2014 Flynn Onondaga PDF

ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World 89
© ASCE 2014
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VIRGINIA TECH UNIVERSTIY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Transformational Changes Associated with Sustainable Stormwater

Management Practices in Onondaga County, New York
Carli Flynn1, Cliff I. Davidson1, and Joanne Mahoney2

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Syracuse Center of
Excellence, Syracuse University, 151 Link Hall, Syracuse, NY 13224; email:
cflynn@syr.edu, davidson@syr.edu
2
Office of the County Executive, Onondaga County, 421 Montgomery Street, 14th
Floor, Syracuse, NY 13202
ABSTRACT: Green infrastructure technologies (GI) are becoming a popular

decentralized approach to stormwater management and are commonly recognized as
a key component of building sustainable urban water systems. While many U.S.
municipalities have encountered barriers to implementing GI, Onondaga County has
integrated numerous GI technologies through their “Save the Rain” Program into
previously unpopular stormwater management plans in only a few years. This paper
investigates the sociopolitical and environmental factors that influenced the adoption
of GI technologies in Onondaga County. The primary factors include the formation of
a policy entrepreneurship coalition, the acceptance of GI as an effective stormwater
management practice, and economic opportunities which reduced financial barriers
for GI projects. The findings are based on interviews with local leaders and experts,
and review of documents and media coverage related to Onondaga County’s evolving
stormwater management plans. Transformational changes related to these plans such
as ecological regime shifts and adaptive governance strategies are analyzed.
INTRODUCTION
Most municipal stormwater control plans in the U.S. stem from policies which
favor the use of gray infrastructure, or technologies that either enhance or supplement
existing sewer infrastructure. These engineering solutions tend to be large in scale,
can take years or decades to complete, and are often costly. Alternatively, GI, also
known as low impact design technologies, are designed to protect or restore the
natural hydrology of a site, capturing stormwater volume through the use of soils,
vegetation, and engineered systems that mimic nature. Integrating GI into urban
stormwater management planning represents an introduction of a new and more
sustainable paradigm in urban stormwater management.
Social-ecological systems (SES) are dynamic systems that co-evolve through
interactions between actors, institutions, and resources within a given social-
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
ecological setting (Berkes and Folke, 1998; Gunderson, 2001). The Onondaga Lake
Watershed in Onondaga County, NY, is an example of an urban water SES that has
experienced several regime shifts over the past century, due in part to changes in
Onondaga County’s stormwater management practices. Onondaga Lake was
previously referred to as the most polluted lake in America due to a century of
industrial contamination, proportionally high inflows of treated municipal wastewater
discharges, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Historically, Onondaga County’s
stormwater management plans included only gray infrastructure technologies. These

