsanto, 1994
"Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Analysis", Michael R. Corn,
Bob Lasater, Clark Oil, 1994
"Costs to Meet Cluster Rule for Riverwood Mill", Michael R. Corn, Cravath,
Swain &Moore, 1994
"Mixing Zone Analysis for Ammonia Toxicity", Michael R. Corn, John Boren,
Pam Hoover, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, 1994
"Wastewater Treatment Performance Evaluation", Michael R. Corn, Doug Smith,
Kerr-McGee, 1994
"RCRA Lagoon Closure", Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover, Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, 1994
"Assimilative Capacity Studies, Mixing Zone Analyses/Diffuser Design",
Michael R. Corn, Ritchie Taylor, John Boren, John Michael Corn, Weyerhaeuser, 1993 -
current

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E.,BCEE Page 16
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONT'D:
"Due Diligence and Environmental Cost Analysis for $1 Billion Bond Issue",
Michael R. Corn, Jerry Barnhill, Cravath, Swain &Moore, 1993 - 1994
"A Mixing Zone Approach for Establishing Water Quality-Based Discharge
Requirements Using a Multiport Diffuser", Michael R. Corn, Frank R McNeice, Michael
J. Cabral, Zeneca Inc.; Dean E. Vlachos, Advanced Aquatic Technologies Associates,
Inc., Sam Shelby, Jr. The Advent Group, New England Water Environment Association,
33995
"Side-Channel Discharge Design and Mixing Zone Modeling", Michael R. Corn,
John Boren, City of Alton, 1992-1993
"Results of Assimilative Capacity Study for Assuring Water Quality Protection of
the Red River under NPDES Permit Conditions", Michael R. Corn, , NCASI Southern
Regional Meeting- Memphis, Tennessee, 33756
"Mixing Zone Analyses for Toxicity", Michael R. Corn, John Boren, Monsanto,
1991-1992
"Diffuser Design and Performance Testing", Michael R. Corn, John Boren, Tom
Thompson, Olin Brass, 1991 - 1992
Waste Management Environmental Presentation, Michael R. Corn, Waste
Management Conference-Nikopol, Ukraine, 1991
"Mixing Zone Analyses and Diffuser Design for Ammonia, Expert Testimony",
Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn, BF Goodrich, Noveon, Emerald Performance
Materials, 1989 - current
"Assimilative Capacity Studies, Mixing' Zone Analyses/Diffuser Design, Use
Attainability Analysis for Dissolved Oxygen", Michael R. Corn, Ritchie Taylor, John
Boren,John Michael Corn, Georgia-Pacific, 1989 -current
"Mixing Zone Analyses and Diffuser Design", Michael R. Corn, Tom Thompson,
American Bottoms Water Reclamation District, 1989
"Mixing Zone Analysis/Diffuser Design; RCRA Permitting; Toxicity Analyses",
Michael R. Corn, Pam Hoover, Richard Young, Ritchie Taylor, Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, 1988 -2003
"Water Supply Analysis", Michael R. Corn, Ray Lawing, Duck River Water
Authority, 1988
"Waste Assimilative Capacity/Reaeration Measurements of the Duck River",
Michael R. Corn, Richard Young, Ray Lawing, Duck River Water Authority, 1987
f '

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 17
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONV D:
"Due Diligence for Diamond Shamrock facilities", Michael R. Corn, Henkel,
1986
"RCRA Alternate Concentration Limits, Part B Permits, CERCLA, NPDES
Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Steve Wampler, Pam Hoover, SCM
Chemicals/Millennium, 1985 - current
"Due Diligence for Citgo Refinery Acquisitions"„Michael R. Corn, Carl Adams,
Sam Shelby, Bob Lasater, PDVSA, 1985 -2002
"Dynamic Fish Uptake Model for DDT", Michael R. Corn, Richard Young, Ray
Lawing, Olin Chemicals, 1985 -1987
"Dynamic Water Quality Modeling and Calibration of WASP Model", Michael R.
Corn, Ray Lawing; Bob Ambrose, Tim Wool, USEPA, GE Plastics/CH2MHill, 1985-
1986
"Water Supply Analysis", Michael R. Corn, Carl Adams, Richard Young, Ray
Lawing, Duck River Watershed Authority, 1985 - 1998
"Groundwater, RCRA, NPDES, Mixing Zones, Toxicity Testing, DYNHYD-
WASP Wasteload Allocation Modeling", Michael R. Corn, Carl Adams, Sam Shelby, GE
Plastics, 1985 - 1992
"RCRA Settlement Negotiations on Appendix IX Sampling", Michael R. Corn,
Chuck Lettow, Ted Helgott, Amerada Hess, 1985
"Estuary Assimilative Capacity, Carbon Studies", Michael R. Corn, Wes
Eckenfelder, Pleasure Island Sewer Authority, 1984
"RCRA Permitting, SPCC Plans, NPDES Permitting", Michael R. Corn, Pam
Hoover, Robin Garibay, Amerada Hess, 1983 - 1992
"RCRA Permitting, Mixing Zone Delineation, Groundwater Pump and Treat",
Michael R. Corn, Jim Clarke, Wes Eckenfelder, Ciba-Geigy, 1983 - 1985
"Tidal Dispersion Modeling in the Delaware River", Michael R. Corn, Barry
Benedict, Pennwalt, 1983
"Waste Assimilative Capacity with Monthly Wasteload Allocations", Michael R.
Corn, Carl Adams, Jeff Pintenich, Collins Packing Company, 1983
"RCRA Management Plan", Michael R. Corn, Jeff Pintenich, Carl Adams, U.S.
Marines, 1982

