NC0000272_Evergreen Response Comments EPA_20120417

evergreen".I& Canton Of ice
packaging 175 Moire weer. Canton, 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.dickenskeve�ack.com nick.mccrackengeve�ack.com
Doing Business in California 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

eve r nTMcff Canton Office
packaging 175 Moire weer. Canton, NC 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 following 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.
Doing Business in California 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 turbidity 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 perception 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
tw 7
'~ S
c
d
a� 3
2
a
1
7 17 6 6V 6,>
-6'
EXAMPLE
f � o
not actual data ' �1,
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 U.
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., #62—"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#4
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#16 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#8 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 3rd Quarter observation to correspond with the
period of normal annual river low flow. Delay in the date of the 3rd 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 Page 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, Ph.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
FMC'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 if warranted.
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:
69 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 ("BR-PP") 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 H). 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).
• Ratin! 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.
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,
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, Lolo, 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 Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies,VA Tech
1981-86 Associate Professor—Biology Department and University Center for 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-docs.
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 macro i nve rteb rates,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
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: Ecotoxicological 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 Acroneurio 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.J.,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. Beitinger 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(Cobicula 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 StudyMap
_11
aggWp re h Broad Rraer Observational Sites Order of Observation River Mile
• Wells Rd. 8 RM 67.5
Canton Recreation
Park 7 RM 64.5
c ' 1 Canton Mill Mixing
� 6 RM 62.9
Zone
2
Thickety 02 Station 5 RM 61.2
Clyde Bridge 4 RM 58.0
�C 4 5 e
6 • U
*Canton o Ferguson Bridge 3 RM 48.3
J Gi
g oa
Hepco Bridge 2 RM 42.6
Brown's Bridge
1 RM 24.7
(Stateline)

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
5. 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!
R&S 926041-1

Appendix D
Environmental Attitudes Questionnaire

i
ERI BuOKLEI
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPON'SE"'
INVENTORY
George E. McKechnie
DIRECTIONS
This questionnaire is designed to shady 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 :
strongly agree ," 4 agree 111 3 neutral rr = dlisagree { p = strongly disagree
Follow the instructions on the special 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 roust guess .
6c) Copyrioa* 1971 , by George E, Mckechnie, All rights reserve . No portions of this
miterital may be reproduced by aarry grorOI without written permission from the
ptnbiishjer ,
iPublisied by
CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGISTS PRESS
577 College Avenue Palo Alto , California
o

strongly agree 4 - agree I 3 neulraal 2 = disagree / 1 strongty di gree
I' . I like amusement iparks, 34. I would enjoy working with precision
? . I would enjoy the work of an architect ,
power tools ,
3 . Machines increase rm an 's freedom . 35 , f have difficulty concentrating when
4 . 1 prefer to live in an ;`arc: i where neighbors thins are noisy .
keep to themselves . 36 , 1 would rather remodel an old hewse than
build a new one .
5 . 1 would enjoy driving ra racing car .
37 , We must move: ahead andnot worry about
ti . The idea of wvalkno into the forest and past failures .
" living off the land " for a week appeals to me .
38 . Cities are too noisy and crowded for arse .
T Life in the city is rnore interesting than
1
life on as 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 .
41 , 1 often haave; trouble getting the: privacy I want. .
10 , 1 have rriv hest thoughts when I am alone .
42 . There should be n law against rrnytrnc owning
I i . 1 enjoy browsing in bookstores , more than a thousand acres of land .
12 . It would be fury to move around and live in 43 . 1 feel most secure; when I am working
different parts of the country , around' thy. hotusc .
13 , It is herring, to spend all day working 44 . It is hralrr.less to try , to save our cities .
with your hands .
45 . It would be fun to own some
14 , 11 is exciting to go shopping in as large city . old-fashioned costunnes ,
15 , There should be a law against skyscrapers , 46 . Motorcycles should be kept out eaf
16 . 1 like to be by myself much of the time . recreation areas ,
17 , 1 enjoy browsing in antique shops . 47 . 1 like nmoderam furniture better than the
18 , 1 sometimes alaydreann of being, stranded more traditional styles ,
ein a tropical island , 48 . 1 would like a jots that involved as lot of traveliang .
19 1 like places that have flier feeling of being; Md . 49 It is important for rmnc. to Lawn
210 . 1 shudder at the thought of finding; a spider top cluaahtV crJuipancnt ,
in my 'bed , 503 As to child , t often watched when soniconc
2l , 1 would enjoy traveling around the world repaired things around the; house ,
ors a sailing chap . 51 , I t'il.e the sounds of as city street ,
? 1 alleys are interesting places to explore . 52 . Old, sections of the city tare more inLemsting
23 , 1 prefer a stickAiift car to one with an than the new areas ,
autonnatic transmission . 53 , 1 often feel lonely" when I a m by myself ,
24 . 1 like crystal, chandeliers , 54 , As as child , I was taught respect for
I like: homes with stemruc floors . all 1iwrinf tlairags .
20 1 flee thv variety of stimulation one finis 55 . It is good fo'r man to submit to the:
in, the city4 forces of mature ,
7 . 1 usually saavc spare trouts and bolts . 56> 1 prefer friends who are, reliable and
L p" even tempered .
2g . 1 get annoy
when my neighbors arc noisy .
57 , 1 often think of settling down on a farm
29 When buying clothes " I usaally look more some clay .
for comfort than for style . '
30 , 1 am eluitt skillful with my' hands..
SS , 1 don' t kkc being completely aloane .
31 . it ' s annoying to hove to share an office or S9. 1 would like to livee in a modern ,
wtau'k space with soincone . 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 canter necessary To protest file rights of the: public .
of cultural life; , to 1 . 1 like thinks that have precision moving parts .

