THE MANAGEMENT OF TASMANIA'S CAVES
INTRODUCTION
Tasmania is relatively well endowed with caves, in fact because of its high proportion of carbonate rocks and high effective precipitation, there is, according to Jennings (1975), "greater karst and cave development proportionally in this State than in others". In addition, Tasmania has by far the longest cave in the country, the 17km Exit Cave, and the deepest, Khazad-Dum (322m). What, then, is Tasmania doing to conserve its outstanding spelean heritage?
HISTORY OF RESERVATIONS
Many of the less creditable aspects of Tasmania's cave reserves have been outlined by Kiernan (1974). Despite numerous shortcomings Tasmania has made deliberate efforts to conserve its caves and these have recently been intensified. Table 1 sumarises the history of cave reserves and other reserves which include caves in Tasmania. It must be acknowledged that until very recently only those caves which appeared to have some development potential were considered worthy of reservation and management
TABLE 1: TASMANIAN CAVE RESERVES
| ITEM | DATE | NAME | AREA | AUTHORISING ACT | AUTHORITY | REMARKS |
| 1 | 6 Nov 1894 | Reserve for Preservation of Caves | 300ac 121.4ha | Crown Lands Act 1890 | Lands Department | Covered Sassafras Ck Cave; probably revoked, see Item 11 |
| 2 | 6 Nov 1894 | Reserve for Preservation of Caves | 99ac1r | Crown Lands Act 1890 | Lands Department | Includes part Honeycomb-Wet cave complex; leased for grazing |
| 3 | 4 Dec 1906 | Reserve for Preservation of Caves | 63ac 25.6ha | Crown Lands Act 1903 | Lands Department | Incl. Baldocks Cave; subsequently included in Item 11 |
| 4 | 4 Oct 1910 | Gunns Plains Reserve | 23ac3r 10ha | Crown Lands Act 1903 | Lands Department | Covers most of Gunns Plains Cave; see Item 7 |
| 5 | 3 Jul 1917 | Caves Reserve | 40ac 16.2ha | Mining Act 1905 | Mines Department | Exempts part of Mystery Ck Cave from Mining Act; to be included in Exit Cave State Reserve |
| 6 | 29 Aug 16 | Mount Field National Park | * | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Included many caves in Junee-Florentine area; 1500ha, incl. some caves revoked 1950 |
| 7 | 19 Feb 18 | Gunns Plains Caves Scenic Reserve | 23acr3 10ha | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Replaced Item 4 |
| 8 | 3 Jun 19 | Hastings Caves Scenic Reserve | 131ac2r53.2ha | Crown Lands Act 1911 | Lands Department | Covered Newdegate and King George V Caves; replaced by Item 9 |
| 9 | 24 Jun 19 | Hastings Caves Scenic Reserve | 131ac2r 53.2ha | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Replaced Item 8 |
| 10 | 3 May 39 | Gordon River Scenic Reserve | 620ac 2500ha | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Includes caves along lower reaches of Gordon River |
| 11 | 16 Aug 39 | Baldock Scenic Reserve | 106ac 43ha | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Incorp 5ac of Item 1, all item 3 and third area of 37ac2r |
| 12 | 16 Aug 39 | Marakoopa Cave Scenic Reserve | 140ac 56.6ha | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Covers Marakoopa Cave |
| 13 | 16 Aug 39 | King Solomons Cave Scenic Reserve | 500ac 202ha | Scenery Preservation Act 1915 | Scenery Preservation Board | Incl King Solomons & other caves; boundaries in dispute |
| ALL ABOVE SCENIC RESERVES UNDER SCENERY PRESERVATION BOARD BECAME STATE RESERVES UNDER NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON 1 NOVEMBER, 1971; THERE WERE NO CHANGES TO BOUNDARIES THEREBY | ||||||
| 14 | 12 Jul 72 | Croesus Cave State Reserve | 46.3ha | National Parks & Wildlife Act | National Parks & Wildlife Service 1970 | Incls most of Croesus Cave and part Lynds Cave; former State Forest |
| 15 | 8 Sep 76 | Junee Cave State Reserve | 20.23ha | National Parks & Wildlife Act | National Parks & Wildlife Service 1970 | Covers Junee Cave; former non gazetted Crown land "reserve" |
| 16 | 20 Oct 76 | Trowutta Cave State Reserve | 66ha | National Parks & Wildlife Act | National Parks & Wildlife Service 1970 | Covers Trowutta Arch, large dolines and caves |
| 17 | 17 Nov 76 | Southwest National Park | * | National Parks & Wildlife Act | National Parks & Wildlife Service 1970 | Extension of park included caves at Precipitous Bluff and Suprise Bay |
| * The national parks are relatively large and size is not a factor in cave protection and management | ||||||
The National Parks and Wildlife Service (as successor to the Scenery Preservation Board established in l975) is the major State authority responsible for cave conservation and management. In July 1975 the responsibility for the operation of tourist caves at Hastings and Mole Creek was transferred to the Service from the Department of Tourism. The Service is fully conscious of the need for protection of caves other than those with potential for tourist development. Table 2 shows the reasons for current delays with some reserve proposals.
