NC0000272_Pigeon River Color Perception Study Supplemental Amended_20130129

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 2% 2013
Amended & Supplemented March 11, 2013 .

Table of Contents .
Tableof Contents............................................................................................................................
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
Opinion Letter of Dr. Prestrude.................................................................................................... 12
�t Opinion Letter of Dr. Cherry........................................................................................................ 13
�. Tables............................................................................................................................................ 15
Pinnacle Solutions Figures............................................................:............................................... 19
AquAeTerFigures ........................................................................................................................ 25 .
AquAeTerTables.......................................................................................................................... 27
References..................................................................................................................................... 32
Exhibit A—Approved Color Perception Study Plan (including Appendices) ............................. 33
Exhibit B—Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. Color Perception Analysis.................................................. 34
Exhibit C—AquAeTer Individuals Involved in Sample Collection and Analysis....................... 35
Exhibit D—Photographs from Observation Events...................................................................... 36

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, DWQ 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.
�t
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 fast 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
t 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 (ERI) 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
r '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 River.
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 Stat6 Line)
Site 2 Hepco Bridge
Site 3 Ferguson Bridge
Site 4 Clyde Bridge
Site 5 Thickety02 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 concentration's for each site are shown in AquAeTer Tables 3 and
4 (p. 26, 27). River flow measured at the Canton Gaging station on June 30u', 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,
r\" 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 L 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 apparent color measured was 117
PCUs, at site 6.
Observation Event III-November 10,2012
The procedures were the same as Event II. 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.
Z 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 2300Q 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 true 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, Hepco, 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 mgd, 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

A A. M. PRESTRUDE,Ph.D.
L Psychologist- Human Perception in
C Environmental Applications
Y 1079 Leveque Place
O Forest, VA 24551
N Phone:[phone]
Dianne Reid March 11,2013
Water Quality Standards,NCDWQ
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
re:Pigeon River Color Perception Study/January, 2013
Dear Ms. Reid:
Dr. Don Cherry and I, on behalf of Evergreen Packaging(d/b/a Blue Ridge Paper Products,
Inc.), conducted a color perception study using independent observers on the Pigeon River in
North Carolina. The study focused on the aesthetic component of the North Carolina Water
Quality Standard for color'by measuring the observers'perceptions of the quality of the water in
the Pigeon River in North by
above and below the discharge from Evergreen Packaging's
Canton Mill. A report of that study's results was submitted to DWQ in January, 2013.
Twenty-six independent observers viewed the eight sites on the Pigeon River on June 30,
twenty-seven observers on September 15,and twenty-five observers on November 10,2012.
During each event, apparent color concentrations in the range of 24 to 117 platinum cobalt units
(milligrams per liter)were measured.In June, apparent color was 24 PCUs at Brown's Bridge
and increased to 84 PCUs at the mixing zone at Fibreville. In September, apparent color was 31
PCUs at Brown's Bridge and increased to 117 PCUs at Fibreville. Iri November, apparent color
was 42 PCUs at Brown's Bridge and increased to 99 PCUs at Fibreville.
The observers'ratings were on a seven-point(Likert)scale where 1 =unacceptable,4=
acceptable,and 7=very attractive. For the June study, 38 of 42 ratings were 4 or higher.The
four ratings of less than 4 were all at the Mixing zone site(Fibreville). Ratings of water quality
(color and clarity)were 4 and 5 respectively. For the September study, 26 of 4:2 ratings were 4 or
higher. All seven of the ratings at the mixing zone were less than 4. For the November study, 33
of 35 ratings were 4 or higher. All the ratings less than 4 were at the mixing zone.None of the
ratings in the three studies fell below 2 indicating that none of the sites were considered
"unacceptable."
Based on the study results, observers found color in the range of 24 to 100 PCUs (milligrams
per liter) to be acceptable. In my opinion, color, at the levels encountered in this study, is not
adversely affecting the aesthetic quality of the water in the Pigeon River.
Albert M. PIestrude,Ph.D.,Assoc. Prof. Emeritus
Department of Psychology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
12

