The Lake Lacawac Sanctuary, located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania lacks planning and resources and is unsure of the sanctuary’s full potential. By conducting some basic research, this project is aimed at providing the Lake Lacawac sanctuary with a clearer idea of their options for the future.

This research focuses on four main aspects of the sanctuary, and our group divided into four sub-committees in order to concentrate on each of these aspects individually. These committees are: Land Inventory and Regulations, Structures and Space Plans, and Historic and Future Possibilities for Usage, and Research and Instruction Needs.

The Land Inventory and Regulations group addressed a few of the specific questions of the sanctuary. One of these questions was in regard to the access road to the sanctuary. There was some discrepancy about its ownership and who was responsible for maintenance and repairs on the road. Our research concludes that the sanctuary owns the road and is solely responsible for its maintenance. Additionally, this group can provide the Lake Lacawac Sanctuary with all of the relevant zoning and permitting regulations for Salem and Paupack Township (the sanctuary spans over these two townships.) These documents are now property of the Lehigh Earth Observatory and can be easily obtained and photocopied. The Lehigh Earth Observatory also has some maps of the property, which illustrate the lake’s watershed and the boundary between Salem and Paupack Township. Furthermore, this group discovered that no permit is needed for a construction of a composting toilet on the property. The design of this toilet was the focus of the Structures and Space Plans Group.

The Structures and Space Plans Group analyzed the space planning and capacity of the existing structures at Lacawac and drew up plans for a composting toilet. The model that was used was one that is manufactured by Phoenix Corp. This model is self-contained, above ground, and holds and facilitates the aerobic break down of human waste under controlled conditions.

Drawings of the final design can be found in Appendix A along with drawings of the entire site and some of the existing buildings.

The Historic and Future Possibilities for Usage group collected the sanctuary’s invoices for the last five years and created organized cash flow statements in the form of excel spreadsheets. This will allow the sanctuary to clearly see who uses the facilities, when they use them, how long they use them for, and how much they pay. These spreadsheets and graphs can be found in Appendix B.

The Research and Instruction Needs group conducted their research through interviews and e-mail surveys. They interviewed university researchers who use or have used the facilities at Lacawac. A summary of the researchers responses can be found in Appendix D. From these interviews, it was concluded that in the short run, the best thing for the sanctuary to do is to maintain and improve their current facilities. This means improving the lab facilities by increasing space, provide a cleaner environment, better waste facilities, refrigerator/freezer, source of de-ionized water, more full-time on-site help, small library showcasing past and present research projects conducted at Lacawac, better bathroom facilities and improvements to the sanctuary’s boats and docks.

This group also sent out e-mails to the Biology and Earth and Environmental Sciences Departments of area Colleges and Universities who were not on record as Lacawac users. From the responses to these surveys, it was concluded the sanctuary must take a more active role in making potential researchers aware of its existence. They could do this by simply sending a brochure to the Biology and/or Earth and Environmental Sciences Department of all universities and colleges in the area. Furthermore, they could create a web page, which would also serve to promote awareness of the sanctuary’s existence.

Lake Lacawac is a wildlife sanctuary located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The sanctuary provides Lehigh University, along with other Colleges and Universities, with a valuable location to conduct scientific research. The sanctuary contains roughly 150 acres of land surrounding a small lake that is unique in many ways. Unlike the neighboring Lake Walumpaulpack, Lake Lacawac is an undisturbed watershed that is ideal for studying aquatic ecosystems as well as other wildlife processes. In addition to the research component, the Sanctuary runs many community programs from late spring to early fall. These programs are geared to raise awareness and involvement in the environment.

The lake and surrounding property has been in the Watres family until 1967, when Louis Arthur Watres II endowed ownership to the Lacawac Sanctuary Foundation. Mr. Watres continues to assist the sanctuary financially, but he is quite old, and after his death, the future of the sanctuary will be uncertain. Essentially, the Lacawac Sanctuary Foundation lacks planning and resources and is unsure of the sanctuary’s full potential. By conducting some basic research, our group’s aim is to provide Lake Lacawac Sanctuary with a more clear idea of their options for the future. Our research focused on four main aspects of the sanctuary: Land Inventory and Regulations, Research and Instruction Needs, Structures and Space Plans, and Historic and Future Possibilities for Usage.