plans changed considerably in 2009 with GI replacing many planned gray
infrastructure projects.
This paper explores the most important factors enabling Onondaga County to
become a national leader in implementing a GI strategies, in particular how political
will, the incorporation of knowledge and interests of stakeholders and the right
economic opportunities helped to bring about more effective and sustainable
stormwater management plans. These changes in Onondaga County’s plans and the
related SES outcomes can be understood through a resilience theory perspective;
specifically, the regime shifts and adaptive governance strategies related to the
Onondaga Lake SES are analyzed.
BACKGROUND
Past Stormwater Management Practices in Onondaga County
Like most urban regions in the Northeast U.S., the city of Syracuse in Onondaga
County operates a combined sewer system. During dry weather, sanitary sewage is
carried to the Syracuse Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (METRO), and
treated effluents are discharged into Onondaga Lake. The contribution of METRO
effluent to total inflow for Onondaga Lake is the largest for a lake in the United
States, representing approximately 25% of the total inflow on an average basis (Effler
et al., 2013). CSO discharges occur during rain events as small as 0.10-0.15 in/hour in
some areas, resulting in the overflow of untreated sanitary sewage and stormwater to
the tributaries of the lake (Coon and Reddy, 2008).
In 1988, the Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF), a small non-profit in
Syracuse, filed a lawsuit against Onondaga County, alleging that the discharges from
METRO and CSOs were violating state and federal water quality laws. Then in 1989,
Onondaga County entered into a Judgment of Consent, requiring the County to
execute a series of studies to evaluate compliance plans. Negotiations ensued until an
Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) was executed in January 1998. By this time, the
County had implemented several traditional gray infrastructure projects that captured
or eliminated about 74% of the total annual CSO volume of 3.92 billion gallons per
year. The ACJ required Onondaga County to increase the annual CSO volume
captured to 85%, remove additional floatable waste, reach higher water quality
standards for bacteria in the lake and achieve tighter ammonia and phosphorus
discharge standards for METRO by 2012.
Decades of increasing environmental damage to Onondaga Lake and its
tributaries deepened the vested interest in stormwater management plans held by local
stakeholders. While all major regulating and regulated parties were directly involved
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
in the ACJ project planning, several important community groups were not. Over
time, this lack of involvement led many stakeholders to become increasingly opposed
to the expensive and invasive gray infrastructure projects. The environmental
injustice stemming from this exclusion was particularly evident to two key
stakeholders: the Onondaga Nation and the residents of the Southside neighborhood
of Syracuse (Perreault et al., 2012).
Onondaga Lake is considered a sacred site by the Onondaga people. On the
shores of Onondaga Lake, the Peacemaker brought together five nations to form the
Haudenosaunee under the Great Law of Peace (or Gayanashagowa) over 1000 years
ago. The Onondaga Nation remains committed to fulfilling the mandates of the Great
Law of Peace, including its vision of environmental stewardship and cooperative
resource management. In March 2005, a Land Rights Action was filed by the
Onondaga Nation, seeking the freedom to exercise their responsibility to the land and
to “bring about a healing between themselves and all others who live in this region.”
The land rights claim was dismissed in 2013 and no formal recognition of these
traditional rights has been made; however, this action reaffirmed Onondaga Nation’s
role a primary stakeholder in promoting the health of the Onondaga Lake ecosystem.
Of the gray infrastructure technologies included in the 1998 ACJ projects, the
regional treatment facilities (RTFs) were met with the highest level of public protest.
One of the planned RTFs, known as the Midland RTF, was to be built in the
Southside neighborhood of Syracuse due to its proximity to Onondaga Creek, a main
tributary of Onondaga Lake. Many Southside residents already experienced intrusive
infrastructure developments, such as an expansion project for a nearby hospital which
displaced many residents, and a garbage incinerating plant which further added to
poor air quality issues in the area (Tauxe, 2011). The Partnership for Onondaga Creek
(POC), a local nonprofit, formed in response to the perceived injustices that the
Midland RTF would bring to the residents of the Southside neighborhood.
In 2001, the Syracuse Common Council voted unanimously against selling city
land to Onondaga County for the Midland RTF. A federal district judge ordered the
City of Syracuse and Onondaga County to work out their differences through
negotiations, but this time to include community stakeholders. Within these
negotiations, the POC presented alternative solutions to RTFs, such as underground
storage, and began to collaborate with the ASLF and Onondaga Nation. This cross-
cultural alliance proved to be an effective social network for the promotion of GI in
Onondaga County (Tauxe, 2011). However, the longstanding relationships between
Onondaga County and select engineering firms favored the original gray
infrastructure projects such as the RTFs. Ultimately, the Syracuse City land was sold
to Onondaga County and construction began on the Midland RTF, including an
additional large-scale pipeline.
The Midland RTF construction resulted in several negative impacts on the
Southside community, including the eviction of 45 families. The POC filed a Title VI
claim of civil rights discrimination to the US EPA, documenting the social damages
and injustices due to the construction (Lane and Heath 2007). Public protest
eventually halted construction of a large conveyance pipe, leaving the facility to
operate at a reduced capacity. An “anti-RTF” sentiment grew throughout Onondaga
County along with a lack of trust in the stormwater management decision makers, as
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
demand for alternative plans surrounding the Midland facility created a strong
community awareness of the County’s unpopular stormwater management plans.
The case against the RTFs also began to build on scientific evidence, as it was
determined that they would not provide a comprehensive solution to Onondaga
County’s environmental problems despite achieving the desired CSO volume control.
In 2007, the Onondaga Environmental Institute (OEI) conducted a study on the
potential loading sources of bacteria throughout the Onondaga Lake Watershed. The
results showed high levels of bacteria in the tributaries of Onondaga Lake during dry
weather, suggesting that there were sources of contamination other than CSOs leading
to non-compliance of state standards for bacteria (Hughes, 2008). Since RTFs would
only eliminate the bacteria associated with CSOs, they were deemed an inadequate
solution to reach compliance with the bacteria standards.
Introduction of GI Stormwater Management Paradigm
Some regions of the US were early adopters of GI technologies, such as the