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 18
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONT'D;
"Environmental Audits", Michael R. Corn, Jeff Bull, Bob Stein, Virginia
Chemicals, 1982
"Environmental Audits", Michael R. Corn, Mike Groves, Bob Stein, Mississippi
Chemical, 1982
"Wastewater Source Investigation and Pretreatment Design", Michael R. Corn,
U.S.Navy, 1981
"RCRA and CERCLA Permitting and Investigations", Michael R. Corn, Jeff
Pintenich, Fred Ziegler, John Hines, Pennwalt, 1980 - 1982
"Radiotracer Measurements of Aerator Efficiency", Michael R. Corn, Larry Neal,
E.I. Dupont, 1980
"Radiotracer Measurements of the Ouachita and Dugdemona Rivers", Michael R.
Corn, Larry Neal,NCASI, 1980
"Measurements of Salt Dome Dissolution", Michael R. Corn, Jim Wallace, Bob
Garrett, U.S. Department of Energy, 1979 - 1980
"Bathymetric Measurements of the Turtle River", Michael R. Corn, Larry Neal,
E.I. Dupont, 1979
"Tritium Sources and Fate in the Shallow Groundwater System", Michael R.
Corn, Jim Wallace, Georgia Power, 1979
"Analysis of Ash Pond Leakage", Michael R. Corn, Jim Wallace, Larry Neal,
Georgia Power, 1979
"Radiotracer Reaeration Measurements Training", Michael R. Corn, Larry Neal,
Jim Wallace, Texas Water Resources Agency, 1978
"Radiotracer Reaeration Measurements of Black Creek", Michael R. Corn, Larry
Neal, Sonoco Products, 1978
"Assimilative Capacity Studies", Michael R. Corn, Larry Neal, Jim Wallace, J.E.
Sirrine, 1977
"FERC Underwater Dam Inspection", Michael R. Corn, Jim Labasti, Steve
Wampler, Crisp County Dam Authority, 1977

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 19
PRESIDENT
PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS—CONT'D:
"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites Licensing", Michael R. Corn, Jim
Grant,Nuclear Engineering Co, 1976 - 1979
"Waste Assimilative Capacity/Reaeration Measurements of the Flint River",
Michael R. Corn,Ernie Tsivoglou, Jim Wallace,.Larry Neal, Procter and Gamble, 1976 -
1977
"Groundwater Flow and Radionuclide Transport", Michael R. Corn, Jim Grant,
Larry Neal, Exxon Nuclear, 1976
"Waste Assimilative Capacity Study of the Conasauga River", Michael R. Corn,
Larry Neal, Jim Wallace, City of Dalton, 1975 - 1979
"316(a) and (b) Water Intake and Thermal Discharge Report", Michael R. Corn,
Bob Garrett, Bill Imbur, John Nemeth, Gulf Power, 1975 - 1976
"Environmental Impact Statement for a New Gypsum Disposal Site", Michael R.
Corn, Bob Garrett, Bill Imbur, John Nemeth, Gardinier, 1975 - 1976
"Lake Management Plan for Lake Magorrie", Michael R. Corn, Don Henley, City
of St. Petersburg, 1975
PEER-REVIEWD PAPERS:
"Determining Labile and Recalcitrant'Organic Nitrogen for TMDL Projections",
Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn, P.E., AquAeTer; Georgia-Pacific Corp. - Stephanie
Kilgore, Tim Jones, Kim Grantham, Robert Sackellares, Bill Jernigan, TAPPI
Engineering, Pulping & Environmental Conference -Atlanta, Georgia,Nov-7-2006
"Quantifying Environmental Releases to Ground and Surface Waters from
Disposal Sites", Michael R. Corn, Michael R. Groves, Jeffery L. Pintenich, James H.
Clarke, The AWARE Corporation, 7th Biennial Conference 1984 Hazardous Material
Spills Conference, April 9-12, 1984
"Dissolved Oxygen in the Harpeth River: Connecting Point Source, Non-Point
Source, and Water Withdrawals", Michael R. Corn, John Michael Corn, P.E., Michael R.
Corn, Harpeth River Association: Doric Bolze Pam Davee, American Water Resources
Association, April 7, 2007
"How Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDLs) Will Impact Your Water Permits",
Michael R. Corn, TAPPI Virtual Seminar,November 19, 2002

