Cave Conservationist
The
Newsletter of Cave Conservation and Management
Published by the
USFS FRCPA
Regulations, Cave
Nomination Process, Environmental
Impact on Show Caves
The Cave Conservationist is the
official publication of the Conservation and Management Section of the National
Speleological Society. Distribution is free to members of the Section. Section
membership costs $5 annually and should be mailed to the Secretary. (A
membership form for your convenience is included on page 23.) Additional
complimentary copies are distributed on a temporary basis at the discretion of
the Section to
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
Evelyn Bradshaw,
SUBMISSIONS: Articles and other Cave
Conservationist correspondence should be sent to the Editor. Submissions on
computer disks should be made with 3.5" or 5.25"
Copyright 1995
Printed by members of
the D.C. Grotto and the Potomac Speleological Society.
Cover illustration is from the article
"Effects of Tourist Development on Caves and Karst," which starts on
page 13. It shows factors producing environmental impacts on cave conditions at
NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
Conservation &
Management Section
Officers
Chairman and Publisher: Rob
Stitt
Editor and Vice-Chairman:
Jay R.
Jorden,
Secretary-Treasurer: Evelyn
Bradshaw,
(703)898-9288
Directors at Large: Mel Park
George
N. Huppert
Table of Contents
U.S.
Forest Service - FCRPA Regulations
Nomination
of Significant Caves
Effects of
Tourist Development on Caves and Karst
Contents
(CATENA Supplement #25)
The US Forest Service has finally
completed its regulations for implementation of the Federal Cave Resource
Protection Act, and put them into effect by publication in the Federal
Register. This means that the clock for Nomination of Significant Caves is now
running for both Department of Agriculture and Depart of the
Since cavers were the prime impetus
behind the passage of the FCRPA, it is now incumbent upon us to provide the
information that the agencies need to inventory the caves that they now legally
must protect. The catch in the FCRPA was that only "significant"
caves are provided the protection of the Act. This means that the agencies must
now go through the process of determining which caves are significant. To
streamline the process, a joint clearinghouse has been set up to accept
nominations. The nomination forms will then be routed to the appropriate
agencies for evaluation. Once a cave has been nominated, it is presumed
significant until declared non-significant, and thus will be afforded
protection during the evaluation period.
The
If caves are not nominated by the
deadline, they can be nominated later and will be evaluated at a later time.
It's a good idea to coordinate with other
grottos in your area to avoid duplication, but now is the time to get
your nominations in.
Rob Stitt
31146 Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 116 /
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
36
RIN 0596-AA02
Cave Resources Management
AGENCY:
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes procedures
for nominating, evaluating, and designating significant caves on lands
administered as part of the National Forest system. The rule establishes
procedures for releasing information about the location of caves and
establishes general prohibitions to protect cave resources from abuse and
degradation. The intended effect is to fully implement the Federal Cave
Resources Protection Act of 1988 on National Forest System lands and to ensure
that National Forest System lands are managed in a manner to protect and
maintain, to the extent practicable, significant caves. These regulations have
been developed in close consultation with the Department of the Interior to
ensure uniformity and consistency in approach to the extent that statutory
authority permits.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Botts, Recreation, Cultural
Resources and Wilderness Management Staff,
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act
of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301-4309; 102 Stat. 4546), hereafter referred to as the
"Act," seeks to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on
Federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people. The
Act also seeks to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information
between governmental authorities and those who utilize caves located on Federal
lands for scientific, educational, or recreational purposes. The Act requires
the Secretary of Agriculture to issue such regulations as he deems necessary to
achieve the purposes of the Act on National Forest System lands. The
regulations are required to include, but need not be limited to, criteria for
the identification of significant caves.
On
Subsequently, a proposed rule was
published on
All comments received are available for
review in the Office of the Director, Recreation, Cultural Resources, and
Wilderness Management Staff,
Analysis
of Public Comment
Overall, almost all respondents were
pleased that the Forest Service was promulgating regulations. Many offered
valuable suggestions for improving or clarifying specific sections. Some of
these suggestions were group efforts, using similar or identical language to
identify and describe their interests, concerns, and recommended modifications
to the proposed rule. A few letters endorsed other respondents
statements.
The majority of comments centered on four
major issues in the proposed 261 and 290 rules: scope of the rule, including
the definition and manner of determining the significance of a cave;
confidentiality of cave information; public participation; and differences with
the proposed rule (57 FR 1344) published by Department of the Interior on
Several comments also referred to
information contained in a document entitled Proposed Procedure for
General
Comments on 36
Under the proposed rule, cave protection
regulations would be set out in title 36, part 290, of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The following summarizes general comments received on the proposed
rule and the Department's response to them
1.
Cooperation and Consultation With the Department of
Interior
Many respondents noted disparities
between the Forest Service proposed rule and the proposed rule issued at the
same time by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). Most respondents
recommended that the final rule of both agencies be as similar as possible.
Response. Throughout the rule making process, the
Forest Service and USDI land managing agencies have been participating in an
interagency committee to agree on cave resource standards and procedures. The
goal has been to adopt rules as similar as possible. However, each agency has a
different statutory background and mission which result in some procedural
differences such as in integrating cave resource protection into planning
processes, delegations of authority, and information requirements. In these
instances, the language may differ to reflect the specific authorities of the
agencies involved.
2. Public
Participation
The majority of respondents felt the
proposed rule completely ignored Section 2(b)(2) of
the Act which states that one purpose of the Act is "to foster increased
cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities and
those who utilize caves for scientific. education, or
recreational purposes." Respondents believed the proposed rule denied the
caving community access to cave information thus discouraging the exchange of
information. Many respondents recommended that public interaction occur through
establishment of an advisory committee and the development of volunteer
agreements. Some respondents felt that these two actions were required by the
Act in Sections 4(b)(3) and 4(b)(4).
Response. Under ? 290.3
of the proposed rule, the agency intended that the public be given the
opportunity to nominate significant caves. Additionally, proposed
? 290.4 provided a process by which information on caves and their
location could be disclosed to bona fide educational or research organizations
although not to the general cave recreationing community. Additionally, under
the proposed rule, the agency envisioned addressing cave resource protection
standards in forest plans pursuant to National Forest Management Act and
implementing regulations. Forest plans are developed with full public
participation; however, in response to comments on the proposed rule, the final
rule does strengthen and encourage greater cooperation and exchange of
information in the nomination and evaluation process as well as in a new
provision permitting the disclosure of cave information to groups who assist
the Federal land managing agencies with cave management. These changes are
discussed in the sectionbysection discussion of comments which follows.
The suggestion to form an advisory
committee has not been adopted. It is not at all clear that such advisory
groups are needed either nationally or locally. Whether local advisory groups
are needed is a decision best left to the local land manager. Should the Forest
Supervisor determine that an advisory committee would be helpful in achieving
the purposes of the Cave Resources Protection Act, the
Department has ample authority and procedures in place to establish such
advisory committees.
3. Scope
and Detail of the Regulations
Many respondents felt that the proposed
rule should have provided more details on how to manage and protect significant
caves. Most of these respondents understood that significant caves would be
managed "to the extent practical" using current management plans, but
wanted the final rule to incorporate or further clarify potions of the proposed
rule. Respondents asked questions such as: how will significant cave listings
and significant cave management concerns be integrated into forest plans; how
will specific management concerns about significant caves be identified; how
will ecosystem considerations, including protection of karst features and
hydrological recharge areas, be made; and how will the Forest Service address
proposed projects that potentially impact caves.