5 - strongly agree d - agree J 3 - neutral ! 2 ,- diaaagree« r I — strongly dtsagrim
626 1 would enjoy entertaining famous people. . 91 1 enjoy owning a gout piece of equipment ,
63 . 1 often feel that l am as pat of the. space even i £ 1 don 't get. to use it mulch ,
around me . 93 . 1 pride myself on having a house which
64 , 1 can identify many of the local flowers and trees , is always open to friends .
6.S , I would like to work with corrrputw:rs . 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 ,
ass at child . 96 , A complex technological society cannot
67 , Our national forests should be preserved in their tolerate individuality .
natural starts , with roads and buildings prohibited . 97 . 1 enjoy a change in the weather " even when
613 . Flying in as small airplane would it turns bad .
make me nervous, 9fi . It is unsafe to ride on buses these days..
69 , All a child , I was afraid o £ being outside 99 , Country people, are more honest than city people
by myself . 100 . Hiking is boring.
70 , It is butter if people 'Viva; out their lives 101 , I' d be afraid to live in a plaace where
in one ;place. .
tlaevrc; were no people nearby" ,
71 . 1 would enjoy owning ai fancy watch , 102 . 1 find street noise very distracting .
72 . i would enjoy riding ao motorcycle . 303 , 1 have aa1w1:ays been somewhat of a daredevil .
73 , Making rain by artificially "seeding;7l' clouds 1104 , 1 would enjoy riding in a crowded subway ,
is a ore-aat technological advance .
1105 , 1 taut quite sensitivee to the " character"
74 . 1 enjoy staying up all night. of a building .
75 . 1 am happiest when 1 am alone , 106 , 1 like; to ride on roller coasters ,
76 , No child should have to grow tip 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 tikes to loam things to neighbors ,
without warning ,
109 , 1 would enjoy living in a historic house,
78 ,, +'w fireplace acids a special feeling of
coziness to a roam . 1 1 tl. 'ic,naetI
oz 1 wish. I hard power over the;
79 . It ' s interesting to learn about the history forces of nature ,
of the placewhere you live . Ill , I have no iaaterest in ballet .
gtl . It is £tan to make scale models of things . I 121 , 1 like to read about the history of places ,
li 1 . 1 would enjoy living the, rest of nay life 1 13 . Birth control practices, .should be accepted'
in all large city , by everyone ,.
� . I�lectricity farscinaaLes me , 114 . Jet air travel is one of the great advances
83 , 1 like social gatherings where. I can enjoy of our societylt
myself without worrying about other people , 1 15 , 1 have vivid mentorie.s of the neighborhood
84 . 1 don ' t think that 1 would ever want where I grew, up4
to be hypnotized . 116 . 1 would enjoy going to the opiera ,
85 , Sinaallwtowvn life: is Lazo boring for nose . 117 . "1Oday people are terra isolated from the
80. Fertilizers improve the quality of boil. forces of nature ,
117 . 1 often ,get the feeling that I just must be alone . 1 1 g , It is easy for me to work undistmeted.
I n most situations .
W A person has a right tea modify the
erivaronrrient to suit his ni;eds . 119 , 1 like to dress in the latest fashions ,
894 Saaatletirrres I 'm afraid of too much stirnulation �. 120 , 1 seldom pay attention to what I eaat ,r
from sounds , colors, odors , etc . 121 . 11 is dangerous to work around heavy machinery .
90 , 1 understand the architectural idea that t ^. � , 'nce wildernCSS as cruel and 'harsh .
farm follows tunction ,
1213 , Modern buildings are seldom as attractive
91 . 1 would enjoy working in a flower garden . as older ones ,

