United States
Environmental Protection
\'^l M ^Agency
2014 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Iron Arts District
Scrantori, PA
Greening the Iron Arts District
Green Infrastructure Interventions for Reducing Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) in the City of Scranton, PA.
January 2017
EPA833-R-16-013
-------
ABOUT THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM
Stormwater runoff is a major cause of water pollution in urban areas. When rain falls in
undeveloped areas, soil and plants absorb and filter the water. When rain falls on our roofs,
streets, and parking lots, however, the water cannot soak into the ground. In most urban areas,
stormwater is drained through engineered collection systems and discharged into nearby
water bodies. The stormwater carries trash, bacteria, heavy metals, and other pollutants from
the urban landscape, polluting the receiving waters. Higher flows also can cause erosion and
flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat, property, and infrastructure.
Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create
healthier urban environments. At the scale of a city or county, green infrastructure refers to
the patchwork of natural areas that provide habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner
water. At the scale of a neighborhood or site, green infrastructure refers to stormwater
management systems that mimic nature by soaking up and storing water. Green infrastructure
can be a cost-effective approach for improving water quality and helping communities stretch
their infrastructure investments further by providing multiple environmental, economic,
and community benefits. This multi-benefit approach creates sustainable and resilient water
infrastructure that supports and revitalizes urban communities.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages communities to use green
infrastructure to help manage stormwater runoff, reduce sewer overflows, and improve water
quality. EPA recognizes the value of working collaboratively with communities to support
broader adoption of green infrastructure approaches. Technical assistance is a key component
to accelerating the implementation of green infrastructure across the nation and aligns with
EPA's commitment to provide community focused outreach and support in the President's
Priority Agenda Enhancing the Climate Resilience of America's Natural Resources. Creating more
resilient systems will become increasingly important in the face of climate change. As more
intense weather events or dwindling water supplies stress the performance of the nation's water
infrastructure, green infrastructure offers an approach to increase resiliency and adaptability.
For more information, visit
2
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
P R i N CI PA L U S E PA S TA F F
Kenneth Hendrickson, USEPA Region 3
Dominique Lueckenhoff, USEPA Region 3
Jamie Piziali, USEPA
Christopher Kloss, USEPA
. • . i I
Gene Barrett, Scranton Sewer Authority
Don King, City of Scranton
Paul Bechtel, McLane Associates
Bernie McGurl, Lackawanna River Corridor Association
' r " , M
Neil Weinstein, LID Center
Kelly Fleming, LID Center
David Miller, LID Center
Suzy Cho, LID Center
John Kosco, Tetra Tech
Martina Frey, Tetra Tech
This report was developed under EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-009 as part of
the 2014 EPA Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program.
Photo: Scranton, PA
3
-------
CONTENTS
About the Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program 2
Acknowledgments 3
1. Executive Summary 7
2. Introduction 8
Water Quality Issues/Goals 8
Project Overview & Purpose 9
Project Benefits 9
3. Project Site: The Iron Arts District 10
Existing Site Conditions 12
4. Green Infrastructure Conceptual Plan 14
Design Approach 14
Stormwater Priority Sites 14
Cedar Avenue Pilot Green Street 18
Schimpff Court Rain Garden Pilot Project 20
5. Stormwater Toolbox 22
6. Summary of Recommendations 24
For Further Investigation 26
7. Green Infrastructure Practice Cost Estimates 28
8. Conclusion 30
References 31
4
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Context 8
Figure 2. Iron Arts District Boundary 11
Figure 3. CSO Catchment Areas 13
Figure 4. Sub-Catchment Areas 14
Figure 5. Green Street Concept Plan 18
Figure 6. Green Street Section 18
Figure 7. Green Street Perspective 19
Figure 8. Schimpff Court Concept Plan 20
Figure 9. Schimpff Court Perspective 21
Figure 10. Summary of Recommendations 25
TABLES
Table 1. Sub-Catchment Areas 16
Table 2. Practice Descriptions 17
Table 3. Summary of Opportunities 24
Table 4. Cedar Avenue Green Street Cost Estimate 28
Table 5. Schimpff Court Rain Gardens Cost Estimate 29
5
-------
6
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires municipalities in urban areas to develop and
implement programs to control stormwater runoff in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Under the authority of the
CWA, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) established requirements
for communities served by a combined sewer system (CSS) to reduce or eliminate combined
sewer overflows (CSOs). In Scranton, this effort led to a development of the CSO Long Term
Control Plan (CSO-LTCP). The LTCP — adopted by the Scranton Sewer Authority (SSA) in 2012 —
outlines a phased approach to reducing CSOs that includes the use of green infrastructure as one
of multiple recommended strategies.