Pacific Northwest in the 1990s. The success of early projects led to a 2006 report by
the National Resource Defense Council which stimulated other national groups to
promote the use of GI (Kloss et al., 2006). On April 19, 2007, the US EPA released
an official statement in support of the use of GI in stormwater management planning.
This change in national mindset provided momentum to local stakeholders in
Onondaga County to work together to develop stormwater plans which included GI
(Knauss, 2010).
Although community support in Onondaga County was growing, little hope
existed for GI to become a reality under the pre-existing political leadership. The
2007 election for County Executive was the major impetus for the introduction of GI
in Onondaga County. Joanne Mahoney was a local politician who was familiar with
the anti-RTF sentiment of local residents and the alternative plans proposed by the
POC. In 2005, she met with Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation, and
considered the important contributions that the Nation could make towards the
County’s efforts. When she ran for County Executive in 2007, she turned to the
Nation and POC to develop her approach to Onondaga County’s stormwater
management agenda (Mahoney, 2011). After Joanne Mahoney was elected, she
successfully reached out to an even wider array of stakeholders to form a policy
entrepreneurship coalition in support of GI.
Shortly after taking office, Joanne Mahoney obtained a moratorium on
construction of an RTF that was to be built in downtown Syracuse. Several
committees were created with representatives from the Onondaga Nation, POC,
ASLF, and other formerly excluded stakeholder groups in order to evaluate
alternative stormwater management plans. The findings from these committees were
incorporated into a fourth Amended Consent Judgment in November 2009,
authorizing Onondaga County to use both gray infrastructure and GI in its stormwater
management plans. Previously, several municipalities throughout the US had
integrated GI into consent decrees as supplemental environmental projects. However,
Onondaga County’s ACJ represented the first time in the U.S. that GI was listed as a
direct legal requirement in the reduction of CSOs (Garrison and Hobbs, 2011). The
agreement specified increasing total CSO volume capture, ultimately reaching 95%
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
by 2018. Collectively, the new comprehensive stormwater plan for Onondaga County
became known as the Save the Rain program. While much of the Save the Rain
program efforts focus on the stormwater mitigation benefits, the program also strives
to maximize social benefits through job programs, strategic project placement and
funding opportunities. In addition to public projects, several efforts have focused on
commercial and residential programs which promote the use of GI.
The rapid development of GI projects throughout the County would not have
been possible without economic opportunities that made GI cost effective against
gray infrastructure alternatives. Before GI was considered as a viable strategy, the
alternative gray technologies proposed by the POC and other stakeholders were
repeatedly turned down due to the ACJ stipulation of cost effectiveness. Cost estimate
bids for the gray infrastructure options fluctuated for many years, with the low bid
cost of the RTFs appearing favorable to more costly bids for underground water
storage (Lane, 2011). The 2009 ACJ plans were attractive not only because they were
less intrusive to surrounding communities, but also because they were expected to
save Onondaga County more than $20 million.
In New York State, the Clean Water Act’s State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF)
program, administered by the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC), provides
funding for stormwater management projects. Of the overall Save the Rain budget,
the majority of funds are financed through county bond debt, which will be serviced
through increased sewer use charges. Additional funding will come from federal and
state assistance, including SRF loans and grants. Gray infrastructure project funding
will likely be secured through the SRF, but funding GI requires a more complicated
loan and bond process. Because GI projects have difficulty fitting into EFC’s
standard review and approval processes, it is administratively and financially
inefficient for the EFC to verify GI investments on a project-by-project basis. Thus,
Onondaga County does not rely on the EFC to fund the upfront costs of GI initiatives.
Instead, the County has used capital funds and independently-secured debt to finance
the implementation and installation of GI projects. Once GI projects are installed,
County officials plan to bundle sets of completed projects and seek EFC approval to
refinance original debt though the SRF and other EFC long term loans. Although this
two-step financing is cumbersome, County officials expect that the EFC will more
readily approve bundled GI projects when exact costs have been established and
effectiveness proven (Millea, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Adaptive Governance Strategies
There are several frameworks that enable governments to manage complex