Another respondent requested that goals
and standards for cave resource protection and management be described in the
rule and that language be added emphasizing that land management decisions
should balance consideration of cave resource protection with consideration of
human activity.
Response: Through section 4(c)(1) of the
act, Congress made clear that caves should be managed through the agency's land
and resource management planning process, and not through the significant cave
designation process. Section 4(c)(1) states that
significant caves are to be "…considered in the preparation of any land
management plan if the preparation or revision of the plan began after the
enactment of this Act."
Where a proposed project might impact a
significant cave or cave yet to be evaluated for significance, the effects of
the project would be analyzed in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations. Public input is solicited to
identify environmental issues relevant to a proposed action (project).
Agency policy and procedures under the
NEPA in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 require that decision documents
(Decision Memo, Decision Notice, Record of Decision)
contain "Findings required by other laws." If a decision affects a
significant cave, a finding will be disclosed describing how the decision
considered this cave.
Section-by-Section
Comment on 36
Section
290.1. Purpose
and Scope
In considering the general comments on
the scope and detail of the regulations addressed in the preceding section of
this preamble, the Department concludes that the proposed rule was confusing in
specifying that the initial determination of significant caves would be made by
a special process and that subsequent significant cave determinations would be
made through the forest plan amendment or revision process. The final rule
clarifies this concern by: (1) stating that significant cave resources will be
managed pursuant to direction contained in individual forest plans and in
accordance with the policies contained in the Forest Service Directive System
and (2) by eliminating any reference to forest planning in the initial and
subsequent listings. This change acknowledges that forest plans provide
direction to manage significant caves but do not contain a list of these caves.
Section
290.2 Definitions
Authorized
Officer
Several respondents expressed concern
over the range of potentially designated authorized officers listed in the
proposed rule. One respondent felt that the authorizing officer should be the
Regional Forester while another felt this authority should not be delegated
below the Forest Supervisor level. Another felt the final decision for
determining significant caves should be at a senior management level. Further,
some respondents indicated that the authorized officer should have
qualifications and duties related to caves and/or cave resources.
The comments received on this definition
reflect a lack of understanding of how authority is delegated through the
Forest Service. Authority flows from the Chief through Regional Foresters to
Forest Supervisors and District Rangers. These line officers have
responsibility for managing all resources, including caves, and will be legally
responsible for complying with this rule and the Act. The agency will delegate
that responsibility through the issuance of internal agency directives and the
delegation of authority will vary depending on the significance of the action
being assigned. In general, the authorized officer will refer to the Forest
Supervisor who must carry out the evaluations and documentations required by
the rule in the context of forest planning. To avoid confusion, the definition
in the final rule does not include the list of all potential authorized
officers.
Cave
The agency received a range of opinions
on this definition. Some respondents felt the definition was too narrow; others
believed it was too broad. Some respondents, stating that a vug is one resource
the Act is intended to protect, were concerned with the exclusion of vugs from
the definition. Individual respondents suggested modifying the definition to
include qualifiers such as: a dark zone; a minimum horizontal or vertical
length; absence or presence of an entrance at any specific time period, and a
naturally formed subterranean open area. A couple of respondents were concerned
about the requirement that an individual be able to enter. One felt this
precluded passages accessible for small cave biota. Another felt this
requirement may allow for enlarging small openings to make them accessible as
caves. One respondent was concerned that the definition would not protect the
"unnatural" portion of caves from destruction or restrict the
location of such from the general public.
The Department has concluded that the
definition in the proposed rule was confusing because it described both the
components of a cave and the features that do not comprise a cave. Accordingly,
in the final rule, this definition has been revised to focus on what a cave is,
rather than what it is not. "Feature" was replaced with
"opening" since it was felt the intent is to include small air passages
that extend from the cave itself and that are integral parts of the cave. This
definition encompasses any entranceways, including excavated passage;
therefore, the location and passage associated with the excavated portion is
considered under purposes of this Act. While the suggested qualifiers further
define features associated with caves, they were not added because they extend
beyond the scope of the cave definition listed in the Act.
Cave
Resources
Some respondents suggested that
historical resources be separated from the rest of the resources listed as
naturally occurring. A few respondents noted that speleogens and speleothems
should be defined since these terms are not commonly found in dictionaries.
The term "naturally" was
removed as suggested since cultural materials do not occur naturally in caves.
Speleogens and speleothems are not included in the definition in the final rule
since they are but a couple of the features that comprise geologic and
mineralogic materials or substances.
National
Forest System Lands
Several respondents were confused over
which lands the Act applied to: nonfederal lands on which the agency has
planned projects, private lands with caves affected by agency projects on
Federal lands, lands owned in fee title, and/or National Forest System lands.
A definition for "National Forest
System lands" has been added. This rule applies only to lands managed by
and under the legal jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The Act contains no
language extending agency authority to private property.
Significant
Cave
Several respondents noted that this
definition should correspond to the criteria listed in proposed section ? 290.3(b).
This definition was revised to include
the criteria now in ? 290.3 (c) and
(d).
Vug
Respondents overlapped their comments on
"vug" with the "cave" definition. A couple of respondents
suggested clarifications to the definition including: Add a size definition
other than "small" and make clear that a vug is only a standalone
cavity presumable [sic] intersected by a manmade passage.
Since the only reference to a vug was in
the definition of a cave and this reference has now been removed, the separate
definition of a vug is no longer necessary.
Section
290.3 Determining Significant Caves
Comments are presented by major paragraph
of this section of the proposed rule.
Paragraph
(a) Nominations for Initial and Subsequent listings
Proposed paragraph (a) provided that the
Secretary of Agriculture shall cooperate and consult with the Secretary of
Interior to devise a similar nomination process for initial listing of
significant caves and give public notice of the nomination process. In
addition, subsequent determinations of significant caves would be made through
the forest planning process. Many respondents felt that the review of
nominations and the determination by the authorized officer should be conducted
in consultation and cooperation with an advisory committee, team, acknowledged
experts in the field of speleology, or appropriate private sector interests,
including cavers. A few respondents felt an appeal process was needed for those
caves determined not to be significant.
This paragraph was revised to focus more
narrowly on the nomination process, and a new paragraph (b) was added to describe
the evaluation process. The reference in the proposed rule to subsequent
determination of significant caves through the forest planning process has been
removed. Determination of significant caves can be made at any time by the
authorized officer. Reference to consultation between Secretaries of
Agriculture and Interior was removed since this coordination has occurred in
the writing of the entire rule and through a separate effort to develop a
Proposed Procedure for
Paragraph
(c) Criteria for Significant Caves
Many respondents stated that the criteria
were too broad; others felt the criteria were too restrictive. Those respondents
who felt the criteria are too broad suggested that criteria be developed at the
State-level, or eliminated, or be modified with a strong emphasis on the cave
having an important value. The majority of respondents felt that these criteria
would eliminate the majority of caves from listing as significant. Most
requested that criteria be based only on a cave processing [sic] "one or
more of the following features, characteristics, or values." Some
recommended that the criteria focus on identifying insignificant caves; thus,
managing all others as significant. Individual respondents identified the need
to add new criteria categories for caves of undetermined status, caves with
abnormal dangers, caves with other values, and caves within a special
management area which was designated wholly or in part due to the cave
resources found there.
Additionally, two business entities felt
that the criteria for selection of significant caves are too broad and that the
proposed rule neglected to consider the impacts that such a designation would
have on oil and gas production. They felt that the designation of significant
caves needed to be based on caves having an "important value",
especially when considering other uses of the land. They recommended that significant
cave values be weighed against the economic values of mineral development.