The SSA has been conducting a public education, outreach, and involvement program to educate
the community, improve water quality, and enhance the overall network of green spaces in
Scranton.
Moreover, the SSA has requested technical assistance from the EPA to incorporate green
infrastructure projects into a comprehensive master plan for the newly developing Iron Arts
District in South Scranton. The purpose of this EPA technical assistance is to identify potential
green infrastructure projects that can be incorporated into a comprehensive master plan for the
Iron Arts District.
The LID Center, subcontractor to Tetra Tech, coordinated with the task force to identify green
infrastructure strategies that are appropriate for the site and provide concept designs for
potential pilot green infrastructure demonstration projects. The task force is comprised of
representatives from the SSA, City of Scranton, Lackawanna River Corridor Association (LRCA),
United Neighborhood Centers of Northeastern Pennsylvania (UNC), Lackawanna Heritage Valley
Authority, Iron Arts District Master Plan Team, and Lackawanna County.
The concept designs described in this report are examples of how green infrastructure can be
used to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff and catalyze additional green infrastructure
projects throughout Scranton. Implementation of this project within the Iron Arts District will
provide valuable data for the SSA to measure and assess impacts of green infrastructure on a
neighborhood-wide scale that can also be applied to expand green infrastructure across the City
of Scranton.
7
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
The City of Scranton, the state's sixth-largest city, is in Lackawanna County Pennsylvania
(Figure 1). It covers 25.4 square miles and has a population of 76,089 (2010 Census). The majority
of Scranton's urbanized areas, including the Iron Arts District, lie in the Roaring Brook
watershed - the largest tributary to the 350 square mile Lackawanna River watershed. The
Lackawanna River begins northeast of Scranton and joins the Susquehanna River about 8 miles
south of Scranton (Gannett Fleming 2012).
Many urban cities such as Scranton were developed without modern stormwater quality
controls. The City's sewer system was originally designed in the late 1800s to convey both storm-
water and municipal sewage to wastewater treatment facilities in a single pipe (combined
sewer). Today, an estimated sixty-three percent (63%) of this network remains and thirty-seven
percent (37%) has been converted to a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) (Gannett
Fleming 2012). During wet weather, the volume of stormwater runoff and raw sewage frequently
exceeds the capacity of downstream treatment facilities, resulting in the discharge of untreated
WATER QUALITY ISSUES/GOALS
4*
wastewater into local tributaries.
Lackawanna
>
' River
® Dunmofe
® Scranton
® Moosic
/L" T,fi
To comply with the Clean Water Act, the SSA
is obligated to implement the LTCP over a
twenty-five year period. Presently, sewer
rates are increasing to fund major upgrades of
infrastructure and stormwater management
but the resources required to implement
the control measures would require sewer
rates greater than two percent (2%) of the
community's median household income
(Gannett Fleming 2012). The per capita income
of Scranton is well below the State's average
income, as over nineteen percent (19%) of
residents are below the poverty level. The Iron
Arts District has even lower income levels.
Figure L Regional Context
8
-------
The implementation of green infrastructure practices has the potential to reduce the cost of
implementing the LTCP by reducing the storage volume required for gray infrastructure.
A pilot green infrastructure demonstration project is an opportunity to observe and record
the performance of green infrastructure and potentially reduce the sizing in the final gray
infrastructure design.
PROJECT OVERVIEW & PURPOSE
The City of Scranton is in the process of developing the "Iron Arts District" inspired by the
historic Scranton Iron Furnaces located on Cedar Avenue. The Iron Furnaces and the Iron Arts
District serve as a gateway between Downtown and South Side neighborhoods of Scranton. The
integration of a pilot green infrastructure demonstration project with ongoing development
efforts throughout the Iron Arts District can positively impact both the environment and local
economic revitalization. The goals of this EPA technical assistance are to identify potential pilot
green infrastructure demonstration projects that:
• Are highly visible;
• Can produce measurable results; and
• Can be integrated with ongoing capital improvement projects.