Only after a cave comes within a State Reserve (or, at least, the lesser category of Conservation Area) can it be subject to National Parks and Wildlife Service management
WHAT CONSTITUTES MANAGEMENT?
For the purposes of this paper, "management" involves all the measures taken by the responsible authority to try to ensure protection or sustained yield use of cave resources. The following are some important aspects.
Title or Vesting
In general some instrument is required to vest a cave or any other resource in an owner or responsible authority. Attempts to control access, mining, etc, without defined (or even without statute) rights appear to be fraught with great difficulties. It is most important that future management requirements be properly considered when particular areas to be acquired or reserved are selected. Such factors as access, lack of control over catchment, water supply and lack of exemption from mining or forestry rights could cause major problems for management at a later stage.
Staff
It is vital that any cave management programme be adequately staffed to ensure it can be implemented — and, where necessary, enforced. No amount of sound ideas or even official regulations will be much use if they cannot be effectively carried out. In general for enforcement purposes it is desirable to have at least some staff actually living on site (although in some cases this may not be desirable for environmental reasons).
Catchment Protection
Since water, necessarily derived from the surface, is so important in caves (both physically and biologically) it is vital that catchments be managed so as not to materially change natural hydrological regimes, introduce excessive silt loads or pollutants, or reduce nutrient input. The effect of changing vegetation or soil permeability directly above a cave can be obviously detrimental to speleothem development but more distant changes in a cave stream's catchment may cause subtle but possibly long term damage to the cave ecosystem.
TABLE 2: CAVES PROPOSED TO BE RESERVED, TASMANIA 1977
| CAVE OR CAVE SYSTEM | LOCATION | FACTOR CAUSING DELAY IN RESERVATION |
| Exit-Entrance (Mystery Ck) Cave System | Ida Bay | Australian Paper Mills Ltd, holders of forestry concession over most of proposed reserve areas* |
| Kubla Khan Cave | Mole Creek | Refusal of Forestry Commission to agree to revoke required area from State Forest |
| Mole Creek (various) | Mole Creek | Forestry Commission and administrative problems |
| Cracroft (Judds Cavern, etc) | West of Picton River (South-West) | Forestry Commission and concession-holder,subject to outcome of South West Advisory Committee |
| Mount Anne | North of Mount Anne | Forestry Commission, subject to outcome of South West Advisory Committee |
| Gordon and Franklin Rivers areas (numerous caves) | South-West | Hydro-Electric Commission, subject to outcome of South West Advisory Committee, etc |
| Hastings (extension) (Wolf Hole, etc) | Hastings | Partial agreement reached with Forestry Commission; administrative and further consultative delays |
| * Postscript. In late June 1977 the Company agreed to release from the Concession the area proposed by Richards and Ollier (1976) | ||
Cave Fauna
Management of cave fauna generally involves protection from undue or repeated disturbance. Invertebrates, although often not readily obvious, may be adversely affected by human presence and activities, including scientific collecting. For some cave-dwellers which move outside the cave to feed, it may be vital that the natural vegetation in the vicinity remains undisturbed. The need for protection of the surrounding vegetation because of its importance as a source of food and shelter was stressed by Richards in reporting on the need for ecological protection of Exit Cave (Richards and Ollier 1976).