ecosystems. Adaptive management refers to the continual change in management
practices following improved understanding of the system’s behavior, with an
emphasis on knowledge and involvement of stakeholders (Webb and Bodin, 2008).
Adaptive comanagement combines the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive
management with the multilevel linkage characteristic of comanagement, including
features like sharing of management power and responsibility, and linking institutions
and organizations (Folke et al., 2005). The term “adaptive governance” has also been
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
used to convey the difficulty of control within complex SESs, the need to proceed in
the face of uncertainty, and the importance of dealing with diverse values, interests
and perspectives among constituents (Dietz et al., 2003). Folke et al. (2005) describe
four interacting aspects of importance in adaptive governance of complex SESs.
1. Build knowledge of ecosystem dynamics

Several long term monitoring efforts have existed to collect data on the
Onondaga Lake watershed, some of which are commissioned by Onondaga County.

The Upstate Freshwater Institute in Syracuse has studied the aquatic ecology and
water quality of Onondaga Lake, including long-term data on indicators like nitrogen
and phosphorus since 1981. Also, the 2007 OEI study on bacteria loadings from
aging sewer infrastructure provided an impetus for the County to consider
management solutions beyond RTFs.
2. Make continuous use of ecological knowledge

The 1998 ACJ initiated the Ambient Monitoring Program, and beginning in
2000, regulating parties and partner organizations were to meet every two years to
discuss changes to enhance and clarify the monitoring program. An “Environmental
Monitor” was appointed to oversee monitoring efforts. The 2009 ACJ set up
additional monitoring efforts, where new data are used to evaluate and modify the
model for total maximum daily load (TMDL) processes for phosphorus effluent from
the treatment plant. An annual report is required, including CSO monitoring data,
post-construction monitoring, and annual Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
updates. Results from the SWMM model are used by the NYDEC to determine
compliance.
3. Support flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems

Adaptive governance is operationalized though adaptive comanagement in the
sharing of management power and responsibility. The Save the Rain program built a
collaborative environment between the Onondaga County government, the Syracuse
City government, private businesses and County residents. Project permissions and
maintenance programs have been established between the County and City. There is
also a sharing of responsibility with private businesses and NGOs, and with the
residents of Onondaga County through outreach programs.
The partnerships between the County and City governments, the Onondaga
Nation, POC, ASLF, OEI and others were invaluable to the development of new
stormwater management plans. These types of social networks with ties between
groups of stakeholders support the generation of knowledge and novel solutions to
complex problems (Hahn et al., 2008). Another important factor was the integration
of scientific data with traditional ecological knowledge, or the “cumulative body of
knowledge, practice and belief concerning the relationships of living beings to one
another and to the physical environment” (Berkes, 2012). The 2005 Land Rights Act
defined the “unique spiritual, cultural, and historic relationship with the land” held by
the Onondaga Nation and its people, as well as the long-term strategy of the Nation
“to promote conservation, environmental protection and responsible economic
development in partnership with its neighbors.” This knowledge and environmental
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
stewardship was integrated into stormwater management plans during the 2008
planning committees.
4. Cope with external perturbations, uncertainty and surprise