March 11,2013
Dianne Reid
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: My opinion on the results of the Pigeon River Color Perception Study
The purpose of this letter is to present my opinion on the color levels in the Pigeon River in North
Carolina concerning their acceptability based upon three color perception studies conducted in June,
September and November, 2012. Observers/raters of the Pigeon River were recruited within western
North Carolina by Lancaster Consulting Company and included approximately 30 participants for each
study, none of which were used in more than one study. The raters were asked to rate eight different
river sites for scenic beauty,water quality and recreational use(wading,swimming,fishing, rafting) on a
scale of 1-7 (Likert)while standing on a bridge or along the river bank.The 7-point scale includes
1=unacceptable,4=acceptable and 7=very attractive. Analysis of the apparent and true color was
conducted at all eight sites by two different laboratories.
While observing the raters at each site, I also evaluated each site and took notes about their unique
characteristics. The three lowest sites down the river at river mile 24.7 (Site 1), river mile 42.6(Site 2)
and river mile 48.3 (Site3)were rated first in the studies as the raters continued to drive upstream.
These three sites had.a riverine uniqueness and beauty of being wide with shallow depth so that I could
see the rocks on the river bottom display their beauty as the river water was clear, When the water was
at its lowest in the river during the September 2012 study, ratings for swimming (3.1) and
boating/canoeing/rafting(3.5)were less than acceptable at the Brown's Bridge site (Site 1)which is
furthest down the river. If there were any elevated true color levels in the river(16,28 to 30 pcu in June
2012, 17,31 to 55 pcu in September 2012, and 29, 35 and 48 pcu) at these three sites from 1,2 to 3,
respectively, I could not detect any sign that color was adversely impacting water quality. These pcu
data points are found in the AquAeTer Table 3 of the color perception study report of January29,2013.
At the next two sites up the river(Site 4 at Clyde Bridge and Site 5 at Thickety 02 station),the scenery
around the river became quite the opposite from the first three sites observed. The river was much
narrower and at Site 4, debris from the river banks was seen lying in the river along with a large fallen
tree. Site 5 was the first site where raters had to view the river from its bank because no bridge was
available. Some raters were upset for having to walk through a field for a fair distance from the lower to
13

the upper viewing site location, and shade was predominant along the bank to provide a nebulously.
dark vision of the river bottom.
The Fibreville/Mixing Zone (Site 6) had the most unusual view with the Canton Paper Mill positioned
across the river bank, A number of raters mumbled derogatory comments when rating the site because
of the mill's presence covering the opposite side of the river. The overall low ratings at this site were
definitely influenced by the presence of the Canton Paper Mill being In the direct background of the
raters. When analyzing the apparent color concentrations in our study,the color concentrations ranged
from 54 to 117 pcu from Site 2 (Hepco Bridge)to Site 6 (Canton Mill Mixing Zone) in June,September
and November. Even with apparent color of 80 pcu at Site 2 (Hepco Bridge) In September, the Scenic
Beauty rating was 5.5 and also acceptable (4,5 rating) at Site 4(Clyde Bridge)with apparent color of 105
pcu. The Thickety 02 site in September had a Scenic Beauty rating of 5.5 when apparent color was 94
pcu. It appears that apparent color measurements up to at least 105 pcu are acceptable color
thresholds to the river raters. These overall ratings suggest that the river raters found apparent color
values in the range of80 to 105 pcu's acceptable, It is my opinion that color, at the levels encountered in
the Pigeon River in this study, is not adversely affecting the aesthetic quality of the water.
Sincerely,
Donald S. Cherry, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Aquatic Ecotoxicology
2006 Derring Hall
Department of Biological Sciences
Blacksburg,Virginia 24061
Tel. [phone]
14

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
OZ 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
-r
15

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
16

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
(5)
Thickety 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 5.3 5.3
Recreation
Park
(8)
Wells 6.0 6.3 6.5 5.5 5.3 5.3 6.0
Road
Bridge
17

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 5.8 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
02
(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
18