The Act in section 4(a) requires that the
Secretary issue criteria for the identification of
significant cave in regulations. Thus, criteria focusing on insignificant caves
or criteria developed at the State level do not address the Act's mandate. To
focus the criteria on an inventory procedure that can be interpreted and more
consistently applied across the agency, the qualifier "…which are deemed
by the authorized officer to be unusual, significant, or otherwise meriting
special management" has not been adopted on the final rule. This phrase
confused respondents since it added another level of evaluation and review to
the six stated criteria. There is nothing in the Act or its legislative history
that indicates that a cave has to have a value more important than, or be
weighed against, other uses of public lands before being designated
significant. The criteria for designating significant caves are identical to
those adopted in the Department of the Interior's final rule.
(1) Biota. All respondents commenting on
this paragraph requested modifications to make the criteria less restrictive.
They recommended the removal of qualifiers such as "cave dependent,"
"that occur in large numbers or variety," and
"disturbance."
"Cave dependent" was replaced
with "seasonal or yearlong" to better describe the conditions under
which biota use a cave. The qualifier "…occur in
large numbers or variety…" was removed because caves typically contain
small populations and variety of flora and fauna by the very nature of the cave
environment.
(2) Cultural. All respondents commenting
on this paragraph felt the criterion was too restrictive to include potentially
eligible sites, religious sites for native Americans,
caves mined for saltpeter, and sites with ethnographic or historic associations
with events or persons considered important to local communities or social
groups. A few suggested eliminating the requirement that the site be eligible
for or listed on the National Register or [sic] Historic Places.
This paragraph was clarified to address
and refer to the terms "historic or prehistoric" that are already
defined through adequate laws and regulations. These terms encompass
"cultural" resources better than historical properties and
archaeological resources. The paragraph also was expanded to better describe
the types of resources that could be included or eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places based on the cave itself or the contents
contained within. The paragraph as revised encompasses religious sites for native Americans, caves mined for saltpeter, and other sites
with ethnographic or historic associations. Allowing for a site to be eligible
for or listed on the national register of Historic Places consistently ties to
the agency management of cultural resources.
· (3) Geologic/Mineralogic/ Paleontologic.
Respondents felt that the terms "outstanding" and
"important" were too restrictive. Most recommended that
"outstanding" be replaced with "other interesting" or that
it and "important" be deleted completely. Several respondents felt
these criteria would allow every cave to be determined significant. One
recommended that this paragraph be completely eliminated; another recommended
tying the criteria to only "fragile or outstanding" examples.
In the final rule the qualifiers
"outstanding", "useful" and "important" have been
eliminated and replaced with more tangible terms. However, while some
restrictive qualifiers have been expanded, there are still qualifiers that
could appropriately eliminate caves from listing under this
criteria.
· (4) Hydrologic. One respondent felt this
criterion should be limited to waters that are necessary to maintain municipal
water supplies and maintain scientifically important biota or cave features.
The Department disagrees. This criterion
is adopted without change from the proposed rule since it addresses
hydrological resources associated with caves and cave resources.
· (5) Recreational. Most respondents
requested that "challenge" be replaced and values such as wilderness,
sporting, natural aesthetic, exploration, educational, and scientific be
substituted. One respondent felt that this section should be completely
removed. Another noted that scenic values and challenge must have an important
value.
This criterion responds to the Act, which
recognizes caves for their perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit for all people
and further notes that people utilize caves for recreational purposes. The qualifier
"by virtue of challenge" has been eliminated since it does not
describe a type of recreational opportunity that can measured.
In the final rule; this paragraph is written broadly enough to incorporate the
suggested values of wilderness, sporting, aesthetic, and exploration if they
tie to recreational and scenic opportunities.
· (6) Educational or scientific. One
respondent noted that any new cave discoveries would automatically qualify as
significant under this proposed criterion. Several other respondents felt that
qualifiers should be deleted to make the criteria less restrictive. One
suggested adding wilderness and uniqueness to this category. Other [sic] felt
that these criteria must either note an important value or it [sic] should be
removed.
Changes to this paragraph in the final
rule are minor. "Contemporary" is inserted before "human
disturbance" to ensure that cultural resources are considered rather than
recent acts of vandalism. New cave discoveries could be designated significant
if they lack evidence of contemporary human disturbance or impact. This
acknowledges that a pristine cave offers potential values from a scientific educational, and recreational standpoint.
A new paragraph (d), Specially
designated areas, has been added to recognize that some management decisions
have already been made wholly or in part due to caves. Where special management
designations are already associated with protecting caves, it is efficient to
designate them as significant without reevaluating them under the requirements
of paragraph (c).
Paragraph
(e) Designation and Documentation
Several respondents felt clarification
was needed for the authorized officer's designation of significant caves. They
felt that designation should be tied to the authorized officer confirming that
a cave met one of the criteria rather than evaluating the criteria itself.
Another respondent requested that the rule be specific as to what information
must be provided.
The wording of this paragraph in the final
rule clarifies that the authorized officer will confirm whether or not a cave
meets one of the criteria listed in ? 290.3(c). This clearly defines the role of authorized
officer as a decisionmaker not a reviewer of the criteria. The paragraph also
specifies the minimum documentation to be retained for each cave designated as
significant.
A new paragraph (f), Undiscovered
passages, has been added to clearly recognize that once a cave has been listed,
the designation applies to the entire cave on federal land, regardless of
agency jurisdiction or extent of exploration.
A decision to place a cave on the
significant cave list is an inventory type decision, and as such, is not
appropriately subject to administrative appeal. Accordingly, a new paragraph (g)
Decision final, has been added to clearly state that this determination is not
subject to appeal. However, paragraph (a) of this section of the final rule
contains a new sentence that makes explicit that a nomination may be
resubmitted for listing, thus acknowledging that a decision not to list a cave
may be changed when better or new information accompanies the nomination.
Section
290.4 Confidentiality of Cave Information
The majority of respondents focused on
three concerns:
· (1) That the confidentiality language of
the proposed rule went beyond the intent of the Act. They specifically noted
that the provisions were to apply only cave locations, not other cave
information. Further, they felt that these provisions would inhibit exchange of
information between the caving community and the Federal agencies.
· (2) That caves not designated significant
have their locations protected under confidentiality provisions. Otherwise, all
information about that cave would become public.
· (3) That denial of cave location
information be subject to appeal. A couple of respondents noted that the
requirements for requesting information differed between the FS proposed rule
and the USDI proposed rule. Two others expressed the concern that without
knowing the exact location of a cave, it is impossible for a mineral lessee to
know whether the cave will affect his lease.
Paragraph (a) has been revised to
indicate that only location information will be held confidential, but other
specific information could be withheld if, in the judgment of the authorized
officer, it would reveal the location of a cave. Locational information for all
caves will be protected until the designation decision is made. This protection
will continue for caves listed as significant. The information submitted for
caves that are not listed will be returned to the person or organization
submitting the nomination. Consequently, the responsibility for maintaining the
confidentiality of unlisted caves will rest with the originator of the
information and not with the agency.
Paragraph (b) of this section has
procedures to request confidential information, and has been rewritten to be
identical to the language adopted by the USDI in its final rule for uniformity.
Paragraph (c) which states the decision
regarding access to information is not appealable, has been retained. The Act
provides specific exemption from the requirements of the Freedom of Information
Act. It is the Department's determination that the appeal process would not
further public interest in protecting cave information. A procedure exists to
permit the release of cave locations. The authorized officer will release cave
location information based on a written request and a determination that the
request would further the purposes of the Act and would not create substantial
risk of harm, theft, or destruction of such cave.