The last of the adaptive governance features focuses on the resilience of an SES
and its ability to utilize disturbances as opportunities to transform into more desired
states rather than degrade the current state. For decades, little information flowed
between the County government and local stakeholders, thus reducing the response
diversity and adaptive capacity of the Onondaga Lake SES. However, the recent
changes in management strategies suggest an increase in resilience. The social
networks that built upon visions and knowledge of the lake’s ecosystem dynamics is
one source of increased SES resilience (Hahn et al., 2008). The GI projects adopted
under the Save the Rain program have also increased the resilience of the Onondaga
Lake SES, as GI can influence ecosystem health by contributing to ecosystem
resilience (Tzoulas et al., 2007). Finally, while an undesired regime shift in an
ecosystem may indicate that it has lost resilience, actors with the capacity to respond
to change can restore it to a desired state; thus, the SES is still resilient (Bodin and
Norberg, 2005).
Regime Shifts
A regime is defined as a self-reinforcing state of attraction within a system which

is controlled by multiple inherent feedback processes, and external forces and internal
processes can cause systems to shift towards a different regime (Norberg et al., 2008;
Scheffer and Carpenter, 2003). Historically, urban watershed management
innovations have been shown to bring about regime shifts in SESs, such as a
reduction in water borne illness and eutrophic states of receiving waters. The
development of urban stormwater and wastewater management strategies has cycled
from decentralized privy vault-cesspool systems to centralized conveyance
management throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and more recently back to a
renewed interest in decentralized management alternatives such as GI. Many factors
have contributed to these shifts, such as cost of available technologies, accepted
scientific theories, and the prevailing opinions on sanitation (Burian et al., 2000).
By the late 19th century, large cities in the US commonly built combined sewer
systems that discharged into local water bodies. The rationale that engineers of the
time used to build thousands of miles of combined sewer systems throughout the US
left a heritage of water pollution problems that policy-makers continue to deal with
today (Tarr, 1979). Tarr and McMichael (1977) identify three turning points in early
stormwater and wastewater management history that were especially important: the
replacement of cesspools and privy vaults by sewers, the debate over whether to
construct separate or combined sewers, and the decision to discharge sewage into
surface waters, leaving treatment to both natural purification in the receiving water
and filtration by subsequent water users. These turning points are reflected in the
significant changes of Onondaga County’s stormwater and wastewater management
strategies. Six urban watershed management strategy regimes defined by these and
other major turning points in the Onondaga Lake SES are summarized in Table 1.
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
Table 1: Onondaga Lake SES Management Regimes

Regime Year Stormwater and Wastewater Management Changes
Increasing urbanization with uncontrolled wastewater and
1 Pre 1896
stormwater management
2 1896 Combined sewer system built
3 1960 Central treatment plant completed
4 1979 Treatment plant upgraded to tertiary treatment

5 1998 First ACJ with gray infrastructure projects and METRO upgrades
6 2009 4th ACJ passed to utilize GI
Human activities often lead to associated regime shifts in ecosystems (Scheffer et

al., 2001). The evolving stormwater and wastewater management plans of Onondaga
County are linked to several ecological regime shifts in the Onondaga Lake SES. This
is primarily due to the large contribution of municipal effluent to the lake’s water
balance. Before recent upgrades, the effluent from METRO was found to contribute
60% of the phosphorus and 90% of the ammonia loadings to the lake, leading to a
hypereutrophic state with high populations of phytoplankton, increased turbidity,
extended periods of hypolimnetic anoxia and a decrease in ecosystem function
(Canale and Effler, 1989).
Phosphorus is a primary driver for the environmental degradation in Onondaga
Lake associated with municipal waste inputs from METRO. Figure 1 shows the
Figure 1: (Top) Measured summer epilimnetic total phosphorous concentrations in