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 z Value Pr> I:) Alpha Lower Upper
1 Browns Br 10.7356 0.3053 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
3Ferguson& 11.0010 0.3053 36.04 <.0001 0.01 10.2146 11.7873
4 Clyde Br 8.3837 03053 27.46 <.0001 0.01 7.5973 9.1700
5 Thickety 02 St 10.2346 0.3053 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 Centon Re c Pk 10.4798 0.3053 34.33 <.0001 0.01 9.6935 11.2661
B W ells Rd Br 11.2404 03053 36.82 <0001 0.01 10.4540 12.0267
LS-Means for Site
With99%CotrFdence Limits
12
m
Z 10
a
� B Aecept�h',-, �.
a
i
6
Site
19

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> IzI alpha Lower Upper
1 Browns Br 18.7788 0.6339 29.63 <.0001 0.01 17.1461 20.4116
2HepcoBr 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 26.48 <.0001 0.01 15.1490 18.4145
5 Thickety 02 St 16.4663 0.6339 25.98 <.0001 0.01 14.8336 18.0991
6 Fibreville Mix Zn 13.7981 0.6339 , 21.77 <.0001 0.01 12.1653 15.4308
7 Canton Rec Pk 22.6760 0.6339 35.77 <.0001 0.01 21.0432 24.3087
8 Wells Rd Br 23.6154 0.6339 37.26 <0001 0.01 21.9826 25.2481
LS-Mean:for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits
25
m
a 20
be
R
Pi
w�
o� Acceptable=1i;
15
rots
� $ a
C�
Site
20

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 z Value Pr> jr] Alpha Lower Upper
1 Browns By 34.1894 1.4924 22.91 <.0001 0.01 30.3451 38.0337
2 Hepco Br 35.3750 1.4924 23.70 <.0001 0.01 31.5307 392193
3 Ferguson Br 38.2971 1.4924 25.66 <0001 0.01 34.4528 42.1414
4 Clyde Br 30.6654 1.4924 20.55 <.0001 OAI 26.8211 34.5097
5 Thickety02 St 363019 1.4924 24.32 <.0001 OM 32.4576 40.1462
6 Fibrevllle Mix Zn 23.1825 1.4924 15.53 <.0001 OAl 19.3382 27.0268
7 Canton Rec Pk 383106 1.4924 25.67 <.0001 0.01 34.4663 42.1549
8 Wells Rd Br 405962 1.4924 2720 <.000I 0.01 36.7519 44.4404
LS-Means for Site
With 99%Confidence Limits
45
40
m
a 35
a° Acceptable=32
w
O
I
P 25
rA
20
n r a r
Site 5

Figure 4: June data, Graph of 99% Confidence Limits on Site Median Ratings, Characteristic
Group =Scenic Beauty
Characteristic Group=Scenic Beauty
Medians for Site-30JUN2022(UR only)
With 99%Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
7.0
6.0
5.0
Acceptable=4
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
,T 1 9 S s R
R,q 9 ri Th. r6 ra P
-'�i- mo�B yaps ry ^Phil ,rO� ��sA
��O� 02 Ire s '+lid ^00 a^JiY
P 107 20 7pP� P
22

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 99%Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
15.0
14.0 T
13.0 j8
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0 11
Acceptable
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
C`Yo. Thrc �, rdor PG
Pe �'h, P�'ir °o s9
0.
^000' ra
7P 0-4
23

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 9996Distribution-Free Confidence Limits
25.0
20.0 I I
� _ 1
Acceptable=16
15.0
10.0
1 1 4 S S ,P
T T
91, yP P Cya tic P
odpd
01>
8 P,P P*
24

AquAeTer Figures
a•
station I
sts crear
Flees Crack
Catabeckea Creek station 2
0.
Jonathan Creek Statla 9Fergaesa Caratrlbahry
Crabtree Creek
Sig Branch
Richland Creek 11Iniray Beenrh
Bearenlarm Creek
Poison Coretributas•F
Station 6
Station d Station 7
Station s
Station 8
Legend
StatiouLocations
Pigeon River
Q Tributary
USES Gage
Pigeon River Watershed 5 2.5 0 5 10
CLIENT: ,,,
LOCATION: FIGURE I.
PROJECT/FME: STATION LOCATIONS
A: e` er optimizing resources water,air,earth
25