MICHAEL R. CORN,P.E., BCEE Page 20
PRESIDENT
PEER-REVIEWD PAPERS—CONT'D:
"TMDL Modeling Tutorial", Michael R. Corn, Ray Wittemore, NCASI, TAPPI
Environmental Conference, Charlotte,NC, April 22, 2001
"Persistent & Biochemical Constituents in the Wood Treating Industry", Michael
R. Corn, American Wood Preservers Institute, March 12, 2000
"Results of Assimilative Capacity Study for Assuring Water Quality Protection of
the Red River under NPDES Permit Conditions", Michael R. Corn, William Jernigan,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, TAPPI Environmental Conference, March 1993
"A Mixing Zone Approach for Establishing Water Quality-Based Discharge
Requirements Using a Multiport Diffuser", Michael R. Corn, Frank R. McNeice, Michael
J. Cabral, Zeneca Inc.; Dean E. Vlachos, Advanced Aquatic Technologies Associates,
Inc., Sam Shelby, Jr. The Advent Group, New England Water Environment Association,
January 26, 1993
"Results of Assimilative Capacity Study for Assuring Water Quality Protection of
the Red River under NPDES Permit Conditions", Michael R. Corn, Dean E. Vlachos,
Advanced Aquatic Technologies; William Jernigan, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, NCASI
Southem Regional Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee, June 1992
"Complying with the New Water Quality Standards: The Role of Mixing Zone
Evaluations", Michael R. Corn, Carl M. Crane, Dean E. Vlachos, The Advent Group,
Inc., 34th Great Plains Waste Management Conference, March 22, 1990
"Surface Water Discharge Modeling", Michael R. Corn, Carl M. Crane, the
Advent Group, Inc., Indianapolis Center for Advanced Research, Inc.,July 25, 1989
"Summary & Recommendations on Water Quality Modeling of
Nitrification/Denitrification Processes", Michael R. Corn, ToxiWASP Seminar, March
1980
"Radiotracer Measurements of the Ouachita and Dugdemona Rivers", Michael R.
Corn, Larry Neal,NCASI, 1980
"Fugitive Emissions from Creosote Treated Wood Products", Michael R. Corn
with M.J. Wikstrom, S.T. Smith, and N.E. Bock, Tappi, Orlando, Florida, May 1996.

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Altamaha GA Altamaha River from Warner Robbins to Everett City,GA
Altamaha River at Jesup,GA
Altamaha River at Hatch Nuclear Plant near Baxley,GA
Oconee River from Athens to Altamaha River
Ocmulgee River from Warner Robbins to Altamaha River
Apalachicola GA Flint River/Lake Blackshear near Vienna,GA
Flint River at Woodbury,GA
Chattahoochee River/Lake Lanier at Atlanta
Flint River at Atlanta International Airport
Chattahoochee River at Atlanta
Flint River at.Oglethorpe,GA
Chattahoochee River at Marietta
GA,FL Chattahoochee River from Lake Sydney Lanier to Apalachicola Bay
Arkansas River OK Grand Neosho River at Pryor,Oklahoma
OK Arkansas River at Muskogee,OK '
AR Arkansas River at Little Rock,AR
Arthur Kill N1 Arthur Kill new Port Reading,NJ
Calcasieu River LA Calcasieu River at Lake Charles, LA
Cape Fear River NC North Cape Fear River near Wilmington,NC
Chesapeake Bay WV Potomac River, WV
MD Patapsco River near Baltimore,MD
Colgate Creek at St. Helena,MD
VA York River near Yorktown,VA
James River near Hopewell,VA
Page I of