Onondaga Lake, modified from Effler et al., 2013; and (bottom) inferred historic
phosphorus concentrations in the Lake, modified from Rowell et al. (2013), for
watershed management regimes 1-5.
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
fluctuating levels of phosphorus in Onondaga Lake through the first five stormwater
and wastewater management regimes identified in Table 1. The top portion of the
figure is reconstructed from long term phosphorus monitoring by the Upstate
Freshwater Institute, while the bottom portion is derived from sediment coring efforts
to develop a proxy for historical phosphorus levels in Onondaga Lake. The general
trends in Regimes 3, 4 and 5 are clear between the two data sets, as phosphorus levels
decrease with increasingly advanced stormwater and wastewater management
regimes. Another important turning point is the banning of phosphates from laundry
detergents, which also occurred toward the end of Regime 3 in 1971 and thus
enhances the decreasing trends seen in Regimes 3 and 4. The 1998 ACJ set a
requirement for the average epilimnetic phosphorus concentrations in Onondaga Lake
of less than 20 µg P/L. Further systematic reductions in loading to the lake’s upper
layers will be necessary to ensure meeting the goal (Effler et al. 2013).
Drastic changes in lake ecological regimes due to municipal and industrial waste
inputs also led to socioeconomic shifts. In the early half of the 20th century, the
thriving fisheries and resort industries that had operated since the 1800s slowly died
out as the lake’s water quality deteriorated (Thompson, 2002). The commercial cold-
water fishery was eliminated by the late 1800s, the lake was closed to ice harvesting
in 1901, swimming was banned in 1940 due to elevated bacteria counts and poor
water clarity, and all fishing was banned in1972 due to mercury contamination (Effler
et al., 2010; Landers, 2006).
The 2009 ACJ represents a turning point with potential to bring about a sixth
regime for the Onondaga Lake SES, in which GI assists in the recovery of the Lake
through enhanced nonpoint source pollution control. Figure 2 summarizes the
progress made since the 1998 ACJ in reducing the number of CSO points without
abatement strategies, and consequently increasing the annual percent capture of CSO
volume. A CSO point with an abatement strategy does not imply that all CSO volume
will be captured at each outfall point, and performance, especially for GI abatement
strategies, may vary depending on the strategies or technologies used and different
conditions present from year to year. However, increasing annual CSO volume
capture with increased abatement strategies will likely accelerate Lake’s recovery.
In the past two decades of cleanup efforts, Onondaga Lake has begun to shift
back to its preindustrial regime, as water quality and clarity continue to improve.
Since 2008, no algal blooms have been evident; total phosphorus concentrations were
below the state’s guidance value for recreational use; macrophyte communities have
become more diverse; populations of gamefish have continued to increase steadily;
and bacteria counts remained within limits for water recreation (EcoLogic, LLC et al.,
2010; Upstate Freshwater Institute et al., 2014).
CONCLUSIONS
Onondaga County’s Save the Rain program has received national recognition. In
2010, the EPA awarded the County Executive, Onondaga Nation, POC and ASLF the
Environmental Quality Award. One year later, the EPA named Onondaga County one
of 10 U.S. partner communities in their new strategic GI agenda, which outlines the
activities that the EPA will undertake to help communities implement GI. In 2013,
the program received six major awards, including the U.S. Water Prize and the New
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
Figure 2: Number of operational CSO points without abatement strategies and total
percent capture of annual CSO volume. Note that the original system had over 90
operational CSO points. Data from annual ACJ reports such as OCDWEP (2014).
York State Environmental Excellence Award, the highest environmental award at the
state level.
The positive ecological changes in the Onondaga Lake watershed are a reflection
of key changes within the governance system of Onondaga County’s stormwater
management plans. The shift in the management strategies from solely gray
infrastructure to the incorporation of GI would have been highly unlikely if it were
not for the changes in the political and economic settings, as well as supportive
leadership at the local level. Furthermore, the adoption of GI in Onondaga County
encompasses social changes in addition to environmental restoration. The Onondaga
Nation has continued to define its role as one of the caretakers of Onondaga Lake, as
the Nation released its “Vision for a Clean Onondaga Lake” in 2010, describing
holistic, watershed focused goals for restoration. The County Executive
acknowledges the need for broader sets of goals “beyond ACJ requirements,” and the
potential social benefits that GI can bring about such as community development and
job creation (Mahoney, 2011).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the SURDNA Foundation for providing funding for this work, as well as all
Onondaga Lake resource users with whom we interacted in this work, including Steve
Effler, Joseph Heath, Aggie Lane, Dave Matthews, Ed Michalenko, Matthew Millea,
Chandler Rowell, Lindsay Speer, and Mallory Squier.
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
REFERENCES
Berkes, F., 2012. Sacred Ecology, 3rd ed. Routledge, New York.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability, in: Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. pp. 13–20.
Bodin, Ö., Norberg, J., 2005. Information network topologies for enhanced local
adaptive management. Environmental Management 35, 175–193.