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 . 1 often wish for the seclusion of a 1556 1 enjoy collecting things that most people
weekend retreat , would consider junk .
126 . I would like to own an expensive camera , 156 . There are often times when 1 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 . 1 often have trouble finding my way everything is in one place ,
around a new area , I60 . 1 am fond of oriental rugs .
131 , In spite of all the talk about pollution , 161 . 1 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 . 1 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 , 1 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 , 1 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 . 1 172 . 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 , 1t is dangerous nowadays to live in a large city .
to any one place .
14 .5 , I seldom vary the route 1 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 . 1 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 Inyenfor } hy Geurpt� E INScKechnic , 1°}t . 1) .
r _
Aov
y
9c 7i lh fir a twyil;: am Iml ctr vur � n i rrza � rl reyues2e , cv ,°oil � Foc , R C 7W ' Yalu ;
ra :p�tiyl ,Se ! a� � �ic .la ic� a71 r . t' i'ic° h . o-c9f+avt 7n t , :r- s;cg �.� i1 . r„ vrst¢7 q-lr � n',�!.�hln�: r7turti , ° ; hl!=.a. tl �e ftv � e �a �t� r-a�,a. cede�,7.rsa,`s;,
nmealls, strongly agrm 4 mamas agree ` } mrmeaw: noutral ! ? rrtcans dMagrive ' f r ¢je: ores stironggt tli.utgrrse .
--
1 wr
` ,� N;
I�� r.� � 4 i 1 v
41
w tat
j 1 n 5 .9 l ItJI;P 1 1 tr, 610
04
I i
ly
14
oil
Op
Y5U I '
71ik
1
f
, ,,a j
DO W001 MAR „ Nst-U1a ' TWS tl �� t`
PA L" i; E /, El AN Nm ' rv1 ( ? t)
IP
. II
r
I i
w rIPrc � . . Ln, . Pv , rtl, TrhJ ei _ 1i or G,rc. � , •,errioi ..�axe

Standard Scor*s
0
is
1 I
O
fii I j 11 1 + 10 1 1 ii + x + a I r
m
re
0 U '
I
r i
w o
l
�, 0
et /
1 L
ro
I
� i O +7 t7 Q + ran
u c a u o
{
U
u j 1 r 44I t
v
Eli (yj
C5 G 0 .� Ca 0 0
� 6
in
m
I r �
r b

1
amp
y r n °t)
LV
I I I
.sw a rw
I
e
h
4 I
f
f
I G cc to
CD
pp
I �
m
cr,

Appendix E
Visual Acuity Test
(Standard Eye Chart)

print full-size On
8.5x11 inch paper
200 FT.
20 61 M
200
0 100 FT.
100 30.5 M
20 70 FT.
70 !r 21.3M
0 50 FT-
SO
15.2 m
20 40 M
40 3? C F D 12,2M
ZOL 30 FT.
30 D F C Z P 9,14 M
20 25 FT.
25 E L 0 P Z D 7.62M
20 D E Ir 0 T E C 20 FT.
20 6.10M

Appendix F
Color Vision Test

Collor Vision Test
lK
rantuwr t �- I
T
IN" Irscift
WX N. s t x
I
46 44 i
e
17
}
Nuff"
N
k Numb"
mm
to
r
• � �V. �a `'Ifs