FIGURE 2
PHYSICAL SYSTEM OF THE PIGEON RIVER AND SAMPLED TRIBUTARIES
20 HARTFORD"A 20,87)
STATIONI•BROWNSBRIDGE(PRM24.7) TENNE33EE
BIG CREEK(PRM25A4) (PRM 25.85)
WALTERS PLANT(PRM 25.87) NORTH CAROLINA
NOTE:M03 TOPOGRAPHIC NAPS INDICATE
THAT RIV BR I 11 D FOR BIG CRRHR IS
CENiERID)IN THE PIGEON RI VM CHANNPl,
Of ME NORTH CAROI.HIMBNNBSSEE
Ho"M
WALTERS DAM(PRM 37.87)
CATALOOCHEE CREEK(PRM 36.00)
w STATION2 NEPC0 BRIDGE(PRM 42.58) PINES CREEK(PRM 42.68M.26)
3
JONATNAN CREEK(PRM 45.96+0.64)
STATION 3 FERGUSON BRIDGE(PRM 48.3) FERGUSON COVE TRIBUTARY(PRM 48.3+0.01)
CRABTREE CREEK(PRM49.73+0.01)
BIG BRANCH(PRM 51.74+0.02)
NCSR 1625 BRIDGE(PRM 53.56)
JJ RICHLAND CREEK(PRM 54,91+021)
(MAOGHI VALLEY)
POISONCOVE TRIBUTARY(PRM 57.45+0.04) STATION 4 CLYDE(PRM 57.60)
STATION 5 THICKETY 02 STATION(PRM 61.2)
(P MURRAY BRANCH(PRM 61.66+0.36)
STATION 6FEB ARKST BRIDGE(PRM 63.61; BRAVERDAM CREEK(PRM 62.85+0.01)
STATION 7 CANTON RECREATIONPARK(PRM 64.5)
STATION 8 WELTS ROADBRIDGE(PRM 67.5)
BEGIN PIGEON RIVER(PRM 69.32)
W FORK PR(PRM 69.32+0.28) E FORK PR(PRM 69.32+021)
LBW PIGEON RIVER(PR) REW
CLIENT:
LOCAT1oN: FIGURE 2.
PROJECT/FILE: I
PHYSICAL SYSTEM
optimizing resources I water,air,earth
26

AQUAETER TABLE 1. SAMPLE LOCATIONS
RIVER/ SAMPLE SAMPLE
STREAM NAME DESCRIPTION LATITUDE LONGITUDE
igeon River Station 1 _ Browns Bridge 350475.86"N 830 646.16"W
Pigeon River Station 2 He co Bridge 3503957.89"N 8205941.06"W
Pigeon River Station 3 Ferawson Bridge 35036'5 1.89"N 82057'59.74"W
Pigeon River Station Clyde Bridge 35032'627"N 8205443.47"W
Pigeon River Station 5 Thickety 02 Station 3503T36.78"N 82051'48.68"W
Pigeon River Station 6 Canton Mill Mixing Zone 3503T29.64"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 35°29155.81"N 8205222.74"W
Big Creek PR 20 Tributary 35027'15.48"N 83'341.76'W
Cataloochee Creek PR-19 Tributary 35°41'3836"N 830 2'5752"W
Fines Creek PR-15 Tributary 35°49639"N 8205938.00"W
Jonathon Creek PR-14 Tributary 35037'1622"N 830 O'16.95"W
Ferguson Cove trib PR-13 Tributary 35°36'51.43"N 8205757.24"W
Crabtree Creek PR-12 Tributary 35°36'220"N 82757T-75"W
Big Branch y PR 11 Tributary 3503447.10"N 8205641.85"W
Richland Creek PR-9 Tributary 359T51.11"N 820564188"W
Poison Cove trib PR-7 Tributary 35°32'3.48"N 82054'52.89'V
Murray Branch PR-5 Tributary 35033'0-02"N 8205121.96"W
Beaverdam Creek PR-17 Tributary 35032'29.67"N 82050'46.83"W
27