The land owned by the Lacawac Sanctuary Foundation sprawls over two different townships and its ownership is segmented into many different deeds. Additionally, a large percentage of the property is owned "conditionally." By carefully reading the deeds and reviewing the map, the Land Inventory and Regulations group can show the sanctuary exactly what they own and where it is located. This information will be helpful to the sanctuary for various reasons. If the Lacawac Sanctuary Foundation wishes to make any changes to the property, they will be able to use our research to guide them in their plans. This information provides them with an understanding of where and under what conditions changes can be made to the property. We also provided them with the appropriate zoning and permitting regulations for the relevant land. There was also some confusion as to who owns the road entering the sanctuary, and who should be financially responsible for repairs and maintenance of this road. We are able to provide the sanctuary with this information.

The goal of the Research Needs sub committee is to assess the uniqueness of the Lacawac Sanctuary for research and to define the needs of present and perspective researchers as well as its potential for undergraduate instruction. Determining the scientific value of the sanctuary was to be accomplished by interviewing researchers who currently use the Lacawac Sanctuary, those who have used it in the past, and those who may have an interest in the sanctuary. This group also tried to locate similar research stations throughout the area. The more unique that the sanctuary is, the more valuable it becomes to researchers.

One of the exceptional aspects of Lake Lacawac is its rather pristineness; in that the watershed is protected from development, pollution and intruders. Additionally, The Lacawac Sanctuary is located in a distinctive area where there are hundreds of universities and colleges located within two hours of the sanctuary.

The structures group analyzed the space planning and capacity of the existing structures at Lake Lacawac. The Sanctuary board has ideas about future improvements, but it still has to be determined whether or not new facilities are needed. By examining the current state of the existing structures, we are able to make recommendations to the Sanctuary Board. These recommendations will enable the board to determine the necessity of renovation or the construction of new facilities.

The usage group has been gathering invoices and other data in order to determine who is actually using the sanctuary, when they are using it, how they are using it, and the frequency/patterns of usage. In coordination with the research group, the usage group attempted to determine past and present demand for the usage of the sanctuary and the prospects for future demand. Additionally the group has made some conclusions about the capacity of the current facilities. If the sanctuary was not at full capacity, then we tried to determine how attendance could be increased. If the capacities were running maximum capacity then we made suggestions regarding the augmentation of current facilities.

Lake Lacawac is not the only wildlife education/research station of it’s kind. Many other sanctuaries exist around the country that support many of the same activities that the Lacawac Wildlife Sanctuary does. One such organization is the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary located in Kempton, PA. Hawk Mountain is a 2400-acre area of preserved woodlands that surround a natural ridge. The Sanctuary’s main purpose is the conservation of birds of prey as well as the habitat in which they live. In doing this, the Sanctuary provides many programs that are geared toward education and research. College level courses of study are offered through Cedar Crest College in addition to a number of weekend programs and lectures. It is these programs of study that draw in visitors, students and researchers who are willing to pay prescribed fees for the use of the facilities. Hawk Mountain also operates a bookstore with a sizable collection of videos, tapes, slides, books and guides that is a substantial a source of revenue as well. To help with the operating expenses of the sanctuary, the Board of Directors actively searches for grants from public and private foundations, state and federal agencies, and private businesses. This encompasses roughly 10% of the Sanctuary’s annual income. The rest is earned from membership dues, trail admission fees, donations, and bookstore sales.

Another similar type of sanctuary is the Central Michigan University Biological Station at Beaver Island. This research station is operated through Central Michigan University, who provides the faculty and facilities for the station. A dormitory, teaching laboratories, classrooms, a campground, visitor’s center and dining facilities support summer coursework and environmental research. Unlike Lake Lacawac, this research station is largely funded by CMU and is run by the university instead of a board of directors. Revenue is generated through course registration fees, meals, lodging fees, and bookstore sales.