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
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 O N LOW SCORERS ARE OFTEN
DESCRIBED AS: SCALE AND MAJOR THEMES: DESCRIBED AS:
Acsthctk, affectic mate,complicated, dis- PA(Pastoralism). Opposition to land develop- Apathetic, Conscientious, connw native,
tractible. outspoken, progressive, rebel- ment;concern about population growth,pewee- conventional, deliberate, dependable,
lious, unconventional, unpredictable, vation of natural resources, including open friendly,honest,practical,self-controlled,
selfish. space;wx4pgance,of natural forces as shapers
of human life;sensitivity to pure environmental
experienm; self-sufficiency in the natural
enviroatmeart,
Critical, skeptical. responsive to urban UR (Urbanism). E,ojoyment of high density Conscientious, conventional, friendly,
aesthetics, high-brow, con"med with living; appreciation of unusual and varied generous, nonverbal, opportunistic, ro-
philosophieal problems in lift, valuing in- stimulus pwte ns of the city;interest in c atural bust,simple, unselfish.
tellectua)activity.managerial interests, lift; enjoyment of interpws"W richness and
diversity.
Autocratic, condescending, conservative, EA (Environmental Adaptation). Modification Artistic:,awkward,compassionate,curious,
efficient, enterprising, extraverted, bard- of the environment to satisfy nee&and desires., distractible, idealistic, introspective,
headed,mannerly,methodical.,power and and to.provide comfort and leisure,oppoaitiom moody, nonconforming. sensitive, son-
money oriented,judgmental,aesthetically to governmental control over private sand use: suous, worrying,forthright,
unresponsive. preference for highly designed or adapted en-
vironrncnts:use.of technoiogy to solve environ-
mental problems; preference for stylized en-
vironmental details.
Adventurous, disorderly, distractible, SS (Stimulus Seeking). Interest in travel aced Conscientious, conservative, fastidious,
dreamy.easy-going,immature,imputsive, exploration of unusual placers,: err oyrnenl of practical,responsible,rigid,severe,stingy+.
progressive, unconventional, undeptud- complex and intense physical sensations;
able. breadth of interests,
Capable, competent., diligent. efficient, ET (Environmental Trust), Crencrail environ- Ritter, cold., coarse,dissatisfied, distrust-
elpful, ii%ggenious, resourceful, stable, mental openness. responsiveness, and trust'; ful intolerant, moody, prejudiced, spend-
thorough,tolerant, well-adjusted. competence in fandatw one's way about the thrift,unkind,
environment vs. fear of powtially dangerous
environments,security of home;fear of being
alone and unprotected.
Affectionate, an.istic, changaabk. de- AN (Antiquarianism). E.*yment of antiques Coarse. cooi, conservative, deliberate,
pendent, dreamy, emotional, forgiving, and historical places;preference for traditional mischievous, moralistic, practical, sly,
idealistic, introspective, aesthetically vs, rnoderrn design-, aesthetic sensitivity to stolid,unemotional.
reactive, wane. man-made environments and to landscape:
appreciation of cultuta.l artifacts of earlier eras;
tendency to collect objects for their emotional
signiAcance.
Aloof; arrogant, autocratic, bitter, cold, NP (Need for Privacy). Need for physical Appreciative, cooperative, easy-going,
formal, hard-hearted, sulky, polished, isolation from stimuli; enjoyment of solitude, friendly,seeking reassurance,warts,seeks
resentful,stubborn, dislike of neighboring; need for freedom from acceptarice.lacks confidence,introverted_
distraction.
Arrogant, conceited., egotistical, hard- MO (Mechanical Orientation). Interest in Affectlormate,feminine,generous,sincere,
hearted,masculine,self seeking,inRexible, mechanics in its various forms; enjoyment in understanding: submissive, sympathetic,
sociawe,manipulative. working with one's hands: interest in techno- warm,
logical processes and basic principles of science:
appreciation of the functional properties of
objects.
Calm, civilized, initiatory. mannerly, pa. CO (Commutnality). A validity scale, tapping Bard-headed,flirtatious,good looking,its-
tient,tactful, trusting,rule-following. honest, attentive,wind careful test-taking atti- mature, opportunistic, versatile, witty.
tude; response to items in statistically modal independent=minded, psychologically
mariner. complex.
2