PROJECT BENEFITS
This project offers exciting opportunities to engage the community with effective watershed
stewardship practices and may leverage additional green infrastructure funding to continue
revitalization initiatives in the Iron Arts District and surrounding neighborhoods.
The concepts in this study have the potential to:
• Improve the water quality of Roaring Brook;
• Reduce the annual number of CSO events;
• Educate the community about the benefits of green infrastructure;
• Enhance aesthetics and livability of the neighborhood;
• Establish a "green" identity for the Iron Arts District; and
• Serve as a model for the expansion of "going green" throughout Scranton.
9
-------
3. PROJECT SITE : THE IRON ARTS DISTRICT
The Iron Arts District designation is intended as a branding tool that focuses attention on the
connection of South Scranton to Downtown Scranton and the historic furnaces. The furnaces
were the site of the first mass production of iron T-rails for railroads in the United States and are
a cultural and historical community landmark (Lockwood 2012). The Iron Arts District connects
Downtown Scranton and South Scranton via Cedar Avenue. The area is bounded by the Iron
Furnaces to the north, Birch Street to the south, Cedar Avenue to the east, and Roaring Brook to
the west (Figure 2).
The Iron Arts District has the potential to introduce arts, culture, and economic viability to local
residents. Numerous revitalization projects are progressing in South Scranton with the goals
of developing new homeownership and rental housing for community residents; providing
opportunities for small business start-ups along the Cedar Avenue commercial corridor: and
removing and restoring blighted properties (United Neighborhood Center 2014). A steering
committee with representation from cultural, environmental, and social service organizations
is currently preparing an Iron Arts District Master Plan (IADMP) to define goals and plan future
action to benefit the community. The IADMP will identify strategies to improve pedestrian
facilities; connect existing trails and bikeways; create public spaces; and improve the overall
aesthetics of the neighborhood. The goal of this project is to support these initiatives with green
infrastructure concepts that can be integrated with the comprehensive master plan.
10
-------
University
Downtowr
Scranton
Raddisson
Hotel
SCRANTON EXPY-
Iron Furnace
ORCHARD S"
Roaring Brook
CedarAvenue
Birch Street
Figure 2. Iron Arts District Boundary
11
-------
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
TOPOGRAPHY
The study area slopes from the east to west towards the Roaring Brook. The streets and alleys
running from north to south, including Cedar Avenue, are relatively flat. The slope of the cross
streets within the study area have slopes up to eight percent (8%). Due to the topography, there
are many views of Downtown Scranton but the Roaring Brook is obscured within its channel.
DRAINAGE AREA
The study area drains to a combined sewer system with overflows identified as CSO #25, #49, and
#50 (Figure 3). These outfalls discharge into the channelized portion of Roaring Brook and must
overflow no more than nine times annually (Gannett Fleming 2012).
CEDAR AVENUE
Cedar Avenue, a state-owned highway, is the main access into the District from South Scranton
and the Scranton Expressway and links the District to the Iron Furnaces and Downtown
Scranton. There is one 12-foot vehicle travel lane in each direction and on-street parking on both
sides of the roadway. Commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings line the street. Sidewalk
widths vary and in certain locations are as wide as 12 feet. Catch basins are located along the
curb and gutter. Cedar Avenue was the primary focus for evaluation due to these attributes in
addition to topography and the potential to treat stormwater.
12
-------
oicbard-sl—
I LOU t+t"«7 \
| Catchment _
\ Area
' CSO #50 ^£3
Catchment1—
v Area '
, CSO#25
J Catchment ~
1 Area
willoW-St
birch st
n ~
Figure 3. CSO Catchment Areas
13
-------
4.GREEN Infrastructure
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
f I— - , CSO #49
p r—! Catchment
/ ( \ Area >
' m
i
River St
Hickory St
o
CSO #50
Catchment
Area
Alder St
DESIGN APPROACH
The planning process for identifying
potential green infrastructure projects was
influenced by multiple factors including the
potential to:
1. Reduce the annual number of CSO events;
2. Assess water quality improvements; and
3. Catalyze community reinvestment.
STORMWATER PRIORITY
SITES
To determine priorities for treating
stormwater, five sub-catchment areas
were defined by analyzing the existing
topography and catch basin locations (Figure
4). The objective was to treat stormwater to
the maximum extent practicable to reduce
occurrences of CSO events.