In order to efficiently conduct our research, the group divided itself into four separate subcommittees, each one concentrating on a different aspect of the project. We will examine the methodology of each of these groups in turn.

The most appropriate place to start is the Wayne County Courthouse. Jo Ann Kelley is our contact for all of the land located in Paupack Township, and Jennifer Wargo is our contact for all of the land located in Salem Township. They provided us with the fifteen deeds to the property, five maps, and relevant zoning ordinances for their respective township. The next step simply involved a careful examination and a detailed organization of all of the obtained information.

All of this group’s information was obtained by contacting and interviewing (in person, over the phone, or by e-mail) researchers and asking them a standard list of questions, which included:

1. What do you use the sanctuary for?
2. How much time is physically spent at the sanctuary over the course of a year?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the sanctuary? How unique and important is the sanctuary to your work and the work of others?
4. To make Lacawac an ideal researching station, what types of equipment and structures would you like to see there?
5. How important is Lacawac to the instruction of students and how could its usage be expanded in the future?
6. What other researchers do you know that currently use the sanctuary?
7. What other research stations do you know about that may be similar to Lacawac?

The committee interviewed Lehigh professors and professors from other institutions who currently use the Sanctuary. The professors at Lehigh were interviewed in person, and the professors from other institutions will be interviewed via e-mail. Additionally, the committee sent a questionnaire to the biology/environmental sciences departments of schools in the vicinity of Lake Lacawac that have not used the sanctuary. The questionnaire asked if they have heard of the Lacawac Sanctuary; and if they have, we attempted determine why they are not using it and if they would be interested in using it.

The Structures group deals with the physical planning of the sanctuary, organization of the existing facility, and the feasibility/necessity of new structures. Initially, the group considered the existing ideas of the Sanctuary Board. These included the construction of a composting toilet, road improvements, and even the possibility of building a dormitory/lab/conference center on the property. Furthermore, after visiting the site and evaluating the existing facility, the group determined that the bridge along the access road might also need some attention as well. These ideas were discussed and it was determined by the Structures Group that the only one that presented itself as the most feasible was the composting toilet. The Sanctuary Board has already raised the issue of the lack of bathroom facilities near the Carriage House, and a temporary solution to this problem is the use of a portable toilet adjacent to the Carriage House. However, the board wishes to install a more permanent solution. A composting toilet seems to be what the board is looking for because it is a low maintenance, self-sufficient system that requires no special utilities.

We researched commercially available composting toilets and several companies offering different designs. Among the models researched were toilets by Bio-Sun, Clivus Multrum, and Pheonix Corp. The model that offered the most information and availability was manufactured by Phoenix corp. The Sanctuary is in need of a toilet that can handle moderate to average use during the summer months, with less use in the late spring and early fall. This particular unit was chosen by the Structures Committee since it offers the capacity and seasonal use that Lacawac needs. The toilet is a self-contained, above ground model that holds and facilitates the aerobic break down of human waste under controlled conditions. It is also a fairly economical solution since it requires very little electricity operate, and can be installed in a number of ways. Since the unit sits above ground, the challenge of designing a structure to house the composting unit was presented to the structures group. A specific concern was the accessibility as prescribed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the actual necessity for the structure to be ADA compliant is still to be determined, it is believed to be prudent to design the structure in this way.

In order to further the design process, the Structures Group gathered information form the Lacawac Sanctuary board. Certain members of the board have ideas regarding the best location for the composting toilet. The group met with those members who are locally available first, namely: Robert Moeller — professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Lehigh, and Bobb Carson, Dean of the College of Arts and Science at Lehigh. These individuals actively attend meetings held by the Sanctuary board, and may be able to shed light on a preferred location for the toilet. Once the location is chosen, then decisions about the type of foundation and engineering of the structure can be made.