People wishing to visit caves provide major management problems. Tourists make the greater demands in terms of facilities, guides, etc, but are generally satisfied with access to a restricted part of an area or cave system (i.e. that part in which paths and lights are provided). Cavers, on the other hand, make fewer demands on staff and facilities but seek access to virtually all caves. If it is accepted that for scientific and other reasons some caves or parts of caves should be highly protected and that many caves should have at least some restrictions on access, it is necessary for managers to impose some form of control on speleologists and others who wish to visit undeveloped caves. Scientific collecting and experimentation should be scrutinised and subject to approval by the responsible authority.
In tourist caves the size and frequency of inspection parties should be limited to suit the physical and other constraints of particular caves and the ability of guides to communicate with and supervise visitors.
Injurious Agencies
The conduct of mining operations, construction of roads and powerlines, grazing and other development not related to the conservation of caves may be regarded as injurious agencies. These should not be a problem where caves are protected by reserves of national park status, though even in such cases they may cause difficulties if established before the reserve. Management will usually be hampered and complicated by these factors. Where injurious agencies cannot be removed efforts need to be directed towards minimising their impact on the caves, their fauna, and visitors.
MANAGEMENT BY NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN TASMANIA
Legislative Powers
All caves in Tasmanian State Reserves are covered by the National Parks and Reserves Regulations, 1971, which protect all wildlife (including invertebrates) in reserves and provide that no plants, Aboriginal relics, sand, gravel, rocks or minerals may be interfered with or removed without authority of the Director. Furthermore, no person may "remove, damage or deface any rock, stalactite, stalagmite or other formation in a cave on a State Reserve." The Director also has the power to control the use of fire and vehicles, to regulate camping and trading, to levy charges and, in specified instances, to control public access. In relation to caves no person may "enter or remain in any cave situated in a State Reserve at which a notice to that effect is exhibited unless he is in the company of an authorised person".
Tasmania is the only Australian State to have afforded "protected wildlife" status to particular species of cave-dwelling invertebrates. This applies to the State generally, not only within reserves. Permits are issued for scientific collecting and this will enable this Service to monitor interest in and pressure on particular species and localities.
Developed or Tourist Caves
Of the cave systems under National Parks and Wildlife Service management in Tasmania, four have been developed and are open for inspection by the public. These are Marakoopa and King Solomons Caves at Mole Creek, Newdegate Cave at Hastings and Gunns Plains Cave south of Ulverstone. The first three have full-time guides on the permanent staff of the service, while Gunns Plains Cave is leased to a private operator who conducts visits to the cave on a part-time basis. At Mole Creek and Hastings the Service is responsible for all of the tourist cave operations except for associated kiosks (Hastings and King Solomons) which are let to concessionaires.
Picnic and barbecue areas with shelter huts are provided at Marakoopa and Hastings, while the latter has the added attraction of a thermal pool which is maintained by the caves staff. The Mole Creek and Gunns Plains Caves are lit by mains electricity but a generator is employed at Hastings; this has been the source of some problems and is to be replaced by mains supply.
Paths, handrails and lighting are maintained by the Service in each of the four caves. A major problem at Gunns Plains has been floods which periodically sweep through the cave, damaging the lighting and, to some extent, the formations. This appears to have been exacerbated by clearing in the cave's catchment, beyond the State Reserve.
Appropriate maximum party sizes for each cave have been determined by experience but during peak periods these are frequently exceeded. This tends to place undue stress on guides, reduces the quality of the visitor's experience and may lead to damage to the cave through excessive visitor numbers and inadequate supervision. Excessive numbers of parties may also have adverse consequences such as the growth of algae and moss due to lights being on for much of the day.
One response to these demands is to relieve pressure by opening further caves and this is under active investigation in Tasmania at the present time — but obviously this should only be done after the fullest consideration of the consequences.
Undeveloped or Wild Caves
In practice the Service has not restricted access to caves in State Reserves (other than those developed for tourism) but, as in other states, consideration is being given to the means by which use of caves is to be regulated. Some caves are suitable for heavy recreational use and might remain unrestricted, while others are of particular importance to science or are so well decorated as to be potential show caves: these may require a much higher level of access control. A system of zoning such as that proposed by Hamilton-Smith (1977) appears to be the best way to attempt to provide for the variety of demands while affording adequate protection for more important caves. In Tasmania such a system could be implemented and administered (within State Reserves) through the National Parks and Reserves Regulations and management plans for particular reserves.
