An alternative to Cave Classification Systems
by Rauleigh Webb
Abstract
Cave Classification systems have been shown to be basically flawed in that they do not focus on the conservation of caves but rather on providing users access to the cave resource.
Cave Management Prescriptions have been developed as an alternative to classification systems.
A simple methodology is described for the development of Cave Management Prescriptions. The modification of the methodology for the karst area to which it is being applied is also discussed.
The use of Cave Management Prescriptions are discussed with respect to the caves of Christmas Island where they have been recommended.
A number of cave classification systems have been developed and used in
Australia and New Zealand (Davey et al. 1982, Davey 1987, White 1987). These systems have been used for a number of
years and during that time many practical difficulties in their application
have been identified. These
difficulties were initially identified during the Cave Management Study on
Christmas Island by Spate and Webb (1998).
These difficulties included:
·
caves are
placed in “pigeon holes” that, once selected, managers appear to have
difficulty in altering as circumstances change e.g. if the cave is being
damaged through excessive visitation.
·
caves do not
fit in “pigeon holes” and hence they are “forced” into classifications that are
inappropriate.
·
most karst
regions do not present a "normal distribution” of cave types and thus
there is pressure on all caves in a region. Rather the distribution is skewed
toward larger and more spectacular caves and these are the ones that visitors
wish to use.
·
the caves
that managers most want to protect are usually the ones that most visitors want
to utilise.
In 1993 Larkin
argued that:-
“The management
product produced by the Classification Systems is flawed. A system which does
not have as its first priority the conservation of the caves will not achieve
conservation of the caves in an effective manner”
Larkin also
suggests that future cave management systems :-
“.. should be
built on monitoring human effects on caves, so that the future permitted usage
patterns are determined by the effects measured. In this way the management
system has built into its structure mechanisms for change as our knowledge of
the resource increases and (hopefully) our impacts upon it are minimised.”
To date no
alternative to standard cave classification systems have been devised that focus primarily on the conservation of caves
as their primary objective. Larkin (1993) clearly enunciates the shortcomings
of cave classification systems. With
the evidence of impacts on caves increasing, due to the rigid structure of
classification systems, an alternative is required.
A system of cave
management that focuses primarily on conservation but with the flexibility to
apply different management practises to specific sections of cave within a
single cave system is needed. Using a
top down approach of starting from the ultimate goal of cave conservation a
process was devised to create cave management prescriptions that would consider
the unique features of each cave and conserve them.
Cave management prescriptions are made up of a number
of requirements, determined and altered by management, that place restrictions
on activities undertaken in caves and on the karst that surrounds them. The
prescription for each cave will almost certainly differ due to the differences
between individual caves.
The important factor that separates cave
classification systems from cave management prescriptions is the focus on
conservation.
The general factors identified by Spate & Webb
(1998) that should be considered in the development of the prescription are:
1.
the long term
conservation needs of the cave.
2.
the long term
conservation needs of the cave flora and fauna.
3.
the safety of
the visitors.
With these three
general factors as the overall goal then the cave management prescription can
be developed by examining more specific cave features that contribute to these
three general factors. The more
specific sub factors will vary quite dramatically between karst regions.
On Christmas Island, Spate & Webb (1998)
identified a number of specific sub factors that would ensure that a cave or
section of cave should have a cave management prescription. These sub factors included:
·
the cave
contains delicate areas of speleothems (both crystalline and unconsolidated).
·
the cave
contains cave flora or fauna that requires protection.
·
the cave is
known to have high levels of CO2.
·
the cave has
an entrance that is subject to tides and swell.
·
the cave
contains known areas that are subject to tidal sumping.
·
the cave
contains a cave dive.
·
the safety of
the caver is threatened by rockfall or other natural phenomena.
These sub factors will vary greatly between karst
regions. Cave entrances and passages
that are affected by tides and swell are relatively rare in the major karsts of
Australasia but on Christmas Island two of the larger cave systems are heavily
affected by tides and swell and this significant safety factor must be
considered in their cave management prescription.
A major factor that was not taken into consideration
on Christmas Island was the impact of large numbers of visitors on the cave as
these numbers are low on the Island.
Some of the other sub factors that will require
consideration in other karst areas include:-
·
the visitor
numbers to the cave are high.
·
the cave is
known to be subject to flooding.
·
the cave is
subject to deliberate vandalism.
·
the cave is
subject to significant research activities.
·
the cave may
be impacted by adjacent land users.
In selecting which caves should have management
prescriptions the specific sub factors outlined above are applied to each cave
and those caves that have one or more of these sub factors pertaining to them
are selected.
If a cave has none of these significant sub factors
then it may initially fall into a grouping of caves that have no specific
management prescription. Cave managers
should then apply a general approach that when cavers wish to visit a cave that
has no cave management prescription that they encourage them to collect
information about the cave during their visit.
If the cave has little or no documentation then managers should ask the
cavers to provide a written report highlighting the features of the cave as
they see them. If the visitors have any
specific knowledge or skills relating to caves such as the ability to identify
cave fauna, bone material, etc then this additional information should be added
to the report.
In this manner features of a cave that may otherwise
be missed will eventually be identified.
This may result in the application of a management prescription to the
cave. For example, a management
prescription may be applied to conserve newly identified bone material in one
section of a cave.
In order to devise the actual prescription, the areas
of concern are listed for each cave and then methods for minimising caver
impacts and/or safety are written into the prescription. If it is considered
that cavers are such a threat to a specific cave or area of cave then they should
be excluded. If the cave or section of
cave is considered such a threat to visitor safety that it should not be
visited then that cave or section should be prescribed as closed. These are the two extreme examples with the
majority of cave management prescriptions providing access to caves with only
minor restrictions applying.