AQUAETER TABLE 2. TRIBUTARY SIZE
SAMPLE NAME CONFLUENCE :DRAINAGE
WITH PIGEON BASIN
RIVER
(PRM*) (m Z)
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+0.22 204
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
PR-20 Big Creek 25,84+0.09 36.4
Note; * - PRM is Pigeon River Mile,representing distance from the confluence with the French
Broad Riverin'Tennessee,
28

TABLE 3.APPARENT COLOR RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION PIGEON APPARENTCOLOR
STATION RIVER 011LE JUNE 2012 SEPTENIBER2012 NOVEMBER2012
ONSITE AM ON-BITE ALS ON-SITE ALS
(mp/1.PCU)(mPJI.PCU)(.WL PCU)(mF/L PCU)(mP/L PCU)(mF/L PCIB
51911on4 PI eon Rlver at Brown's Bride 24.T 28 22 71 75 42 31
PI con Rivcrvt BmwnS Bold e,Du Ikele W1357
3D 24 -
PR-20' BI Creek 0.09 <I0(e) 22 14 -
PR-19 Comlochee Creek 4.42 26 23 18
Cxulochee Crcck 4A2 28 - - - -
Smllon 2 Pigeon Rivof o1 He cn Bridge 54 32 80 74 41 79
PR-15 Fines Crod 0.26 67 - - 35 " - 26
PR-14 Innmhan Creek 0.64 41 26 22
Ionmhon Crtok.D licole 0.M - - 25 - -
Slelinn 3 Pi enn River el Fog um Btid a 40 37 82 84 53 53
Pieon Rim at Fer enn Bridv.Dulicnm - 80 BD
PR-I3 Farusen Cnve Tdbulu .01 54 el 34 -
PR-12 Crahi.o Crcck O.0 57 25 33
PR-II Big Bmnch 51,74+D.D2 Je 27 74 -
PR-9 Rlchland Cmek 54.91+0.21 34 21 40 -
RlchlandCwk.Dulwlo 54.91+[111. . 72 - 40
PR-7 Poisnn Cove lribulu 57.45+O.N 33 - 93 - 40 -
Slallnn 4 FI eon River at CI),do Brld a 58 53 49 105 108 79 72
ld e,Du Ilcam 5R 72
Smlon5 P WSmtinn 61.2 59 A 94 97 86 77
PR-5' Muo,Y Bmnch fi1.66+0.76 23 - JO 26
MI. Bmnch,Dulicxle 6l.fifi+0.36 - - 26 - -
Slallon 6 Moon River at Cenlon Mill Mixing-Lone 04.9 B4 75 117 115 99 93
PR-17 Bevv<Nom Creek 62.85-ll1 9 ]J 29
S moot=Crcck.Du lic to 6&85+0.1 9 -
S1.11n0 Pleon Rivoral Canton Rccmallon Park 64.5 22 16 17 20 19 14
' r Slution 8 Pi can River at Wells Rood i 67.5 2] W 12 17 <IO(8) 13
Notes: "On-dlo refers In the BW Ridge PaPer nn-dle ce1110ed lobomloq,
ALS Is ALS Hmirnnmenthl,u Iobnrolnry in KOM Wo6inS10n.
r•Samplewvs cnmpmmised dudv0 lm porlalinn.
29