General
Comments on 36
Implementation
of Proposed Prohibitions
One respondent was confused by the
prohibitions. A concern was expressed that some additional action must occur
for the prohibition to take effect.
Prohibitions applying to National Forest
System Lands are separated into three Subparts: General Prohibitions;
Prohibitions in Areas Designated by Order, and Prohibitions in Regions. General
Prohibitions are enforced on all National Forest System lands and do not
require any formal posting. Prohibitions in Areas Designated by Order require
an additional action to inform a forest visitor. The order must be posted in
accordance with 261.51 of this chapter.
Criminal
and Civil Penalties
Several respondents noted that existing
penalties do not correspond to the penalties described in Sections 7 and 8 of
the Act.
The primary purpose of the current
rulemaking was to establish the criteria for significant caves. Where it was
expedient to make minor adjustments to existing prohibitions in order to help
protect significant cave resources, this was also done. If experience with
administering significant cave resources shows additional regulations and
penalties are needed, subsequent rule making specific to those management
concerns will be undertaken.
Collection
and Removal From
Several respondents noted that the rule
is unclear on how collecting permits will be issued or regulated.
The Forest Service has an established
procedure for issuing special use permits, which is
regulated through rules of subpart B of part 251, title 36. All permits for
significant caves must be in accordance with this regulation.
Section-by-Section
On Comments on 36
Section
261.2 Definitions
All respondents
commenting on definitions of caves and cave resources under 290 2. repeated their
comments here. Several respondents noted that these definitions should be
identical to those defined in section 290.2
This suggestion was adopted and identical
definitions are provided in ??290.2 and
261.2.
Section
261.8 Fish and Wildlife
Respondents were concerned that this
prohibition would not allow a gate to be installed if it was needed to protect
a species, including those listed as threatened or endangered.
The paragraph was modified to address
this concern by adding "…except as authorized to protect a cave
resource." A gate was not specifically cited since there may be other
types of installations that could curtail the movement of cave life to protect
a cave resource.
Section
261.9(j) Property
Two respondents were confused by the
intent of this paragraph. One asked whether enlarging a naturally occurring cave
passage or entrance would require a special use authorization. Another
requested clarification stating that a special use authorization cannot permit
damage to or excavation of, a significant cave. One respondent suggested adding
a new prohibition to address section 7(a)(2) of the
Act dealing with possessing, consuming. selling,
bartering, or exchanging any cave resource without authorization.
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act states that
activities that may lead to destroying, altering, or removing of cave resources
or interfering with free movement of plant or animal life may only be permitted
with prior authorization. Thus, any excavation of a cave passage or entrance
would have to be approved by a special use authorization. A special use
authorization permitting excavation in a cave is site-specific, thus, this
provision does not encourage nor allow blanket approval for this type of
activity for all caves on a given forest. A clause has been added prohibiting
the removal of any cave resource for commercial purposes.
Section
261.10(d) Occupancy and Use
One respondent requested the wording in
this section include the cave entrance area. Another requested that the
discharge of fireworks be prohibited.
The proposed wording has been retained.
The cave entrance area is protected by the existing wording in paragraphs (d)(l) and (d)(2).
A new paragraph (n) was added to
specifically address the discharge of fireworks. No existing prohibition
addressed this human safety concern.
Section
261.58(ee) Occupancy and Use
Most respondents requested that
"litter" be incorporated into this clause.
A couple of respondents felt that
additional wording was needed to allow cavers to bring and remove their own
receptacles. Another respondent recommended that fluid wastes be considered on
a cave by cave basis.
Paragraph 11(b) of this section already
prohibits "Possessing or leaving…litter in an exposed or unsanitary
condition." Current wording does not specify who must provide receptacles;
therefore, it can be interpreted that cavers may bring in and remove their own
receptacles. Since this prohibition is applicable to a specific area designated
through an order by the Forest Supervisor, there is flexibility to add an
exception for a particular cave to only prohibit solid wastes.
Regulatory
Impact
This final rule has been reviewed under
USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It
has been determined that this is not a significant rule. This rule will not
have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely
affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, nor State or local governments. This rule will not interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues.
Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
of such programs.
Moreover, this final rule has been
considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.),
and it has been determined that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that
Act. To the extent that small entities engaged in resource extraction
activities may have to site operations to protect significant caves, these
requirements are the minimum necessary to protect the public interest, and are
well within the capability of small entities to perform.
Environmental
Impact
Based on both experience and
environmental analysis, this final rule (or final policy) will have no
significant effect on the human environment, individually or cumulatively.
Therefore, it is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement (40
Controlling
Paperwork Burdens on the Public
The information required by this rule
institutes new information collection requirements as defined in 5
No
Taking Implications
This rule has been analyzed in accordance
with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has
been determined that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected private property.
List
of Subjects
· 36
·
Prohibitions,
National forests.
· 36
·
Cave resources
management, National forests
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by amending
part 261 and adding a new part 290 as set forth below.
PART
261-PROHIBITIONS
· 1. Revise the authority citation for part
261 to read as follows:
Authority 16 U.S.C. 551; 16 U.S.C. 472; 7
U.S.C. 1011(f), 16 U.S.C. 1246(i), 16 U.S.C 1133(c)-(d)(1);
16 U.S.C. 4306, 4307.
Subpart
A-General Prohibitions
· 2. Amend ? 261.2 by adding definitions for the terms "cave" and
"cave resources" in alphabetical order to read as follows:
? 261.2
Definitions
* * * * * *
Cave means any naturally occurring void,
cavity recess. or system of interconnected passages
beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge and which is large
enough to permit a person to enter, whether the entrance is excavated or
naturally formed. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other
opening which is an extensive [sic] of a cave entrance or which is an integral
part of the cave.
Cave resources mean any materials or
substances occurring in caves including, but not limited to, biotic, cultural,
mineralogic, paleontologic, geologic, and hydrologic resources.
* * * * * *
· 3. Amend 261.8 by adding a new paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
?
261.8 Fish and Wildlife
* * * * * *
(e) Curtail the free movement of any
animal or plant life into or out of a cave, except as authorized to protect a
cave resource.
· 4. Amend ? 261.9 by adding a new paragraph (j) to read as follows:
?
261.9 Property.
* * * * * *
(j) Excavating, damaging, or removing any
cave resource from a cave without a special use authorization, or removing any
cave resource for commercial purposes.
· 5. Amend 261.10 by revising paragraph (d)
introductory text and adding new paragraphs (d)(3) and
(n) to read as follows:
?
261.10 Occupancy and use.
* * * * * *
· (d) Discharging a firearm or any other
implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property as
follows:
· (1) …
· (2) …
* * * * * *
· (3) into or within any cave.
· (n) Discharging or igniting a firecracker,
rocket or other firework, or explosive into or within any cave.
Subpart
B--Prohibitions in Areas Designated by 0rder
· 6. Amend ? 261.58
by adding a new paragraph (ee) to read as follows:
?261.58
Occupancy and
Use
· (ee) Depositing any body waste in caves
except into receptacles provided for that purpose.
· 7. Add a new part 290 to read as follows:
PART
290-CAVE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
·
Sec.
·
290.1 Purpose
and Scope
·
290.2
Definitions
·
290.3
Nomination, evaluation, and designation of significant caves.
·
290.4
Confidentiality of cave location information
·
290.5
Collection of information.