The usage group concentrates on the visitors of the sanctuary. Data was obtained from Janice Poppich, the proprietor of the sanctuary. The data consisted of what organizations had been to the sanctuary, for how long and how much was paid for their stay. Additionally, as Lacawac offers accommodations for both day and over night visits the data was accordingly separated. While compiling the data into some useful form there were difficulties in recognizing the true number of days spent at the sanctuary versus the amount of people who had visited. If one person stayed for ten days then in terms of volume, it is just one, but ten days were spent at the sanctuary total. To account for this discrepancy two types of measures were created.

In reference to the historical data, the usage group was most concerned with who had used the facilities, what they used them for, the number of people who stayed days or nights, the charge per unit (denoted as cost in appendix B) and the amount billed. As mentioned above, two types of units were introduced to add continuity and meaning to the data: people*days and people*nights. These units are people multiplied by days or nights spent at the sanctuary. The units reflect the actual time spent at the sanctuary by all the visitors and not simply the number of visitors. We feel this number is more significant because it allows us to measure the amount of usage the facilities get. Volume by itself may not reflect true usage because one person may stay for more than one day.

Our study has been focused primarily on the Universities that use the lake for research purposes. These groups account for the vast majority of usage at the sanctuary in terms of people and money spent and their continued usage of the sanctuary is essential to the survival of Lake Lacawac as a nature sanctuary. An increase in the usage by nearby universities is something that we believe that Lacawac has the potential to develop.

After obtaining and reading all of the sanctuary’s deeds and speaking with Jennifer Wargo, an employee of Salem Township, the road leading into the sanctuary is the sole property of the Lake Lacawac Sanctuary. This means that the sanctuary is responsible for maintenance of the road and the bridge that crosses it.

All of the relevant deeds, maps, and zoning/permitting books area available via the Lehigh Earth Observatory. These should be helpful for the sanctuary if they choose to make any structural changes to the property in the future. These aids will help the sanctuary understand what land they actually own, in each township, and the regulations for that land.

As for the composting toilet, Paupack Township does not have any objections to its construction. In fact, according to Phillip Pruss, an employee of Salem Township, there isn’t even any need to obtain a permit from the Zoning Officer or the Sewage enforcement Officer.

The researchers who use the facilities at Lake Lacawac have been very helpful and cooperative. The committee interviewed Lehigh professors including Bruce Hargreaves, Robert Moeller, Don Morris, Anne Meltzer and Craig Williamson who are currently using the Lacawac Sanctuary. The committee also interviewed researchers who use the sanctuary from Universities other than Lehigh including Carl Oplinger from Muhlenburg College, Frank Kuserk from Moravian College, Jonathan Richardson from Franklin and Marshall Univ., and Daniel Townsend from Scranton Univ. The interviews were compiled and summaries of the responses can be found in Appendix D. Researchers had similar opinions about the Lacawac Sanctuary without any opposing viewpoints.

The current researchers use Lacawac, most heavily from April to August, in a variety of ways. There are various on going research projects, which involve professors as well as undergraduate/graduate students. University professors gather to share research findings at annual meetings held at the Sanctuary. Day trips for University courses as well as a three-week summer course run by Lehigh University help to educate undergraduate students. Professor Daniel Townsend of the University of Scranton leads public nature walks in the summer.

Researchers feel there are many advantages of the Lacawac Sanctuary. The sanctuary has a lake with a well-protected watershed and on site lab/residential facilities as well as boats and a safe place to store equipment and conduct research without the public’s disturbance. The presence of a permanent staff member and good relations with customers is also a great advantage. There are also many disadvantages that researchers see with Lacawac Sanctuary. Lacawac needs more full-time work to maintain and ensure its existence. The quality of the lab facilities is rather poor because of lack of space and cleanliness. The antiquated condition of the sanctuary’s structures adds to the uncleanliness and difficult maintenance. Much of the equipment and facilities needed for research are located at home Universities, which requires researchers to drive back and forth many times over long distances to finish research.

The uniqueness of the Sanctuary is hard to quantify although there are not many well-protected lakes in the region with on site lab/residential facilities. The Sanctuary is very unique to researchers because of decades worth of data that have been collected for ongoing research projects.

