### DA TE: 

### SUBJEC T:

FROM:

TO: UNITED STATES ENV I RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C

.. 20460

August 17 , 20 1 5 O F F I CE OF CH EMICAL SAFETY AND PO L LUTION PREVENTION

Transmi ss io n of B ackground M a te rial s and C h a rge to the Pan e l for th e September 1 5

- 18, 20 1 5 Sess io n of the fiFRA Scientific Adv i sory Pan e l ( SA P ) Entitled

.. De ve lopment of a Spat ia l Aquati c Mo d el (SAM) fo r Pesticide Assess ment s .. Donald Brad y, Ph.D.



### ~ Director E nvironm e nt a l Fate and

**~** c t s Di v i s ion
Fred J enki n s D es ignated Fede ral Offic ia l 

### FIFRA Scien tifi c Advisory Panel Office of Science C o ordinati o n a nd Polic y (720 I M ) Attac h ed is a s ig n ed copy of th e B ackgro und Document , Appe ndi ces . and C h arge Ques ti ons to th e Panel for th e Septemb er 15

- 18 , 2015 F 1F RA SAP sess ion: 

### D e velopment of a Spat ial Aquatic Model (SAM) fo r Pestic ide Assessment s. These mate rial s d o n o t co ntain any in fo rmation pro tected under s ta tute as Confid e ntial Bu s ine ss In fo rm ation (C B I) nor do th ey conta in inform ation protected from disclo s ure to fo re ign and multi-n a tional p es ticide pro ducers und e r F1FRA Secti o n I 

### O(g). Finally. thes e m ate ri a l s do not includ e inf o rmati o n p ro t ec te d by copyright. The attached d oc um en t s include th e fo ll owi n g:


### Indi ca te Wh ethe r Document # Document Titl e Date 

### F I FRA lO (g) or



### CBI Protected I Developme nt of a S patial A quati c Model (SA M ) For A u g ust 17 , n o Pesticid e Assess ments: Backg round Paper for the 2 015 September 1 5

- 18 , 2 015 , F IFRA SAP 2-A SAM Model Co mp o nent Co n cep tuali zati o n s (doc ument ) A u gus t 17 , n o 20 1 5Indi ca te Wh eth e r D o cum e nt # Docum e nt T itle D a te FI FRA 

### lO (g) or

CB I Pro tec te d 2

- B Comparison of U n ifom1 Sing le Compartment to Non- August 17 , n o uniform Multi-compartment Approaches to F low and 20 15 Mass Di stributi o n s 2

- C Test Ba si n s and Mo nitorin g Data U sed for Mode l Augus t 17 , no Evaluation in SAM (spreadsheet) 20 15 2-D Compar i so n s of SAM Output s to Mon itorin g Data for August 17 , no Selected Test Ba s i ns in 20 1 5 (1) Mark Twain Bas in, MO (spreadsheet) (2) Sc io to Ri ve r Ba s in. OH (s pread s heet) (3) White River (Eas t Fork) Basin , IN (sprea d s h eet) 3-A Descripti o n of Scenario Input s Use d in SAM (do c ument) A u g u s t 17 , n o 20 1 5 3-B General Land Cover Classes De rived from th e Cro p land August 17 , no Data Layer (docume nt and sp reads heet ) 20 15 3-C Integrating G ridd ed Dail y Me teoro logy Int o Pesticide Aug u st 17 , n o Aquatic Expos ure Mo d e ls (doc um e nt) 20 15 3-0 Crop Plant-H arve s t Dat es and Other Related Inputs August 17 , n o (spread s h ee t) 20 1 5 3-E Derivation of C urve Numb e r for SA M ( docum e nt) August 17 , no 20 15 3

- F Evaluation of So il W Ql Gr o upin g C la sses as a Po t e ntial A u g u st 17 , no R ep lac e m e nt for Individu a l So i l Map U nit s in SAM 20 1 5 Scenarios (doc ument) ( 1 ) Comparison of Output s fo r Mark Twa in Bas in , MO (s preads heet) (2) Co mp ari son of Outputs f or Scioto Ri ve r B as in , 0 H (spreads heet ) (3) Co mp ari son of Outputs f o r White Ri ve r Basin, IN (sp r ead s heet) 5

- A Comparison of Outputs Ba se d o n D ifferent Pes ticide August 17 , n o Application Window Approaches 20 15 ( 1 ) Mark Twain B as in , MO (spreadsheet) (2) Scioto Ri ver Ba si n . OH (s pr ead s heet )

2