TABLE 4.TRUE COLOR RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION PIGEON TRUE COLOR
STATION RIVER JUNE 2012 SEPTEMBER 2012 NOVEMBER 2012
MILE ON-SITE ALS ON-SITE ALS ONSITE ALS
(mg/I.PCU)(mg/L PCU) (-0,PCU) (-91L PCU) (mg/L PCU) (m grLPCIO
Station 1 Pi c.n River at Br.vm's Bdd n 24.7 16 15 17 18 29 24
Pienn River at Brawn's Bride,Vapila a 24.7 IS 14 -
PR-20 Sit,Creek 25.84+0109 <IQ I - <10(8).. <10(3) '
PR49 Camlochee Cseek 36.01+4.42 12 IS 12
Catalochea Deek 38.01+4A2 I4 - - -
Station2 Mason Rircral H.K.grid o 42.6 28 24 31 39 35 14
PR-15 Pines Deck 42.68+0.26 II 29 24' -
PR.14 Jonathan Crcek 45.96+0.64 14 21 IB
Jonathan Cmek,Du Ilcole 45.96+0.64 - - 21
Station J Mason Rlwr m Paraus.o Brid a 48.3 90 28 55 55 48 44
Pigeon River at Per uson Bdd e,Du llama 4813 - 52 54 -
PR-❑ Pe us.n Cove Tribvlo 48.3+Ulu 1 - 12 14 - 24 -
PR-12 Cmbpce Creek 49.73+0.13 13 12 25
PRAI Big Stanch 51.74+0.02 10 <lu V) 18.
PR-9 Richland Creek 54.91 r0.21 12" IB
Richland Crack lime.Du 54.91♦U.21 ❑ <I0(5) IB
PR-7 Poison Cove vibula 57A5+0.04 10 - <IO(9) - 27
Station PI eon Rlwr al Cl de Bdd o 58 35 40 83 81 60 60
PI man Wwral Clyde Bdd e,Du llama 58 _ 60
Smlivn5 Pigs..Riwr in TlalcWy 02 Smdon 61.2 44 44 - 75 77 64 fit
PR-5 MannyBranch _ 61.fifi+0.Jb 10 13 24
Mum Bmnch.Du licnte ol.fi6+O.J6 - - 16 - -
,Stallon6 Pieon Rlwrol Canl.n Mill MIKIng Zane 62.9 47 51 94 86 73 70
PR-17 B.....dom Creak 61.85♦0.1 15 IS 28
Beeverdam Deck.Doplla.l. 62.65+0.1 - - 28
Station Pienn Rlrcr al Conlon Recreallon Park 61.5 Q017 IO II II U 10
Station 8 Pi eon River al Wells Road 67.5 <IO(6) 7 8 I I 9 8
Noes: -On-sila Mress to the Blue Ridga Paper on-situ certified laboratory,
- ALS 1s ALS Environmental.a labnmlmy In Kelso.Washington.
30

AQUAETER TABLE 5. FLOWS MEASURED DURING STUDIES
STATION STATION NAME PIGEON MEASUREMENT BY JUNE SEPTEMBER NOVEM 3ER 2012
RIVER 2012 2012 EVENT EVENT
MILE EVENT
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Station 1 Pigeon River at Browns Bridge 24.7 USGS 165 145 243
[R-20 Big Creek 25.84+0.09 AquAeTer 20.75 2056 73.99
-19 Catalochee Creek 38.01+4.42 USGS 35 29 43
tion 2 Pigeon River at Hepco Bridge 42.6 USGS 263 180 270
-15 Fines Creek 42.68+0-26 AquAeTer 18.22 10.15 23.02
-14 Jonathan Creek 45.96+0.64 AquAeTer 55.97 48.89 63.14
tion.3 Pigeon River a(Ferguson Bridge 483 - -13 Ferguson Cove Tributary 483+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 027 0.62 0.63
PR-9 Richland Creek 54.91+021 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 0.31 032 0.42
Station 6 Pigeon River at Canton Mill Mixing Zone 629 USGS 111 83 107
PR-17 Beaverdam Creek 62.85+0-1 AquAeTer 3-49 5.27 4.75
Station 7 jPigeon River at Canton Recreation Park 645 USGS 111 83 107
Station 8 jPigeon River at Wells Road 67.5 USGS 106 80 107
Note: Station 8 flow estimated by adding the flows measured on the East Fork Pigeon River and West Fork Pigeon River.
31

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 technique for the measurement of attitudes.Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-
55.
Marks, L. E. (1974). Sensory Processes: The New Psychophysics. New York:.Academic Press.
McKechnie, 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. II.- 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.
32

Exhibit A—Approved Color Perception Study Plan (including Appendices)
(See Disc)
33

Exhibit —Pinnacle Solutions,Inc. Color Perception Analysis
(See Disc)
T�
34

Exhibit C—AquAeTer Individuals Involved in Sample Collection and Analysis
(See Disc)
35

Exhibit D—Photographs from Observation Events
(See Disc)
36