Sub-catchment areas A, B, C, and D are
within CSO #49 and catchment area E is
within CSO #50. Under the LTCP, CSO #50
will be plugged and the two catchment areas
will be combined. Priority sites for green
infrastructure retrofits were chosen to treat
runoff within these sub-catchment areas.
higure4. Sub-Catchment Areas
14
-------
For the purpose of this study, the year 1982 was selected as the typical year to prepare the
hydrologic analysis and design, as identified by the LTCP. There were approximately eight
rainfall events over 1.3 inches during that time period. The recurrence interval for that peak
volume and intensity is in the range of three to six months (Gannett Fleming 2012).
The concept designs are based on capturing a volume of runoff from the demonstration site that
is generated by the 1.3 inch event with best management practices (BMPs). The captured runoff
volume can then be detained until the peak intensity of the storm has passed and/or retained
through the process of infiltration or evapotranspiration. Planning level stormwater runoff and
BMP sizing tools were used for the analysis.
It is recognized that there may be localized conditions that will require detailed and accurate
design and engineering analysis. The result may be that additional storage and potential
combinations of gray and green infrastructure will be required to achieve the CSO reduction
goals in the LTCP. The runoff volume was determined using Equation A (below) and the results
are shown in Table 1.
Equation A: Runoff Volume Required
Svr = [P x [(Rvi x %I) + (Rvc x %C)] x SA] x 7.48/12
Where:
Svr = Volume Required (cu. ft)
P = Runoff Event (in.)
Rvi = Runoff Coefficient for Impervious/BMP Cover
I = Percent of Site in Impervious/BMP Cover
Rvc = Runoff Coefficient for Compacted Cover
C = Percent of Site in Compacted Cover
SA = Site Surface Area (sq. ft)
15
-------
TABLE SUB-CATCHMENT AREAS
Sub-Catchment !
Area |
!
Drainage Area
(sq. ft)
| Impervious Area
j Treated (sq. ft)
Volume
Required (cu. ft)
Green Infrastructure
Practice
A |
20,000
1
| 20,000
1,000
Stormwater Curb Extension
B |
23,500
| 23,500
1,200
Stormwater Planter Box
c 1
18,730
[ 11,000
500
Rain Garden
D |
42,250
1
i 28,750
1,000
Rain Garden
E |
50,530
| 33,500
1,250
Rain Garden
The preliminary analysis and sizing for BMPs used different combinations and configurations
of bioretention technology that provide surface and subsurface storage in the media for
stormwater runoff. For the purpose of this study, Equation B (below) was used to determine the
treatment capacity of the proposed green infrastructure practices. In addition, a bioretention
section was designed to meet the requirements of each site (Table 2).
Equation B: BMP Storage Provided
Svp = SAb x [(dm x qm) + (dgxqg)] + (SAa x Dpond)
Where:
Svp = Volume Provided (cu. ft)
Sab = Bottom Surface Area (sq. ft)
Dm = Depth of Media (ft)
qm = Porosity of Media
dg = Depth of Gravel (ft)
qg = Porosity of Gravel
SAa = Average Surface Area (sq. ft)
Dpond = Ponding Depth (ft)
16
-------
TABLE 2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTIONS j
Sub-Catchment [
Area 1
i
1
Green Infrastructure
Practice I
Bioretention Section
A |
Stormwater Curb Extension
Bioretention: 3' Media, 1' Gravel Storage, 0.5' Ponding
B |
Stormwater Planter Box |
Bioretention: 3' Media, 1' Gravel Storage, 0.5' Ponding |
c 1
Rain Garden [
Bioretention: 3' Media, 1.5' Gravel Storage, 1' Ponding
D |
Rain Garden
Bioretention: 3' Media, 1.5' Gravel Storage, 1' Ponding |
E |
Rain Garden
Bioretention: 3' Media, 1.5' Gravel Storage, 1' Ponding |
Based on the project goals and space limitations, curbside bioretention was selected as the
preferred BMP within the Cedar Avenue right-of-way (ROW). Bioretention practices which
include stormwater curb extensions, planter boxes, and rain gardens are described in the
stormwater toolbox in the following section.