Researchers feel that there are many different types of equipment and structures that would make Lacawac a better research station. The researchers suggestions were then prioritized. Those things which need to be immediately addressed by the Sanctuary are improving the lab facilities by increasing space, provide a cleaner environment, better waste facilities, refrigerator/freezer, source of de-ionized water, more full-time on-site help, small library showcasing past and present research projects conducted at Lacawac, better bathroom facilities and improvements to the sanctuary’s boats and docks. Other suggestions made by researchers, which would be nice to have but are not a priority at the current time include, a brand new general-purpose lab building as well as a modern dormitory and multipurpose classroom/seminar room, fume hood, drying ovens, microscopes, air conditioning, a laminar flow hood, better access road, computer lab, library, better access to the bog such as a raised boardwalk to preserve its ecosystem and better control of access to the sanctuary, especially along its eastern boundary, which is prone to snowmobiles, ATV’s, etc.

Lacawac is very important to the instruction of students. The sanctuary provides students with a site to study and research natural systems hands on. The sanctuary is very important to the instruction of Lehigh students, although its importance has decreased over the years because Lehigh students have a lot of other opportunities for hands on training through the Lehigh Earth Observatory. Expansion may be difficult because of the long distance of travel and problems of scheduling overnights with the busy schedules of students and professors. One must carefully look at the carrying capacity of the sanctuary. What amount of usage begins to detract from the sanctuary because of an increase in human impact?

Currently the Lake Lacawac sanctuary heavily relies upon financial support from William Watres to sustain its activities. In analyzing the viability of Lake Lacawac’s subsistence in the future, when funds from Watres are less likely, we must determine prospective sources of cash flow for the sanctuary. One possibility would be to attract more universities to the sanctuary where they would pay to conduct research and have classes. A survey was conducted among near by universities that do not currently make use of Lake Lacawac to discover the level of interest in the sanctuary. The survey gave us information about similar sanctuary facilities, such as the Trout Lake station in Wisconsin, which could be compared with Lake Lacawac. The survey also gave us information about the types of research facilities that would need to be built to attract universities.

The biology, earth and environmental, or related department was contacted at each school in regard to the level of their interest. The survey was e-mailed to forty-five universities and twelve responses were received. The survey consisted of three questions: Is your department aware of the existence of Lake Lacawac? Does your department use a similar facility? And if there were interest in using Lake Lacawac what types of facilities would be required?

We received three different types of responses. First, there were three institutions, which had heard of Lacawac and were interested, but could not find information about the sanctuary. Second, there were six institutions, which visited or owned a similar facility and had no interest in Lake Lacawac. Third, there were three institutions contacted that were thought to have not visited Lacawac, but in reality they had and Lacawac did not have a record.

Responses to the first question were mixed. Franklin and Marshall College, Moravian College, Temple University had heard of and used the facilities but we found no record of their stay. Ursinus College, Drew University and Neumann College had not heard of Lacawac and wanted to get information or had heard of Lacawac and had trouble finding information. This question really indicates the organizational capacity of the sanctuary. In many ways Lacawac has not taken an active role in catering to organizations that may be interested in using the facilities. A simple email, newsletter, or a message in a bottle to institutions, which had been to Lacawac in the past could encourage universities to come back and could even attract new ones.

With regard to the second question, there were many colleges that already had a facility similar to Lacawac to use. The biology department at SUNY Oneonta uses a biological field station at Otsego Lake. Juniata College does much of its ecological research at Raystown Lake. Drew University has two small glacial ponds on its campus, uses lakes in northwestern New Jersey and streams in the Great Swamp Watershed. Hartwick College owns its own lake; Pinelake and Ursinus College has land with lakes. There are many lakes between New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which do not have any laboratory facilities that are used by many colleges in the area for research. Other lakes with facilities can attract large amounts of researchers. The biology department of Franklin and Marshall University mentioned their summer research at the Trout Lake Station in Wisconsin.