Burian, S.J., Nix, S.J., Pitt, R.E., Durrans, S.R., 2000. Urban wastewater management
in the United States: Past, present, and future. Journal of Urban Technology 7,
33–62.
Canale, R.P., Effler, S.W., 1989. Stochastic phosphorous model for Onondaga Lake.
Water Research 23, 1009–1016.
Coon, W.F., Reddy, J.E., 2008. Hydrologic and water-quality characterization and
modeling of the Onondaga Lake Basin, Onondaga County, New York. US
Geological Survey.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons.
Science 302, 1907–1912.
EcoLogic, LLC, Anchor QEA, Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment
Protection, Rudstam, L., Walker, W.W., 2010. Onondaga Lake Ambient
Monitoring Program 2008 Final Report. Onondaga County Department of
Water Environment Protection, Onondaga County, NY.
Effler, S.W., O’Donnell, S.M., Prestigiacomo, A.R., Matthews, D.A., Auer, M.T.,
2013. Retrospective analyses of inputs of municipal wastewater effluent and
coupled impacts on an urban lake. Water Environment Research 85, 13–26.
Effler, S.W., O’Donnell, S.M., Prestigiacomo, A.R., O’Donnell, D.M., Gelda, R.K.,
Matthews, D.A., 2010. The effect of municipal wastewater effluent on
nitrogen levels in Onondaga Lake, a 36-year record. Water Environment
Research 82, 3–19.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473.
Garrison, N., Hobbs, K., 2011. Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling
stormwater and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Washington D.C.
Gunderson, L.H., 2001. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and
natural systems. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Hahn, T., Schultz, L., Folke, C., Olsson, P., 2008. Social networks as sources of
resilience in social–ecological systems, in: Complexity Theory for a
Sustainable Future. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 119–48.
Hughes, D.J., 2008. An Analysis of Onondaga County Bacteria Monitoring Data.
Onondaga Environmental Institute, Syracuse, NY.
Kloss, C., Calarusse, C., Stoner, N., 2006. Rooftops to rivers: Green strategies for
controlling stormwater and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Washington D.C.
Knauss, T., 2010. Activists’ persistence on sewage pushed Onondaga County to “go
green”. The Syracuse Post Standard.
Landers, J., 2006. New Life for Onondaga Lake. Civil Engineering 76, 64–71, 86.
ICSI 2014
© ASCE 2014
Lane, A., 2011. Personal communication.