Strategic locations along Cedar Avenue were selected for pilot demonstration projects to
determine how bioretention facilities can intercept stormwater runoff from the roadway,
increase the time of concentration, and slowly release it into the storm drain system.
Recommendations for additional bioretention locations have been identified in a vacant lot
adjacent to Schimpff Court and the Roaring Brook. This location can provide added stormwater
treatment and has the potential to increase community awareness of water quality issues due to
its proximity to the river.
17
-------
River St
cd : Storm water
Curb
extension
Hickory St
Provide
crosswalk
markings
Storm water
Planter Box
Provide
street trees
Alder St
Figure 5. Green Street Concept Plan
CEDAR AVENUE PILOT GREEN
STREET
The optimal location for the Cedar Avenue
Green Street is the two-block segment between
River Street and Alder Street. Factors that were
used to prioritize this segment include: existing
building uses, sidewalk widths, lack of tree can-
opy, and potential for redevelopment are factors
that were used to prioritize this segment. The
existing 12-ft to 14-ft sidewalk of Cedar Ave-
nue between Hickory Street and Alder Street
provides an opportunity for integrating storm-
water planter boxes to intercept runoff from
the roadway. Stormwater curb extensions are
better suited between River Street and Hick-
ory Street due to inadequate existing sidewalk
width. Approximately three parking spaces on
each side of the roadway may be compromised
for the installation of curb extensions.
STORMWATER RECOMMENDATIONS:
Catchment Area A - Provide 650 sq. ft. of
stormwater curb extensions on both sides of the
roadway
Catchment Area B - Provide 750 sq. ft. of
stormwater planters on both sides of the roadway.
Planter
Sox
Parking
Sidewalk
Figure 6. Green Street Section
Travel lanes
Planter
Box
Parking
Sidewalk
18
-------
Figure 7. Green Street Perspective
-------
Lackawanna.
Provide
separate
outfall
Hickory St
Provide pedestrian/
bicycle connection
to Downtown & Iron
Furnaces
Provide
connection
River Heritage
Trail
Figure 8. Schimpff Court Concept Plan
SCHIMPFF COURT RAIN
GARDEN PILOT PROJECT
In addition to the Cedar Avenue Green
Street pilot project, the vacant areas
and right-of-way of Schimpff Court
present an opportunity to treat a
significant amount of stormwater
within the same catchment area.
Multiple bioretention facilities (rain
gardens) could potentially treat the
impervious area within the catchment
areas shown in Figure 8. Incorporation
of signage could be implemented to
educate the public on the benefits of
stormwater management through
green infrastructure practices.
Moreover, a pedestrian and/or bicycle
connection to the Cedar Avenue Bridge
would strengthen the physical and
visual connection to the Iron Furnaces.
This option has the potential to bypass
the CSO if the bioretention facilities are
designed to overflow directly into the
adjacent channelized tributary.
STORMWATER
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Catchment Area C - Provide 600 sq. ft.
of rain garden.
Catchment Area D - Provide 1,250 sq. ft.
of rain garden.
Catchment Area E - Provide 1,650 sq. ft.
of rain garden.
20
-------
Figure 9. Schimpff Court Perspective
21
-------
5. STORMWATER TOOLBOX
A key factor for achieving significant CSO reduction in the Roaring Brook is through strategic
placement of green infrastructure practices that can reduce the speed of water conveyance into
treatment facilities. Over time, these practices may reduce the need to increase storm drain
capacity.
BIORETENTION
Bioretention treats stormwater by ponding water on the surface and
allowing contaminants and sediments to filter and settle at the mulch
layer, prior to entering the soil media for infiltration and pollutant
removal. Bioretention uses native vegetation such as grasses, shrubs,
and trees to remove a variety of pollutants including suspended
solids, nutrients, metals, and bacteria from stormwater runoff.
Photo Source: LID Center
STORMWATER CURB EXTENSIONS
Stormwater curb extensions are a type of bioretention designed to handle
stormwater runoff from the roadway. Stormwater flowing down the
street is directed to the bioretention facility through inlets or curb
cuts. There, the runoff temporarily ponds above the surface and
then filters through the bed. Where urban spaces permit, storm-
water curb extensions can be designed to fully infiltrate down to
the soils below. In most cases, the filtered runoff is collected in an
underdrain and returned to the sewer system. Because public rights-
of-way are primarily impervious and bioretention facilities work best
with smaller drainage areas, the contributing drainage area for a single
facility is generally limited to 1/4 to 1/2 acre.