Authority: 16
?290.1
Purpose and scope.
The rules of this part implement the
requirements of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
4301-4309), hereafter referred to as the "Act". The rules apply to
cave management on National Forest System lands. These rules, in conjunction
with rules in part 261 of this chapter, provide the basis for identifying and
managing significant caves on National Forest System lands in accordance with
the Act. National Forest System lands will be managed in a manner which, to the
extent practical, protects and maintains significant cave resources in
accordance with the policies outlined in the Forest Service Directive System
and the management direction contained in the individual forest plans.
?290.2 Definitions
For the purposes of this part, the terms
listed in this section have the following meaning:
·
Authorized
officer means the Forest Service employee delegated the authority to perform
the duties described in this part.
·
Cave means any
naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages
beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge and which is large
enough to permit a person to enter, whether the entrance is excavated or
naturally formed. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other
opening which is an extension of a cave entrance or which is an integral part
of the cave.
· Cave resources means any materials or
substances occurring in caves including but not limited to, biotic, cultural,
mineralogic, paleontologic, geologic, and hydrologic resources.
· National Forest System lands means all
national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain, acquired
through purchase, exchange, or donation, national grasslands and land utilization
projects, and other lands, waters, or interests administered by the Forest
Service.
·
Secretary
means the Secretary of Agriculture.
·
Significant
cave means a cave located on National Forest System lands that has been
determined to meet the criteria in ? 290.3 (c3 and (d) and has been designated
in accordance with ? 290.3(e).
?290.3
Nomination, evaluation and designation of significant caves.
(A) Nominations for initial and
subsequent listings. The authorized officer will give governmental agencies and
the public, including those who utilize caves for scientific, educational, or
recreational purposes, the opportunity to nominate caves. The authorized
officer shall give public notice, including a notice published in the Federal
Register, calling for nominations for the initial listing and setting forth the
procedure for preparing and submitting the nominations. Nominations for
subsequent listings will be accepted from governmental agencies and the public
by the Forest Supervisor where the cave is located as new cave discoveries are
made. Caves nominated but not approved for designation may be renominated as
additional documentation or new information becomes available.
(b) Evaluation for initial and subsequent
listings. The evaluation of the nominations for significant caves will be
carried out in consultation with individuals and organizations interested in
the management and use of caves and cave resources, within the limits imposed
by the confidentiality provisions of ?290.4. Nominations shall be evaluated
using the criteria in ?290.3 (c) and (d).
(c) Criteria for significant caves. A
significant cave on National Forest System lands shall possess one or more of
the following features, characteristics, or values.
· (1) Biota. The cave provides seasonal or
yearlong habitat for organisms or animals, or contains species or subspecies of
flora or fauna native to caves, or are sensitive to disturbance, or are found
on State or Federal sensitive, threatened, or endangered species lists
· (2) Cultural. The cave contains historic
properties or archeological resources (as defined in Parts 800.2 and 296.3 of
this chapter respectively, or in 16 U.S.C. 470. et seq.), or other features
included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places because of their research importance for history or prehistory,
historical associations, or other historical or traditional significance.
· (3) Geologic/Mineralogic/ Paleontologic.
The cave possesses one or more of the following features:
· (i) Geologic or mineralogic features that
are fragile, represent formation processes that are of scientific interest, or
that are otherwise useful for study.
· (ii) Deposits of sediments or features
useful for evaluating past events.
· (iii) Paleontologic resources with
potential to contribute useful educational or scientific information.
· (4) Hydrologic. The caveis a part of a
hydrologic system or contains water which is important to humans, biota, or
development of cave resource
· (5) Recreational. The cave provides or
could provide recreational opportunities or scenic values.
· (6) Educational or scientific. The cave
offers opportunities for educational or scientific use; or the cave is
virtually in a pristine state, lacking evidence of contemporary human
disturbance or impact; or, the length, volume, total depth, pit depth, height,
or similar measurements are notable.
· (d) Specially designated areas. All caves
located within special management areas, such as Special Geologic Areas.
Research Natural Areas or National Monuments, that are
dedicated wholly or in part due to the cave resources found therein are
determined to be significant.
· (e) Designation and documentation. If the
authorized officer determines that a cave nominated and evaluated under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section meets one or more of the criteria in
paragraph (c) of this section, the authorized officer shall designate the cave
as significant. The authorized officer will notify the nominating party of the
results of the evaluation and designation. Each forest will retain appropriate
documentation for all significant caves located within its administrative
boundaries. At a minimum, this documentation shall include a statement of
finding signed and dated by the authorized officer and the information used to
make the determination. This documentation will be retained as a permanent
record in accordance with the confidentiality provision in ?290.4.
· (f) Undiscovered passages. If a cave is
determined to be significant, its entire extent on federal land, including
passages not mapped or discovered at the time of the determination, is deemed
significant. This includes caves that extend from lands managed by any other
Federal agency into National Forest System lands, as well as caves initially
believed to be separate for which interconnecting passages are discovered after
significance is determined.
· (g] Decision final. The decision to
designate or not designate a cave as significant is made at the sole discretion
of the authorized officer based upon the criteria in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section and is not subject to further administrative review of [sic]
appeal under Parts 217 or 251.82 of this chapter.
?290.4
Confidentiality of cave location information.
· (a) Information disclosure. No Forest
Service employee shall disclose any information that could be used to determine
the location of a significant cave or a cave nominated for designation.unless
the authorized officer determines that disclosure will further the purposes of
the Act and will not create a substantial risk of harm theft, or destruction to
cave resources.
· (b) Requesting confidential information.
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the authorized officer may make
confidential cave information available to Federal or State governmental
agencies, bona fide educational or research institutes, or individuals or
organizations assisting the land management agencies with cave management
activity. To request confidential cave information, such ' entities shall make
a written request to the authorized officer which includes the following
· (1) Name. address,
and telephone number of the individual responsible for the security of the
information received;
· (2) A legal description of the area for
which the information is sought;
· (3) A statement of the purpose for which
the information is sought; and
· (4) Written assurances that the requesting
party will maintain the confidentiality of the information and protect the cave
and its resources.
· (c) Decision final. The decision to permit
or deny access to confidential cave information is made at the sole discretion
of the authorized officer and is not subject to further administrative review
or appeal under 5 U.S.C 552 or parts 217 or 251.82 of this chapter.
?290.5
Collection of Information.
The collection of information contained
in this rule represents new information requirements as defined in 5
·
Date:
·
James R.
Lyons,
·
Assistant
Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
· [FR Doc. 94-14714 Filed
·
Billing code
3410-11-M
Nomination of
Significant Caves
Federal Register Vol. 59 No. 116
AGENCY:
ACTION: Notice and call for nominations
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Agriculture is
requesting nominations for the listing of significant caves on National Forest
System lands administered by the Forest Service. This call for nominations is
in response to provisions in the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988
which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare and maintain a listing of
significant caves.
DATES: Nominations to be considered for the initial listing of
significant caves must be received by
ADDRESSES: Send written nominations to Cave
Nominating Clearinghouse,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Botts, USDA,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The criteria for
selection of significant caves is found in part 290 of title 36 Code of
Federal Regulations. Federal caves considered for nomination must meet one or
more of the criteria listed in 36
Nominations must follow a prescribed
format as outlined in an information packet which is available from a forest or
regional office of the Forest Service. Copies of the information packet can
also be obtained by writing Brent Botts, Cave Coordinator.
Dated:
David A. Harcharik.