The third question poses a question about facilities and what would be sufficient. Of those who had been to Lacawac, Franklin and Marshall replied that additional laboratory space and boats would be helpful. The West Chester University biology department stressed that the laboratory trailer would need to be expanded along with the addition of classroom space.

The most interesting response was received from the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, which is a non-profit organization involved with the Lake Lacawac sanctuary. The nature of their involvement was not clear but they were well informed about the politics surrounding the sanctuary and were also quite opinionated. The e-mail gave us the perspective of the conservation minded people. They were happy with the lake "as is" and had zero interest in opening facilities to more researchers. For us, this is an understandable position to take. However once Mr. Watres ceases to support the sanctuary financially, it will be quite a hard position to maintain. The opinion of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council indicates the barriers that Lacawac faces when attempting to become self-sufficient.

The first stage of research comprised of taking drawings of existing structures and the site and creating AutoCAD files from them. This not only aided our design process but it will also allow the sanctuary to have greater accessibility to the facilities. The drawings and maps can now be printed in almost any format and will allow workers and volunteers to create useful graphics and guides for visitors to Lake Lacawac.

The restroom facility presented many design issues. Because there are several different composting toilet manufacturers on the market, we needed to choose a particular model in order to create detailed structural drawings. After a great deal of research we determined that the Phoenix composting toilet system (see Appendix A) would be the most practical and cost effective system. It is a self-contained polyethylene unit and comes in various heights depending on the amount of use that is expected. Our structure is designed to accommodate the largest of these units but the building can easily be resized if the science committee determines that a smaller unit is sufficient. The building was also designed to accommodate a system from a different manufacturer with only minor modifications to the structure. This allows the committee to evaluate systems independently of our design.

The other design issues are ADA compliance, site location, customer satisfaction, cost efficiency, and constructability. Volunteers that may or may not have experience with building construction will erect the design. It must therefore be a simple structure and not require intricate details. Standardized materials were used in a repeated and logical fashion in order to ease the effort of construction. This also aids the cost efficiency because materials are readily available and may even be donated by local suppliers.

Local building codes dictate that the bathrooms will need to be ADA compliant so a ramping system became necessary. The maximum slope of the ramp is one to twelve. This means that for every inch that the finished floor is above grade, one foot of ramping is required to meet code. Our design has the finished floor approximately three and one half feet above grade so forty-two feet (horizontal distance) of ramping is required. If the sanctuary is able to dig a deeper foundation then they will be able to reduce the length of the ramp. The depth of the foundation is dependent on the height of the water table and depth of bedrock at the final location of the building.

The objective for this group was to evaluate the physical facilities at Lake Lacawac and find areas that needed improvement immediately. The group met with the sanctuary board, faculty at Lehigh who use the facilities, the science committee, and Janice Poppich to discuss various possibilities for development and expansion. Ideas exchanged included road improvements, a student dormitory, a conference center, lab facilities, a composting toilet, and a new bridge where the main drive leaves the access road. After studying all possible improvements and discussing the matter with Ms. Poppich and others, we determined that the composting toilet structure was the most urgent improvement and is also the most feasible.

All drawings and details of the drawings design can be located in Appendix A.

Our data consists of the users of the sanctuary, who they are, if they are regular users and why they come to Lacawac. The overwhelming majority of use was undertaken by Lehigh University for various research and class purposes. In the years that are part of our sample (1997-2000) Lehigh’s percentage of the amount billed hovered around 50%. Despite Lehigh’s importance, many other Universities use the facilities at Lacawac. Drexel University, University of PA, University of Scranton, West Chester University, Moravian College, Franklin and Marshall College, Muhlenberg College, Cornell University, and Connecticut College are among the universities that have used Lake Lacawac since 1997 for classes and research. Other groups using the sanctuary are the Pike County Federation of Sports, outdoors groups (such as the Sierra Club and the Girl Scouts), painting groups and the Pocono Residence. There are obviously also many other individuals and recreational groups that visit the sanctuary.