Photo Source: LID Center
22
-------
STQRMWATER PLANTER BOXES
Stormwater planters — commonly referred to as foundation planters —
are an on-site retrofit option for treating rooftop runoff in ultra-urban
areas. These flexible practices can be placed either above the ground
or at grade in landscaping areas between buildings and roadways,
and can be designed to allow water to fully seep into the ground (i.e.,
infiltration planters) or designed as flow-through planters. Similar to
stormwater curb extensions, the allowable drainage area is typically
limited to 1/4 acre or less.
Photo Source: LID Center
STREET TREES — - — - —
In addition to bioretention practices described above, trees are one of
the most economical and green stormwater management practices
with the potential to be introduced into urban communities. When
it rains, water is intercepted by the leaves, bark, and roots of trees
— allowing water to evaporate, evapotranspirate, or absorb into
the ground. Additionally, trees help to reduce the urban heat island
effect, improve the urban aesthetic, and improve air quality. Healthy
trees should be protected and enhanced when implementing green street
retrofit projects, and new trees should be incorporated wherever possible.
In either situation, care should be taken to ensure adequate root space,
improved soil conditions, and sufficient soil volumes and depths. Doing
so will help street trees reach maturity and enable generations to come to
enjoy their benefits.
Photo Source: ACTrees
23
-------
6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
There are multiple opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure into ongoing revitalization
projects in the Iron Arts District. The table below provides additional recommendations for
incorporating green infrastructure practices to supplement the pilot projects previously
discussed in this report.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Location
Opportunities
Considerations
1
/i\
Cedar Ave. - between
River St. & Alder St.
(Pilot-see page 18)
Install planter boxes and curb
extensions to establish the Cedar
Avenue Green Street.
Engage commercial property
owners.
2
Vacant lots - 314,404,
414 Cedar Ave.
(Pilot-see page 20)
Provide a public stormwater
demonstration park to serve as a
community destination.
Verify excavation limit
behind concrete channel.
3
/w
Cedar Ave. - between
Alder St. & Birch St.
Add planter boxes and curb
extensions to strengthen the
Cedar Avenue Green Street.
Engage residential property
owners.
4
Roaring Brook Buffer -
Hickory St.
Install a rain garden and outlet
directly into Roaring Brook to
bypass the CSO.
This area has lower visibility
and tree loss is likely.
5
Vacant lot - 409 Cedar
Ave.
Convert vacant lot into a pocket
park that encourages local art
installation/projects.
Steep slope can be a
challenge for a high-activity
park.
6
Hickory St. - between
Schimpff Ct. & Rosen Ct.
Add bioretention facilities and
improve sidewalks.
Verify ROW width and avoid
utilities.
7
w
Alder St. - between
Schimpff Ct. & Rosen Ct.
Provide street trees and curbside
bioretention facilities.
Verify ROW width and avoid
utilities.
8
#
Vacant lot -307 &311
Willow St.
Convert vacant lot into a pocket
park with bioretention facilities.
Encourage community input
from planning to design.
9
Willow St. - between
Schimpff Ct. and Rosen
Ct.
Provide street trees and curbside
bioretention facilities.
Verify ROW width and avoid
utilities.
10
Vacant lot - 715 Cedar
Ave.
Convert vacant lot into a pocket
park with bioretention facilities.
Encourage community input
from planning to design.
11
w
Birch Ave. - between
S Washington Ave. &
Cedar Ave.
Provide street trees and curbside
bioretention facilities.
Verify ROW width and avoid
utilities.
24
-------
Orchard fit
j Priority Recommendations
O CSO Outfall
CSO #49 Catchment Area
CSO #50 Catchment Area
CSO #25 Catchment Area
Additional Recommendations:
River St
w Streetside Bioretention
& Pocket Park
Tree Planting
/!\ Green Street
Hickory St
~~~
Figure 10. Summary of Recommendations
25
-------
FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION
This report represents a preliminary assessment initiated to identify opportunities and
constraints for incorporating green infrastructure in the Iron Arts District. The following are
key design elements that will require further studies as part of the future design development
phase.