Lane, A., Heath, T., 2007. Environmental Racism in Syracuse, NY: A Case Study of
Government’s Failure to Protect an Endangered Waterway and a Neglected
Community. Partnership for Onondaga Creek, Syracuse, NY.
Mahoney, J., 2011. Personal communication.
Millea, M., 2011. Personal communication.
Norberg, J., Wilson, J., Walker, B., Ostrom, E., 2008. Diversity and resilience of
social-ecological systems, in: Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future.

Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 46–79.
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (OCDWEP), 2014.
Onondaga County, NY ACJ Fourth Stipulation 2013 Annual Report,
Onondaga County, NY.
Perreault, T., Wraight, S., Perreault, M., 2012. Environmental injustice in the
Onondaga lake waterscape, New York State, USA. Water Alternatives 5, 485–
506.
Rowell, C.H., Bloomfield, J.A., Enache, M., Quinlan, R., Perkins, M., Effler, S.W.,
Charles, D.F., Smith, A.J., Ababneh, L., 2013. Environmental Ensemble
Modeling: A Complimentary Approach to Understanding Past Water Quality
Conditions. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.A., Folke, C., Walker, B., 2001. Catastrophic
shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413, 591–596.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking
theory to observation. Trends in ecology & evolution 18, 648–656.
Tarr, J.A., 1979. The separate vs. combined sewer problem: a case study in urban
technology design choice. J Urban Hist 5, 308–339.
Tarr, J.A., McMichael, F.C., 1977. Historic turning points in municipal water supply
and wastewater disposal, 1850-1932. Civil Engineering—ASCE 47, 82–86.
Tauxe, C., 2011. Onondaga Lake Cleanup: A Case Study of Environmental Conflict
& Cross-Cultural Coalition. Peace Studies Journal 4.
Thompson, D.H., 2002. The Golden Age of Onondaga Lake Resorts, 1st ed. Purple
Mountain Pr Ltd, Fleischmanns, N.Y.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J.,
James, P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using
green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape and urban planning 81,
167–178.
Upstate Freshwater Institute, Anchor QEA, Onondaga County Dept of Water
Environment Protection, Rudstam, L., Walker, W.W., 2014. Onondaga Lake
Ambient Monitoring Program: 2012. Onondaga County Dept. of Water
Environment Protection, Onondaga County, NY.
Webb, C., Bodin, Ö., 2008. A network perspective on modularity and control of flow
in robust systems, in: Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 85–118.
ICSI 2014

2014 Flynn Onondaga PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Flynn Onondaga PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World 89

Transformational Changes Associated with Sustainable Stormwater

Carli Flynn1, Cliff I. Davidson1, and Joanne Mahoney2

ABSTRACT: Green infrastructure technologies (GI) are becoming a popular

stormwater management plans included only gray infrastructure technologies. These

Past Stormwater Management Practices in Onondaga County

Introduction of GI Stormwater Management Paradigm

Some regions of the US were early adopters of GI technologies, such as the

Adaptive Governance Strategies

There are several frameworks that enable governments to manage complex

1. Build knowledge of ecosystem dynamics

Onondaga Lake watershed, some of which are commissioned by Onondaga County.

2. Make continuous use of ecological knowledge

3. Support flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems

4. Cope with external perturbations, uncertainty and surprise

A regime is defined as a self-reinforcing state of attraction within a system which

Table 1: Onondaga Lake SES Management Regimes

4 1979 Treatment plant upgraded to tertiary treatment

Human activities often lead to associated regime shifts in ecosystems (Scheffer et

Figure 1: (Top) Measured summer epilimnetic total phosphorous concentrations in

adaptive management. Environmental Management 35, 175–193.

Lane, A., 2011. Personal communication.

social-ecological systems, in: Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future.

You might also like