Other explanations for the decline in amount billed could show up in the patters of usage. Graphs in appendix B.15 and B.16 show the people*day and people*night units per month between 1997 and 2000 explain annual usage patterns.

The people*day units dropped from 991 to 548 between 1997 and 1998. Additionally, the people*nights figure declined from 1126 to 686. During the next three years of the sample the usage patters continued to drop. By 2000 the people*days fell to 213 units and people*nights fell to 429 units. These declines in attendance are significant and should be recognized.

A note about the data is worth making here. Statistical Discrepancies must be noted, as we cannot confirm the perfection of our data. The major weakness of the data is that our team did not directly collect it. We were forced to rely upon the Lake Lacawac management to obtain data. As a result our data is only as good as what was received by us. Additionally, the possibility that the data could be incomplete or incorrect exists and it is out of our control. Examples of discrepancies in the data exist where a group visit to the sanctuary did not note the number of visitors exactly. Also in many cases the exact dates of visits were unknown from the invoice so there are more available discrepancies.

Lehigh students and faculty are responsible for the majority of the research conducted at the Lacawac Sanctuary. Our group along with most of the professors who we interviewed, agree that the sanctuary is being currently underused. A decline in the usage of the sanctuary for the years 1997-2000 supports this. Many researchers, because of family obligations and busy schedules, can’t afford to stay at the sanctuary for extended periods of time. This results in periods of high usage followed by periods of no usage at all, and subsequently, an underused facility. Insufficient research/ residential facilities as well as lack of public awareness also contribute to an underused facility. Another concern of professors is that expansion should not be done on such a large scale that would detract from the purity and relatively low human impact of the sanctuary or compromise the high quality of research that has been associated with Lacawac.

Our group feels the best thing for the sanctuary to do in the short term, meaning the next three to five years, is to maintain and improve their current facilities by concentrating on the priorities expressed by researchers currently using Lacawac. This list includes improving the lab facilities by increasing space, providing a cleaner environment, better waste facilities, refrigerator/freezer, source of de-ionized water, more full-time on-site help, small library showcasing past and present research projects conducted at Lacawac, better bathroom facilities and improvements to the sanctuary’s boats and docks. In the long term, designing Lacawac for multiple uses may be the solution to their financial problems. For example, integrating a small conference center, with improved research/residential facilities, and a community center may generate greater interest from surrounding universities as well as the general public. Improvements to research/residential facilities in the long term may include, a brand new general-purpose lab building as well as a modern dormitory and multipurpose classroom/seminar room, fume hood, drying ovens, microscopes, air conditioning, a laminar flow hood, better access road, computer lab, library, better access to the bog such as a raised boardwalk to preserve its ecosystem and better control of access to the sanctuary, especially along its eastern boundary, which is prone to snowmobiles, ATV’s, etc.

Many schools in the area are aware of Lacawac’s existence, but there are also many that have never heard of it and these schools may be potential customers. If Lacawac wishes to increase usage of the sanctuary by researchers, a simple strategy would be to send a Lake Lacawac brochure out to the biology and/or earth and environmental sciences departments of area universities. As mentioned before, there were some universities that we contacted that had never heard of the sanctuary and after we contacted them, they became interested in conducting research at Lake Lacawac. There were also some universities that had heard of the sanctuary, but had trouble getting information about it. Sending out brochures would promote awareness of the sanctuary and hopefully attract new researchers to the sanctuary. Another very effective option would be to create a web page for the sanctuary. Perhaps Lehigh University would even be able to provide the sanctuary with a student or group of students that would design the page in exchange for class credit.

The location of the composting toilet will be determined by the science committee but must be agreed upon by the Nature Conservancy (see Appendix C for the reverter clause). The main concerns about location are accessibility, amount of use, and the lake’s watershed. The details surrounding these issues are still being discussed at this point and will be determined by the science committee and then the general board. Because there is not a drastic change between any two points on the site, the building is designed to accommodate nearly any local condition.