SOIL SUITABILITY
The task force identified potential limitations to stormwater infiltration due to hardpan soils
and potential complications from previous mining operations. For that reason, stormwater
calculations assumed little to no infiltration and pipes would tie into the existing sewer system.
Soil borings are necessary to determine if infiltration is possible; if conditions are favorable,
greater volumes of stormwater runoff could be treated.
WENT
Due to potential limitations to stormwater infiltration (see above), permeable paving was
not recommended as part of the concept design. Without infiltration, the use of permeable
pavement in pedestrian areas would not be a cost-effective practice. If soil borings determine
that infiltration is possible, permeable pavement should be considered to increase the volume of
treatment during larger storm events.
STREET PAR ICING
The concept design includes the removal of some on-street parking. Further analysis and
community input should be collected to determine the final configuration of on-street parking to
best accommodate all stakeholders.
26
-------
EXISTING UTILITIES
The presence of overhead utilities is problematic for street trees. The City should investigate
the possibility of burying or relocating utilities as part of any capital streetscape improvement
plans. If relocation is not feasible, care should be taken in the final design stage to avoid utilities
where possible and substitute smaller trees where necessary.
PENNDGI
Cedar Avenue (Route 11) is a state highway and PennDot should be considered a primary
stakeholder in any development of proposals along the Avenue. PennDot has existing policies for
incorporating green infrastructure within the right-of-way that have been reviewed as part of
the preliminary analysis.
• 1 -U" ,.i ' ' 4Y ¦ r ¦ '.i.-.
The channelized portion of Roaring Brook is under the Army Corps of Engineers' authority. The
Corps should be involved early in any design development of concepts that include daylighting
into the channel to determine any limitations or restrictions.
A D D11 i 0 N A L 0 P P 0 R T U N III E S
There are many opportunities to implement green infrastructure practices at the University
of Scranton and the Iron Furnaces. Large impervious areas such as parking lots should be
considered for integrating stormwater retrofits as part of the future design process.
27
-------
7. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
PRACTICE COST ESTIMATES
The preliminary cost estimates for constructing the green infrastructure practices at each of
the sites are found in the tables below. Cost information was derived from price history data
published by various public agencies (PennDOT, Ohio DOT, PG County DPW&T) and compared
against projects constructed in the northeast Pennsylvania area. All cost estimates assume
green infrastructure retrofit practices and are based on the sizing denoted in Table 2. A thirty
percent (30%) contingency has been added to all costs.
TAL EDARAV. 3EEN STREET CC
ST ESTIMATE
Item Description
I Unit |
Qty
Unit Cost
Total
Adjust Curb Boxes
i Ea |
4
$150.00
$600.00
Adjust Fire Hydrant
j Ea |
4
$1,350.00
$5,400.00
Adjust Sewer Manhole
I Ea 1
8
$450.00
$3,600.00
Relocate Utility Pole
I Ea I
4
$15,000.00
$60,000.00
6 inch Storm Sewer Tap
1 Ea I
4
$400.00
$1,600.00
6 Inch PVC Pipe (underdrain)
I Lf 1
1,400
$18.00 |
$25,200.00
Boring and Jacking up to 15 Inch Pipe
I Lf I
20
$500.00
$10,000.00
Mobilization (for Construction $100k - $500k)
1 Ls I
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Geotechnical testing
1 Ls |
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Remove Curb and Gutter
I Lf I
1,400
$4.00 |
$5,600.00
Remove Inlet or Manhole
1 Ea I
8
$924.00 |
$7,392.00
Remove Pavement
I Sy I
900
$4.00 |
$3,600.00
Saw Cut Existing Paving
1 Lf 1
1,400
$2.00 I
$2,800.00
Earth Excavation
I Cy 1
520
$40.00 |
$20,800.00
Graded aggregate
1 Cy I
160
$40.00 I
$6,400.00
Concrete Curb Gutter
I Lf I
1,400
$15.00 [
$21,000.00
Jersey Barrier for Maintenance of Traffic
I Lf 1
1,000
$25.00 |
$25,000.00
28
-------
| TABLE 4. CEDAR AVENUE GREEN STREET COST