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED —
Colorado River TX San Gabriel River near Austin,TX
Brushy Creek near Austin,TX
Columbia River OR,WA Columbia River at The Dalles,Oregon
Columbia River at Kalama,WA
Conecuh River AL Conecuh River downstream from Brewton,AL
Cooper River SC Catawba River in Lancaster County,SC
Lake Greenwood/Saluda River/Lake Murray near Newberry, SC
Lake Murray/Broad River near Columbia,SC
Cooper River at Charleston,SC
Ashley River at Charleston,SC
SC,NC Broad River near Gaffney,SC
> NC -B'road River tributary near Tyron,NC
Corpus Christi Bay TX Nueces River/Corpus Christi Bay near Corpus Christi,TX
Cumberland River TN Cumberland River/Mills Creek at Nashville
Cumberland RiverBarkeley Reservoir
Cumberland River/Cheatam Reservoir
Cumberland River/Old Hickory Reservoir
Cumberland River/Cordell Hull Reservoir
Cumberland River/Cumberland Reservoir
Wolf River/Dale Hollow Reservoir
Martins Fork/Martins Fork Reservoir
Laurel River/Laurel River Reservoir
West Fork Stones River.near Murfreesboro,TN
Stones River/Percy Priest Reservoir near Nashville,TN
Delaware River NJ Delaware River near Bridgeport,NJ
Delaware River near Thorofare,NJ
Page 2 of

i
TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Escambia River FL Escambia River from AL-FL stateline to Pensacola Bay
Illinois River IL Chicago Ship&Sanitary Canal at Lemont,IL
Des Plaines River at Elwood,IL
Illinois River at Peoria,IL
Illinois River at Ottawa,IL
Illinois River at Henry,IL
Sangamon River near Illiopolis,IL
Intracoastal Waterway FL Intracoastal Waterway near St.Lucie Nuclear Plant
Intracoastal Waterway near Gulf Shores,AL
Jacinto River TX Cypress Creek new Houston,TX
Lake Erie NY Niagara River at Niagara Falls,NY
Cattaraugus Creek from West Valley to Lake Erie
Lake Erie from-Cataraugus Creek to Buffalo Water Intake
OH Black River at Lorain,OH
Fields Brook/Ashtabula River near Ashtabula,OH
Lake Erie at Ashtabula,OH
MI Lake Erie near Trenton,MI
Lake Michigan IN Grand-Calumet near East Chicago
Little Calumet River/Bums Harbor near Porter,IN
Lake Michigan at Whiting, IN
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor in Northern Indiana
MI Menomi nee River,WS
Lake Superior WS Superior Bay at Superior WS
Merimack River NH Lake Winnipesaukee near Meredith,NH
Page 3 of 9

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Mississippi River IA Iowa and Cedar Rivers near Columbus Junction,IA
Des Moines River near Eddyville, IA
LA Mississippi River at Donaldsonville, LA
Mississippi River at Port Hudson,LA
IL Mississippi River at Sauget,IL
Rock River at Rockford,IL
Mississippi River at Cordova,IL
Green River near Sheffield, IL
Rock River at Joslin,IL
Mississippi River at Alton, IL
Wood River Tributary at East Alton,IL
Missouri River MO Mississippi River at Venice,IL
Mississippi River at East St. Louis,IL
Little Sac River near Springfield,MO
Mobile River AL Alabama River near Burkville,AL
Black Warrior River near Birmingham,AL -
Mobile Estuary near Mobile,AL
Mobile River near Bucks,AL
Alabama River at Montgomery,AL
GA Etowah River/Allatoona Lake near Cartersville,GA
Oostanaula River near Calhoun,GA
Drowning Bear Creek/Conasauga River at Dalton,GA
Coosawattee River/Carters Lake near Carter,GA
AL, FL Intracoastal Waterway/Perdido Bay near Gulfshores,AL
GA,AL Coosa River Basin from Atlanta area to Montgomery,AL
Mystic River MA Mystic River tributary near Woburn,MA
Page 4 of 9

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Narangansett Bay MA Taunton River/Mt. Hope Bay near Taunton,MA
Neches River TX Neches River near Jacksonville,TX
Ohio River KY Green River tributaries near Maxey Flats,KY
OH Scioto River near Columbus,OH
Ohio River at Addyston,OH
Paint Creek near Greenfield,OH
IN Ohio River at.Mt. Vernon,IN
WV Kanawha River near Charleston,WV
Hurricane Creek near Hurricane, WV
Soak.Creek near Sophia,WV
PA Allegheny River near Natrona,PA
Ouachita River LA Ouachita River near Sterlington,LA
AR Ouachita River near Camden,AR
Smackover Creek at Smackover,AR
AR LA Ouachita River near Crossett,AR
Ouachita River from Lake Catherine in AR to Columbia Lock and Dam in L.
Pearl River MS Pearl River near Monticello,MS
Page 5 of 9

