candlewood presentation

Policies Influence the Health of Candlewood

LakeChristina Alvarez

Senior ThesisApril 25, 2016

Dr. Ward

The Value of Water

http://www.candlewoodlakeauthority.org/#!lake-history/cdkd

The Great Amenities

Candlewood Lake Since 1928

Stormwater Runoff

Bacteria Growth at Candlewood

Healthy Toxic

Hypothesis

The health of Candlewood Lake is determined by each municipality’s

regulations to limit negative influences of the lake ecosystem.

Impervious Surfaces

Septic Systems

Soil Erosion

Buffer

PredictionsNew Fairfield and Sherman does not have enough

policies to influence the lake’s health in a positive way.

New Milford has strong policies that would influence the lake in a positive way.

As for Brookfield and Danbury, I knew they had decent policies in place but I was unsure how influential they were.

Temperature and the amount of rainfall will influence the amount of beach closings

Temperature & Precipitation Influences

1997 – New Milford Max Temperature – 91.25 F Year Precipitation -108.67 inches

1998 – New Fairfield Max Temperature – 93.0 F Year Precipitation - 73.04 inches

1999 – Brookfield/New Milford Max Temperature – 98.25 F Year Precipitation – 82.73 inches

2000 – Danbury Max Temperature – 97.50 F Year Precipitation – 132.47 inches

2003 Danbury/New Fairfield/New Milford/Sherman Max Temperature – 90.75 F Year Precipitation – 141.78 inches

2004 Danbury/Sherman Max Temperature – 91.30 F Year Precipitation – 123.06 inches

2005 Danbury/New Fairfield/ Sherman Max Temperature – 93.00 F Year Precipitation – 126.00 inches

2006 Brookfield/Danbury/New Fairfield Max Temperature – 95.50 F Year Precipitation – 120.23 Inches

2015 Brookfield/New Fairfield/Sherman

Max Temperature – 88.5 F Year Precipitation – 110.50 Inches

Danbury Correlation

DanburyClosings

Danbury Impervio

usDanbury

SepticDanbury

Soil Erosion

Danbury Buffers

Danbury Closings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 -.411* -.571** -.411* -.297

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

New Fairfield Correlation

N. FairfieldClosings

N. FairfieldImpervio

us

N. FairfieldSeptic

N. Fairfield

Soil Erosion

N.Fairfield

Buffers

N. FairfieldClosings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 .500** .091 b. .409*

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).b. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

Brookfield Correlation

Brookfield

Closings

Brookfield

Impervious

Brookfield

Septic

Brookfield

SoilErosion

Brookfield

Buffers

BrookfieldClosings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 .151 .071 .151 .151

New Milford Correlation

N. Milford

Closings

N. Milford

Impervious

N. MilfordSeptic

N. Milford

Soil Erosion

N. Milford Buffers

N. MilfordClosings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 -.221 -.241 -.221 -.247

Sherman Correlation

ShermanClosings

ShermanImpervio

usSherman

SepticSherman

Soil Erosion

Sherman Buffers

ShermanClosings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 .311 .243 .139 .263

West Side Correlation

West Side

Closings

West Side

Impervious

West Side

Septic

West SideSoil

Erosion

West Side

Buffers

West SideClosings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 .434* .207 .149 .372

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).b. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

East Side Correlation

East SideClosings

East SideImpervio

usEast Side

SepticEast Side

Soil Erosion

East Side Buffers

East SideClosings

Pearson Correlatio

n

1 -.348 -.084 -.348 -.201

The Lake As A Whole

Lake Policy

N. Fairfiel

dPolicy

Sherman

Policy

Brookfield

Policy

Danbury

Policy

N. MilfordPolicy

Lake Closings

Pearson

-.294 .012 -.342 -.210 -.417* -.243

Conclusion

Water Regulations are Implemented to Protect and Preserve All Bodies of Water

Work Cited