Acting Chief,
Nominate Significant Caves on Department
of the Interior Lands by
Send nominations to:
Cave Nominating Clearinghouse,
reprinted from CATENA SUPPLEMENT 25, p. 251268.
Cremlingen 1993
Effects of Tourist
Development on Caves and Karst
G. Huppert, E. Burri, P. Forti & A.
Cigna
Reprinted from CATENA Supplement 25: P.
W. Williams (Editor): Karst Terrains, Environmental Changes, Human Impact.
Summary
Soluble rocks cover perhaps twenty
percent of the Earth's surface. A significant number of parks and nature
reserves have been developed in karst areas. Some of the most significant caves
in the world are located in these parks and reserves. These unique places are
fascinating to the public, and many attract large numbers of tourists.
Unfortunately, the simple act of visitation by people often results in
deterioration of the resource.
Many of the problems confronted by administrators
and planners in karstic parks are similar to those in any other park or
reserve. These individual problems can be considered as specific aspects of the
overall challenge to present the resource to as many visitors as possible
without allowing any permanent damage. Caves and karst areas also have some
special difficulties related to their unique environment. Management of these
reserves has often been less than successful in meeting this overall challenge,
in many areas of the world.
Evidence from research on karst parks and
tourist caves shows a decline over time in the diversity of biota and a general
degradation of the park experience for most tourists; these are just two of the
many specific problems. This paper reviews some of the most common problems in
cave and karst parks.
The management of any tourist area must
consider the carrying capacity of the overall resource. Many of the specific
problems result from a lack of understanding of how to evaluate that carrying
capacity and how to implement proper protective actions based on such an
evaluation. Often, the initial barrier to a determination of the carrying
capacity is the lack of even baseline measurements of the principle
environmental parameters within the ecosystem. In other instances, the problem
may be the manager's inability to resist the political pressures to allow
excessive visitation, for the lure of the tourist revenue. A determination of
the 'limits of acceptable change' may be a more useful guideline for evaluating
cave development and visitor impacts.
The basic lack of knowledge about the
dynamics of the individual karst ecosystems often contribute to the specific
problems. However, even when partial solutions are known to work, the expense
of making such changes may deter the enactment of those mitigating measures. A
simple example is the adjustment of lighting systems to reduce or eliminate the
growth of algae, mosses, and other foreign organisms.
Deterioration of the resource has
occurred in many karst parks and reserves around the world. This situation will
probably not improve until there is a serious commitment, in both effort and
money, directed at obtaining a better understanding of the natural ecosystems,
all of the impacts caused by human visitation, and the management alternatives
necessary to protect the resource.
1.
Overview of environmental problems in karstic parks and reserves
Most parks and reserves are created in
order to safeguard various areas which have particular biological and/or
geological uniqueness. Those in karst regions have been designated as reserves
in need of protection because of their rare qualities and scientific
significance (DUNKLEY and REIDER 1975, HALLIDAY 1981, WILLIAMS 1987, FORTI
& GRIMANDI 1987, BURRI 1989, BURRI & SAURO 1989, GILLIESON & SMITH
1989, KRANJC 1989, SAURO et al., 1991). The beauty of these areas has led to a
great influx of tourists. HABE (1981) estimates that there
are about 650 tourist caves worldwide. Based on more recent data,
however, SOULE (1992) estimates a worldwide total of 750 show caves, with
approximately 180 operating show caves in the United States that process about
16 million visitors annually. MAXSIMOVICH (1977) concludes that over 15 million
tourists visit the show caves of the 'eastern hemisphere' annually. Considering
these estimates and the great number of show caves in the 'west,' then
visitation to caves worldwide totals well over 30 million per year. Visitation,
especially in large numbers, often leads to a decline in the environmental
quality of the reserve and of surrounding areas because the sensitive landscape
cannot cope with such heavy use.
Figure 1: Factors producing environmental
impacts on cave conditions at
In order to reconcile the need for
conservation with that of tourism, the reserves and surrounding areas are often
subdivided into sectors having differing levels of protection. This technique,
which is used extensively in
The literature on the need for karst
protection is limited but has improved greatly within the past few years. A few
articles that appeared recently are notable and deserve mention. First, are
GOLDIE's works on damage to limestone pavements in
The recent development of a nature
reserve at the source of the
Reserves are open systems within which
human activities are carried out. These activities change the environment
because of the development of an infrastructure, including water, waste
drainage, communication, energy, and transportation networks, and the
structures required to support such development. This infrastructure may be
largely developed away from the caves but may still have an impact due to the
open nature of the karstic system, especially on the regional karst hydrology.
Most tourist caves in the
Figure 2: Framework of the limits of
acceptable change process (from STANKEY, McCOOL and STOKES 1990, p. 222).
Figure 1 is a model devised by WILLIAMS
(1987) to show factors that influence the environment within
This effect can also be seen at
The basis of this problem is the lack of
specific information on the results of human activities in the protected karst
areas. Little qualitative or quantitative information has been gathered
relative to the magnitude of the problem. The few statistics available have
been used in an attempt to quantify a 'limit of acceptability' of pollution or
a 'limit of acceptable change' (LAC) in the karst environment. This concept is
currently only a theoretical goal; it will be difficult to check the
credibility of this concept until it has been applied to cave management and
the results have been analyzed.
Figure 2 shows a model developed by
STANKEY et al., (1990) that outlines the application of the LAC concept In their discussion. the authors explain
in detail how to evaluate the limits of acceptable change in surface wilderness
areas. Parameters relevant to the cave environment are shown in Figure 1 with
modification for the uniqueness of individual caves. The amount of acceptable
change would vary from cave to cave, depending on the existing condition of the
cave, the biota present, and the potential for recovery. Nonenvironmental
factors which will undoubtedly play a role include money available, public
desires, and political pressure.
2.
The assessment of environmental problems in tourist caves
2.1
The visitor capacity of a tourist cave
The concept of an environmental capacity
has been accepted for years. It has been used for the management of low level
radioactive wastes (AMAVIS et al. 1974) and in range management in the
The concept of "visitor carrying
capacity" as applied to caves has been extensively discussed in the
literature by ALEY (1976), BRUCKER (1976), VAN CLEAVE (1976), FORSSELL (1977),
and MIDDAUGH (1977). VAN CLEAVE (1976) shows that there must be a commitment to
cave and karst protection in both desire and money in order for the concept to
work. MIDDAUGH (1977) cautions that carrying capacity is not the calculation of
a number but rather, it is the definition of a problem, the definition of
objectives to solve that problem, and the implementation of proper management
to solve the problem. At this time, most of the well known tourist caves in the
world are undoubtedly operated at levels well above any reasonable or
environmentally derived carrying capacity.
CIGNA (1983, p. 124) expands on this
concept with respect to caves as follows: "Visitors capacity can be
defined as the maximum number of visitors acceptable in a time unit under
defined conditions which does not imply a permanent modification of a relevant
parameter." This definition is based on the following assumptions:
· 1. Natural fluctuations of environmental
parameters are considered safe for the integrity of the environment itself.
This concept implies that abnormal (and unusual) phenomena are excluded. For
example, a volcanic eruption may be the cause of a natural fluctuation which
could destroy a cave. Therefore the range of natural fluctuations must be
limited within the extreme values that do not result in irreversible effects on
a short term basis.
· 2. If the number of visitors in a cave per
unit time is gradually increased, one environmental parameter will exceed the
range of its natural fluctuation prior to other parameters. Such a parameter
can be defined as a critical factor. The term 'critical' need not imply any
idea of danger. It describes a factor which enables managers to make decisions
on levels of protection for the cave environment.