iMATE
| Item Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Cost
Total
| DPW&T Street Tree
Ea
20
$250.00
$5,000.00
| Inlet Protection Device
Ea
4
$250.00
$1,000.00
| Soil Media
Cy
300
$40.00
$12,000.00
| Plantings
Sf
2,800
$6.00
$16,800.00
| Shredded Mulch 3" Deep
Cy
30
$40.00
$1,200.00
| Sub-total
$254,992.00
| 30% contingency
$76,497.60
Total
$331,489.60
| TABLE 5, SCHIMPFF COURT RAIN GARDENS COST EST IMA
! Item Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Cost
Total
| 6 inch Storm Sewer Tap
Ea
3
$400.00
$1,200.00
| 6 Inch PVC Pipe (underdrain)
Lf
200
$18.00
$3,600.00
| Mobilization (for Construction $100k - $500k)
Ls
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
| Geotechnical testing
Ls
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
| Earth Excavation
Cy
650
$40.00
$26,000.00
| Graded aggregate
Cy
195
$40.00
$7,800.00
| DPW&T Street Tree
Ea
10
$250.00
$2,500.00
| Inlet Protection Device
Ea
2
$250.00
$500.00
| Silt Fence
Lf
350
$4.00
$1,400.00
| Stabilized Construction Entrance
Ea
1
$1,250.00
$1,250.00
| Soil Media
Cy
390
$40.00
$15,600.00
| Plantings
Sf
3,500
$6.00
$21,000.00
| Shredded Mulch 3" Deep
Cy
32
$40.00
$1,280.00
| Sub-total
$102,130.00
| 30% contingency
$30,639.00
Total
$132,769.00
29
-------
8. CONCLUSION
The concept designs developed for the pilot projects demonstrate how green infrastructure can
be retrofitted into the Iron Arts District to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, mitigate
combined sewer system overflows, and improve neighborhood aesthetics. Implementation of
this project within the District will provide valuable data for the SSA to measure and assess
impacts of green infrastructure on a neighborhood-wide scale. Green infrastructure initiatives
can be modified by results from the Iron Arts District Pilot and emulated in other communities
within the City of Scranton and in nearby municipalities across the region.
The integration of a pilot green infrastructure demonstration project with the ongoing
development efforts throughout the Iron Arts District can positively impact both the
environment and local economic revitalization. This project offers opportunities to engage
the community at all levels with more effective watershed stewardship practices and may
leverage additional green infrastructure funding to continue revitalization initiatives in the
neighborhood.
30
-------
REFERENCES
U % $S % U «¦ & W U
Gannett Fleming. 2012. "Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan." Scranton Sewer
Authority. 230ct. 2012. Accessed via web on Aug. 15, 2014.
i^oT,K/ficK;s/Siihmll:tedjlcp,pfil>
Gelb, Natalie. 2014. "The Scranton Iron Furnaces: Forging ahead." Northeast Pennsylvania
Business Journal. 2 April 2014. Accessed via web on July 29, 2014. <
!'Baj:Kigernc?Bf/uie^ci7infoipliTiipf«iiyK:es4bi,glBg^aheaf|^i.i65'''''66'>
Lockwood, Jim. 2012. "Historic Scranton Furnaces Eyed as Heart of New Iron District." The
Scranton Times-Tribune. 13 Nov. 2012. Accessed via web on Dec. 4, 2014.
McGurl, Bernie, Robert E. Hughes, and Michael Hewitt. 2012. "Lower Lackawanna River
Watershed Restoration and Assessment Plan Report (LLRWRAPR)." Lackawanna River
Corridor Association. Lackawanna River Corridor Association, 31 Dec. 2012. Accessed via
web on Aug. 4, 2014. < >.
United Neighborhood Centers of Northeastern Pennsylvania. 2014. "Cedar Point Apartments &
Townhouses." United Neighborhood Centers of Northeastern Pennsylvania. 1 Jan. 2014.
Accessed via web on Aug. 4, 2014. < >.
University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center, Lackawanna River Corridor Association,
McLane Associates et al. 2013. "The City of Scranton & Scranton Sewer Authority
Stormwater Management (MS4 & CSO) System Review: A Phase One Assessment and
Recommendation Report for Efficient Management & Sustainable Infrastructure." Accessed
via web on Aug. 4, 2014. < >
Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC. 2008. South Side Revitalization Plan Scranton, Pennsylvania; Elm
Street Plan.
United Neighborhood Centers of Northeastern Pennsylvania. December 2008.
31
------- |