At the request of the science committee on April 17, 2001 we altered our original design to make it "more aesthetic." This consisted of providing a double-pitched roof and adding cedar shingles to the exterior walls in order to make the building appear older. As architecture students we feel that this is not an appropriate solution to this particular design problem. We do understand that it may represent our client’s wishes to employ these elements but we do not feel that the result represents our capabilities as architects or the best possible design for the building.

Drawings of the final design can be found in Appendix A along with drawings of the entire site and some of the existing buildings. The appendix also contains details for the Phoenix Toilet System and the design specifications that go along with it. A set of twenty-four by thirty-six inch drawings will be presented to the various committees and will contain the same material found in the appendix plotted at a larger scale.

As noted above in the findings and analysis section, usage of the sanctuary has subsided significantly since 1997. It is difficult at this point to speculate why visits to Lake Lacawac dropped so much between 1997 and 1998 but actual recognition of the fact is a step in the right direction.

The monthly data for the amount billed by Lake Lacawac is located in Appendix B. The four-year total of amount billed for each month is complied in this chart. According to the chart the period between May and August is historically when Lacawac has collected the majority of its money. Still we find that the facilities at Lacawac, during these months, are not filled to capacity. This is a strong conclusion. It shows that the facilities at Lacawac are mostly able to handle the amount of traffic received during the most busy time period.

Additional emphasis is placed upon the quantity of usage in the four months Lacawac is frequented the most (May, June, July and August). Analysis of the monthly usage data is eye opening. In 1997 our people*days and people*nights units were summed for the months between May and August. The average usage per month (during the busy period) in 1997 was 469.25. For 1998, 1999 and 2000 the averages of people*day plus people*night were, respectively, 264.75, 217 and 78.25. It is obvious that usage during the busy months suffered a severe decline. Had the average usage per month, during the busy months, remained at 450 for the years 1998 through 2000 the sanctuary could have earned, on average, close to $10,000 more per year.

Our group is interested in what it would take to manage a reasonable capacity at the sanctuary. We have selected the level of 450 as an average amount of usage per month. However, Lacawac could select any specific amount as a target and expand marketing in an effort to increase traffic to the targeted amount. The emphasis is placed upon setting a target and attempting to meet goals. Environmental risk would be a necessary consideration in this case but establishing a target amount of visitors could help the sanctuary regulate usage while drawing in more users.

An interesting finding on our part has been that many groups that go to Lacawac do not go for very long. Large groups stay an average of one or two nights at the most. The exception is the occasional class (from Lehigh) that goes to Lacawac for five nights. The majority of the people who stay many nights (between 10 and 40) are solitary researchers. Much of the money billed by Lacawac is to researchers. There are two conclusions to be formed from this information.

The first is that pricing is not the most important issue for the majority of users at the sanctuary and that revenues could increase with a small increase in prices. Since the majority of users of Lacawac are researchers their visits are most likely not conditioned by cost. People are not visiting Lacawac because it is cheap but because it is a beautiful sanctuary and a good research site. So we recommend that revenues could be augmented by a marginal increase in the price structure. The second conclusion deals with the sufficiency of Lacawac’s facilities in terms of capacity. It might be more important at this point to consider upgrading the research facilities to attract more research. For example, Winfield Fairchild, a professor at West Chester University, has used Lacawac in the past for research believes that the sanctuary is an excellent site. However he noted that renovation of the research trailer would be essential. Simple renovations also seem to be in line with the goals of the conservation effort; limit the amount of traffic while maintaining a steady level of income.

This section of the paper is dedicated to recommendations that our group has for any future undertaking of work on the Lacawac project. The Lacawac project itself is expansive. It entails discovering and implementing plans for the efficient operation of a self-sustained nature sanctuary. Analyzing the existing data allowed our group to form an image of where the sanctuary currently stands with respect to usage patterns, zoning legalities and possibilities for structures. The next aspect of the project will be to assume an active role in suggesting actions that the sanctuary may take to become more self-sufficient. We envision the next group researching possibilities for obtaining funds from environmental organizations or universities, developing a more effective marketing strategy by creating a web site, and exploring the possibilities for renovation of the facilities at the sanctuary.