· 3. The visitor capacity corresponds to the
maximum flow of tourists through the cave that changes the critical factor to
the limit of its natural fluctuations.
· 4. The classification of environmental
parameters into major and minor parameters is rather arbitrary. If air
temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, and water quality are classified as
major parameters, the appropriate classification of the other parameters may
require detailed study. The significance of the other parameters may vary
widely between caves.
The establishment of the maximum number
of visitors is difficult and may well be impossible in some cases. Sometimes
these numbers have been used to satisfy management objectives by those who,
unfortunately, may put a higher priority on moving people (and therefore
increasing revenue) than on protecting the karst.
ALEY (1976) describes another important
problem in caves, which can actually become exacerbated by the use of carrying
capacity numbers as a management technique. He correctly argues that most show
caves have abundant nonrenewable resources in their speleothem display. Once
damaged, these resources cannot be replaced, at least not in human lifetimes. A
cave with one or more highly decorated passages could require a low carrying
capacity if the decorations are within human reach of the trail, or within the
sphere of influence of humaninduced changes that adversely affect the
speleothems. As damage is incurred and speleothems are removed, broken,
defaced, or tainted, then the passage becomes less pristine. At that point, it
can be argued that the carrying capacity has risen because fewer speleothems
now remain to be damaged and the quality of the experience has been denigrated.
This is contrary to the entire concept of carrying capacity, which dictates
that use levels should decline as the resource declines. This is a phenomenon
often ignored by cave managers. However, if the goal is to maintain any
specific show cave in a pristine or nearpristine condition, a realistic number of
visitors must be determined and applied as a management criterion. To do this
with any level of confidence, a thorough study of each cave's features,
ecosystem parameters, and hydrology must be made. This is undoubtedly a
difficult task, given the budget constraints of most show caves, whether
managed by some level of government or by the private sector. In the long run,
however, this may be the most costeffective alternative, in order to sustain
the touristderived revenue from the cave, concomitant with sustaining its
ecologic and aesthetic integrity.
The concept of carrying capacity is now
being questioned, as it is applied to general recreational use. HAMMITT and
COLE (1987) feel that strict use of the concept in the recreational setting
does not work well for two reasons. First, the impacts of recreational uses
differ greatly from those of range animals (for which the concept was
originally designed to control). Second, they argue that the concept ignores
the impact on the visitor's aesthetic experience; i.e., the social carrying
capacity (defined as how people feel about the quality of the experience) must
also be measured. However, this can vary greatly among individuals. While it
may be possible to subdivide surface reserves to accommodate the tastes of the
various users (e.g., from high impact use such as offroad vehicle areas to near
pristine wilderness), similar possibilities are quite limited in show caves.
Unfortunately, the authors know of no study that applies this concept to the
cave environment in a quantitative method.
Recently, HEATON (1986) reviewed the
concept of energy levels as applied to caves. He classifies caves into one of
three categories: highenergy, moderateenergy, and lowenergy levels. Highenergy
caves experience high energy events on a regular basis. An example would be
those caves that undergo periodic flooding. The strongest forces normally
encountered by moderateenergy caves are orders of magnitude lower than those
associated with highenergy caves. The most significant forces may be running
water, persistent wind, or even the activities of animals. Lowenergy caves are
again orders of magnitude smaller. Often in these caves the highest energy
event may be a falling drop of water.
According to this classification,
highenergy passages will be minimally affected by tourist activities because
such passages will be rearranged by rock fall or flooding within a year. In
moderateenergy passages, which often have the most abundant displays of
speleothems, the presence of visitors may have a more lasting effect. During
short periods of time the energy released by tourists can be of the same order
of magnitude as that released by natural processes which normally operate in
those caves. This could lead to irreversible damage. A visit to a lowenergy
cave may have more serious implications because in a very short time interval
more energy could be released than it had experienced in perhaps a thousand
years. The damage caused by one group of visitors may be profound and the
speleothems may quickly be destroyed. It is the authors' experience that most
tour caves are found to be in the low to moderate energy range, due to the
difficulty and great cost of developing and maintaining high energy tour caves.
The field situation is far more complex than
the simplified examples of energy levels given above. A single cave may exhibit
examples of all three energy levels when different sections of a given cave are
considered. Because tourist trails may cross all three energy levels, each area
should be regarded separately in a coherent overall management plan. Devising
and implementing such a plan would undoubtedly be a complicated and expensive
process.
The use of a visitor carrying capacity
model could be modified to 'fit' certain caves that have unique resources. For
example, those caves with rare and generally irreplaceable cultural,
biological, and/or speleothem resources and which are easily destroyed merely
by the presence of visitors could be managed in a very restrictive manner.
Caves in this category would be few and considered national or international
treasures. Two examples are
Applying the concept of visitor carrying
capacity to a tourist cave to set a maximum number of visitors is a risky,
however compelling, exercise. It should only be
undertaken after fully assessing all of the environmental data collected. In
some cases, the most difficult task will be to have the political courage to
resist pressure to allow excessive visitation for the sake of efficiency or
tourist revenue.
2.2
The direct effects of tourists
The presence of visitors in a cave may
introduce thermal, chemical, and biological pollution. The heat emitted by visitors
raises the air temperature. Two examples of this effect are shown in Figure 3.
The graphs demonstrate the dramatic rise in temperature that can occur as
tourist groups pass through a cave room. In these two examples, the recovery
time after the tourists pass through is exponential and in the range of ten
minutes. STELCL (1990, 1992) found similar results in caves in the Moravian
karst. In the Hall of Paintings in Altamira Cave in Spain, VILLAR et al. (1984)
determined a heat release per person ranging between 82 and 116 watts (1 W = 1
J/sec).
Figure 3: Upper diagram: Air temperature
measured in
Chemical pollution from visitors is
largely due to the emission of carbon dioxide. Any prolonged significant
increase in CO2 concentration may affect the chemical equilibria of speleothems
and cause their gradual disintegration. DRAGOVICH and GROSE (1990) studied the
problem of CO2 levels at
The biological pollution contributed by
tourists is from their 'cloud' of spores and bacteria, skin particles, hair,
and lint. The consequence of this input is to enhance the growth of algae,
mosses, and other organisms. According to a hypothesis by CSER & GADOROS
(1989) some eccentric speleothems could originate with the help of aerosols.
The increase of condensation nuclei due to spores, dust, and droplets in the
breath of tourists could reduce the concentration of aerosols responsible for
the growth of eccentrics. In some commercial caves this effect has apparently
enhanced the transformation of eccentric formations into coralloid speleothems.
In addition, a more noticeable product of
this 'cloud' of material is the layer of 'dust' ubiquitous to tourist caves.
This layer of material detracts greatly from the beauty of the cave and may
have a detrimental effect on the natural biota of the cave by providing a
habitat for exotic, and possibly, harmful organisms (JABLONSKY 1990, 1992). In
some caves the problem is so severe that periodic cleaning (by mist) is deemed
necessary, as described by NEWBOULDS (1976) in respect to
The changes in temperature, humidity,
carbon dioxide concentration, and general disturbance by tourist groups has a
well documented role in leading to the decline of bat populations in most show
caves. However, MOHR (1972) argues that the dramatic decline in bat populations
is the result of many factors, with tourism being only one. Other problems
faced by bats are extreme exposure to pesticides, wanton vandalism, disturbance
by spelunkers, and even detrimental impacts from the very scientists who are
studying them. MOHR (1972) suggests that caves with bats be managed so that
there is a greatly reduced contact between people and bats, especially during
sensitive periods. The alternative might be a substantial risk that the bats
will abandon the caves. This topic is covered in great detail by TUTTLE &
STEVENSON (1978). In addition, inadequate and/or inappropriate security gating
of many caves has allowed the devastation of many bat populations (TUTTLE
1977).