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Pee Dee River SC Black Creek near Hartsville,SC
Black Creek/Lake Robinson near McBee,SC
NC Yadkin River/High Rock Lake near Lexington,NC
VA Roanoke River near Roanoke,VA
Pigeon River NC,TN Pigeon River from Blue Ridge Parkway to Newport
Puget Sound WV Commencement Bay/Hylebos Waterway at Tacoma,WA
Quinippiac River CT Quinippiac River near North Haven, CT
Radnor Lake,Otter Creek TN Radnor Lake in Davidson County,TN
Red River TX Wagner&Days Creeks near Texarkana,TX
OK,TX Red River from Lake Texoma to Sterlington
AR,TX,OK,NM Red River near Ashdown,AR
OK Red River near Valliant,OK
LA Red River near Shreveport,LA
Rock River IL Rock River at Joslin,IL
Rock River at Rock River,IL
St.Clair River MI Black River/St. Clair River near Port Huron,MI
St. Simons Sound GA Turtle River Estuary at Brunswick, GA
San Francisco Bay CA Guadalupe River at Sunnyvale,CA
Redwood Slough at Redwood City,CA
Page 6 of 9

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Savannah SC,GA Savannah River from Lake Hartwell to Savannah Harbor
SC Lake Hartwell near Clemson,SC
GA Savannah River at Augusta,GA
Savannah River at Votgle Nuclear Plant
Savannah River/Clark Hill Reservoir at Elberton,GA
SC Lake Hartwell/Savannah River at Ocoee Nuclear Plant
St.Andrews Bay FL St.Andrews Bay near Panama City,FL
Shasta River CA Beaughton Creek at Weed, CA
Tampa Bay FL Alafia River/Hillsborough Bay near Tampa, FL
Tennessee River. TN White Oak Creek at Oak Ridge,TN
Tennessee River near Counce,TN
Duck River near Columbia,TN
Clinch River at Clinton,TN
Tennessee River at Knoxville,TN
AL Huntsville Spring Branch/Indian Creek at Redstone Arsenal
AL Lake Wheeler near Decatur,AL
KY Tennessee River at Calvert City,KY
Tombigbee River AL Tombigbee River from Demopolis L&D to Coffeeville L&D
Trinity River TX Trinity River Basin
Turtle River GA Turtle River near Brunswick,GA
Wabash River IN Wabash River at Terre Haute, IN Page 7 of

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
INTERNATIONAL
Amuay Bay Venezuela Amuay Bay at Amuay,Venezuela
Lake Maracaibo Venezuela Lake Maricaibo at Maricaibo,Venezuela
Seine River - France Seine River at Vernon,France
River Thames England River Gade at Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead
Grand Union Canal
River Thames
River Isis at Wolvercote,Oxford,England
River Ruddlesworth England River Ruddlesworth at Femis Cowles, Blackburn, England
River Leven Scotland River Leven at Markinch,Glenrothes,Fife, Scotland
Leine River Germany Leine River at Alfeld,Germany
Donau River Germany Donau River at Ehingen,Germany
Vaal River Republic of Vaal River/Kowles Dam at Springs,Gauteny,South Africa
South Africa
Umvoti River Republic of Umvoti River at Stanger,South Africa
South Africa Ncawenie River at Stanger, South Africa
Umvoti Estuary at Stanger, South Africa
Crocodile River Republic of Elands River at Ngodwana, Mpumalanga,South Africa
South Africa Ngodwana River at Ngodwana,Mpumalanga, South Africa
Crocodile River at Ngodwana,Mpumalanga,South Africa
Tugela River Republic of Tugela River at Tugela,Natal,South Africa
South Africa
Page 8 of 9

TABLE 1. RIVER BASINS EXPERIENCE OF MICHAEL R.CORN
RIVER BASIN STATE RIVERS INVESTIGATED
Mkomaas River/Indian Ocean Republic of Mkomaas River at Umkomaas,Natal, South Africa
South Africa Indian Ocean at Umkomaas,Natal, South Africa _
Dniepper Ukraine Dniepper River at Nikopol,Ukraine
Page 9 of 9

Exhibit D—Photographs from Observation Events
(See Disc)
r
33