Table 5-4. Compartment 2 Result for the Two Compartment EAASR Configuration
 Area Inflow Depth HRT Cin Cout Percent
 Scenario (acres) (ac-ft/d) (ft) (days) (mg/L) (mg/L) Removal
 TC base 15,360 1,284 5.9 70 0.087 0.045 48%
 TC STA 15,360 1,284 5.9 70 0.087 0.045 48%
 TC Miami 15,360 1,284 5.9 70 0.087 0.045 48%
 TC Miami STA 15,360 1,284 5.9 70 0.087 0.045 48%

Table 5-5. STA 3/4 Result for the Two Compartment EAASR Configuration
 Area Inflow Depth HRT Cin Cout Percent
 Scenario (acres) (ac-ft/d) (ft) (days) (mg/L) (mg/L) Removal
 TC base 17,920 2,201 2.4 19 0.064 0.020 76%
 TC STA 17,920 2,201 2.4 19 0.058 0.020 77%
 TC Miami 17,920 2,201 2.4 19 0.048 0.020 77%
 TC Miami STA 17,920 2,201 2.4 19 0.052 0.020 77%


Table 5-6. TP Removal by


Mass in Kilograms per Day


Scenario Cl C2 EAASR Total STA 3/4 System Total
TC base 67 67 134 119 253
TC STA 80 67 147 104 250
TC Miami 82 67 148 77 225
TC Miami STA 98 67 165 86 251

Four Compartment Reservoir

 Two scenarios were analyzed for the four compartment (FC) EAASR

configuration. The FC base scenario was modeled as presented in Figure 5.9. The FC

STA scenario was modeled as presented in Figure 5-10. The results for each

compartment are presented in Tables 5-7 through 5-11. Results from the analysis are

similar to the two compartment configuration, therefore little water quality gains were

realized from the increased compartmentalization.

Table 5-7. Compartment A Result for the Four Compartment EAASR Configuration
 Area Inflow (ac- Depth HRT Cin Cout %
 Scenario (acres) ft/d) ft (days) (mg/L) (mg/L) Removal
 FC base 5,120 589 8.3 72 0.131 0.059 55%
 FC STA 5,120 589 8.3 72 0.133 0.060 55%