Other species have suffered from cave
development as well. For example, when bats abandon a cave,
the tremendous energy source in their guano declines also. The biota which depend on the guano for food will ultimately be
eliminated, and this may eventually lead to the collapse of the entire cave
ecosystem.
Great care must be taken to retain and
stabilize the microclimates found in caves. ALEY & ALEY (1988) have noted
that original microclimates may be restored in some caves; however, it can be
an expensive proposition.
Finally, tourists can have a direct
impact on caves by touching or breaking speleothems. Whether accidental or
deliberate, the results are the same: a rapid and significant degradation of
the resource. This can be prevented in a number of ways. First, people can be
educated with a discussion of the fragility of the formations at the beginning
of the tour. Second, when possible, tours can be routed to keep speleothems out
of reach but not out of view. Third, the tour group can be limited to a size that
can reasonably be accommodated on the trail to avoid accidental damage, and so
that the guide(s) can maintain eye contact at all times to inhibit deliberate
destruction. These actions will not always prevent damage, but should reduce
the rate of destruction.
2.3
The effect of lighting
The lighting system in a cave contributes
heat to the cave ecosystem. If this energy release exceeds the energy budget of
the cave the inside temperature will increase and reach stationary values
higher than natural ones. This effect is well demonstrated in Figure 4 where an
average increase of 3?C is documented over a twentyfour year period for
Castellana Cave, a show cave near Bari, Italy (MONGELLI 1961, FORTI & CIGNA
1983, CIGNA 1989). It is necessary to consider each heat source (lighting,
visitors, transformers, others) separately in order to evaluate the total
energy input to the cave, relative to the cave's capacity to accommodate the
impact without detrimental consequences.
Close to light sources the effects may be
both physical (thermal) and biological. For example, when lamps are not
'coollight' the IRthermal effect can be severe. In Castellana Cave (FORTI 1980)
the temperature of a rock wall at 50 cm from a 1 kW lamp increased from 15?C to
more than 25?C, the humidity decreased from 95100% to 5560%, and a strong air
current was established. All of this occurred in a few seconds after the light
was turned on. As a result of these effects an aragonite flower grew on a
calcite stalactite.
Figure 4: Distribution of air
temperatures in the
Biologically, a common effect is the
proliferation of algae and mosses (collectively, termed 'lampenflora') near the
light sources. These organisms not only have a negative aesthetic influence on
the cave environment, but can also corrode speleothems by biochemical processes.
Incandescent lamps, which are still widely used in show caves, have a broad
emission spectrum that encompasses many wavelengths typically used by
vegetation (IMPRESCIA 1983, RAJCZY & BUCZKO 1989).
Lowwattage lamps, 'coollights', fewer
lamps, and timed illumination can help to resolve this problem. In many caves,
however, managers feel compelled to clean formations of the accumulated
lampenflora. Entire symposia have been devoted to this topic (HAZSLINSZKY
1985). SLAGMOLEN and SLAGMOLEN (1989) present detailed guidelines on the
treatment and prevention of this 'maladie verte' which can so disfigure show
caves.
2.4
Other effects
Cave and karst ecosystems have been
disturbed in many ways in the course of development in addition to those
mentioned above. Trail building disturbs the substrate and replaces it with a
nearly impervious layer. This displaces biota and disrupts the hydrology within
the cave. It also impacts the water quality; for example, it almost always
increases the turbidity. Formations have been destroyed or marred by trail
building, tunneling, the installation of lights,
lifts, doors, stairs, and even dams. STITT (1977) has summarized many of these
impacts and the resulting degradation of karst features.
One example that illustrates these types
of effects, described by LYSENKO (1975), is the improperly placed and operated
artificial entrance into the
The accumulated adverse environmental
impacts on caves as a result of tourism is an aspect that makes show cave
management quite different from that of most above ground resources. Therefore
many of the management concepts that are easily applied on the surface cannot
be used underground. They may, in fact, be detrimental.
3.
Conclusions
A better understanding of the karst
environment and a willingness to adapt to it prior to development could have
avoided many of the problems discussed above. This is not entirely the fault of
developers. These unique environments were less understood when many present
karst parks and caves were first developed. Many private owners and government
agencies do not have the financial resources to carry out the necessary
studies. In recent decades some information has been gathered by various
volunteer groups, such as caving clubs, as well as by some professional
researchers. New laws have been enacted to protect caves and their biota which
mandate the necessary studies and, often, remediate the problems.
Unfortunately, remedial action, even if possible, can be expensive. High costs
not only may prevent full remediation, but also may deter any from even being
attempted. However, the price of inaction or inappropriate management may far
surpass all of the costs of restoration of cave or karst resources.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to B. Wheeler
and P. Williams for their considerable input in the development of this
article.
References
Addresses of authors:
Dr. G N. Huppert Dr. P. Forti
Department of Geography and
Earth Italian Institute of Speleology
Sciences
The
Dr. E. Burri Dr. A. A.
Cigna
Department of Environmental
Sciences ENEA
Via Vetolo, Localita
Coppito
I 67100
Contents (CATENA
Supplement #25)
Author Title
page
P. W. Williams Environmental Change and Human
Impact on 1
Karst
Terrains: An Introduction
Quaternary
Record
D.I. Smith The
Nature of Karst Aquifers and their
41
Susceptibility to
Pollution
I. Gams, J. Nicod, M. Environmental Change and Human Impacts
on 59
Sauro, E.
Julian & U. the
Mediterranean Karsts of
Anthony and the Dinaric
Region
Yuan Daoxian Environmental Change and Human
Impact on 99
Karst in
M.J. Day Human Impacts on
American Karst
D. Jolson Environmental Change and
Human Impact on 127
Karst in Arid and
SemiArid
V. Andrajchouk & A. Environmental Change and Human Impact
on 147
Klimchouk Karst in the
H.S. Goldie Human Impact on Karst in the
J. Gunn The
Geomorphological Impacts of Limestone
187
Quarrying
ST. Trudgill & R.
Inkpen Impact of Acid Rain on Karst
Environments 199
K. UrushibaraYoshino Human Impact on Karst Soils: Japanese
and 219
Other Examples
P. Hardwick & J.
Gunn The Impact of Agriculture on
Limestone Caves 235
G. Huppert. E. Burri,
P. Effects of Tourist Development on
Caves and 251
Forti & A. Cigna Karst
Editor's Note: CATENA Supplement #25 should be available
in your local university library. Upon reader request, and assuming that
permission can be obtained, The Cave Conservationist would be pleased to
publish additional papers from this publication. Additional copies of the
publication are available from the publishers, but the cost is relatively high,
$135
Membership Information
If you are not already a member of the
Conservation and Management Section of the National Speleological Society, you
are invited to join. Dues are $5.00 a year, payable to the
r Yes, I would like to join the
Conservation/Management Section. Here
are
my dues in the
amount of $________ (dues of $5/year may be prepaid for up
to three
years).
Name___________________________________
___
Address_________________________________________
______
City__________________________
State_____________
ZIP_________________
___
Please send this form with
check/money order to the
Secretary-Treasurer:
Evelyn Bradshaw,
22407-1261.
Return to Cave
Conservationist Main Menu