While the situation in regard to boundaries of some cave reserves is far from ideal (some changes are being sought) and while further staff are required to enable better management, in general the Service has the capacity to manage the developed caves (except Gunns Plains) end others in their vicinity. The more remote caves, such as those in the Florentine Valley within Mount Field National Park, on the Gordon River and at Precipitous Bluff, pose rather difficult practical management problems with the possible exception of the Florentine Valley (and there access is controlled by Australian Newsprint Mills) it is difficult to foresee visitor pressure giving cause for concern in such areas in the near future. It is evident, however, that the Service's problems in the management of remote caves will be significantly increased when Exit and Kubla Khan Caves are brought within the State Reserve system.
MANAGEMENT BY OTHER TASMANIAN AUTHORITIES
Forestry commission
Apart from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the authority with most caves on its land in Tasmania is the Forestry Commission. Exit Cave, many of the caves in the Florentine Valley, the Cracroft Caves, Julius River Caves and caves at Hastings and Mole Creek, are within State Forests. The author is not aware of any efforts by the Commission to protect, or otherwise manage any of these caves. When local speleologists became concerned some years ago at the lack of control on access to Exit Cave, it was the Scenery Preservation Board which provided a gate and cavers installed it.
While the Commission has done nothing to manage caves on its lands, it has been less than enthusiastic to transfer them to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, having strongly opposed the release of Judds Cavern, Exit Cave (until recently) and some caves at Mole Creek. On the positive side, the Commission did release Croesus Cave at Mole Creek in 1972, now supports the proposed State Reserve at Exit Cave, has agreed to an extension of Hastings Caves State Reserve and (subject to the findings of the South West Advisory Committee) has agreed to the inclusion of the Mount Anne dolomite area in the Southwest National Park.
In a recent case agreement has been reached between a local caving club and the company holding timber rights over most of the Florentine Valley for the setting aside of a small area which is not to be logged around Beginners Luck Cave (Goede 1976). This cave is an extremely important archaeological site. Whether the reserve is large enough or secure enough to protect the cave in the long term remains to be seen.
For maximum protection significant caves and at least their immediate catchments within the State Forests should be excluded and made State Reserves. Where this is not possible the Forestry Commission should be prevailed upon to provide in its plans of operations for such protection and management as particular caves may warrant.
Lands Department
Although Tasmania's first reserves to protect caves were created by the Lands Department, this Department has never shown interest in managing caves and virtually all Crown land reserves have now become State Reserves. In recent times the Department has started to move towards the establishment of "regional parks" but none of these are known to be based on caves. In the case of Exit Cave, the Department has been responsible for the issuing of a lease to Mr Roy Skinner to conduct tours through part of the cave (Skinner, this volume).
Private Owners
Few caves in Tasmania are located on freehold land. Only at Mole Creek are there a significant number of caves on private property but little active interest is taken in them by the owners. Most are simply fenced off and regarded as an unfortunate attracter of cavers. No cave tours are conducted through private caves but in most cases owners permit access by people wishing to visit their caves.
Conclusion
The National Parks and Wildlife Service is, and is likely to remain, the major cave conservation and management body in Tasmania. Most management to date has been directed towards tourist caves but increasing attention will inevitably be directed towards other caves in future. Eventually the Service will need to produce management plans which will specify policies and proposals for each cave reserve.
References
Goede, A. 1976, Conservation of Beginners Luck Cave. Aust. Speleo. Fdn Newsletter, 74:8
Hamilton-Smith, E. 1977, An Introduction to the Management of Caves and Karst Areas. J. Syd. Speleo. Soc., 21(1): 3-15.
Jennings, J.N. 1975, How Well Off is Australia for Caves and Karst? A Brief Geomorphic Estimate. Proc 10th Biennial Conf. Aust. Speleo Fedn, p.86
Kiernan, K. 1974, A Critical Examination of Tasmania's Cave Reserves. Southern Caver, 6(2):3-25
Richards, A.M. & Ollier, C.D. 1976, Investigation and Report of the Ecological Protection of Exit Cave near Ida Bay in Tasmania. Report to N.P.W.S., Tasmania 72pp.