Two examples of
cave management prescriptions devised for Christmas Island caves by Spate &
Webb (1998) are outlined below for The Grotto and Smiths Cave.
The Grotto (CI-1) - Management Prescription
Establish sub factors:
·
the cave
contains delicate areas of speleothems - NO
·
the cave
contains cave flora or fauna that requires protection - NO
·
the cave is
known to have high levels of CO2- - NO
·
the cave has
an entrance that is subject to tides and swell - NO
·
the cave
contains known areas that are subject to tidal sumping - YES
·
the cave
contains a cave dive – YES (a penetration dive)
·
the safety of
the caver is threatened by rockfall- NO
Detail the exact nature of the sub factors for this
cave:
Caver Safety
The Grotto contains a tidal sump that may surge
strongly depending on the swell. Attempts to free dive the sump to the ocean
may prove life threatening. Attempts to dive to the ocean using breathing
apparatus may prove life threatening depending on the swell.
Propose restrictions that will reduce the risk to
cavers visiting the cave:
Proposed restrictions:
·
a sign should
be placed at the entrance to The Grotto indicating that diving to the ocean
without breathing apparatus is not permitted and that diving with breathing
apparatus requires a permit from the Christmas Island administration.
Smiths Cave (CI-9) - Management
Prescription
Establish sub factors:
·
the cave
contains delicate areas of speleothems - YES
·
the cave
contains cave flora or fauna that requires protection - NO
·
the cave is
known to have high levels of CO2- - NO
·
the cave has
an entrance that is subject to tides and swell - NO
·
the cave
contains known areas that are subject to tidal sumping - NO
·
the cave
contains a cave dive - NO
·
the safety of
the caver is threatened by rockfall- NO
Detail the exact nature of the sub factors for this
cave:
Cave Conservation
Smiths Cave contains considerable areas of delicate
speleothem development. These areas are not particularly vulnerable to damage
by cavers using Minimal Impact Caving (MIC) techniques but careless use could
seriously damage the site. This cave should only be visited by experienced
cavers.
In order to ensure that damage is minimised some areas
of the cave:
·
entrance to
first lake
·
areas of
flowstone
require route or track marking.
Proposed restrictions:
·
visitors
should be members of a recognised caving club.
·
route and
track marking should be established and adhered to.
·
cavers should
report any damage to the cave and should rectify the loss or removal of any
track or route marking.
This type of prescription
should be concise and focus on the known sub factors that may impact the cave
environment. Taking ALL of the sub
factors into consideration the prescription should always ensure that the three
general factors are its overriding goal.
Once the
prescription has been established it should NOT be considered as a
static or final prescription. The cave
management prescription should be an ongoing document that focuses on ensuring
that the three general factors are its constant goal. It should be modified on a regular basis as new information is
obtained or as sub factors alter.
Finally it should
also be stated that management prescriptions can also be applied to karst
features as well as caves. Many a
doline has suffered horribly at the hands of humans dumping rubbish in
them. Apply management prescriptions to
karst features as well as caves.
No man made system
that attempts to control human access to natural features will ever be
“perfect” or even considered acceptable by some members of the community. However for those of us who have been
involved with the management of caves and karst for any reasonable period of
time will know – ensuring that caves and karst are even considered as environmentally
sensitive by many government agencies and private companies can be a mind
numbing and sometimes frustrating experience.
The use of cave
management prescriptions is one tool that has the potential to be used to focus
everyone’s attention on the significant and diverse nature of the cave environment. If the general and sub factors are
constantly examined in the management prescription for each cave, then the
conservation of the cave resource should be foremost in everyone’s thoughts.
If as managers you
can see that by developing individual cave management prescriptions, using the
methodology described here, you will be constantly focusing on the conservation
of our cave resources, as well as visitor safety, then I strongly urge you to
use this concept. Develop management
prescriptions and apply them to caves so that everyone can see the importance
of cave resource and it’s incredible fragility.
An individual can
never stop learning and in the company of my compatriot and friend Andy Spate I
have learnt a great deal. Andy’s
contribution to the knowledge base of matters relating to caves and karst is
sometimes at great personal cost. I
would like to thank him for his significant efforts over all those years and in
particular with the preparation of the Christmas Island report which contained
our initial deliberations on cave management prescriptions.
Davey, A., Worboys, G.,.
& Stiff, C. 1982 Report on Cave Classification, Proceedings of the
Fourth Australasian Cave Tourism and Management Conference Yallingup, pp11-18
[usually, and wrongly, cited as Worboys et al. 1982)
Davey, A.G., 1987 Some
Experience in Applying the Australian Cave Management Classification Scheme, In
Spate, A.P., Bell, P., & Henderson, K., (eds.) Proceedings of the
Seventh Australasian Conference on Cave Tourism and Management, NSW,
pp41-43
Larkin, P.W., 1993 Cave
Classification Systems Time for Review, In Bell, P., (ed.) Proceedings of
the Tenth ACKMA Conference, Rockhampton, Queensland, May 1993, Australasian
Cave and Karst Management Association, pp61-64
Spate, A.P. & Webb, R.J.
1998 Assessment of the Cave Management Options for Cave Use on Christmas
Island, unpublished report to Parks Australia North, October 1998
White, N., 1987 Cave
Classification in Victoria, In Spate, A.P., Bell, P., & Henderson, K.,
(eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Australasian Cave Tourism and Management
Conference, New South Wales, pp44-45